Theory of Evolution

[bbyrd009]

a good analogy might be BTC right now, which is suppressed in the MSM even while the Central Bank scrambles to get in front of it, and institutional investors scramble to get into it

 

[Dcopymope]

yes, Job, i understood your question, i just don't really see the point in asking it, i mean like i am going to say "oh i'm just saying that" anyway. Obv i would lie here even if i believed that right. So, to give you a relevant reply, even if we find aliens tomorrow who are discovered to have seeded the earth with cells 5 billion years ago, i would still insist that God made the cells alive, at least until proven otherwise. But i take "dust of the earth" more literally than most ppl, and i srsly doubt a single alien will ever be found

Just curious, how literal do you take the term 'dust'? Some people think it means the dirt, others generalize it to mean the various materials of the earth, whereas others like me believe life was formed exactly from what the Bible says, from literally nothing but dust, which makes the act even more awesome. And as for discovering aliens, you needn't worry about that, because I believe we will discover aliens some day, and they won't be nice either. Since angels aren't earth born creatures, that technically makes them aliens, and we have Revelation speaking of an angel arriving with these weird creatures called "locusts"............that breathe fire. Taking those verses literally, do you really think the world won't be wondering where the hell they came from? And he won't have to claim to have seeded the earth at all either, all he has to do is say the universe has no beginning, which means it has no cause and therefore no creator. Problem solved for the theory of evolution that claims that a frog by the magic wand of natural selection and mutation transformed into a prince..........

 

[bbyrd009]

Just curious, how literal do you take the term 'dust'?

well for that i would reiterate "why add 'of the earth' to such an apparent term?"

whereas others like me believe life was formed exactly from what the Bible says, from literally nothing but dust, which makes the act even more awesome.

i'm sure the creators of Bewitched would agree, yes, but now i guess my true nature is coming out lol, i mean "now you have conveniently omitted 'of the earth.'"

And as for discovering aliens, you needn't worry about that, because I believe we will discover aliens some day, and they won't be nice either.

i can get that from the MSM, but ty anyway. i needn't worry bc of something you believe? How does that work? Sounds to me like you should be worried, i guess

Since angels aren't earth born creatures

i would keep an open mind here, and i would dispute the term "angels" and "creatures" anyway, mostly because they serve to personify spirits, who are not persons imo. Are thoughts "creatures," or creations? for example. Another example might be...oh, imagining that you might one day talk to Michael the Archangel, or something. Do you think this is possible? (it is condemned)

that technically makes them aliens,

this technically makes "angels" into persons, too, and i suggest that you are perfectly capable of manifesting spirits, you do it all of the time, regardless of whether you are aware of it or not.

and we have Revelation speaking of an angel arriving with these weird creatures called "locusts"............that breathe fire.

so, "angels" we have already engaged in, and i suggest that "locusts" and even this "fire" might have other meanings as well, spiritual meanings, that are easily defined using Scripture.

Taking those verses literally, do you really think the world won't be wondering where the hell they came from?

i fully believe that is the intent, yes. The world should be wondering, and the world is supposed to take the Revelation literally. that is the only logical thing to do, imo

And he

sorry, "he" who?

won't have to claim to have seeded the earth at all either, all he has to do is say the universe has no beginning, which means it has no cause and therefore no creator.

hmm. No doubt someone will claim to know at some point what happened before the Big Bang i guess, ya.

Problem solved for the theory of evolution that claims that a frog by the magic wand of natural selection and mutation transformed into a prince.

well, you could have used a better analogy here imo, that is an accepted fairy tale, whereas...i dunno, plenipotentiary cells are not. Personally i am just finding the Bewitched story less relevant every year that i seek and admit that i still don't know

 

[Dcopymope]

well for that i would reiterate "why add 'of the earth' to such an apparent term?"

An evolutionist would love nothing less than for "of the earth" to be omitted, that way it can instead say "from the dust of primates".

i can get that from the MSM, but ty anyway. i needn't worry bc of something you believe? How does that work? Sounds to me like you should be worried, i guess

You needn't be concerned because the verses gives no further explanation to be interpretating them in any other way but literal. The same goes for the creation account. You take "from the dust of the earth" literally and you don't even realize the real reason why. If you apply the same standard to Revelation, then the book would be so much easier to understand.

i would keep an open mind here, and i would dispute the term "angels" and "creatures" anyway, mostly because they serve to personify spirits, who are not persons imo. Are thoughts "creatures," or creations? for example. Another example might be...oh, imagining that you might one day talk to Michael the Archangel, or something. Do you think this is possible? (it is condemned)

this technically makes "angels" into persons, too, and i suggest that you are perfectly capable of manifesting spirits, you do it all of the time, regardless of whether you are aware of it or not.

God wouldn't compare the state of our glorified bodies to an angel if angels weren't exactly what the book describes them to be, as literal beings that are perfectly capable of manifesting in the flesh all on there own.

so, "angels" we have already engaged in, and i suggest that "locusts" and even this "fire" might have other meanings as well, spiritual meanings, that are easily defined using Scripture.

Like I said, unless you can point out those "spiritual meanings" in the text, and it having anything at all to do with Revelation 9, then I have no reason to believe it as coming from anywhere else but your own private interpretation. I'm sure you know what the Bible says about private interpretation.

 

[bbyrd009]

unless you can point out those "spiritual meanings" in the text, and it having anything at all to do with Revelation 9, then I have no reason to believe it as coming from anywhere else but your own private interpretation.

and i would encourage you to go with that BAM, especially after a search of the relevant phrase there fails. But since i note that it does not, and i am not the first to 'invent' any of this, you might consider the giants i am standing aback of. have a good day!

but let me rephrase, just to be perfectly clear; i do not know what i am talking about, and you should not be relying on me for any truth, because i do not claim to have any. We call these "theories" for a reason, and i have no objection to your believing what you believe, right now.

 

[bbyrd009]

Mild Winters Have Led to Physical Alterations in Two Species of Mice

 

[Nomad]

The fact that we share more than 95% of DNA with Bonobos helps.

Genotypic and phenotypic similarities are not necessarily evidence for common ancestry. Such similarities are just as easily evidence of common design.

 

[ScottA]

Mild Winters Have Led to Physical Alterations in Two Species of Mice

Beach mice?

 

[Nomad]

yet you have no problem believing that i could select for, say, a new breed of dog or whatever
how long before we forget that dogs came from wolves?
or that coywolves did not exist 100 years ago? completely different species, any biologist could unerringly identify all three by their taxonomy, do not be deceived.
But of course as long as you feel compelled to insist that there is "not one," even when one is shown you, how could you see it?

This entire controversy depends on what one means by "evolution." Natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow, i.e. fluctuating allele frequencies are observable and repeatable processes. These processes are demonstrable but amount to nothing more than phenotypic/genotypic variation leading to adaptation via environmental pressures. In other words organisms have never been shown to do more than "evolve" into variations of the same organisms. This applies to speciation as well, which you mention in your post. Speciation is the product of restricted gene flow, and again, amounts to nothing more than one organism "evolving" into a variation of the same organism. However the idea that all life descends from a prokaryotic ancestor via a series of mutations and/or speciation events, i.e. land mammal to cetacean or dinosaur to bird, aka universal common descent, is not observable or reproducible in the field or lab. It is not demonstrable. It's no more than an extrapolation that cannot be verified.

 

[bbyrd009]

It's no more than an extrapolation that cannot be verified.

then i guess a better theory will present itself at some point, and we should keep in mind that there is another side to your pov, that likely has an equal number of adherents; or at least that's how most theories seem to work. The idea struck me as a good reflection of everything coming from "one," but that doesn't mean it's right

 

[Job]

It takes more faith to believe that all life came from something that crawled out of the ocean than it does to believe that God is the Creator of all life.

Kinda sad when you think about it...

 

[101G]

It takes more faith to believe that all life came from something that crawled out of the ocean than it does to believe that God is the Creator of all life.

Kinda sad when you think about it...

not sad, but bible. 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 "Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness".

Peace in Yeshua the Christ.

 

[Dcopymope]

It takes more faith to believe that all life came from something that crawled out of the ocean than it does to believe that God is the Creator of all life.

Kinda sad when you think about it...

When you look at it from the perspective of the anti-God evolutionist, its really not hard to believe at all. The likely reason why they will never bring themselves to believe in the God of the Bible is because they want to continue living in sin. God, being the light of the world, sheds light on their sin so he is just in their way as far as they are concerned. They want to be their own moral compass, or to be more specific, the needle that points to magnetic north giving them direction instead of God who is the true moral compass. They want to be the ones deciding right from wrong.

 

[face2face]

EndTimeWine

Evolution certainly is a lie straight out of hell. Stranger

The grave can speak now? lol

 

[101G]

The grave can speak now? lol

I wouldn't laugh too much at that one.

Peace in Christ Jesus.

 

[bbyrd009]

It takes more faith to believe that all life came from something that crawled out of the ocean than it does to believe that God is the Creator of all life.

Kinda sad when you think about it...

please already, whatever "crawled out of the ocean" is also life, created by God, so your arg here becomes specious imo

 

[bbyrd009]

They want to be the ones deciding right from wrong.

sounds like a great descript of most Christians tho too, huh

 

[Job]

please already, whatever "crawled out of the ocean" is also life, created by God, so your arg here becomes specious imo

I see you don't have any answers here either.

 

[bbyrd009]

I see you don't have any answers here either.

"i would rather have questions," thanks

 

[Job]

"i would rather have questions," thanks

Questions, answers, what difference does it make? You're still void of any understanding.