The ever changing forked tongue theory of evolution

[River Jordan]

If that's the case, then I have to wonder how you function in today's society. When your car breaks down, do you take it to someone who bases their repair on purely natural causes, or do you take it to someone who approaches it from a spiritual angle? When you get sick, do you go to a doctor who looks for purely natural causes, or do you go to a faith healer?

I'd bet that you rely on our understanding of the natural causes behind all sorts of things a lot more than you realize.

 

[KingJ]

If that's the case, then I have to wonder how you function in today's society. When your car breaks down, do you take it to someone who bases their repair on purely natural causes, or do you take it to someone who approaches it from a spiritual angle? When you get sick, do you go to a doctor who looks for purely natural causes, or do you go to a faith healer?

I'd bet that you rely on our understanding of the natural causes behind all sorts of things a lot more than you realize.

You just taught us to go to scientists to grasp our origin like we go to a car mechanic to fix our car? ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What scientist do you recommend? What scientist can give us assurance and confirmation on this like a mechanic and doctor on their professions? Frankenstein?

 

[River Jordan]

Oh no KingJ....I most certainly don't expect you, or those like you, to do anything of the sort. All that would do is guarantee perpetual disappointment. I fully expect that as you age, you'll slide further and further into your denial of reality.

 

[KingJ]

Oh no KingJ....I most certainly don't expect you, or those like you, to do anything of the sort. All that would do is guarantee perpetual disappointment. I fully expect that as you age, you'll slide further and further into your denial of reality.

Why can't you just say sorry? Sorry all for my intellectual blunder. I wasn't thinking clearly when I paralleled fixing a car to explaining the origin of life...

 

[lforrest]

If that's the case, then I have to wonder how you function in today's society. When your car breaks down, do you take it to someone who bases their repair on purely natural causes, or do you take it to someone who approaches it from a spiritual angle? When you get sick, do you go to a doctor who looks for purely natural causes, or do you go to a faith healer?

I'd bet that you rely on our understanding of the natural causes behind all sorts of things a lot more than you realize.

A dishonest car mechanic will try to scare you into fixing what isn't broken, or make use of used parts for the repair without your knowledge. It is unwise to implicitly trust any professional, because they are interested in making money.

This applies to scientists too, there is a potential for conflict of interest when there is money to be made. That is why it is best to be well informed yourself, unless all you care about is getting your car back on the road no matter the cost.

 

[StanJ]

Oh no KingJ....I most certainly don't expect you, or those like you, to do anything of the sort. All that would do is guarantee perpetual disappointment. I fully expect that as you age, you'll slide further and further into your denial of reality.

Again, you assume that evolutionary science shows us reality when it contradicts God's Word. This basically means you don't believe God's word. If this is so, then you're saying Paul was lying when he said all scripture is inspired by God and useful for instruction. Apparently you don't take instruction from God, only science. THAT reality is not Christian reality.

 

[River Jordan]

A dishonest car mechanic will try to scare you into fixing what isn't broken, or make use of used parts for the repair without your knowledge. It is unwise to implicitly trust any professional, because they are interested in making money.

This applies to scientists too, there is a potential for conflict of interest when there is money to be made. That is why it is best to be well informed yourself, unless all you care about is getting your car back on the road no matter the cost.

Oh sure. Tour any science department of any public university and you'll nothing but stretch limos, mansions, and jewelry as far as the eye can see. :lol:

Again, you assume that evolutionary science shows us reality when it contradicts God's Word. This basically means you don't believe God's word. If this is so, then you're saying Paul was lying when he said all scripture is inspired by God and useful for instruction. Apparently you don't take instruction from God, only science. THAT reality is not Christian reality.

Like I keep saying, not everyone operates on your black/white terms.

 

[marksman]

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.

What I have found is that one thing that is guaranteed to change is the meaning of the word evolution. As far as I remember, evolution according to atheists was a change of species such as apes becoming humans or to put it another way, from goo to you via the zoo. So much proof has been posited that this has not happened that they have changed the meaning of evolution so that it is no longer a change of species but the adaptation of species. I pointed out that the change in the finches beaks was not evolution but adaptation as they were still finches after the beak adaptation, and was told in no uncertain terms that that is what evolution is.


The fact is adaptation has never been an issue. The issue has always been the supposed change from a fish to a lizard etc. I asked one atheist how come since Darwin's claim of evolution, that we have not seen one single thing evolve? Oh, you don't see it because it happens very slowly. Doh!.

 

[Born_Again]

Real quick,

The Big Bang doesn't support God??? How could it not? Don't you think that if God created something like this, would it not have started with a big BANG!

 

[marksman]

The claims of fundamentalist atheism is fraught with all sorts of dangers. To say God does not exists means that a person has to have infinite knowledge to make that claim because God is not finite, he is infinite. Therefore to know that God does not exist as opposed to believing he does exist needs infinite knowledge which no human has as we are all finite. Therefore to say God does not exist is pie in the sky as the only way one can know if God does not exist is through evidence and faith. As atheists have neither except faith in themselves, they cannot know if God does not exist.

Some say I have never experienced God as evidence that God does not exist but such a claim is subjective and a philosophical arguement, not a scientific one as science, the bible of atheists, is not a philosophical discipline. In fact, when one is open to the truth which atheists are not, we find that science is the best friend that Christians have as it shows the complexity of life in all its expression that only one with exceptional faith could believe that it just happened randomly and without order. That is why people say that they don’t have the faith to be an atheist.

All science can do is show us what is and the fact is that it is not the science that proves anything but the person making the claim as one can take any aspect of science and make it prove God's existence or his non existence.

For example, the late Christopher Hitchens admitted that he was turned off God by a very austere Uncle who was a Presbyterian minister. He wasn't interested in a God that his uncle portrayed, so his rejection of God was very subjective and philosophical, not scientific.

When you dig deep, you will find that most atheist have a philosophical objection to God and science gives them the opportunity to hang their hat on to denounce him. They are in fact giving scripture its authenticity because they are saying “We will not have this man to reign over us.”

[SIZE=18pt]Another aspect of atheists[/SIZE][SIZE=18pt] proving scripture is evident when you ask them "How did life begin?" [/SIZE] The latest answer I have been given is "We don't know" or "I don't know." My reply is "You may not know, but I do. Until you can prove otherwise (and they can't, all they can do is speculate which is philosophical), Genesis tells us that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

 

[StanJ]

Real quick,

The Big Bang doesn't support God??? How could it not? Don't you think that if God created something like this, would it not have started with a big BANG!

He could have, on day one. I just don't view the Big Bang as many evolutionists do. I've read and heard many studies on the Big Bang and there is NO unanimity of what exactly it was. Some say it was from nothing and some say it was from something that just wasn't known, or still isn't. All the unknown IMO is God but I really have no desire to emulate the vernacular of that science.

 

[BlackManINC]

What I have found is that one thing that is guaranteed to change is the meaning of the word evolution. As far as I remember, evolution according to atheists was a change of species such as apes becoming humans or to put it another way, from goo to you via the zoo. So much proof has been posited that this has not happened that they have changed the meaning of evolution so that it is no longer a change of species but the adaptation of species. I pointed out that the change in the finches beaks was not evolution but adaptation as they were still finches after the beak adaptation, and was told in no uncertain terms that that is what evolution is.


The fact is adaptation has never been an issue. The issue has always been the supposed change from a fish to a lizard etc. I asked one atheist how come since Darwin's claim of evolution, that we have not seen one single thing evolve? Oh, you don't see it because it happens very slowly. Doh!.

Exactly right, or they'll say it we can't observe it happening because it occurred in the past. Well sorry evolutionists, as the scientific method demands, if I can't see it, then it isn't real, it is NOT science. This is purely your belief on how all living beings occurred. It is a religious belief and has absolutely no business in any scientific text books at all.

 

[marksman]

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.

When we realise that the battle today is Satan v God, not us v homosexuals, us v atheists etc. we understand that in everything that happens, the true nature of the combatants is revealed. Satan is a liar 101 so anything that he says is NOT the truth. Jesus said he was the way, the TRUTH and the life and the scripture says that God is his word, so anything that emanates from those sources is the TRUTH.

For instance, when we are told homosexuals are born that way we know that it is a lie because it originated from satan. When we are told that God does not exist it is a lie because it emanates from satan. Satan NEVER tells the truth. Therefore I am am of the opinion that today's battle is the truth v lies.

The scripture tells us that all things work together for good to those that love God and are called according to his purpose. Is that the truth? Yes, even suffering and death. As it was explained to me, the actual event is not necessarily good but the eventual outcome will be that is why it is so important to find God in everything.

Whether we like it or not, we will be driven and controlled by what we consider the truth to be. If we believe that the truth is all life is sacred from conception we will oppose abortion. if we believe that all life is sacred once the child is born we will not oppose abortion.

The scripture tell us that it is the truth that sets us free. No matter how convincing the argument is, if it is not the truth it will not set us free and it is not from God. Therefore I agree with StanJ 100%.

Exactly right, or they'll say it we can't observe it happening because it occurred in the past. Well sorry evolutionists, as the scientific method demands, if I can't see it, then it isn't real, it is NOT science. This is purely your belief on how all living beings occurred. It is a religious belief and has absolutely no business in any scientific text books at all.

A very valid statement.

 

[BlackManINC]

He could have, on day one. I just don't view the Big Bang as many evolutionists do. I've read and heard many studies on the Big Bang and there is NO unanimity of what exactly it was. Some say it was from nothing and some say it was from something that just wasn't known, or still isn't. All the unknown IMO is God but I really have no desire to emulate the vernacular of that science.

The problem with the Big Bang is the exact same problem with biological evolution. They assume that there ever was a step by step process to the development of the planets and stars in the first place. They claim the elementary particles came first, then hydrogen and Helium magically popped into existence, then the destruction of stars into supernovas which magically produced the heavier elements, and out of this chaos came the production of all planetary systems. None of this is in any way repeatable in a lab yet its called "science". I consider the idea that an explosion can create anything to be absurd in itself. According to these clowns in white coats, if I napalm a jungle I can expect to get a village to occur after millions of years. This is obviously not how it occurred at all, when God spoke the universe into existence, it happened within a day, one didn't occur before the other, it happened all at the same time.

 

[marksman]

The problem with the Big Bang is the exact same problem with biological evolution. They assume that there ever was a step by step process to the development of the planets and stars in the first place. They claim the elementary particles came first, then hydrogen and Helium magically popped into existence, then the destruction of stars into supernovas which magically produced the heavier elements, and out of this chaos came the production of all planetary systems. None of this is in any way repeatable in a lab yet its called "science". I consider the idea that an explosion can create anything to be absurd in itself. According to these clowns in white coats, if I napalm a jungle I can expect to get a village to occur after millions of years. This is obviously not how it occurred at all, when God spoke the universe into existence, it happened within a day, one didn't occur before the other, it happened all at the same time.

Another factor in the equation is the fact that for things like plants, animals, water, air etc. there has to be components of one or the other operating at the same time for them to exist or stay alive. You cannot have plants without air in specific formulations and you cannot have trees without supporting air, plants and water. So to say that the earth and its contents happened over millions of years is just not possible. If trees appeared they would have died out without all the other components present.

​At the same time, you need all the animals and wildlife present otherwise there would no balance in nature. There is no doubt that the animal kingdom is very predatory and rely on other animal life for food unless they are not meat eaters. Evolution would mean that thousands of animals would have died out very quickly because their source of food had not yet evolved.

If the amoeba developed into the fish, the only thing the fish could eat is the amoeba. if it did that, as the fish numbers grew, it would deplete its own food supply and thus eventually die. As we know fish eat all sorts of things so where did they come from?

 

[KingJ]

Real quick,

The Big Bang doesn't support God??? How could it not? Don't you think that if God created something like this, would it not have started with a big BANG!

No. Big bang implies we evolved. Which leads to natural selection. Natural selection is evil. God is not evil.

Humans are a specific creation, created just beneath the angels. We entered with our own bang.

 

[River Jordan]

Gosh, I can't imagine where anyone would ever get the idea that Christians are both ignorant of, and against modern science. It's a total mystery.

 

[marksman]

Gosh, I can't imagine where anyone would ever get the idea that Christians are both ignorant of, and against modern science. It's a total mystery.

Rather a speculative and sweeping claim which for these reasons has no merit. You and I and others are ignorant of many things. That does not make us ignorant as such. For example, I know nothing at all about raising cows except what I read about it. Am I ignorant? No. I am a person who has never had to be cognisance of the facts relating to this issue.

As the experts tell us that we only use 10% of our brains ability then the fact is that we are all ignorant.

 

[BlackManINC]

Another factor in the equation is the fact that for things like plants, animals, water, air etc. there has to be components of one or the other operating at the same time for them to exist or stay alive. You cannot have plants without air in specific formulations and you cannot have trees without supporting air, plants and water. So to say that the earth and its contents happened over millions of years is just not possible. If trees appeared they would have died out without all the other components present.

​At the same time, you need all the animals and wildlife present otherwise there would no balance in nature. There is no doubt that the animal kingdom is very predatory and rely on other animal life for food unless they are not meat eaters. Evolution would mean that thousands of animals would have died out very quickly because their source of food had not yet evolved.

If the amoeba developed into the fish, the only thing the fish could eat is the amoeba. if it did that, as the fish numbers grew, it would deplete its own food supply and thus eventually die. As we know fish eat all sorts of things so where did they come from?

Yes exactly, I can sum up both our arguments as the stance of irreducible complexity, both at the cosmic and biological level. You can't have one key component for life to thrive without all other components existing at the same time. You cannot reduce the complexity of an automobile or an aircraft and expect it to work properly, so why people believe the circumstances were different with the creation of the universe and all living things is beyond my understanding. It makes no logical sense at all and is a slap in the face to real scientific observations.

 

[River Jordan]

Rather a speculative and sweeping claim which for these reasons has no merit. You and I and others are ignorant of many things. That does not make us ignorant as such. For example, I know nothing at all about raising cows except what I read about it. Am I ignorant? No. I am a person who has never had to be cognisance of the facts relating to this issue.

As the experts tell us that we only use 10% of our brains ability then the fact is that we are all ignorant.

In another thread you said you intentionally ignore the parts of nature shows where they talk about evolution and millions of years. Not only is that ignorance, that's deliberate ignorance. Couple that with your comments in this thread, and I can totally understand how someone would get the impression I described.