Evolution or.....

[afaithfulone4u]

Adaptability?

The atheists believe we just evolved from lower life forms. But if you look around you will see that some animals have the same type of paws or feet among other parts of the body. Our God is a Creator and just as we may create something, then decided to change this or that or arrange it differently next time or advance on the thing to make it even better, such as what I believe that God did when creating the ape... but improved it by creating a man in His image. We did not evolve from apes, but God may have improved on his creation, just as we do.
There will be human beings left in the rocks and the mountains in the end of the age according to the Bible. Who is to say that we in our greater form will be different than we are in our sinful nature bodies and those left in the mountains will be considered the Yeti's or the Sasquatch that men claim to see as a lower animal form yet somewhat as us. You may say, Well if these sightings were true, then we would have found out about them long ago!!
But I think we just found a tribe somewhere that we never knew existed, nor they us. So what does that tell you about us knowing everything??
And we find new species all the time.
These did not evolve, they were created by God and were given the ability to ADAPT to their surroundings.

HOW AWESOME AND ALL KNOWING AND COMPLEX IS OUR GOD!!

I DO believe in the big bang theory... for I know that when the ROCK collided with nothing but by faith alone and He said LET THERE BE LIGHT, then the Light of men went forth and God created everything WITH His Word.
Heb 11:1-3
11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
KJV

Deut 32:31
31 For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges.
KJV
Deut 32:15
15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
KJV
Deut 32:4
4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
KJV
2 Sam 23:3
3 The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.
KJV
1 Cor 10:1-4
10:1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
KJV

 

[dripping yellow madness]

Excatly how many angels dance on your head? haha!

 

[afaithfulone4u]

Excatly how many angels dance on your head? haha!

Pardon me while I stand here blameless and whip out my sWord.... It is written:
Rom 12:17-18
17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
KJV

 

[dripping yellow madness]

so there is onyl roomn for one! haha!

 

[afaithfulone4u]

1 Peter 5:8-9
8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.
KJV

 

[Dodo_David]

Pardon me for saying so, but a lot of ideas have been labeled "Evolution Theory" that aren't Evolution Theory.

If you are going to talk about Evolution, then it helps to distinguish between the different ideas.

For example, Modern Evolution Theory deals only with the natural causes of changes within an organic population, with those natural causes being cross-breeding and mutations*.

Cross-breeding produced the breed of dog called the St. Bernard. That breed did not exist until monks at the St. Bernard monastery deliberately cross-bred previously-existing breeds of dogs. Technically, the St. Bernard breed evolved from earlier breeds of dogs.

A common example of modern-day mutations is seen in the formation of strains of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics.

Technically, humans have evolved** in size as a result of in changes in the intake of nutritional foods or the lack thereof.

Separate from Modern Evolution Theory is the controversial Theory of Common Descent. One can believe that the former theory is accurate without believing that the latter theory is accurate.

Notes:

*Modern Evolution Theory doesn't deal with the causes of mutations. Also, Modern Evolution Theory does not require that mutations be random.

**The word "evolved" does not mean that something is better or worse. The word only means that a change has taken place.

 

[afaithfulone4u]

Pardon me for saying so, but a lot of ideas have been labeled "Evolution Theory" that aren't Evolution Theory.

If you are going to talk about Evolution, then it helps to distinguish between the different ideas.

For example, Modern Evolution Theory deals only with the natural causes of changes within an organic population, with those natural causes being cross-breeding and mutations*.

Cross-breeding produced the breed of dog called the St. Bernard. That breed did not exist until monks at the St. Bernard monastery deliberately cross-bred previously-existing breeds of dogs. Technically, the St. Bernard breed evolved from earlier breeds of dogs.

A common example of modern-day mutations is seen in the formation of strains of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics.

Technically, humans have evolved** in size as a result of in changes in the intake of nutritional foods or the lack thereof.

Separate from Modern Evolution Theory is the controversial Theory of Common Descent. One can believe that the former theory is accurate without believing that the latter theory is accurate.

Notes:

*Modern Evolution Theory doesn't deal with the causes of mutations. Also, Modern Evolution Theory does not require that mutations be random.

**The word "evolved" does not mean that something is better or worse. The word only means that a change has taken place.

Evolution as life created from a water drop or apes evolving into man VERSES Divine Creation being able to Adapt to change due to surroundings... It is ADAPT not evolved as in no divine Creator for in the beginning GOD.

And isn't that crossbreeding that you are talking about, not just evolved.
Speaking of crossbreeding, That is why Jesus said that if we just had the faith of a mustard seed... because it can not be crossbreed with anything such as doubt!

 

[Dodo_David]

Pardon me for saying so, but a lot of ideas have been labeled "Evolution Theory" that aren't Evolution Theory.

If you are going to talk about Evolution, then it helps to distinguish between the different ideas.

For example, Modern Evolution Theory deals only with the natural causes of changes within an organic population, with those natural causes being cross-breeding and mutations*.

Cross-breeding produced the breed of dog called the St. Bernard. That breed did not exist until monks at the St. Bernard monastery deliberately cross-bred previously-existing breeds of dogs. Technically, the St. Bernard breed evolved from earlier breeds of dogs.

A common example of modern-day mutations is seen in the formation of strains of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics.

Technically, humans have evolved** in size as a result of in changes in the intake of nutritional foods or the lack thereof.

Separate from Modern Evolution Theory is the controversial Theory of Common Descent. One can believe that the former theory is accurate without believing that the latter theory is accurate.

Notes:

*Modern Evolution Theory doesn't deal with the causes of mutations. Also, Modern Evolution Theory does not require that mutations be random.

**The word "evolved" does not mean that something is better or worse. The word only means that a change has taken place.

Evolution as life created from a water drop or apes evolving into man VERSES Divine Creation being able to Adapt to change due to surroundings... It is ADAPT not evolved as in no divine Creator for in the beginning GOD.

And isn't that crossbreeding that you are talking about, not just evolved.
Speaking of crossbreeding, That is why Jesus said that if we just had the faith of a mustard seed... because it can not be crossbreed with anything such as doubt!

You are talking about theories about abiogenesis and the theory of common descent, not modern evolution theory.

Theories about abiogenesis - how life began - do not pertain to evolutionary events.

The theory of common descent is a theory about what evolutionary events have taken place.

Modern evolution theory deals with the natural causes of evolutionary events.
Modern evolution theory explains how the St. Bernard breed of dog came into existence. It explains how antibiotic-resistant bacteria come into existence.
It explains how diet can cause human height to change over time.

Sadly, way too many scientific laymen do not understand the differences between the different theories that I have named. Instead, they mistake one for the other.

By the way the theory of common descent does not say that humans evolved from apes. Instead, it says that humans and apes have a common remote ancestor who was neither homo sapien nor ape.

 

[veteran]

There's no mistaking what Darwin proposed with his theories on the origin of species, and THAT is where most evolutionary science is based, still on Darwin's theories as a basis. So let's not lie to each other.

 

[Dodo_David]

There's no mistaking what Darwin proposed with his theories on the origin of species, and THAT is where most evolutionary science is based, still on Darwin's theories as a basis. So let's not lie to each other.

Again, the theory of common descent is a theory describing what evolutionary events have taken place.

If you want to disagree with the theory of common descent, then go for it. I never said that I agree with that particular theory.

Still, the theory of common descent is not the same as the modern theory about the natural causes of evolutionary events.
The latter theory can be correct without the former theory being correct.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Again, the theory of common descent is a theory describing what evolutionary events have taken place.

If you want to disagree with the theory of common descent, then go for it. I never said that I agree with that particular theory.

Still, the theory of common descent is not the same as the modern theory about the natural causes of evolutionary events.
The latter theory can be correct without the former theory being correct.

I'm seeing you post after post trying to frame the debate according to a very eclectic standard. I'm a larger picture kind of guy because I've found that getting lost in the details can obfuscate the issue whereas examining the philosophical premise of these theories betrays the intent and end objective of them. Human beings have always had two standards of proof that trump all others, scientific discovery and eyewitness account. In courtrooms, these are the two avenues by which a defendant is accused or defended. The Bible is an eyewitness account from the one being who was there at the beginning, which is why it holds a lot of credibility. It isn't hard for us to contemplate that if there is a Creator, he would want his creation to understand how they came to being, much like parents tell their children how they were sired. Atheists can't compete with that because they are finite beings who have no reach into antiquity. So they use science to attempt to create an alternate scenario by which a Creator is unnecessary. But make no mistake, the philosophical premise fuels the science, not the other way around. This is not an honest inquiry or a search for the truth.

And science, as a true free agent, does not enlist itself to anyone's cause. Those scientists who use science to justify their intransigent belief that God doesn't exist don't have the upper hand against scientists who find evidence of intelligent design. On a level playing field, one does not hold sway against the other. So instead, evolutionary scientists utilize ostracism, ridicule, and the establishment of an intellectual monopoly to shut out opposing viewpoints and contradicting evidence. Though they claim to be scientists, they become religiously dogmatic in shielding their theories from scrutiny. It isn't science that drives them, it's their preordained conclusions.

So that's where I keep my focus.

 

[Dodo_David]

I'm seeing you post after post trying to frame the debate according to a very eclectic standard. I'm a larger picture kind of guy because I've found that getting lost in the details can obfuscate the issue whereas examining the philosophical premise of these theories betrays the intent and end objective of them. Human beings have always had two standards of proof that trump all others, scientific discovery and eyewitness account. In courtrooms, these are the two avenues by which a defendant is accused or defended. The Bible is an eyewitness account from the one being who was there at the beginning, which is why it holds a lot of credibility. It isn't hard for us to contemplate that if there is a Creator, he would want his creation to understand how they came to being, much like parents tell their children how they were sired. Atheists can't compete with that because they are finite beings who have no reach into antiquity. So they use science to attempt to create an alternate scenario by which a Creator is unnecessary. But make no mistake, the philosophical premise fuels the science, not the other way around. This is not an honest inquiry or a search for the truth.

And science, as a true free agent, does not enlist itself to anyone's cause. Those scientists who use science to justify their intransigent belief that God doesn't exist don't have the upper hand against scientists who find evidence of intelligent design. On a level playing field, one does not hold sway against the other. So instead, evolutionary scientists utilize ostracism, ridicule, and the establishment of an intellectual monopoly to shut out opposing viewpoints and contradicting evidence. Though they claim to be scientists, they become religiously dogmatic in shielding their theories from scrutiny. It isn't science that drives them, it's their preordained conclusions.

So that's where I keep my focus.

I understand what you are saying.

I am merely saying that one needs to have a correct understanding of the different ideas that are lumped together under the label "evolution". Otherwise, one will appear to be foolish when debating those ideas with people who do have a correct understanding.

 

[veteran]

Some might be interested in the evidence of ancient artifacts L.A. Marzuli has been bringing out that reveals the existence of a hybrid giant race that once living upon this earth, just as God's Word records.

 

[Dodo_David]

Some might be interested in the evidence of ancient artifacts L.A. Marzuli has been bringing out that reveals the existence of a hybrid giant race that once living upon this earth, just as God's Word records.

Can you provide links to scientific journals or reports that confirm what you claim?

 

[veteran]

Can you provide links to scientific journals or reports that confirm what you claim?

Do some research on L.A. Marzuli's works and discoveries.

 

[Suhar]

[SIZE=medium]Evolution as an explanation of human origin is being quickly replaced by new religion of alien worship, which is spin-off of Satanist teachings.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Basically they teach that there is a Creator but he is evil. He creates slaves and Satan sets them free. So Creator tried to kill liberated slaves by flood and other means but Satan will save humanity because he is good.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium].[/SIZE]

 

[Dodo_David]

Do some research on L.A. Marzuli's works and discoveries.

Uh, an alleged scientific discovery has to be confirmed by more than one scientist in order for the discovery to be considered scientifically valid.
So, it doesn't matter what L.A. Marzuli says if that person's alleged discoveries have not been confirmed by other scientists.

 

[veteran]

Uh, an alleged scientific discovery has to be confirmed by more than one scientist in order for the discovery to be considered scientifically valid.
So, it doesn't matter what L.A. Marzuli says if that person's alleged discoveries have not been confirmed by other scientists.

You mean like the so-called evolutionary scientists at institutions like the Smithsonian, the same ones that when such artifacts are found they come to collect them and hide them in their back room the Smithsonian?

God reveals more true science to His people than those evolution doctor types will ever know!


Here's a link to old newspaper articles of various discoveries within so-called American Indian burial mounds. Representatives from the Smithsonian Institute most often remove these kind of remains and store them, not putting them on display. Obviously, artifacts of a 10 foot human skeleton and skulls with double rows of teeth conflict with their evolution theories. The fact that this kind of info is allowed minimum access to the public proves their false agenda to hide real truth.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Stone-Builders-Mound-Builders-and-the-Giants-of-Ancient-America/556606251021542

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

[SIZE=medium]Evolution as an explanation of human origin is being quickly replaced by new religion of alien worship, which is spin-off of Satanist teachings.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]Basically they teach that there is a Creator but he is evil. He creates slaves and Satan sets them free. So Creator tried to kill liberated slaves by flood and other means but Satan will save humanity because he is good.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium].[/SIZE]

You're on to something here. We were created to worship, and when we've rid ourselves of the knowledge of God, we will turn to idolatry. One way or another, no pure form of atheism can long endure because people refuse to believe there is no God. I've written in greater detail about the link between belief in space aliens and Satanism. It's not hard to establish the link between "ascended masters" and the philosophical narrative that we were put here by an advanced race that we will one day be held accountable to. It's Eastern mysticism and demonology. Good post.

 

[IBeMe]

This Vale Of Tears:
{So instead, evolutionary scientists utilize ostracism, ridicule, and the establishment of an intellectual monopoly to shut out opposing viewpoints and contradicting evidence. Though they claim to be scientists, they become religiously dogmatic in shielding their theories from scrutiny.}

US publications tend to offer only the strongest view that supports evolution.

I'm not talking about creation versus evolution, but varying views amongst evolutionary scientist.

If you go to a foreign site on a given subject you'll find a broader spectrum of opinion with some scientists voicing skepticism of the value of a particular find or theory.

In particular National Geographic filters out the opinion of evolutionary scientist voicing a skeptical view.

It's interesting that we call this a science, but it comes with rules of scrutiny.

There's also tremendous wars amongst various evolutionary scientist camps. None of this ever reaches the general public.

All publicly funded evolutionary science projects are done to support the theory.

If this was any other subject, wouldn't we be doing research to question the viability of the theory?

The bottom line; the theory goes where the money flows.

.