Win a debate against evolution every time.

[mark kennedy]

I can tell your being sincere in your questions, at first I thought you were trying to stir up a conflict in your first post, but now I see that your not, I will try to explain as best as I can as a lay person, I am not a theologian, but I believe that it was written that way to show that to go back any farther than Adam, you would have to meet up with God.

Adan was NOT THE SON of God but ratheer He was the first Human creation, and God made Him a Spiritual being as well, so as to be created in the image and likeness of God, with a free will to choose, ect...

If God used evolution as the concept is taught, than the list of created human beings would have to go back farther than Adam, but it is written that the list stops at Adam, and the only one left is God Himself Who is the originator of all.

Of course it is understood that God is NOT in the list of geneologies, but He showed that the geneology starts with Adam by showing if you go back any farther from Adam, you end up with the beginning of all, which is God Himself.

I see, so you have finally realized that Adam was created. Now tell us about Eve's ancestors.

 

[jilfe]

I always believed that Adam was Creatwed by God, I am not a theistic evolutionist, I take the written Word in its proper context.

If you cannot read my posts properly, then there is no sense in answering your nonsensible questions, look over my posts and see that I am for CREATIION, as Written in God's Holy Word.

 

[mark kennedy]

If that is literally true then this looks like the evidence everyyone has been looking for. Unless God and Adam are the same 'kind'

It doesn't say that, it only says Adam and Eve were created in the image of God, not that they were the same kind. When Adam is refereed to as son of God it simply indicates he was created. That's my point.

 

[mark kennedy]

I always believed that Adam was Creatwed by God, I am not a theistic evolutionist, I take the written Word in its proper context.

If you cannot read my posts properly, then there is no sense in answering your nonsensible questions, look over my posts and see that I am for CREATIION, as Written in God's Holy Word.

Wow, my bad. I honestly thought I was responding to Papias here. Still not sure how that happened but I apologize, you are quite right, it was a careless error and it won't happen again.

 

[quilbilly]

It doesn't say that, it only says Adam and Eve were created in the image of God, not that they were the same kind. When Adam is refereed to as son of God it simply indicates he was created. That's my point.

The post I was originally responding to was saying a list of verses were to be taken literally. Lk 3 38 it LITERALLY says Adam was the son of God. Both responses I received explained what I believe but not what is written.
I'm really not an a**hat guys. Just trying to join in the conversation

 

[mark kennedy]

The post I was originally responding to was saying a list of verses were to be taken literally. Lk 3 38 it LITERALLY says Adam was the son of God. Both responses I received explained what I believe but not what is written.
I'm really not an a**hat guys. Just trying to join in the conversation

Well the Adam is mentioned only eight times in the New Testament, always as the original parent of all mankind. Now in Luke's genealogy of Mary it goes all the way back to Adam. Since Adam was created rather then procreated Luke uses the expression son of God. The term was sometimes used to describe the king or high priest but that was because of their authority, only God out ranked them. With Adam calling him 'son of God' is an indication that the New Testament writers understood Adam to be created.

That's an important point when dealing with evolution in a Christian theology forum. Theistic evolutionists can't refute this point of doctrine, the New Testament witness is crystal clear.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[jilfe]

Mark,
Appology accepted,
I too apologize for my snappy post back to you.

Here is a perfect example of leaning to human understanding, rather than taking the time to analyse all the facts.

The facts are very clear, I have posted throughout this thread in terms of Creation and the Written Word as the Final authority, and I knew you had to have read my posts, and yet instead of looking at these facts, and coming to the conclusion that you may have made a mistake in posting to the wrong person, I came back with a snappy answer attacking your character, which I again apologize about that, but in my human understanding I couldn't believe that someone could mistakenly post something that was meant foer someone else, so I disregarded that assumption, bla bla bla...

What I did in my respopnse back, is an example of what TE's do when they try to confront a Creration issue, they can't believe it is possible for God to bring about Creation according to how He had it written, so instead of taking the time to analyse the facts discovered, it is easier to just believe what comes more naturally to believe, in human terms rather than in miraculous terms.

As a Firm Believer in the Word of God as the final authority in the Creation issue, I should have responded by looking at the facts, that you do know I have posted as a Believer in Creation, and given you the benefit of the doubt, that just maybe, no matter how difficult is to believe, that you may have made a mistake by posting to me instead of someone else.

Praise God for how even in a misunderstanding like this, He can reveal deep things to learn for our benefit.

Mark
Thankyou for taking the time to post back, to straighten things up about this.
I really appreciate your sincerety.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Evolution is a fact.

Sorry if it conflicts with your literal reading of the bible.

"Therefore, the 600 Darwin Dissenters signing the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism represent about 0.054% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999. In addition, a large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters have specialties unrelated to research on evolution; of the dissenters, three-quarters are not biologists. Therefore, the roughly 150 biologist Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999."

That is a really, tiny, tiny minority of the American scientific community that disagrees with evolution.

 

[jilfe]

It does not matter about the quantity of people who believe one thing over another.
What really matters is what God speaks about a subject.

The whole world could be wrong in it's thinking, but that does not mean anything, because God can stand alone in Truth.

The real majority in any given situation, is GOD.

ONE GOD verses a whole world of people, still means GOD is the majority.
It's not the amount of people believing something, but what God says about it, thats the infinite majority count.

GOD IS the infinite majority in any given situation.

He not only gave us HIS WORD about creation, but HE even gave HIS creation to us as a testimony to HIS creation.

That's why science can not prove the THEORY of macroevolution, because reality science cannot abide to such foolish concepts.

Science must obey the creator, who created it in the first place.

Here is the written biblical proof, to back up all that is written above.
　
Ps:19:1: The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Ps:97:6: The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory.

Here is the scripture that wins against any evolutionary debate tactic.

Rom:1:20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

[mark kennedy]

Evolution is a fact.

Sorry if it conflicts with your literal reading of the bible.

"Therefore, the 600 Darwin Dissenters signing the A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism represent about 0.054% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999. In addition, a large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters have specialties unrelated to research on evolution; of the dissenters, three-quarters are not biologists. Therefore, the roughly 150 biologist Darwin Dissenters represent about 0.0157% of the US biologists that existed in 1999."

That is a really, tiny, tiny minority of the American scientific community that disagrees with evolution.

Protestants made up a small minority in the 16th century but without their 'descent' there would have been no Scientific Revolution. Where were the Darwinians then I wonder.

 

[mathetes123]

It does not matter about the quantity of people who believe one thing over another.
What really matters is what God speaks about a subject.

The whole world could be wrong in it's thinking, but that does not mean anything, because God can stand alone in Truth.

The real majority in any given situation, is GOD.

ONE GOD verses a whole world of people, still means GOD is the majority.
It's not the amount of people believing something, but what God says about it, thats the infinite majority count.

GOD IS the infinite majority in any given situation.

He not only gave us HIS WORD about creation, but HE even gave HIS creation to us as a testimony to HIS creation.

That's why science can not prove the THEORY of macroevolution, because reality science cannot abide to such foolish concepts.

Science must obey the creator, who created it in the first place.

Here is the written biblical proof, to back up all that is written above.
　
Ps:19:1: The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Ps:97:6: The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory.

Here is the scripture that wins against any evolutionary debate tactic.

Rom:1:20: For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Amen!

 

[florida2]

That's why science can not prove the THEORY of macroevolution, because reality science cannot abide to such foolish concepts.

Already been done.

I imagine somebody has already pointed you towards this, but I'll include it: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Do you take all of the Old Testament as literally as you do the creation story?

 

[Metal Minister]

I really wish people would stop posting the crap thats spewed from talk origins...did you read the article? There were holes in it big enough to drive a truck through! There is 0 evidence for macro-evolution other than speculation.

May God Richly Bless you!

 

[Smidlee]

I really wish people would stop posting the crap thats spewed from talk origins...did you read the article? There were holes in it big enough to drive a truck through! There is 0 evidence for macro-evolution other than speculation.

May God Richly Bless you!

Someone should at least pick out an example of what they believe. It's like linking the whole bible when refer to any subject in scripture. If I want to know what Douglas Theobald believed I would go straight to TalkOrigins website myself.
It's the same as just posting Ashby L. Camp link : www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-2]
[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[mark kennedy]

Already been done.

I imagine somebody has already pointed you towards this, but I'll include it: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Do you take all of the Old Testament as literally as you do the creation story?

If the proposed null hypothesis for genetics is valid then common descent has been falsified.

this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry. (Prediction 4.5: Molecular evidence - Endogenous retroviruses)​

(Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005)​

With more than 100 members, CERV 1/PTERV1 is one of the most abundant families of endogenous retroviruses in the chimpanzee genome. (Genome Biol. 2006). They can be found in African great apes but not in humans. What is more the ERV virus is nearly extinct in the human genome with only a couple that actually work. The only thing that ERVs are proof of is the lengths evolutionists will go to to conflate and confuse the evidence.

Look at the comparison of the ERV class I and tell me something. If commonality is proof for common descent, are differences evidence for creation?

I have brought this up a dozen times and evolutionists simply beg the question of proof. They insist that since they are there it must be a small subset of ERVs but this is completely contrary to the facts. It was not predicted for by the common descent model yet the model is never questioned:

Against this background, it was surprising to find that the chimpanzee genome has two active retroviral elements (PtERV1 and PtERV2) that are unlike any older elements in either genome; these must have been introduced by infection of the chimpanzee germ line. The smaller family (PtERV2) has only a few dozen copies, which nonetheless represent multiple (approx5–8) invasions, because the sequence differences among reconstructed subfamilies are too great (approx8%) to have arisen by mutation since divergence from human. (Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005)​

The best way to win an argument with an evolutionist is to learn the actual facts. Evolutionists did a major victory dance when the ERV evidence first started being explored and they did the same thing when comparative genomics was on the rise. The commonality has been grossly overstated and when confronted with these facts evolutionists become indignant and repeat the same tired homology arguments.

There is no null hypothesis for Darwinism, it never allows for or even considers, the inverse logic. When you insist that the evidence is unconvincing your being incredulous which is an academically polite way of saying your ignorant. Either you assume universal common descent or you are assumed to be ignorant. That's not science, it's supposition.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[jilfe]

Mark,
Thankyou for taking the time to search out and studying up on this subject matter, and posting the results, every time the TE's persons try to refute the Written Biblical text, you are well equipted to refute there argument in a very quick and accurate manner, thank God for your faithfulness, and the wisdom that the Holy Spirit has endowed you wth, to help people come back to the truth of God's word, it's just like the Bible has been written, that no one has an excuse to not know the truth, because God gives Hs people the knowledge to answer those who have gone astray, for the purpose of rescuing them from the worlds deceptions.

Thankyou for your faithfullnes.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark,
Thankyou for taking the time to search out and studying up on this subject matter, and posting the results, every time the TE's persons try to refute the Written Biblical text, you are well equipted to refute there argument in a very quick and accurate manner, thank God for your faithfulness, and the wisdom that the Holy Spirit has endowed you wth, to help people come back to the truth of God's word, it's just like the Bible has been written, that no one has an excuse to not know the truth, because God gives Hs people the knowledge to answer those who have gone astray, for the purpose of rescuing them from the worlds deceptions.

Thankyou for your faithfullnes.

Your very kind, my fascination with the creation/evolution controversy has renewed my faith in natural science. My faith in Christ has never been based on anything apart from the confirmation of the Holy Spirit. What amazes me about TEs are the things that silence them, like reminding them that you must be a creationist to be a Christian. Ever read the Nicene Creed, it starts with a confession of Creation, followed by the incarnation, finally confessing Christ as Creator. There is a reason Darwinians want to go after Creation, it's the same reason it's the first confession of the Nicene Creed.

Next time a TE is giving you a hard time remind them of that. What gets me is how they refuse to answer simple questions. Where are the chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record? What is the molecular mechanism responsible for the three-fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes, starting 2 million years ago? If the commonality is proof for common descent then are differences proof against?

What really keeps my interest is the fact that they resort to fallacious (flawed) logic, not often, but every single time. It's not the detailed specifics like the ones I tracked down with ERVs, or the effects of mutations on the human brain, those were so easy it's staggering. What keeps my attention is the way they always attack personal convictions and so readily abandon the scientific method they pretend to defend.

The most important proof of a miracle to a Christian is faith itself. Being born again is the same miracle as the creation in Genesis. Only once have I heard an evolutionist make a profession in the form of a testimony. I find that so much more fascinating then the old bones and dirt they want us to be convinced by.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[TheQuietRiot]

I don't argue with creationists anymore.

I drop knowledge bombs

Practicals, field courses and projects

 

[jilfe]

God gave us human knowledge, to learn the truths of our realm, however in order for that human knowledge to work properly, we need to put God first, in learning all the sciences, otherwise our human knowledge is vanity.

Because God created all the natural science, and He is above and seperate from it, all science is subject to God's authority, and it only works by God's authority..

Here is what God speaks of, when it comes to someone allowing there human knowledge to take the place of God's truthfull knowledge.
　
1Cor:3:19: For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Rom:1:22: Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

1Cor:1:19: For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

1Cor:1:20: Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

1Cor:3:18: Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

1Cor:3:20: And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.


.
Holy Biblical Scripture backs it all up.

 

[florida2]

I really wish people would stop posting the crap thats spewed from talk origins...did you read the article? There were holes in it big enough to drive a truck through! There is 0 evidence for macro-evolution other than speculation.

May God Richly Bless you!

*Sigh*

Do some research, read some scientific journals (note, that doesn't include creationist websites)

Please provide a full critique of all the 'holes' in that article I posted, otherwise your post is meaningless.