Creation vs. Evolution

[alwight]

A puppy with a horn or something. That's evolutuon. lolol

I wonder, can you walk and chew gum at the same time? :think:

 

[Daniel1769]

I wonder, can you walk and chew gum at the same time? :think:

I wonder if evolutionists can give a clear definition of biological evolution. Any time they are challenged on their nonsense, they just claim their critics don't understand evolution. They use ambiguous terms and shift around as necessary to cover up the fact that, regardless of the lack of evidence, the entire concept of evolution is totally absurd.

 

[alwight]

I wonder if evolutionists can give a clear definition of biological evolution. Any time they are challenged on their nonsense, they just claim their critics don't understand evolution. They use ambiguous terms and shift around as necessary to cover up the fact that, regardless of the lack of evidence, the entire concept of evolution is totally absurd.

I honestly suspect that your understanding of Darwinian evolution isn't particularly impressive, and that if I attempted to provide you with a clear definition that you would understand it would take far more effort than I am willing to supply. lain:

 

[TheDuke]

The Qu'ran does NOT have eye witness testimony of Jesus.
The Qu'ran not only contradicts God's Word but is self contradictory.

Meanwhile God's Word is 66 different books, written by over 40 authors, over 1500 years and is internally and externally consistent. (And all done without the internet! Imagine!)His Word is confirmed by fulfilled prophecy, science and archaeology.

Dearest 6d,

Welcome and congratulations for joining Michael on the stage. You 2 would make quite a show as stand-up comedians.

I admire your determination in defending the indefensible to the bitter end. That's the spirit.


So, does that mean that you reject the holy truth of the Quran? You are the worst infidel. The Quran is absolutely sublime and perfect. It contains nothing but God's word.

Your petty bible is absurd, you even admit it yourself:
"written by over 40 authors"
Seriously, the supposed word of the divine, transcribed by mere mortals, over a period of "1500 years". Redacted, mistranslated and edited time after time. It cannot - by your own admission - be divine, but clearly man-made.

The holy Quran in contrast, was written down by a single illiterate person. How do you imagine that could be without god's own hand guiding his messenger to write down the absolute truth?


Just look at these random examples:
Proverbs 1:7 - So you can't learn anything, unless you're scared of your saviour????? Gee, no wonder most scientists don't believe :shocked:

Genesis 2:19-20 - So, all other animals were created male and female, but the poor Adam was all alone..... no wonder he was spiteful And then he named the animals, oh how cute. Except that every animal has a different name in every language and obviously Adam didn't bother with all the species discovered during the last couple of centuries, eh

James 5:14-18 - So, prayer heals all sickness and controls the climate. Gee, I wonder why we even bother with medicine and meteorology.....



Until next time, boys.......

 

[TheDuke]

I wonder, can you walk and chew gum at the same time? :think:

I'm here to kick a** and chew bubble-gum..............

 

[Yorzhik]

And one way to know if one understands their position is to acknowledge when the other side makes a good point.

You only appreciate opponents if they agree with you? What happens if you are wrong?

Ummm... you don't appear to be responding what I said.

I'd re-phrase it, but I can't think of a way to make what I said clearer.

YEC arguments are a serious of ad hoc claims with no coherency or structure outside of their Bible interpretations.

Then you should question your own bias. YEC, and plenty of the arguments I've made, can be placed entirely on the shoulders of science. And this is an indictment of your beliefs that even the weak arguments are against you... we haven't even gotten to the stronger arguments that happen to be philosophical.

 

[gcthomas]

Then you should question your own bias. YEC, and plenty of the arguments I've made, can be placed entirely on the shoulders of science. And this is an indictment of your beliefs that even the weak arguments are against you... we haven't even gotten to the stronger arguments that happen to be philosophical.

Wishful thinking won't get you anywhere, and certainly won't overturn the established science. If you could prove evolution wrong and establish as alternative, you would get a Nobel Prize, but you are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

 

[Greg Jennings]

One day when my dog gets pregnant and gives birth to something other than puppies, I might consider evolution. Until then, I cannot seriously consider a claim so absurd, so nonsensical, so baseless, so ridiculous as evolution.

I can't believe that there are people this ignorant about something they claim to know something about. It's astonishing.

 

[Interplanner]

At both Mt St Helens and Itsik (Iceland, 3km new island, late 70s), life regenerated or started in a few years. In the case of MSH toxic conditions had to wear off as well.

 

[Yorzhik]

Wishful thinking won't get you anywhere, and certainly won't overturn the established science. If you could prove evolution wrong and establish as alternative, you would get a Nobel Prize, but you are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

No. Anyone that seems to provide anything against common descent will lose their job if they ever show anything but utter obedience to the common descent dogma: note Mary Schweitzer, note the paths not taken at Glen Rose, note Richard Sternberg, etc. So you can cut the crap about that old saw that anyone with evidence against common descent will get a Nobel. It's a demonstrable lie on many levels.

But beyond that, no one needs to provide an alternative to have evidence that common descent is wrong. So have you paid attention to the other side enough to see the good arguments presented or do you blind yourself to those arguments to protect your delicate sensibilities? The question was, what points have you noticed in favor of the argument against common descent?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Evidence free assertions or some guy called Paul having dreams is never likely to convince me. There is no eye witness testimony in the NT that I'm aware of to refute.

Dear alwight,

There is eyewitness testimony in the New Testament, so there is something there you might want to refute. But you probably haven't read it thoroughly and that's why you feel the way you do. And Paul did not receive his visit from Jesus in a dream, but instead, it happened while he was traveling to Damascus, Syria, while he was quite awake. It left him blind for a few days, and his sight was returned to him by another prophet, who traveled to him for just that reason.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

John 20:28-29 KJV -

It doesn't get too much more eyewitness than Thomas and Jesus after resurrection with the other 11, including John who wrote it !! It's ok if you don't believe, it's just meant to be.

Excellent testimony, patrick jane!!! Yes, Thomas wouldn't believe until he put his finger in the holes in Jesus' hands and the hole in Jesus' side. Some, even Jesus' own disciples, still had trouble believing He rose back to life after being dead for 3 days. Thanks so much, PJ!!

May God Stay With You!!

Michael

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

 

[MichaelCadry]

Its been a long time Mike, just wanted to say hello.

Dear Mickiel,

Well, it's good to hear from you!! I hope that all is going well for you these days! You ought to post some on this thread if you find it interesting. I've been so busy during the past week and especially here, on this thread. I can't seem to catch up. I hope that your holidays were exceptional. Happy New Year to you!!

Michael

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

 

[patrick jane]

Dear alwight,

There is eyewitness testimony in the New Testament, so there is something there you might want to refute. But you probably haven't read it thoroughly and that's why you feel the way you do. And Paul did not receive his visit from Jesus in a dream, but instead, it happened while he was traveling to Damascus, Syria, while he was quite awake. It left him blind for a few days, and his sight was returned to him by another prophet, who traveled to him for just that reason.

Michael

That's true Michael, plus well over 513 people saw him, excellent post.

 

[MichaelCadry]

:dizzy::dizzy::dizzy:

You should become a comedian. Haven't laughed so much for a long time, now.


Why don't you take a look into the Quran instead, it's also "written testimony from eyewitnesses" who claim very clearly that big J was just a man.

Once you realize why YOU dismiss the latter, you'll get a glimpse at why we dismiss the former.

Dear The Duke,

They claim also that He was a prophet. That is, from what I understand.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hi Michael,
You still seem to be missing the point whenever you can I notice. The evidence I was referring to was all contemporaneous to the time of Julius Caesar, not modern mass produced symbols of faith. Iow all made by people who either knew Caesar directly or who were living under his rule day to day, which counts as real evidence. Even the graffiti scratched onto walls by serving Roman soldiers at the time is good evidence.
It's nothing to do with all the later or more modern religious paraphernalia of Jesus which isn't evidence of anything. This is about real facts and evidence from the time, not how many people today own mass produced images of Jesus Christ. It's about verifiable contemporary evidence, not how many people today believe and have supposed pictures and images of Jesus even though, unlike Caesar, there is no evidence of what he actually looked like nor that he even did exist.

Dear alwight,

I must say that it is Jesus Christ that is revered today, not Julius Caesar. Why has Jesus Christ been set apart and revered from since He left this earth compared to Julius Caesar, who is not revered among people now. By far, Jesus is most famous! Do you think that, just because Jesus' face is not on a coin, He is yesterday's news? I don't think so.

Michael

 

[alwight]

Dear alwight,

There is eyewitness testimony in the New Testament, so there is something there you might want to refute. But you probably haven't read it thoroughly and that's why you feel the way you do. And Paul did not receive his visit from Jesus in a dream, but instead, it happened while he was traveling to Damascus, Syria, while he was quite awake. It left him blind for a few days, and his sight was returned to him by another prophet, who traveled to him for just that reason.

Michael

Sorry Michael but an anonymous author talking about eye witnesses is not the same thing as an eye witness. I don't know what you think Paul was an eye witness to exactly other than claiming to have had a supernatural experience.

 

[alwight]

Dear alwight,

I must say that it is Jesus Christ that is revered today, not Julius Caesar. Why has Jesus Christ been set apart and revered from since He left this earth compared to Julius Caesar, who is not revered among people now. By far, Jesus is most famous! Do you think that, just because Jesus' face is not on a coin, He is yesterday's news? I don't think so.

Michael

Michael, I was simply pointing out that much hard evidence exists for Julius Caesar which imo to a rational person reasonably verifies his existence. If however some people choose to revere Jesus Christ today then it isn't because there is any hard evidence because there isn't any, it's just faith. People like me otoh expect some real evidence not other people's assertions of their apparently blind faith. Such people have their counterparts in other religions except then their faith is usually directed toward other supposed past notable individuals from a different religion.
Faith is one thing, verifiable evidence is another.

 

[TheDuke]

Dear alwight,

There is eyewitness testimony in the New Testament, so there is something there you might want to refute. But you probably haven't read it thoroughly and that's why you feel the way you do. And Paul did not receive his visit from Jesus in a dream, but instead, it happened while he was traveling to Damascus, Syria, while he was quite awake. It left him blind for a few days, and his sight was returned to him by another prophet, who traveled to him for just that reason.

Michael

Sorry Michael but an anonymous author talking about eye witnesses is not the same thing as an eye witness. I don't know what you think Paul was an eye witness to exactly other than claiming to have had a supernatural experience.

Well guys, I hope you all realize how much eye-witness testimony there is for UFOs, Yeti, haunted mansions, lizard people and what not.
And we're talking about 100s of witnesses and very recent accounts - well documented, heck there are printed interviews....

And unless you're absolutely willing to believe in all of the above and the rest, then your ludicrous testimony in the bible is yet another proof of your minuscule mental faculty's malfunction.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Miracles

I have seen magicians do tricks which look like miracles to me.
However, magicians don't seem to require me to believe anything.

The Israelites leaving Egypt saw the 10 plagues fall on Egypt, walked through the parted Red Sea, witnessed the daily provision of manna for 40 years - every day except the Sabbath. Yet they were a dead loss.

Christ criticised some of the Israelite cities He did miracles in saying in Matthew 11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

At the end of Christ's miracle-working ministry, He seemed to be left with 11 disciples, a few women supporters and about five hundred true followers, to whom He appeared after His resurrection. (1 Cor 15:6)

Miracles, per se are fairly useless at generating worthwhile believers.
If there is no faith to view the miracles with, miracles have zero value. The Pharisees saw the miracles Jesus did and ascribed these to Satan.

Christianity took off when the miracles had largely stopped.

The whole book of Acts tells about the spread of Christianity and it is driven by one thing, the Holy Spirit WITHIN the believer. There is no outward manifestation of this in the sense that believers can be known and judged by their miracle-working power.

It is God's express purpose that Christianity is NOT miracle driven. If Christianity was miracle-driven, then no faith would be required.

The Antichrist who will arise before the end will "prove" his credentials as a "man of God" by producing miracles such as have not been seen since Christ.

2 Thes 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

So, God grants to His opposition supernatural power to perform miracles to lure people, including believers, away from Him.

So God's team gets to play The Final with legs shackled, against Team Satan on steroids.

Any ideas why?

Dear iouae,

I think because Jesus came doing miracles for God and caused people to believe in God; then Satan wanted the same for him, so it is granted, but not very successful. Also, God wants to separate the wheat from the chaff. Those who are loyal and true to Him, and those who are not. You have to love God an awful lot to endure and surpass all evil that may come against you, and come out a winner!! I suppose you don't understand that, so you'll find out later. God Bless The Children In The Future!!

With Much Love, Praise God, iouae,

Michael