The ever changing forked tongue theory of evolution

[River Jordan]

Some trust in science, and others in humanity. I trust in the Lord's word and his faithfulness.

And some don't see it as an either/or situation, and have no problems trusting what science reveals about God's creation, and God's Word.

 

[BlackManINC]

And some don't see it as an either/or situation, and have no problems trusting what science reveals about God's creation, and God's Word.

I trust what real science reveals about Gods word, not pagan rubbish falsely called science.

 

[JimParker]

<< In the link below I show that Cern's Ouroboros machine they call the "Large Hadron collider" has nothing at all to do with science or finding out how old the universe really is. "Big Bangs", "rainbow gravity", "black holes" and other such terms is nothing but code language to mask the real purpose of Cern which is to open the pit that contains the beast of revelation. >>

It is satements like that one that keep reasonable, intelligent people as far away from churches as they can get. It works to confirm Satan's propaganda that, to be a CHristian, you must first be stupid.

The "big bang" is a theory based on the observation that the unverse is expanding and acceperating in all directions. That logically suggests that it was once very small. If all that mass were very small, gravity would compress it into an infinitessimally small point.

Black boles were predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity and it has been confirmed that there is indeed a black hole at the center of every galaxy.

Your blanket rejection of anything scientific simply makes you appear as a reigious zealot and, at the same time, a closed-minded ignoramus who listens to Christian ear-ticklers like "pastor Mike.". He's the religionist's online version of the tabloids they display at the supermarket checkout.

Science is the study of nature. It's conclusions are not presented as "truth" but as the facts as we know them at this point.

The Bible is the revelation of what God wants us to know about Him to man. It is the truth about God and man's relationship to God. It is NOT about science.


jim

 

[marksman]

Thankyou for your opinion River Jordan. Rejecting lies is not ignorance, it is reality and common sense.

Deliberate ignorance is a choice.


Still a mystery where anyone would get the impression that Christians are anti-science.... :unsure:

Yes, I have noticed how many atheists are deliberately choose to ignore the truth.

 

[River Jordan]

Yes, I have noticed how many atheists are deliberately choose to ignore the truth.

Why bring up atheists? What do they have to do with this?

 

[BlackManINC]

<< In the link below I show that Cern's Ouroboros machine they call the "Large Hadron collider" has nothing at all to do with science or finding out how old the universe really is. "Big Bangs", "rainbow gravity", "black holes" and other such terms is nothing but code language to mask the real purpose of Cern which is to open the pit that contains the beast of revelation. >>

It is satements like that one that keep reasonable, intelligent people as far away from churches as they can get. It works to confirm Satan's propaganda that, to be a CHristian, you must first be stupid.

The "big bang" is a theory based on the observation that the unverse is expanding and acceperating in all directions. That logically suggests that it was once very small. If all that mass were very small, gravity would compress it into an infinitessimally small point.

Black boles were predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity and it has been confirmed that there is indeed a black hole at the center of every galaxy.

Your blanket rejection of anything scientific simply makes you appear as a reigious zealot and, at the same time, a closed-minded ignoramus who listens to Christian ear-ticklers like "pastor Mike.". He's the religionist's online version of the tabloids they display at the supermarket checkout.

Science is the study of nature. It's conclusions are not presented as "truth" but as the facts as we know them at this point.

The Bible is the revelation of what God wants us to know about Him to man. It is the truth about God and man's relationship to God. It is NOT about science.


jim

Wow, this is either a disingenuous dismissal of my argument or its a prime example of your complete lack of basic reading comprehension skills. I never said black holes don't exist, don't need too, because any scientist, evolutionist or otherwise will tell you that a black hole has never been directly observed. Even hardcore atheists like Stephan hawking's came out and admitted that they probably don't exist as they have been explained since the theory of relativity was introduced due to the lack evidence. Now these Hindu carnival hucksters would like you to believe that Brahma (Satan in disguise), the universe has no beginning point, it is eternal. I don't need a scientific report to tell me that this is absolute garbage, "science" falsely so called does not trump the word of God. My Bible has already told me that God is the real alpha and omega, and there is none other.

 

[JimParker]

<< Wow, this is either a disingenuous dismissal of my argument>>

It is a total, purposeful, dismissal of your argument.

<< or its a prime example of your complete lack of basic reading comprehension skills.>>

I have managed to struggle through the earning of three master's degrees so I don't think it's my reading skills that are at issue. Perhaps there is room for improvement in your writing skills.

<< I never said black holes don't exist, don't need too, because any scientist, evolutionist or otherwise will tell you that a black hole has never been directly observed. >>

With those words you appear to confirm that you don't think they exist. (See above comment re: writing skill improvement.)

They are called "black holes" because their gravity is so massive that photons (light) cannot escape from them. No light = no direct observation.

<< Even hardcore atheists like Stephan hawking's came out and admitted that they probably don't exist>>

Citation please. I don't believe Hawking ever said anything of the sort. Please cite Hawking (not pastor Mike) and other "hardcore atheists" to prove me wrong.

<< as they have been explained since the theory of relativity was introduced due to the lack evidence. >>

That string of words does not convey a clear thought. (See above re: writing skills)

The theory of relativity preceded the conclusion that there might be black holes. The idea of black holes was a logical and mathematical conclusion of Relativity. Astronomical observations since then have provided very strong evidence to confirm their existence.

A belief about the existence of God has nothing to do with the conclusions of trained astrophysicists. Their conclusions are based on their observations and verified by the observations and conclusions of colleagues.

<< Now these Hindu carnival hucksters would like you to believe that Brahma (Satan in disguise), the universe has no beginning point, it is eternal.>>

To whom are you referring by your parroting these Hindu carnival hucksters? Please cite them and explain exactly how they have misrepresented science by inserting Hindu teachings.

<< I don't need a scientific report to tell me that this is absolute garbage,>>

Actually, you most certainly do. Otherwise you are speaking from the vacuum of ignorance.

<< "science" falsely so called does not trump the word of God. >>

Science is not false. (Though I do believe that scientists can be induced to falsify their results as in the case of the "global warming" fraud.) Science provides the best description of God's creation that we are able to deduce given the tools currently available.

Neither does "it" claim to "trump the word of God." It does come in conflict with some people's personal interpretations of what the Bible says but not with the Bible itself.

<< My Bible has already told me that God is the real alpha and omega, and there is none other. >>

Great. So did mine. That's a different subject.

Science does not speak about God because it lacks the tools to investigate God. God cannot be measured with scientific instruments.

Science is the investigation of nature. God is not part of nature and is, therefore, outside the arena of scientific investigation.

 

[BlackManINC]

JimParker

With those words you appear to confirm that you don't think they exist. (See above comment re: writing skill improvement.)

They are called "black holes" because their gravity is so massive that photons (light) cannot escape from them. No light = no direct observation.

Thanks for proving my point.

"It is called Dark Matter because it gives no light, but we can see its massive gravitational effects as it holds galaxies together."

In other words, this ladies and gentlemen, is known as the argument of the gaps the evolutionist always adheres to and calls it "science". We don't know what it is, we can't see it, but they'd like you to believe its there. In the case of Dark Matter for example, they see that some galaxies are spinning faster than others, and since this observation contradicts their belief in cosmic evolution and the alleged age of the universe, we MUST conclude some imagined substance called "dark matter" to save the religion of evolution. Therefore, by this twisting of the evidence, or lack there of, the existence of black holes is an established fact as explained by the general theory of relativity.......even though these days it really isn't according to many, Hawking's being a prime example.

Most physicists foolhardy enough to write a paper claiming that “there are no black holes” — at least not in the sense we usually imagine — would probably be dismissed as cranks. But when the call to redefine these cosmic crunchers comes from Stephen Hawking, it’s worth taking notice. In a paper posted online, the physicist, based at the University of Cambridge, UK, and one of the creators of modern black-hole theory, does away with the notion of an event horizon, the invisible boundary thought to shroud every black hole, beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape......

In its stead, Hawking’s radical proposal is a much more benign “apparent horizon”, which only temporarily holds matter and energy prisoner before eventually releasing them, albeit in a more garbled form.

“There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory,” Hawking told Nature. Quantum theory, however, “enables energy and information to escape from a black hole”.

Source: http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583

 

[justaname]

To All Parties involved in this thread....

Please keep the posting related to the topic and not on each other.
We are in the process of enacting new rules and policies that pertain to the method of engaging each other in this forum.
Again please keep posts directed to the subject matter, not ad hominem.

Thanks and God Bless!

 

[BlackManINC]

To All Parties involved in this thread....

Please keep the posting related to the topic and not on each other.
We are in the process of enacting new rules and policies that pertain to the method of engaging each other in this forum.
Again please keep posts directed to the subject matter, not ad hominem.

Thanks and God Bless!

And yet, I notice its always the anti-christian,. anti-Biblical Darwinist supporting "Christians" who are the first ones to engage in ad-hominem attacks, shows how much they have in common with their atheist brothers in Satan. I also notice how much they like to pump themselves up with credentials in degrees in some scientific field in some silly attempt to appeal to authority, as if we really care, and this sort of crap should be addressed as well.

 

[marksman]

All anyone has done is say "it requires faith", but no one has demonstrated anything of the sort. A few people have parroted some failed arguments from websites, but that's about it. Let's face it...if anyone had a genuine scientific case showing that evolution is all bunk, they would write it up and send it in to a scientific journal and go down in history as one of the most famous scientists ever. But they don't, because there's one reason, and one reason only for this whole thing....people like you read scripture a specific way and refuse to accept anything that goes against it, no matter what. IOW, this has absolutely nothing to do with science. If it did, you and your fellow creationists here would actually be familiar with the science and be able to discuss it in detail.

:lol:

When you don't have a one track mind, you find that there are people who have a genuine scientific case and have written it up as in......

The Death of Atheism by Jim Nelson Black Ph.D.

The New Atheism. 10 Arguments that don't Hold Water by Michael Poole, Visiting Research Fellow in Science and Religion at King's College, London;

Science's Blind Spot. The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism by Cornelius G. Hunter Ph.D. Adjunct Professor of Science and Religion, Biola University.

Icons of Evolution Science or Myth? by Jonathan Wells, Postdoctoral biologist and Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. PhD. Yale University and University of California.

 

[River Jordan]

When you don't have a one track mind, you find that there are people who have a genuine scientific case and have written it up as in......

The Death of Atheism by Jim Nelson Black Ph.D.

The New Atheism. 10 Arguments that don't Hold Water by Michael Poole, Visiting Research Fellow in Science and Religion at King's College, London;

Science's Blind Spot. The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism by Cornelius G. Hunter Ph.D. Adjunct Professor of Science and Religion, Biola University.

What does atheism have to do with this?

Icons of Evolution Science or Myth? by Jonathan Wells, Postdoctoral biologist and Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. PhD. Yale University and University of California.

I've actually read that book. Are you aware that in the book, Wells basically lies....a lot? For example, in the section about the famous peppered moths, he claims "Peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks". Well guess what? They do. From the definitive study of peppered moth behaviors and industrial melanism....

We Christians are supposed to be truthful in everything we do. Promoting such obvious, and easily-exposed lies in the name of Christianity only hurts our faith.

 

[marksman]

So Jonathan Wells tells lies? Funny you should say that as my experience, and please note it is experience not opinion that when anyone posts anything that disproves atheism or evolution the stock reply is "Oh, he tells lies" or "Its all lies."

I understand this response as the story of creation and evolution is a battle between the truth and lies so the bottom line is that atheists/evolutionists always attack the truth, never lies. And that doesn't surprise me as Satan is the author of evolution and the author of lies because the scripture tells us that he is the father of lies so all lies come from him.

At the same time the scripture tells us in John 1:14 that the Word [Jesus] became flesh and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten from the Father, full of grace and of truth.

John 1:17 For the Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.



John 8:32 And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.


John 8:44 You are of the Devil as father, and the lusts of your father you desire to do. That one was a murderer from the beginning, and he has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, and the father of it.

John 8:45 And because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me.


John 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

John 16:13 But when that One comes, the Spirit of Truth, He will guide you into all Truth, for He will not speak from Himself, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will announce the coming things to you.

So you can see from this handful of verses that we are very clear about the truth and that it emanates from Jesus himself so we do not have to speculate about what we do or don't believe as Jesus has made it easy for us to understand all truth.

Now I/we understand that you don't believe this because your faith is in yourself so you only believe what others tell you to the extent that you eventually believe something to be true because you say it is whereas we don't believe something to be true because someone says it is . We believe it to be true because Jesus says it is and as he is THE TRUTH, not A TRUTH, we have no reason to believe otherwise.

Until you can prove that Jesus is not the truth, we will take our cue from him, not you. And when I say prove, I don't mean your opinion.

What does atheism have to do with this?


I've actually read that book. Are you aware that in the book, Wells basically lies....a lot? For example, in the section about the famous peppered moths, he claims "Peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks". Well guess what? They do. From the definitive study of peppered moth behaviors and industrial melanism....

And have you read all the other books as well?

 

[JimParker]

JimParker


Thanks for proving my point.

"It is called Dark Matter because it gives no light, but we can see its massive gravitational effects as it holds galaxies together."

In other words, this ladies and gentlemen, is known as the argument of the gaps the evolutionist always adheres to and calls it "science". We don't know what it is, we can't see it, but they'd like you to believe its there. In the case of Dark Matter for example, they see that some galaxies are spinning faster than others, and since this observation contradicts their belief in cosmic evolution and the alleged age of the universe, we MUST conclude some imagined substance called "dark matter" to save the religion of evolution. Therefore, by this twisting of the evidence, or lack there of, the existence of black holes is an established fact as explained by the general theory of relativity.......even though these days it really isn't according to many, Hawking's being a prime example.



Source: http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583

<<In other words, this ladies and gentlemen, is known as the argument of the gaps the evolutionist always adheres to and calls it "science".>>

The light bending effect created by the gravity of matter is a well established fact. It has nothing to do with evolution. Scientists call the matter "dark matter" because they can only detect its presence by the light bending effect it creates. There has to be something there to cause the effect. (You are aware of the concept of "cause and effect", I hope.) It was this same kind of reasoning which enabled the discovery of the mini-planet Pluto. The effect was noted and the position of Pluto was calculated based on the measurement of the effect its gravity had on the other planets.

<< In the case of Dark Matter for example, they see that some galaxies are spinning faster than others, and since this observation contradicts their belief in cosmic evolution and the alleged age of the universe, we MUST conclude some imagined substance called "dark matter" to save the religion of evolution. >>

By this statement you demonstrate that you have absolutely no clue as to what you are talking about. The existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy has absolutely nothing to do with your bogy man "evolution."

<<“There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory,” Hawking told Nature. Quantum theory, however, “enables energy and information to escape from a black hole”.>>

"Energy and information" cannot "escape from a black hole" unless there actually is a real black from which to escape. Hawking didn't say there was no such thing as a Black Hole. He proposed a new understanding of black holes.

That quantum bit of reality seems to have mysteriously escaped the grasp of your powers of reason.

Hawking stated further: “The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity,” Hawking writes.

Hawking hasn't proposed that there is no such thing as a black hole. He has proposed a radically different understanding of them. Since our understanding of black holes is in its infancy, and there are enormous challenges in studying them, it is not surprising that there are contradictory theories. That's what scientists do. The propose a theory and then test it. Then they look at the results and revise their theory and test that one. Then they repeat the process, gaining a little bit of information each time. They repeat the process until they have gathered enough data to accurately describe the object of their investigation. For many projects, it can take generations of scientists, each building on their predecessors work, to complete the process.

 

[BlackManINC]

marksman:

Now I/we understand that you don't believe this because your faith is in yourself so you only believe what others tell you to the extent that you eventually believe something to be true because you say it is whereas we don't believe something to be true because someone says it is . We believe it to be true because Jesus says it is and as he is THE TRUTH, not A TRUTH, we have no reason to believe otherwise.

Until you can prove that Jesus is not the truth, we will take our cue from him, not you. And when I say prove, I don't mean your opinion.

Amen, evolution, whether its cosmic or biological, is nothing but philosophy and vain deceit posing as science. We see that their only come back boils down to "its all lies", or "you clearly don't have a clue what evolution is", while regurgitating the same circular arguments, the same rubbish they stated ten pages ago, ad infinitum. They never have anything interesting to say, I've heard it all before.

 

[River Jordan]

So Jonathan Wells tells lies?

Yes, I just showed that. There are lots more in his book as well.

Funny you should say that as my experience, and please note it is experience not opinion that when anyone posts anything that disproves atheism or evolution the stock reply is "Oh, he tells lies" or "Its all lies."

Except I didn't just say "Jonathan Wells lies", I showed exactly where he's lied.

I understand this response as the story of creation and evolution is a battle between the truth and lies so the bottom line is that atheists/evolutionists always attack the truth, never lies. And that doesn't surprise me as Satan is the author of evolution and the author of lies because the scripture tells us that he is the father of lies so all lies come from him.

Is that how you evaluate things? If it's supportive of evolution, it's always a lie, and if it's supportive of creationism, it's always the truth....period?

So you can see from this handful of verses that we are very clear about the truth and that it emanates from Jesus himself so we do not have to speculate about what we do or don't believe as Jesus has made it easy for us to understand all truth.

I didn't see Jesus saying anything about the resting locations of peppered moths. The documented fact remains...Wells said they don't rest on tree trunks, the data shows they do.

Until you can prove that Jesus is not the truth, we will take our cue from him, not you. And when I say prove, I don't mean your opinion.

??????????????? You're not making any sense.

And have you read all the other books as well?

No, because they're about atheism. We're not discussing atheism.

 

[StanJ]

"Faith is: the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen." M.M.

This is how Christians who believe in evolution over God's word, view Heb 11:1

http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V3/3evlch38.htm

 

[BlackManINC]

"Faith is: the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen." M.M.

This is how Christians who believe in evolution over God's word, view Heb 11:1

http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V3/3evlch38.htm

But.........its still science according to them, even though they have shown nothing we can call science proving their faith in evolution, whether its cosmic or biological. All we really get from these jokers are gap theories. We can't see it, but this mechanism for common descent to occur must be true. The evolution of all galaxies from hydrogen and helium, and all living beings from a common protocell must be true because, well.........because they say so.

 

[River Jordan]

http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V3/3evlch38.htm

What a bizarre website. First he argues not just against evolution, but against science as a whole. Apparently (according to the author), the scientific method just isn't all that useful. Funny seeing that on a website, which only exists because of the scientific method.

Then he repeats the creationist mantra that evolution = atheism, even though the vast majority of "evolutionists" are theists. Oh well....

Next, he goes into "Fallacies of Evolution". So let's take a look at 'em...

"1 - Fallacy of Relevance. The argument from irrelevance occurs when the conclusion depends on evidence that does not apply to the same point."

For this, the author kind of rambles without really making a coherent point. He says something about organs and scientists not always knowing what some organs do, and therefore......I don't know what.

"2 - Begging the Question. This fallacy occurs when a person presents his own assurance that he is telling the truth as the reason why his statement is true."

For this, the author makes up imaginary quotes from scientists, and uses them to demonstrate his point. Hopefully I don't have to explain the ridiculousness of that approach.

"3 - Misuse of Authority."

For this, he does the same as above.

"4 - False Comparisons. When two items are wrongly compared in an argument, this fallacy occurs."

For this, he cites the famous peppered moth example and asserts "Changes within species does not constitute evolution", which is completely wrong. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in populations over time.

"5 - Argumentum ad Populum."

For this, he does the same thing as #'s 2&3 above (make up fake statements and attribute them to scientists).

"6 - Fallacy of Dating. The argument from age (dating fallacy) occurs when something is declared to be so simply by giving it an old date!"

For this, he basically asserts that scientists are just making up old dates for things in order to prove evolution, and at one point he even says "those fallacious dates provide us with no evidence of biological evolution." Honestly, that's such a stupid argument, anyone with any sense at all should be embarrassed to be associated with it.

At that point I stopped reading. All I can ask is....is this really the sort of thing we want to associate with Christianity? If so, how can you be at all surprised when intelligent people who know even a little science figure if that's what Christianity is about, they want no part of it?

 

[marksman]

??????????????? You're not making any sense.

Neither are you.

No, because they're about atheism. We're not discussing atheism.

If you haven't read them, how do you know they are about atheism?

"Faith is: the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen." M.M.

This is how Christians who believe in evolution over God's word, view Heb 11:1

http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V3/3evlch38.htm

Stan, I will award you the Nobel prize for humour.

But.........its still science according to them, even though they have shown nothing we can call science proving their faith in evolution, whether its cosmic or biological. All we really get from these jokers are gap theories. We can't see it, but this mechanism for common descent to occur must be true. The evolution of all galaxies from hydrogen and helium, and all living beings from a common protocell must be true because, well.........because they say so.

So right. I too have found that truth according to atheist evolutionaries is what they say is the truth, whether it is or not. In fact, evolution shoots itself in the foot. if the purpose of evolution is nothing more than the survival of the fittest which it is, then things like compassion, humility, and tolerance are totally meaningless and self defeating. Such an ideology shows that might always makes right and victory belongs to the strong as Stalin exemplified so well.

However, Darwin didn't believe what he said as a country gentleman, survival of the fittest would never have played a part of his character and nature. All he did was to ASSUME, that everything came from nothing (no evidence) and this ASSUMPTION led a to a LEAP OF FAITH that led him to devise an outlandish theory to prove it. Science didn't get a look in at any time in his deliberations. it was all based on conjecture.

Darwin pursued private research for the rest of his life. He focused on ants, earthworms, vegetable mould and other organisms in the hope that he would be able to provide evidence of transmutation. He never found it so that tells us a lot about Darwin and his so called scientific discoveries.