The ever changing forked tongue theory of evolution

[BlackManINC]

The more the evolutionist speaks, the more they expose themselves as nothing but carnival hucksters posing as scientists.



The ever changing forked tongue theory of evolution:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eEBrY7f9t94

Links to articles-

Scientists discover organism that hasn't evolved in more than 2 billion years: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-scientists-hasnt-evolved-billion-years.html

Diversification in ancient tadpole shrimps challenges the term 'living fossil': http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130402091641.htm

New insights into bacterial substitute for sex (Darwinian natural selection): http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140501192629.htm

Cave bacteria resistant to antibiotics: http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/cave-bacteria-resistant-to-antibiotics-1-2229183

Oldest Horseshoe Crab Fossil Found, 445 Million Years Old: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207135801.htm

 

[River Jordan]

Again, as long as people like you set the terms as "it's either evolution or Christianity", Christianity will lose.

 

[pom2014]

Environmental changes are only one factor in adaptation.

Can't guy bacteria changed due to dietary change. They still lived in the same place, had the same genetics; but introduction of new food changed the bacteria needed for digestion.

Monogamy is a brain adaptation. More connections were needed in the brain to be socially monogamous than polygamous.

So there are two changes just in humans using examples of cultural change not environmental, geolocation or absence/presence of a rival species.

 

[StanJ]

Again, as long as people like you set the terms as "it's either evolution or Christianity", Christianity will lose.

I don't agree River. The issue is what one accepts as truth, not who makes more sense. The issue is when it comes to the Bible, is it truth or not?
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

Environmental changes are only one factor in adaptation.

Can't guy bacteria changed due to dietary change. They still lived in the same place, had the same genetics; but introduction of new food changed the bacteria needed for digestion.

Monogamy is a brain adaptation. More connections were needed in the brain to be socially monogamous than polygamous.

So there are two changes just in humans using examples of cultural change not environmental, geolocation or absence/presence of a rival species.

Which just illustrates how well and adaptive God made man. Being able to adapt and having the built in biological safe guards to do so may be nicer to discover, but it does NOT negate what God did in creation. The same can be said for ALL life and how the earth works.

 

[aspen]

Oh the ignorance ...

It is just so hard to watch.

Are Christians ever going to see science for what it is? Ever changing and a quest for new understanding?

Accusing scientists of beings liars every time they learn new information that changes our understanding of the material world is like getting mad because rain feels wet

 

[BlackManINC]

I don't agree River. The issue is what one accepts as truth, not who makes more sense. The issue is when it comes to the Bible, is it truth or not?
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

Which just illustrates how well and adaptive God made man. Being able to adapt and having the built in biological safe guards to do so may be nicer to discover, but it does NOT negate what God did in creation. The same can be said for ALL life and how the earth works.

The heathens interpretation of "change" and "adaptation" over time is not at all in line with observable, repeatable, testable science. They define "change" as the actual anatomical morphology of one kind into another. Once upon a time, fish magically grew legs, walked on land and morphed into amphibians. Once upon a time, before our ancestors became apes, they were rat like creatures. This is the kind of garage that's pawned off as science.

 

[StanJ]

The heathens interpretation of "change" and "adaptation" over time is not at all in line with observable, repeatable, testable science. They define "change" as the actual anatomical morphology of one kind into another. Once upon a time, fish magically grew legs, walked on land and morphed into amphibians. Once upon a time, before our ancestors became apes, they were rat like creatures. This is the kind of garage that's pawned off as science.

I agree BMI, but by the same token not ALL of the science is bad, just like not ALL science is bad. If we keep God's Word at the forefront as regards truth, we can indeed filter out the chaff from the wheat.

 

[BlackManINC]

I agree BMI, but by the same token not ALL of the science is bad, just like not ALL science is bad. If we keep God's Word at the forefront as regards truth, we can indeed filter out the chaff from the wheat.

Hard to do when literally everything is regarded "evidence" for evolution even when its clearly not. This is why no one should ever believe a word Satan's academic establishment says regarding the history of the world or anything else for that matter.

edit: By the way, as I've stated before, its because of this uniformity in the entire system with evolution that I'm 100% certain that the theory will play an integral part in the end times deceptions that are fast coming.

 

[aspen]

The rain feels wet. Deal with it

 

[pom2014]

Here's the problem...

Atheists are black and white thinkers. There can't be a God, there's only science.

Fundamentalists are black and white thinkers. There can't be evolution, there's only God.

Neither see there can be both. Fanatics. And a fanatic is someone that redoubles their effort while losing sight of their goals.

God put into order systems that can take over automatically to glorify creation. But neither the blind atheist nor the blind fundamentalist can fathom that.

Both sides paint God as a feeble and limited deity.

Its so sad.

 

[aspen]

Pom - fundamentalist AND atheists are black and white thinkers. They are dinosaurs from the age of modernism. Thank God we have progressed to post modernism.

I totally agree with your assessment COMPLETELY.

Now we are in a period where we are called to choose between a life of self sacrifice and love AND material gain. There is no material ground. We are called to love despite the media. We are called to love despite scientific truth. We are called to love despite psychological gurus.

It is not easy.....just love ok. I am going to try and love for as long as I have on earth.

 

[River Jordan]

I don't agree River. The issue is what one accepts as truth, not who makes more sense. The issue is when it comes to the Bible, is it truth or not?
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

It's a matter of the reality of God's creation. Just as some past Christians were absolutely convinced that scripture depicted a non-moving earth, rejected all science that showed otherwise, and ended up making fools of themselves and their faith, western fundamentalist Christians are doing the same with evolution. In both cases, a group of people decided that their interpretive abilities were so infallible, that all science must line up behind it.

Here's the problem...

Atheists are black and white thinkers. There can't be a God, there's only science.

Fundamentalists are black and white thinkers. There can't be evolution, there's only God.

Neither see there can be both. Fanatics. And a fanatic is someone that redoubles their effort while losing sight of their goals.

God put into order systems that can take over automatically to glorify creation. But neither the blind atheist nor the blind fundamentalist can fathom that.

Both sides paint God as a feeble and limited deity.

Its so sad.

Very well put.

 

[StanJ]

It's a matter of the reality of God's creation. Just as some past Christians were absolutely convinced that scripture depicted a non-moving earth, rejected all science that showed otherwise, and ended up making fools of themselves and their faith, western fundamentalist Christians are doing the same with evolution. In both cases, a group of people decided that their interpretive abilities were so infallible, that all science must line up behind it.

You'll need to qualify these examples River, otherwise they're nothing more than fodder for your own reasoning. Who and what are you referring to?
What do you classify yourself as if not a western fundamentalist?

 

[River Jordan]

You'll need to qualify these examples River, otherwise they're nothing more than fodder for your own reasoning. Who and what are you referring to?

See Christianity's past history with a non-moving earth interpretation of scripture for a classic example.

What do you classify yourself as if not a western fundamentalist?

I don't really put a label on myself too much, but I do know I'm not a fundamentalist.

 

[KingJ]

Oh the ignorance ...

It is just so hard to watch.

Are Christians ever going to see science for what it is? Ever changing and a quest for new understanding?

Accusing scientists of beings liars every time they learn new information that changes our understanding of the material world is like getting mad because rain feels wet

I dont see an end to any such until 'science' moves on from evolution. It is more like acid rain.

Here's the problem...

Atheists are black and white thinkers. There can't be a God, there's only science.

Fundamentalists are black and white thinkers. There can't be evolution, there's only God.

Neither see there can be both. Fanatics. And a fanatic is someone that redoubles their effort while losing sight of their goals.

God put into order systems that can take over automatically to glorify creation. But neither the blind atheist nor the blind fundamentalist can fathom that.

Both sides paint God as a feeble and limited deity.

Its so sad.

Whats sad is that so many Christians can't look further then their noses and see evolution for what it is. So many Christians don't know their bible. So many Christians can't use common sense.

You asked in the 'atheist thread' why it opposes scripture. These are my three major gripes with it.

1. It mocks ALL of scripture....If mankind is 30 - 100k years old where is the missing scripture? The bible would appear to be recent fairytale dogma.

2. It mocks God... Natural selection had to occur before our sin. Natural selection is evil. God is implicated.

3. It mocks the cross...Jesus died for all mankind...because all mankind is intelligent and hence accountable for sin. At which point did mankind become accountable for sin? Was Adams monkey father accountable? Dying for mankind when mankind is taught be at different stages of evolution....is well... laughable. Just meditate on it. Try and grasp that grey matter between ears is the reason we are accountable for sins.

1. See Christianity's past history with a non-moving earth interpretation of scripture for a classic example.

2. I don't really put a label on myself too much, but I do know I'm not a fundamentalist.

A conflict between Copernican science and Aristotelian science which had become Church tradition'...is not on par with rejecting evolution. Do you really not understand that? This is a classic example of straining a gnat and swallowing a camel.

 

[StanJ]

See Christianity's past history with a non-moving earth interpretation of scripture for a classic example.


I don't really put a label on myself too much, but I do know I'm not a fundamentalist.

I asked YOU River. Quoting history is not an answer. You seem very reticent in committing to ANY answer. The fact that the RCC was an obstacle to some science of the day is not the issue. The issue is about how the science of our day contradicts the Bible in certain areas, NOT where it agrees with the Bible.

But you're not adverse to putting labels on others? How convenient to be able to label others but not be willing to label yourself. How exactly does that follow "Do unto others"?

 

[Forsakenone]

Oh the ignorance ...

It is just so hard to watch.

Are Christians ever going to see science for what it is? Ever changing and a quest for new understanding?

Accusing scientists of beings liars every time they learn new information that changes our understanding of the material world is like getting mad because rain feels wet

Evolutionist: in the beginning there was a primordial atom [See Hypothesis of the Primordial atom]
Creationist: In the beginnning God

Evolutionist: And the primordial atom condensed to point of bursting open
Creationist: And God spoke

Evolutionist: And all the space, matter and energy burst forth rapidly forming the expanse of all the know and observed universe.
Creationist: And God created the heaven and the earth.

Evolutionist: Creationist are ignorant.
Creationist: Evolutionist are evil.

Seems that the only thing that the Evolutionist and the Creationist can agree on is that the other side is wrong and as a Procreationist, I agree.

 

[justaname]

Evolutionist: in the beginning there was a primordial atom [See Hypothesis of the Primordial atom]
Creationist: In the beginnning God

Evolutionist: And the primordial atom condensed to point of bursting open
Creationist: And God spoke

Evolutionist: And all the space, matter and energy burst forth rapidly forming the expanse of all the know and observed universe.
Creationist: And God created the heaven and the earth.

Evolutionist: Creationist are ignorant.
Creationist: Evolutionist are evil.

Seems that the only thing that the Evolutionist and the Creationist can agree on is that the other side is wrong and as a Procreationist, I agree.

I wonder if evolutionists ever notice how heavily they rely on the biblical account, sneaking Christianity in the back door if you will.
I have also noticed some evolutionists want to take both sides...hedge their bets so to say. God created then used evolution as the creation process. I guess I wonder when in that process did God take the hands off approach? Just when did God stop creating and evolution take over? Then again if you are the author of Genesis it could be at any given point in time. No longer is the revelation of Scripture the authority, you become the authority and author of the creation account.

Again, as long as people like you set the terms as "it's either evolution or Christianity", Christianity will lose.

You know that is a rather bold statement...is this prophetic?

 

[River Jordan]

I asked YOU River. Quoting history is not an answer. You seem very reticent in committing to ANY answer.

Sorry, but you're not making any sense at all. I specifically said, "Just as some past Christians were absolutely convinced that scripture depicted a non-moving earth, rejected all science that showed otherwise, and ended up making fools of themselves and their faith, western fundamentalist Christians are doing the same with evolution." You asked me to qualify what I was talking about, so I sent you a link to a page about Galileo. Maybe you should try and follow along.

The fact that the RCC was an obstacle to some science of the day is not the issue.

It should be, since that's what I was talking about. Were you trying to change the subject or something?

The issue is about how the science of our day contradicts the Bible in certain areas, NOT where it agrees with the Bible.

It only contradicts the narrow literalist interpretation of scripture, just like a moving earth only contradicted the narrow literalist interpretation in Galileo's day.

But you're not adverse to putting labels on others? How convenient to be able to label others but not be willing to label yourself. How exactly does that follow "Do unto others"?

Because I don't feel a need to label myself. If you so concerned about it, you can put whatever label on me you want. Makes no difference to me.

I wonder if evolutionists ever notice how heavily they rely on the biblical account, sneaking Christianity in the back door if you will.
I have also noticed some evolutionists want to take both sides...hedge their bets so to say. God created then used evolution as the creation process. I guess I wonder when in that process did God take the hands off approach? Just when did God stop creating and evolution take over? Then again if you are the author of Genesis it could be at any given point in time. No longer is the revelation of Scripture the authority, you become the authority and author of the creation account.
You know that is a rather bold statement...is this prophetic?

The problem with all that is you keep jumping back and forth between science and theology. Evolution is not a theological position any more than erosion or gravity. It's just a scientific conclusion...that's all. So when you start talking about "evolutionists" and then assign them theological positions, you're unnecessarily attaching theological baggage to science. Just let the science be what it is.

 

[justaname]

Sorry, but you're not making any sense at all. I specifically said, "Just as some past Christians were absolutely convinced that scripture depicted a non-moving earth, rejected all science that showed otherwise, and ended up making fools of themselves and their faith, western fundamentalist Christians are doing the same with evolution." You asked me to qualify what I was talking about, so I sent you a link to a page about Galileo. Maybe you should try and follow along.


It should be, since that's what I was talking about. Were you trying to change the subject or something?


It only contradicts the narrow literalist interpretation of scripture, just like a moving earth only contradicted the narrow literalist interpretation in Galileo's day.


Because I don't feel a need to label myself. If you so concerned about it, you can put whatever label on me you want. Makes no difference to me.


The problem with all that is you keep jumping back and forth between science and theology. Evolution is not a theological position any more than erosion or gravity. It's just a scientific conclusion...that's all. So when you start talking about "evolutionists" and then assign them theological positions, you're unnecessarily attaching theological baggage to science. Just let the science be what it is.

There is a point where science, philosophy, and theology converge...this is the point of creation and a valid topic in this thread. If it is you want to omit theology altogether, then state you are atheistic, otherwise deal with the consequences of your position.

So then the question begs, in your theory of genesis did God create anything, or is your god not the creator?