Obamanation In South Carolina

[herokid7 0]

Neat little link:3 problems for atheistic evolution

[BenSavage 0]

Neat little link:3 problems for atheistic evolution

No I do not want a link.I want you to explain to me why I am wrong, why "change over time" doesn't happen.Why 90% of all species that ever lived are extinct. (I thought they were all God's creatures?)And go ahead and tell me how God did it, while you're at it.

[bigkg 0]

Neat little link:3 problems for atheistic evolution

Wow, so basically they pinpoint a bunch of horrible evidence against Evolution and then offer this gem:"We believe that the evidence is stronger for those who believe the Bible's account of creation — that in the beginning God created the world and all the major types of creatures to reproduce 'after their kind'"So wait, what evidence is that?Oh yea, the beauty in the world, lol.

[herokid7 0]

I love it with creationists with no background whatsoever in biology try to refute evolution by pointing out a few details that are wrong or unclear.The problem is that science doesn't work that way, laws are only seen in science when something can be "proven" mathematically. Evolution can't be categorized like that. Nor can gravity, gram theory of disease, the atomic theory, and many others.A scientific theory has to be confirmed again and again and again and again and again and again...and this "theory" has been around for more than a century. Not one scientist has come to the conclusion that "change over time" doesn't happen. And that is what evolution is, "change over time." Simple and true. Dolts say there are no transitional fossils, they say evolution just isn't possible, but what do they do after that. When the scientist asks these intelligent design proponents what there theory is?Oh yeah, "God did it.""God did it" is not science, neither is "I don't know."Science works on falsifiable facts, religion is not falsifiable. Even if it is true. Why do I care?Because many inbred dolts in the south (see a few counties in Florida, Texas, and Dover PA recently) have decided they know more than real science teachers. And that evolution should not be taught. Science is not voted on, popular vote doesn't win. Facts win.You can be damn sure Russia, China, Japan, England, France, and every other civilized country is studying evolution. They also happen to value science and math education. And many are the most irreligious places on earth (England, Norway, Finland, Sweden) and they are swell places to live.And we are asking why America is falling behind in technological advances?Intelligent Design can go in a Religion class. Science in a science class. Even in the supposed good ole family values days of the 50s, the leaders of this nation valued science and math.Look at us now, so sad.

I think evolution should be taught, I just think they need to be taught there is opposition and controversy surrounding it, you don't need to teach intelligent design, just make sure the kids know that it's out there.Oh, and I'm not sad at all. You can't steal my joy! (I apologize for how churchy that sounded.)

[jmkiser 0]

Sorry, I've never seen an ape turn into a monkey, an alligator turn into a bird, or a spoon turn into a spork, which then turns into a fork. To me the evidence of God is clear, unambiguos and compelling. Because I have seen people change when they accept Christ, I have seen healings happen, and I have experienced the Holy Spirit speaking to me. These are DIRECT evidence, which are unambiguos and compelling. All finding fossil records prove is that an animal died.All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain

1Yes... you DO SEE THAT STUFF!!! What you're looking at IS that. For example, when you look at all the different species of apes/monkies, you are LOOKING AT ANIMALS THAT ARE IN THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION!!! AGGHHH!!! lolHero, you have to understand why this is so agitating. You don't even know the basic tenants of evolution and your questions are showing that. Every animal you see is in the evolution process. The apes you see, when they have babies, that's MICRO EVOLUTION! :: pulls hair out ::2You're talking about emotions and feelings. You're not talking about evidence of physical change and you're tugging people's heartstrings by completely directing the conversation away from what you know nothing about. No, "healings" are bullshit and James Randi's $1 million dollars is still up for grabs if you want to put that to the test.3.To attack fossil records is one of the largest jokes in the world.4All sciences do NOT rely on indirect evidence, that statement is a flat out lie.

[herokid7 0]

another cool little link:scientific arguments against evolution

[jmkiser 0]

What do you expect to see when you are looking at a monkey?Do you expect to watch it evolve as it lives? Transformers type crazy shit?lol

[jmkiser 0]

another cool little link:scientific arguments against evolution

LOLThis is the first "scientific argument" against evolution"From goo to you by way of the zoo." - Frank PerettiYou're colors are showing, kid.

[jmkiser 0]

According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.

Evolution has nothing to do with what was before life. If I recall correctly, that is abiogenesis.Keep spewing the lies.

[BenSavage 0]

Neat little link:3 problems for atheistic evolution

I'll slaughter this link with truth just for fun. Pay attention you might learn something."Problem No. 1How did the universe come about?"Evolution does not deal with the universe's origin, that would have be somewhere in cosmology. Nor does evolution deal with the emergence of life on Earth, that is Abiogenesis. Nice strawman though. Evolution is "change over time." That's it."Problem No. 2How could living creatures come from non-life?"Once again, origins of life forms on Earth is not evolution. Good start creationist."We believe that the evidence is stronger for those who believe the Bible's account of creation — that in the beginning God created the world and all the major types of creatures to reproduce “after their kind”."What evidence, I don't see any stinkin evidence. A book written by Iron Age sheep herders that has been edited for centuries does not count. "God did it" is not evidence."Is evolution a fact, like gravity?"Gravity isn't a fact. We can measure it, but no scientist is arrogant to say he actually knows what causes it or what it really is. It's a fact that viruses mutate and evolve and become drug-resistant. But evolution is still a scientific theory. The next time you go get a flu shot, ask the doctor for the unevolved strain of vaccine. If you don't wouldn't you be a hypocrite?

[BenSavage 0]

I think evolution should be taught, I just think they need to be taught there is opposition and controversy surrounding it, you don't need to teach intelligent design, just make sure the kids know that it's out there.Oh, and I'm not sad at all. You can't steal my joy! (I apologize for how churchy that sounded.)

Dumbass alert!There is no controversy among scientists with evolution (science). Just as there is no controversy among Christians with Jesus's 3-day comeback oh yeah.

[herokid7 0]

1Yes... you DO SEE THAT STUFF!!! What you're looking at IS that. For example, when you look at all the different species of apes/monkies, you are LOOKING AT ANIMALS THAT ARE IN THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION!!! AGGHHH!!! lolHero, you have to understand why this is so agitating. You don't even know the basic tenants of evolution and your questions are showing that. Every animal you see is in the evolution process. The apes you see, when they have babies, that's MICRO EVOLUTION! :: pulls hair out ::2You're talking about emotions and feelings. You're not talking about evidence of physical change and you're tugging people's heartstrings by completely directing the conversation away from what you know nothing about. No, "healings" are bullshit and James Randi's $1 million dollars is still up for grabs if you want to put that to the test.3.To attack fossil records is one of the largest jokes in the world.4All sciences do NOT rely on indirect evidence, that statement is a flat out lie.

1. Maybe your right, I'm not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination,I just know what I was taught in high school. But, the thing is, when a monkey has a baby, it's always a baby monkey, if a monkey ever had a baby dog, cat, elephant, human, then I would say "hey, evolution" but they don't they always have baby monkeys...there's not change there. I get that evolution has to have millions of years to happen, which is perfect because nobody lives millions of years to see it happen. That's very convenient for evolutionists.2. I have no idea who James Randi is but my advice is to go on a mission trip with Teen Mania ministries or some other equivlant ministry the jungles of Africa, where faith is still much bigger than it is hear, and you will see divine healings. 3. I could say the same thing about your stance.4. I didn't say all sciences rely on indirect evidence. You said that. You just called yourself a liar. Ouch.

[jmkiser 0]

lolSavage, Suited, KG, you guys are probably much more qualified to handle this then I am. Enjoy

[herokid7 0]

LOLThis is the first "scientific argument" against evolution"From goo to you by way of the zoo." - Frank PerettiYou're colors are showing, kid.

I thought that was funny. Frank Peretti is a Christian fiction writer. They just put that there because it's cute.

[herokid7 0]

Evolution has nothing to do with what was before life. If I recall correctly, that is abiogenesis.Keep spewing the lies.

Where did life come from then? Educate me.

[bigkg 0]

Lol, throw this into the religion forum and they'll eat you alive.

[Suited_Up 2]

I get that evolution has to have millions of years to happen, which is perfect because nobody lives millions of years to see it happen. That's very convenient for evolutionists.

First of all, you obviously don't even understand the basic definition of evolution if you're expecting a dog to come from a monkey. You do what species means right?And the part that I quoted is one of the funniest things I've ever seen. Don't even start talking about lack of hard evidence and how convenient it is. You do realize you believe in a being that nobody has seen and there is no actual evidence of right?

[Suited_Up 2]

Lol, throw this into the religion forum and they'll eat you alive.

Yep, I'm sure they have all kinds of magical evidence that we're not yet aware of.

[bigkg 0]

Yep, I'm sure they have all kinds of magical evidence that we're not yet aware of.

I'm talking more in terms of the really really smart evolutionists that hang out there.

[herokid7 0]

This is interesting stuff, too. I especially like the one about the law of thermodynamics. (1) When the mathematical laws of probability are applied to the known facts of biology, the odds against the incredible, organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance, plus time, are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, evolution is mathematically impossible. In fact, the more we discover about the incredibly intricate, organized complexity of the biological world which exists at the molecular level, the more amazing it is that the evolutionist can actually believe it is all a product of pure blind chance over time. The "intelligent design" model, based upon a Divine Creator, makes much more sense. (2) There is a complete and systematic lack of transitional life-forms (i.e., "missing links") between the various kinds of life in the fossil record. This would not be the case if the theory of evolution was a valid hypothesis. Sometimes evolutionists have tried to make a case that this or that newly-discovered fossil was a "missing link," but all such attempts have ended in failure. No missing links have ever been discovered among the voluminous number of fossils found so far. (3) The fossil record also shows a sudden, inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of both simple and complex life-forms. However, if evolution were true, there would only be a very gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms. Although it is true that we have not uncovered 100% of the fossil record, a voluminous amount of fossils have been discovered — certainly enough for basic trends or patterns to be ascertained. Therefore, certain, fundamental conclusions can be drawn, based upon the available known evidence. And so far, at least, the theory of evolution is not supported by the known facts. Unfortunately, evolutionary scientists sometimes will try to support their opinions with erroneous assumptions and outright misrepresentations of the actual fossil record. For instance, sometimes fossils have not been found in the order or progression that was anticipated, so the “record” was conveniently changed to conform with their evolutionary presuppositions. Nevertheless, it is a scientific fact that the fossil record does not show a gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of organisms, thereby disproving the theory of evolution. Sometimes it is said that the fossil record shows a sudden generation of species at random points in time throughout the fossil record, and that such data poses a challenge to the theory of creation just as much as it does to the theory of evolution. However, there can be various explanations for such questions that may arise during the course of any detailed investigation. For instance, many scientists believe that the evidence of the fossil record is simply the result of Noah’s Flood because their empirical demonstrations and flood models can explain all of the data sufficiently. Furthermore, it is possible that the fossil record is actually a reflection of two catastrophic floods, i.e., the destruction of Satan’s pre-Adamite kingdom on earth before the creation of Adam and Eve, and then later in time, the destruction of Adam and Eve’s descendants except for Noah and his family. Moreover, the genetic code will allow a limited amount of change and variation and mutation to occur in organisms before inducing sterility and/or death. Therefore, we should expect to see a certain amount of variation in life-forms, perhaps even new species; the Bible only limits changes in life-forms to basic “types” or “kinds.” That is why, for example, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant, or a cat mutate into a horse, no matter how much time you allow in the evolutionary equation. (4) The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without inducing sterilization or death. Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution. Moreover, there is no evidence of gradually-changing DNA codes in nature that would allow periodic mutations to occur which would gradually transform a given type of organism, over long periods of time, into a completely different type of organism. Instead, organisms can mutate only so much before insurmountable DNA limits are reached. That is what the evidence demonstrates. Therefore, as noted previously, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant no matter how much time you allow for the alleged evolutionary process to occur. So, even though limited mutations occur in organisms, it is impossible for drastic or unlimited mutations, i.e., evolution, to occur. (5) Evolutionists frequently take the biological evidence proving that living organisms do experience a limited amount of change and variation, and then fallaciously expand such evidence to prove something entirely different and unsupportable by the evidence, namely, the alleged existence of unlimited change and mutation in life-forms. Obviously such an argument violates logic because it goes way beyond the evidence at hand. Likewise, when evolutionists argue that similarity in structure or function among various organisms proves evolution, they are mistaken. In actuality, similarity of structure or function proves nothing more than similarity of structure or function because it is very reasonable to assume that a Divine Creator would utilize a single master plan for creation that would consistently adhere to a limited number of basic variations. (6) Evolutionists can not even begin to explain how the alleged evolutionary mechanism in living cells operates. Although modern biochemistry can explain complex chemical changes and mutations in living organisms, there is no explanation about how or why an inexorable drive for ever-greater organized complexity would exist in living organisms if evolution were true. This problem is further compounded when the laws of mathematical probability are applied to the evolutionary equation. Furthermore, you would have to develop rational explanations for various animals and insects which possess delicately-balanced attibutes that would have destroyed them if they had tried to develop such attributes through the slow, gradual process of evolutionary change. Instead, it required a Creator to bring such life-forms into existence in a mere moment of time. (7) Evolutionists can not explain how life could spontaneously generate from non-life, nor can they duplicate such a feat despite their impressive scientific knowledge and sophisticated laboratory equipment. (8) Evolutionists can not explain how and why there is something in the universe rather than absolute nothingness, and not even they really believe that something could spontaneously generate from nothing. By “absolute nothingness,” I mean the complete absence of both energy and matter; a completely pure vacuum that is totally devoid of anything. Obviously the evolutionist faces an insurmountable challenge to his theory in this regard. (9) Recent discoveries in astronomy also prove that the universe was created, not evolved. For example, the presence of microwave radiation throughout the universe proves, according to scientists, the validity of the "big-bang" theory of creation while disproving the possibility that the universe has always existed in a relatively-unchanged condition. Likewise, the fact that the galaxies of stars are shooting out into space away from each other indicate a common point of origin at the beginning of their existence, once again proving the theory of creation. Evolutionists sometimes argue the universe is "oscillating" in nature, meaning that the galaxies of stars expand and contract continuously in the amount of space they occupy, thereby restarting the process of evolution at the beginning of each expansion cycle. But this is impossible because astronomers have discovered that the galaxies of stars in our universe, which are shooting out into space away from each other, have less than ten percent of the mass which is necessary to generate sufficient gravity-pull to cause them to slow down and then contract upon each other. So, obviously the theory of an oscillating, evolutionary universe can not possibly be true. Although the Bible provides very few details concerning the original creation of our universe, it does declare that God’s Kingdom will increase or expand in size forever (Isa. 9:7) (Isa. 60:22). That means there will always be an increasing number of planets forming within our universe forever, i.e., an ever-expanding universe which is consistent with the "big bang" theory mentioned previously. Likewise, increasing numbers of ordinary human beings will populate those increasing numbers of planets forever and forever. Christian believers who will reign with Christ over the entire universe will be a fixed and unchanging number of individuals. But, ordinary human beings who survive the “Sheep and Goats” Judgment after Armageddon is over, and those who survive the Great White Throne Judgment after the Millennial Reign of Christ is over, will procreate offspring forever so that God’s Kingdom can expand in size forever. An ever-expanding Kingdom and an ever-expanding universe, that is what the Bible predicts for the future. Not a steady-state condition where the universe is static in nature; not an oscillating condition where the universe continually expands and then contracts upon itself; but an ever-expanding universe forever. That is what the Bible predicts. (10) One of the most basic, fundamental laws of science, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, states that things in nature always tend to dissolve and breakdown with the passage of time, not grow more complex which would be the case if evolution were true. Obviously this law of science is most devastating to the theory of evolution, and desperate arguments which postulate that developing cells and organisms could have used the energy of the sun to overcome this tendency towards breakdown are absolutely irrelevant. Developing cells and organisms simply would not have had the ability to capture and utilize such energy in the manner that fully-developed organisms can. (11) Evolutionists postulate that life began eons ago in a primordial soup of organic chemicals involving an extremely complex process that culminated in the creation of a living cell. The only problem is that oxygen would have destroyed the would-be cell in its early stages of development. So evolutionists have also postulated that the earth's atmosphere once upon a time contained only methane, ammonia, and water vapor — but no free oxygen. Unfortunately, for the evolutionist, recent scientific discoveries have proven conclusively that no such atmosphere ever existed. (See, e.g., "Oxygen in the Precambrian Atmosphere" by Harry Clemmey and Nick Badham in the March 1982 issue of GEOLOGY.) In other words, evolution could not have even started. (12) Sometimes it is taught that evolution is true because the development of the fetus within the womb of the human mother allegedly goes through all the stages of evolution, from single cell to multi-cell to fish-like to ape-like to human. However, such a theory is based upon sketches proven to be fraudulent by the Jena University Court, and is unequivocally and absolutely rejected by modern embryologists. Thus, the infamous Recapitulation Theory is a complete fraud! Moreover, although vestigial appendages sometimes appear temporarily during the embryonic stages of development for human beings and animals, that is not the issue at hand. For instance, just because human baby embryos go through a stage in which they grow, and then eventually lose, a set of gills, does not mean that they look like fish or that they are fish at that point in time. Naturally, there are going to be similarities at times among biological life-forms because the Divine Creator used a common biological structure and basis for creating all of them. (13) Over the years there have been a number of frauds and blunders perpetrated in an attempt to deceive the general public into believing there are "missing links" to be found in the fossil record. These frauds and blunders have included: * Eoanthropus dawsoni, popularly know as the "Piltdown Man" * Arachaeopteryx, sometimes called the "Piltdown Chicken" * "The Orgueil Fall" * Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, meaning "Western ape-man" * Pithecanthropus erectus, meaning "erect ape-man" * Australopithicines, meaning "Southern Apes." The sad reality is that school children often are still taught that the aforementioned frauds prove the theory of evolution beyond any doubt. Sometimes people will say that science and religion do not meet within the realm of human existence because they touch on completely different, unrelated levels of reality. Hence the assertion that science can not prove or disprove the validity of religious belief. Meanwhile, others will claim that science actually disproves the validity of Christian faith. However, my immediate response to all such assertions is this. If the evidence of history, science, ethics, values and psychology did not prove the truth claims of biblical Christianity beyond any reasonable doubt for an intellectually-honest person, I would not even be a Christian. Because "true faith" is belief based upon reason and factual evidence and intellectual honesty; it is not blind, emotional faith based upon hypotheses and presuppositions which arbitrarily exclude vital evidence and/or alternative explanations that are more consistent with the organized complexity of our world and universe. That is why Jesus said that we should love God with all of our heart, and soul and MIND, meaning we should love God, Ultimate Reality and Ultimate Truth, on all levels of human existence, including the emotional, the intellectual and the spiritual. Thus, our worldview of reality should encompass the entirety of human experience in a comprehensive coherent whole.

[jmkiser 0]

1. Maybe your right, I'm not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination,I just know what I was taught in high school. But, the thing is, when a monkey has a baby, it's always a baby monkey, if a monkey ever had a baby dog, cat, elephant, human, then I would say "hey, evolution" but they don't they always have baby monkeys...there's not change there. I get that evolution has to have millions of years to happen, which is perfect because nobody lives millions of years to see it happen. That's very convenient for evolutionists.This exactly what I mean about your ignorance of evolution.2. I have no idea who James Randi is but my advice is to go on a mission trip with Teen Mania ministries or some other equivlant ministry the jungles of Africa, where faith is still much bigger than it is hear, and you will see divine healings. /sigh I went to Anderson University... practically the Church of God capital in the world. Ever heard of Sandi Patti? The Gaithers? I've been on missionaries and I've seen plenty of things. They are not divine healings and are just emotions spun out of control to tug at your heart strings.3. I could say the same thing about your stance.The difference is that I actually have empirical evidence to back up my stance and you have a religion. I win.4. I didn't say all sciences rely on indirect evidence. You said that. You just called yourself a liar. Ouch. I think you changed some words... I swear when I first read what you said, it stated "All sciences rely on indirect evidence". Oh well, if you didn't then I misread. My mistake.

[Suited_Up 2]

lolSavage, Suited, KG, you guys are probably much more qualified to handle this then I am. Enjoy

I'm really not. You were doing just fine though.

[Suited_Up 2]

I'm talking more in terms of the really really smart evolutionists that hang out there.

Ahhhh... ok good.

[jmkiser 0]

Where did life come from then? Educate me.

This question has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Will you ever start understanding that this stuff you're hearing is nonsense?

[Suited_Up 2]

The ignorance shown by creationists almost makes me wonder which comes first, Religion or the lack of logic?