Creation vs. Evolution

[iouae]

There have been many mass extinctions throughout the 13.75 billion years the universe existed and the 5 billion years that earth existed.

God has terra-formed earth, then allowed populations creating O2 to flourish, then destroyed them, then allowed dinosaurs to flourish then destroyed them.

After each mass extinction God does what is described in Gen 1 - He reseeds the earth. It took 7 literal days to reseed earth with man and modern organisms.

I find no cognitive dissonance believing in science and the Bible.

 

[Hedshaker]

Part 2


Creation vs. Evolution - A Question of Origins

The creation vs. evolution debate is a question of origins. How did we get here? Were we created or did we evolve randomly? Are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents? What does the evidence say?

Creation vs. Evolution - What Are We Looking For?

Without hard evidence, the creation vs. evolution debate wouldn't amount to much more than a philosophical grudge match. Everyone has their own opinion. The question is what is the basis for that opinion? You see, people can believe whatever they want, but that doesn't make them right. It's the hard evidence that separates the proverbial wheat from the chaff. Keep in mind that "evidence" is not the same as "proof". Evidence is helpful in forming conclusions, while proof concludes the matter altogether. If we had proof, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called a theory. So what constitutes evidence? What are we looking for?

Creation denotes the existence of a divine Creator who has exercised His creative abilities, creating this world and the life-forms we see. Life is the product of intelligent contrivance. Thus, apparent design in biology would constitute evidence for a Designer. It is a self-evident and universally recognized truth: concept and design require an intelligent designer. So, while recognizing design in biology is not based upon religious premise (but upon empirical observation and logic), it certainly has theological implications [1]. Do we find apparent design in biology? Yes. In fact, apparent design pervades the biologic realm [2, 3]. When we apply the general principles of detecting design to living creatures, we find it reasonable to infer the existence of a Creator.

Evolution stresses the naturalistic (random, undirected) descent of all living creatures from a common ancestor [4] who originally evolved from inorganic matter. Life is the product of random chance. What we need here is a plausible mechanism, feasibility, and a history of functionality. British naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) gave the evolutionary worldview scientific credence by supplying the much needed mechanism - "natural selection". That was 150 years ago. Today, we know that mechanism to be deficient, even in light of genetic mutation. With the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years we've been exposed to a whole new dimension in living systems that was previously unknown. Evolutionary biologists are now looking for a new mechanism, one that can overcome genetic constraints and other chemical-oriented barriers that have been identified in recent years. Until this mechanism is found, the theory of evolution (a theory which has enjoyed prominence in biological circles for over 100 years) simply lacks feasibility, and thus, credibility.

Creation vs. Evolution - Reason vs. Religion

The popular media often portrays the creation vs. evolution debate as science vs. religion, with creation being religious and evolution being scientific. In an ironic twist, it's the creationists who have a solid empirical basis for their theory, while the evolutionists are left clinging to their convictions by faith.

Is it reasonable to acknowledge a Creator? When challenged by skeptics to prove the existence of a Creator scientifically, Dr. Wernher von Braun, the "Father of the American Rocket and Space Program," replied, "Must we really light a candle to see the Sun? …The electron is materially inconceivable, and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real, while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him? …The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which always will lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction." [5] To simply dismiss the concept of a Creator as being unscientific is to "violate the very objectivity of science itself." [5] While we may not be able to comprehend knowledge of a Creator, we certainly can apprehend it.


Footnotes:
1. "Unlocking the Mystery of Life," documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.
2. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986.
3. Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, 1996.
4. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1859.
5. Originally published in Edward F. Blick's Special Creation vs. Evolution, 1988, pp. 29-31.

From start to end nothing but the usual opinionated, wishful thinking, religious cods wallop ...... :vomit:

The crazy thing about it is that these articles actually exist so there must be people out there who buy this nonsense. They fool themselves and that's sad but if others are gullible enough to listen then that's their look out. As they say, one born every minute...... :dunce: :loser: :rapture:

evolution is the only theory worth while

Fortunately the scientific Theory of Evolution remains uncontested regardless what the few who prefer magic over science choose to believe :kookoo:, and it won't be going away any time soon, that much you can be sure of.

 

[gcthomas]

It has to do with morality by default: if humans are just nature, guess what? Do you realize that Germany (the generation called 'young Germany') called itself true nature. That was German monism. There was only one reality: nature. Only Germany was "in."

"The planet will not survive the human species; that species must be destroyed." --environmentalist hijacker, Canada, 1993. People do awful things when life is wrested from its framework in the Judeo-Christian view.

Science in not a morality system. It tells us what is, not what ought to be. We may be informed by science, but ultimately we make our own moral decisions.

The Judeo-Christian view is just a mashup of a variety of preexisting moral codes, based on fundamental human ethics. It has no claim to be a higher standard than modern ethical codes, and in many cases is inferior.

 

[MichaelCadry]

From start to end nothing but the usual opinionated, wishful thinking, religious cods wallop ...... :vomit:

The crazy thing about it is that these articles actually exist so there must be people out there who buy this nonsense. They fool themselves and that's sad but if others are gullible enough to listen then that's their look out. As they say, one born every minute...... :dunce: :loser: :rapture:

evolution is the only theory worth while

Fortunately the scientific Theory of Evolution remains uncontested regardless what the few who prefer magic over science choose to believe :kookoo:, and it won't be going away any time soon, that much you can be sure of.

This is not a science book

Dear Hedshaker,

It's really good to hear from you again. How's the music going? I've got a keyboard and a 12-string guitar that I play, but no mixer, like you. What else do you use. A synthesizer?

Well, you know, I can see how you would have to call this article useless. I expect it. It is useless to try to talk with you all about such sensitive material. No use arguing back and forth about it.

Best Wishes & Cheerio!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

There have been many mass extinctions throughout the 13.75 billion years the universe existed and the 5 billion years that earth existed.

God has terra-formed earth, then allowed populations creating O2 to flourish, then destroyed them, then allowed dinosaurs to flourish then destroyed them.

After each mass extinction God does what is described in Gen 1 - He reseeds the earth. It took 7 literal days to reseed earth with man and modern organisms.

I find no cognitive dissonance believing in science and the Bible.

Dear iouae,

You should believe in whatever you like. That doesn't make it right, but at least you have a choice. That's something God gave us: a choice. I wish Jesus would have discussed the dinosaurs while He was here. It would have been interesting. Probably a taboo subject to discuss with the disciples and other people.

God Be With Your Thoughts,

Michael

:angel: :cloud9: :angel: :cloud9: :angel: :cloud9:
​

 

[MichaelCadry]

- Creation vs Evolution -
Which Does Science Support?
​

God_and_man

The subject of origins, or how we got here, is one of the most fundamental questions that can be asked. Why we are here is a question science cannot answer, but is just as important. How we answer these questions provides the basis for how we think about things - it defines our "world-view".

The belief that people were created by God, in the "image of God", is at the heart of creationism. The belief that people now exist because of a long string of random chance events is one of the main tenets of naturalism, of which evolution is a part. Naturalism is the idea that nature is all there is, there is no God. Evolution has no need of Him. It is obvious that these two ideas are opposed to each other and that only one can be true. Either God exists and He created us, or we are a product of time and chance.

Our beliefs about how we got here and why we are here defines us as human beings and leads to radically different behaviors. If people evolved and are nothing but "higher animals", then we shouldn't be surprised when they act like animals. In this belief system the value of human life is discounted and the value of animal life is inflated. Hitler and others have justified their evil actions based on evolutionary thinking ("survival of the fittest"). Evolutionary scientists do not of course condone these actions, but it IS where this type of philosophy naturally leads to one degree or another. As a result, naturalism has no grounds on which absolute morals can be based and leads to relativistic thinking. Nor does evolution provide an explanation for why our inner sense of moral values should even exist.

Evolution has been taught as fact for so long that many people believe it is true. However, evolution is in fact a theory at best. It cannot be considered either a fact or scientific. For something to be considered 'scientific,' it has to be measurable and reproducible. Since it is impossible to do either with evolution, it cannot be called scientific. In fact, it takes more faith to believe in the absurdities of evolution than it does to believe in creation.

By definition, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is mindless and godless. It says that nature is all there is and everything evolved randomly and by chance. Two foundational precepts of evolution theory are:

1. Origin of Life (Spontaneous Generation) – This theory states that life arose from non-life. If that is true, then nature had to have the ability to create itself without assistance from God. In other words, non-life created life, the laws of physics created the laws of physics, etc.

2. Natural Selection (Survival of the Fittest)– This part of the theory does in fact have some truth associated with it. It claims that once life began as a single-celled amoeba, it evolved through mutation in a constant struggle for resources with other organisms. That struggle and accompanying mutation, it says, lead to all the life forms on the earth, including human beings. While it is accurate to say that all organisms struggle for enough resources to survive, there is no evidence whatsoever that a species ever has or ever could turn into another species. If this were true, then goo turned into fish which turned into frogs which turned into mice which turned into cats which turned into dogs which turned into horses which turned into apes which turned into human beings. One might as well believe in the tooth fairy!

One of the main arguments of evolutionists today is that anyone who believes in creation must do so solely on faith. Since the Bible teaches creation, their argument goes, it must be accepted by faith by those who choose to believe the Bible. Therefore, they claim, no ‘real’ scientist would believe in creation. To their dismay, however, there are today and have been in the past many well-educated scientists who believe in creation instead of evolution because science and the facts support it. See for yourself. The reality is that it takes more faith to believe in the theory of evolution that it does to believe in creation.

Many secular scientists and educators who are committed to evolution insist that all science education must use evolution as its basis and be taught as fact. They also insist that students be taught that belief in divine creation can have no part in their interpretation of the observed data of science or in their classroom discussions of the data and theories of science. Most science textbooks and other curriculum materials offer no critical evaluation of evolutionary concepts, nor do they inform students of the problems, weaknesses and failures of evolutionary theory. Boards of education, administrators, and teachers have further attempted to muzzle students in the classroom by forbidding them to discuss their reasons for believing in creation.

However, there is no place in science or education for indoctrination, dogmatism or authoritarianism from either side. Schemes that protect any concept or theory from criticism in the educational environment are dangerous. Science properly defined offers no justification for tying science exclusively to a materialistic philosophy or world view, making it by definition opposed to religious faith which holds to divine special creation. Thus, there is no justification for teaching that the evolutionary view of nature is the only one which is admissible for scientists.

The advocates of evolution are unable to offer any transitional fossil forms which show an actual historical process of evolution to new kinds of organisms. They have failed to devise scientific theories which thoroughly explain evolution, and they cannot demonstrate the evolution of anything new by any known genetic mechanism or process. Furthermore, there is no evidence which proves that the alleged evolution of all life really occurred. Throughout the history of the world no new complex design has been observed to originate except from an intelligent mind. In the absence of an evolutionary explanation, Divine creation remains as the only scientifically viable explanation for the origin of life and of all biological designs.

 

[iouae]

- Creation vs Evolution -
Which Does Science Support?
​

God_and_man

Therefore, they claim, no ‘real’ scientist would believe in creation. To their dismay, however, there are today and have been in the past many well-educated scientists who believe in creation instead of evolution because science and the facts support it. See for yourself. The reality is that it takes more faith to believe in the theory of evolution that it does to believe in creation.

The advocates of evolution are unable to offer any transitional fossil forms which show an actual historical process of evolution to new kinds of organisms.

I agree with almost everything you wrote.

I studied evolution for 4 years and never believed the theory at all. But I like biology so you put up with the ed system.

You make a super point that there are no smooth transitions between geological eras, just new organisms, completely different.

My belief is why fight good science which says the universe is old, and earth is old?

IMHO God just recreated new organisms after each mass extinction - whenever that was, the Gen 1 account just being one of many times God replenished the earth. That is far better than anything evolution has to offer.

 

[TheDuke]

Dear TheDuke,

I posted an article. I did not write it. There is no way that I'm going to quote your reply and go back and forth from page to page each time I want to answer one or two sentences of the article at one time. That's not going to happen.

Best Wishes,

Michael

Dear Michael,

I don't quite get what you mean. It's up to you whether you wish to engage in a discussion or not. All I wish for is that you read and understand what I've written about why the articles you keep posting are utter garbage!

Cheers, Duke

 

[TheDuke]

pathetic

pathetic

- Creation vs Evolution -
Which Does Science Support?
​

God_and_man
The subject of origins, or how we got here, is one of the most fundamental questions that can be asked.

...

Either God exists and He created us, or we are a product of time and chance.

...

Evolution has been taught as fact for so long that many people believe it is true. However, evolution is in fact a theory at best.

...

Throughout the history of the world no new complex design has been observed to originate except from an intelligent mind. In the absence of an evolutionary explanation, Divine creation remains as the only scientifically viable explanation for the origin of life and of all biological designs.

Oh dear lord, what nonsense!

This is quite an achievement, you've managed to condense all the usual fallacies into one single article.

false dichotomy of ignoring every other religion on earth - check!
complete misunderstanding of natural selection - check!
"just a theory" - check!
mentioning nazis - check!
conflation with abiogenesis - check!
denial of speciation - check!
evolution is "faith" - check!
grand conspiracy in education - check!
ignoring mountains of actual evidence - check!
asserting creation is science - check!

Did I forget anything???


Seriously guys, religious faith is one thing, but such immense ignorance and delusional indoctrination is pathetic!

 

[Hedshaker]

Seriously guys, religious faith is one thing, but such immense ignorance and delusional indoctrination is pathetic!

Hear hear!

They might do better if, instead of wasting all their efforts trying to discredit the Theory of Evolution, they spent a few milliseconds presenting evidence for creationism instead. Now that would make a refreshing change.

 

[Jonahdog]

Hear hear!

They might do better if, instead of wasting all their efforts trying to discredit the Theory of Evolution, they spent a few milliseconds presenting evidence for creationism instead. Now that would make a refreshing change.

Well, just ask Stripe, but don't ask too many tough questions. He claims all the time to have presented evidence but it is a tough go to get him to further explain where such evidence is hiding in his posts. Other than the Book of Genesis, of course.

 

[patrick jane]

- Creation vs Evolution -
Which Does Science Support?
​

God_and_man

The subject of origins, or how we got here, is one of the most fundamental questions that can be asked. Why we are here is a question science cannot answer, but is just as important. How we answer these questions provides the basis for how we think about things - it defines our "world-view".

The belief that people were created by God, in the "image of God", is at the heart of creationism. The belief that people now exist because of a long string of random chance events is one of the main tenets of naturalism, of which evolution is a part. Naturalism is the idea that nature is all there is, there is no God. Evolution has no need of Him. It is obvious that these two ideas are opposed to each other and that only one can be true. Either God exists and He created us, or we are a product of time and chance.

Our beliefs about how we got here and why we are here defines us as human beings and leads to radically different behaviors. If people evolved and are nothing but "higher animals", then we shouldn't be surprised when they act like animals. In this belief system the value of human life is discounted and the value of animal life is inflated. Hitler and others have justified their evil actions based on evolutionary thinking ("survival of the fittest"). Evolutionary scientists do not of course condone these actions, but it IS where this type of philosophy naturally leads to one degree or another. As a result, naturalism has no grounds on which absolute morals can be based and leads to relativistic thinking. Nor does evolution provide an explanation for why our inner sense of moral values should even exist.

Evolution has been taught as fact for so long that many people believe it is true. However, evolution is in fact a theory at best. It cannot be considered either a fact or scientific. For something to be considered 'scientific,' it has to be measurable and reproducible. Since it is impossible to do either with evolution, it cannot be called scientific. In fact, it takes more faith to believe in the absurdities of evolution than it does to believe in creation.

By definition, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is mindless and godless. It says that nature is all there is and everything evolved randomly and by chance. Two foundational precepts of evolution theory are:

1. Origin of Life (Spontaneous Generation) – This theory states that life arose from non-life. If that is true, then nature had to have the ability to create itself without assistance from God. In other words, non-life created life, the laws of physics created the laws of physics, etc.

2. Natural Selection (Survival of the Fittest)– This part of the theory does in fact have some truth associated with it. It claims that once life began as a single-celled amoeba, it evolved through mutation in a constant struggle for resources with other organisms. That struggle and accompanying mutation, it says, lead to all the life forms on the earth, including human beings. While it is accurate to say that all organisms struggle for enough resources to survive, there is no evidence whatsoever that a species ever has or ever could turn into another species. If this were true, then goo turned into fish which turned into frogs which turned into mice which turned into cats which turned into dogs which turned into horses which turned into apes which turned into human beings. One might as well believe in the tooth fairy!

One of the main arguments of evolutionists today is that anyone who believes in creation must do so solely on faith. Since the Bible teaches creation, their argument goes, it must be accepted by faith by those who choose to believe the Bible. Therefore, they claim, no ‘real’ scientist would believe in creation. To their dismay, however, there are today and have been in the past many well-educated scientists who believe in creation instead of evolution because science and the facts support it. See for yourself. The reality is that it takes more faith to believe in the theory of evolution that it does to believe in creation.

Many secular scientists and educators who are committed to evolution insist that all science education must use evolution as its basis and be taught as fact. They also insist that students be taught that belief in divine creation can have no part in their interpretation of the observed data of science or in their classroom discussions of the data and theories of science. Most science textbooks and other curriculum materials offer no critical evaluation of evolutionary concepts, nor do they inform students of the problems, weaknesses and failures of evolutionary theory. Boards of education, administrators, and teachers have further attempted to muzzle students in the classroom by forbidding them to discuss their reasons for believing in creation.

However, there is no place in science or education for indoctrination, dogmatism or authoritarianism from either side. Schemes that protect any concept or theory from criticism in the educational environment are dangerous. Science properly defined offers no justification for tying science exclusively to a materialistic philosophy or world view, making it by definition opposed to religious faith which holds to divine special creation. Thus, there is no justification for teaching that the evolutionary view of nature is the only one which is admissible for scientists.

The advocates of evolution are unable to offer any transitional fossil forms which show an actual historical process of evolution to new kinds of organisms. They have failed to devise scientific theories which thoroughly explain evolution, and they cannot demonstrate the evolution of anything new by any known genetic mechanism or process. Furthermore, there is no evidence which proves that the alleged evolution of all life really occurred. Throughout the history of the world no new complex design has been observed to originate except from an intelligent mind. In the absence of an evolutionary explanation, Divine creation remains as the only scientifically viable explanation for the origin of life and of all biological designs.

I like the font Michael

 

[6days]

Checklist of topics evolutionists avoid, or don't understand:

complete misunderstanding of natural selection - check!*

Check....It is most evolutionists who do not understand natural selection. It has no creative power. And, when it eliminates, there is a loss of pre-existing information.*

"just a theory" - check!

Check... In the common sense of the word, you are correct.

mentioning nazis - check!

Check... evolutionists hate being reminded that Darwinism is largely responsible for increased racism, genocides and the Holocaust.*

conflation with abiogenesis - check!

Check.... chemical evolution is a topic many evolutionists hate because it shines a light on their illogical faith.

denial of speciation - check!

Check.... Rapid adaptation is part of the Biblical creation model. Science shows us the ability of organisms to adapt rapidly based on pre-existing information in the genome.

grand conspiracy in education - check!

Well...I don't know if I would call it a conspiracy, but most evolutionists are opposed to academic freedom.

ignoring mountains of actual evidence - check!

Check...evolutionists often insist that they should turn a blind eye to evidence that seems to point to the Creator.

asserting creation is science - check!

Check....evolutionists hate when they are told that common ancestry, or a common Designer are beliefs about the past...not science.

 

[MichaelCadry]

From start to end nothing but the usual opinionated, wishful thinking, religious cods wallop ...... :vomit:

The crazy thing about it is that these articles actually exist so there must be people out there who buy this nonsense. They fool themselves and that's sad but if others are gullible enough to listen then that's their look out. As they say, one born every minute...... :dunce: :loser: :rapture:

evolution is the only theory worth while

Fortunately the scientific Theory of Evolution remains uncontested regardless what the few who prefer magic over science choose to believe :kookoo:, and it won't be going away any time soon, that much you can be sure of.

This is not a science book

Dear Hedshaker,

Every thing to you is cods wallop. You use that term too often!! Same with straw man and bald assertions! Come on!! Talk to me!

Much Love Coming Your Way!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I agree with almost everything you wrote.

I studied evolution for 4 years and never believed the theory at all. But I like biology so you put up with the ed system.

You make a super point that there are no smooth transitions between geological eras, just new organisms, completely different.

My belief is why fight good science which says the universe is old, and earth is old?

IMHO God just recreated new organisms after each mass extinction - whenever that was, the Gen 1 account just being one of many times God replenished the earth. That is far better than anything evolution has to offer.

Your assumption of things does sound very enticing. I am not sure either way, but I won't rule out your opinion upon the situation. I tend to believe what you are saying. But I cannot believe the Earth is 5 billion years old, nor that the Universe is billions of years old either. Maybe a lot less. Then I'd consider believing such. Thanks tons for sharing here.

Much Love Coming At Ya!!

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :rapture:
​

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Michael,

I don't quite get what you mean. It's up to you whether you wish to engage in a discussion or not. All I wish for is that you read and understand what I've written about why the articles you keep posting are utter garbage!

Cheers, Duke

Aaah Duke,

Hey Buddy!! Of course, I love discussing things with you. That's one of the reasons I'm here!! But, some articles which I post, I cannot necessarily expound on some intricate points they are making. I didn't write the article, is what I mean. Plus, sometimes it's too hard to respond to answering separate points because they are third generation questions. I don't know how to explain it better to you. It is hard to keep going back to the initial point made and to answer your response to each point. Does that explain it better?? Sure, I'm very happy when you post me here!!

Warmest Regards,

Michael
:angel: :cloud9: :cloud9: :cloud9: :angel: :guitar:
​

 

[patrick jane]

Michael, you can be the nicest guy here most often !

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hear hear!

They might do better if, instead of wasting all their efforts trying to discredit the Theory of Evolution, they spent a few milliseconds presenting evidence for creationism instead. Now that would make a refreshing change.

Dear Hedshaker,

I could do that too, if you want!! Hold on:


Different Theories about Creation

In creation vs. evolution, the belief that nothing in the universe is by accident is a more believable concept and is more strongly backed up by scientific knowledge. Testable, measurable and repeatable evidence of creation vs. evolution indicates that:

• The Creation of the earth's environment was the same or better than today's environment.
•The structure of the atoms was not an accident.
•Gravity is not an accident.
•Earth and moon dust prove the earth is young.
•That water preserved itself for thousands of years is the result of natural water pollution control and is not an accident.
•The rotating earth is not an accident.
• Symbiotic relationships between plants and animals are proof of Intelligent Design
•DNA is not an accident.
•The electron and proton are not accidents.
•The structure and distribution of chemicals are no accident.
•The unique properties of water are no accident.
• Photosynthesis is not an accident.
• Symbiotic relationships in nature are not an accident.
•For all of the conditions for life on earth to exist because of the water molecule is not an accident.
•Micro-nutrients are not an accident.
• Noah's Ark actually occurred.
•The Euphrates River began about 6000 years ago.
• Niagara Falls dates back to the time of the Flood of Noah.
•The history of the Bible has been proven by thousands of archaeological discoveries.*
•The coming to earth of Jesus actually occurred {http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.html}.
• Biblical Predictions of the coming of Jesus Christ prove that it was pre-planned.
•Skin color is not an accident.
•The organs and anatomy of humans and animals are not accidents.
• Reproduction is not an accident. {http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100/2k4ch39repronotes.html}.
•Animal miracles and plant miracles are no accident
• Symbiotic relationships prove that all species had to be created at the same time, or no species would survive.
•Consciousness, intelligence and thoughts are not an accident.
•Sight, hearing, taste, smell and feeling are not accidents.
•Cell division into different components of plants and animals is not an accident.
•Acid rain was pre-planned and has purpose.
•Climate of the earth is not an accident.
• Rapid decay of radioactive isotopes at the time of the flood and the time of creation proves that the earth is young.
•The complexity of cells and DNA molecules is not an accident.
•The pyramids prove that man's intelligence has not evolved, but has decreased.
•The moon is not an accident.
•The Ten Commandments are valid guidelines for conduct.

There you go. Things that just didn't happen by evolution {by accident or on it's own!}

Best Wishes,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I like the font Michael

Dear patrick jane,

Thanks much!! I like the font a lot too!!

God's Best 4 U!!

Michael

:angel: :angel: :angel: :rapture: :cloud9: :cloud9:
​

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael, you can be the nicest guy here most often !

Dear patrick jane,

Thank you so much!! What a nice thing to say!! You are so sweet!! To be honest, I like you a lot too and think you are very nice!! You look great too!! You are like my twin 20 years ago!! I do hope you don't have me on ignore. Nobody else does. I just made a couple of honest mistakes, is all. Be My Friend!!

Tons Of Love Coming Your Way!!!

Michael

:cloud9: :cloud9: :cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel:
​