Theory of Evolution

[ScottA]

yet Superbugs evolved from somewhere huh. Creation is poorly repped as "dead, lifeless" imo

So it is written.

 

[bbyrd009]

You're not getting it.

ah, then by definition i have free will i guess, huh

If one is a child of God who is the timeless "I am", then they "are" timeless also...and this is just the story which is written of it. In other words, that person does not actually live within the pages of their story, but aside from it, just as God is aside from it. Which means that freewill does not exist within the story, but when it was "written", "before the foundation of the world", as it "were."

then there is no way for you to change your mind, is there

But "time" to each is merely the reading of their "will." "It is written", does not indicate there "is" freewill. On the contrary, it indicates, there "was" freewill.

imo this violates Understand I AM, but even if it is strictly true--which i doubt--it is not our experience, so i really don't get the point?
Why perceive this way, if all it functionally does is remove my will to get out of bed?

 

[bbyrd009]

So it is written.

that creation is dead and lifeless? where?

 

[DPMartin]

EndTimeWine

Evolution certainly is a lie straight out of hell. Man is so religious, due to being created by God, that he must have a faith. Evolution is the faith of the secular atheistic worldling. It is their faith because, as you noted, it is only theory but taught as fact everywhere and concerning everything.

One of my main proofs against evolution are the clothes of man. Why do we wear clothes? If we came from a lower form of animals, the animals skin or fur is perfectly adapted to its environment. For man to have lost his animal fur or hide, means he evolved from a greater to lesser in adaptability to the environment. Which is ridiculous when what he had already was superior. It is like saying a penguin will evolve into a different species unable to live in the Arctic while he is still living in the Arctic.

And, where did man get the idea that there is shame in being naked before everyone? Animals don't have it at all. And interestingly enough, the more secular or atheistic our society comes, the more the nakedness of mankind is revealed.

Our clothes are a direct result of sin. Needed to cover us in an imperfect environment due to the fall, and needed to cover us for our sins, pointing to our true covering of the righteousness of Christ, due to His shed blood.

Stranger

what you say here is true, and they deny that its their religion though they be faithful to it, and those who have taught it to them. the earth is their witness and their priesthood (intellectuals) interpret the evidence for them. I like to call them "sons of monkeys" which is what they are calling themselves, but for some reason they don't like that. it might be because its reducing their self image of superiority in the universe. because in the context evolution they are permitted to believe they are the superior life form, but they are saying they are the sons of monkeys. its a Nimrod kind of thinking. a united world and they who lead it being superior, shooting their arrows through the clouds and now to other planets. hence the heavens. dominating their views and place in the universe as they see it.

 

[bbyrd009]

I like to call them "sons of monkeys" which is what they are calling themselves, but for some reason they don't like that.

this doesn't seem too objective, we obviously differentiate from monkeys in that we have free will, and i'm sure you already get that "monkeys" is just shorthand anyway?

i don't really like or not like pointing out that you had a tail, but i see that for some reason religious ppl don't like that, and dang if i can figure out why? Would you like to see a pitcher of it?

 

[bbyrd009]

Endosymbiotic eukaryosynthesis and the self-similar origins of life and reason
The World-Mind Hypothesis

"Note that complex animals are in fact closely knit colonies of single cellular beings and in essence stay true to the eukaryotic principle of endosymbiosis. We humans tend to be proud of our individual personality, but what mystic traditions may call "soul" extends only through about 10% of the cells that form us; namely the 10% with the same DNA. The rest of the corporate bulk, without which we could not possibly exist, has its own DNA..."

 

[bbyrd009]

The origin of life

Students of the origin of life are tasked with solving two main problems, one having to do with the nature of life, and the other with the stage upon which the story of life unfolds:

1. What is the origin of genetic information, and
2. Why is there life instead of a linear descent from minimum to maximum entropy in the expanding universe?

These problems remain largely unsolved, but the following...

ibid

 

[bbyrd009]

"These massive bodies rotate, and often as binary systems around common points of gravity. This causes spacetime to ripple with gravity waves. This results in a Chladni pattern that stretches through the whole of spacetime like a fishing net. Instead of the universe being an empty void, it's rather like a vibrating glob of frog spawn, sporting an ever-changing pattern of vibration that is determined by the distribution of energy in the universe.

The crux of the matter is that this pattern carries information..."

 

[Helen]

i don't really like or not like pointing out that you had a tail, but i see that for some reason religious ppl don't like that, and dang if i can figure out why?

What on earth are you trying to prove by your so often reference tails!
You say that religious people 'don't like' the reference ...like I just said in the other post...my dad never heard of anyone who was born with a tail , neither did my mum either, everyone around them when they were born had about 10-12 kids back then. They both died in their mid nineties. In my 75 years, I've never yet heard of a child being born with a tail (that didn't not drop off in the first trimester in the womb.)
It is not a very a very common thing at all.

 

[bbyrd009]

What on earth are you trying to prove by your so often reference tails!
You say that religious people 'don't like' the reference ...like I just said in the other post...my dad never heard of anyone who was born with a tail , neither did my mum either, everyone around them when they were born had about 10-12 kids back then. They both died in their mid nineties. In my 75 years, I've never yet heard of a child being born with a tail (that didn't not drop off in the first trimester in the womb.)
It is not a very a very common thing at all.

didn't say it was, neither is fur on humans, that is why they are termed "vestigial" Helen

 

[tooldtocare]

Is DNA an invention--?

Wherever we humans have evolved from, we all have one thing in common, it is the same in plants, bacteria, Amoebae, insects, birds, fish and humans have & that is DNA.

The origin of DNA is the origin of life.

 

[bbyrd009]

Need More Proof That Evolution Is Real? Look No Further Than Your Own Body

 

[Helen]

I think I am evolving backward...I was pretty good 30 years ago , now, If I was a dog the family would shoot me to be kind.!!

 

[pia]

i don't really like or not like pointing out that you had a tail, but i see that for some reason religious ppl don't like that

And you don't get that ? IF we had had a tail, why on earth would 'evolution' have done away with it, I mean what a wonderful thing that would be for us......

 

[bbyrd009]

And you don't get that ? IF we had had a tail, why on earth would 'evolution' have done away with it, I mean what a wonderful thing that would be for us......

ha, not sure how to reply here; ok, we apparently did have tails once, and some of our progeny are still born with vestigial tails, and the argument would be that evolution did away with them for the same reasons that it does anything, that being that they were no longer needed for life, more abundantly, same as fur or whatever.

We lost fur and now have "hair," which btw is a unique and quite interesting Bible study even, "hair," which can be taken too far, into "magic hair," etc, but "hair" in the Bible is a great concept to look further into. I don't wanna pollute the pool here so i won't post any suggestions, but i can provide images of humans with vestigial fur too

 

[bbyrd009]

And you don't get that ? IF we had had a tail, why on earth would 'evolution' have done away with it, I mean what a wonderful thing that would be for us......

imo we could not have gotten to "Adam," "Red Man," if we still had fur and tails

 

[pia]

we apparently did have tails once,

Who can prove that ? No one....And those 'tails' we see on a very low number of people, they are not tails, they are simply a gathering a fatty tissue and they don't always appear at the rear end of us lol...but evolutionists must have had a field day, when they chose to call them tails.....Fur, well people who live up near the pole and Alaska and such Siberia is another....Why on earth would they have ever lost fur, if they had ever had it ?...Very NOT what we're told evolution does, because that would have certainly been better for humans, than mere clothing, better for survival..So I'm sorry I just cannot believe this ape to human stuff. lol

 

[pia]

imo we could not have gotten to "Adam," "Red Man," if we still had fur and tails

Sorry, I know I'm somewhat dense, can you explain please...Dunno what that means ..thanks

 

[aspen]

Pia,

Believing in evolution or denying it has no bearing on salvation - thankfully.

 

[Dcopymope]

Pia,

Believing in evolution or denying it has no bearing on salvation - thankfully.

I am 100% certain that it will to some though. Its just a matter of how the Devil will spin it to make it a salvation issue. Its quite easy to do actually, to take it from faith based to one of works. You just have to think like the enemy to see it.