The Free Voice of the Fort Leonard Wood MO Area

Opinion Section => Religion Opinion => Topic started by: mark on April 29, 2014, 10:09:44 AM

Title: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on April 29, 2014, 10:09:44 AM
If so, then provide an answer to the following questions. "Evolution" in this context is the idea that natural, undirected processes are sufficient to account for the existence of all natural things.
See this Conservapedia article for more information on the "theory of evolution" and what it teaches.
1.Something from nothing?
 The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode?
We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?

2.Physical laws an accident?
 We know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws, such as electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc. The activities of our universe depend upon these principles like a computer program depends upon the existence of computer hardware with an instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that these great controlling principles developed by accident?
3.Order from disorder?
 The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionists says that the opposite has taken place - that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be?
ASIDE: Evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law.

We should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.

4.Information from Randomness?
 Information theory states that "information" never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day. How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might produce the string "dog", but it only means something to an intelligent observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of letters. The generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.
5.Life from dead chemicals?
 Evolutionists claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis", even though it is a biological law ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?
6.Complex DNA and RNA by chance?
 The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the "plan") and RNA (the "copy mechanism"), both of which are tremendously complex. How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?
7.Life is complex.
 We know and appreciate the tremendous amount of intelligent design and planning that went into landing a man on the moon. Yet the complexity of this task pales in comparison to the complexity of even the simplest life form. How reasonable is it to believe that purely natural processes, with no designer, no intelligence, and no plan, produced a human being.
8.Where are the transitional fossils?
 If evolution has taken place our museums should be overflowing with the skeletons of countless transitional forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a small number of transitional candidates are touted as proof of evolution. If evolution has really taken place, where are the transitional forms? And why does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing fully formed, with most nearly identical to current instances of the species?
ASIDE: Most of the examples touted by evolutionists concentrate on just one feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A true transitional fossil should be intermediate in many if not all aspects. The next time someone shows you how this bone changed over time, ask them about the rest of the creature too!

Many evolutionists still like to believe in the "scarcity" of the fossil record. Yet simple statistics will show that given you have found a number of fossil instances of a creature, the chances that you have missed every one of its imagined predecessors is very small. Consider the trilobites for example. These fossils are so common you can buy one for under $20, yet no fossils of a predecessor have been found!.

9.Could an intermediate even survive?
 Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don't forget that "natural selection" is supposed to retain those individuals which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited to either its old environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only alive, but improved?
ASIDE: Certainly a "light-sensitive spot" is better than no vision at all. But why would such a spot even develop? (evolutionists like to take this for granted). And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye strains all common sense and experience.

10.Reproduction without reproduction?
 A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by an (unguided) series of small changes, caused by mutations, which are "selected" for, keeping the "better" changes" over a very long period of time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can you even imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? Asexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and efficient!
ASIDE: To relegate the question of reproduction to "abiogenesis" does NOT address the problem. To assume existing, reproducing life for the principles of evolution to work on is a HUGE assumption which is seldom focused on in popular discussions.

11.Plants without photosynthesis?
 The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?
12.How do you explain symbiotic relationships?
 There are many examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic" relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution explain this?
13.It's no good unless it's complete.
 We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether it be a car, a cake, or a computer program. Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed?
ASIDE: Note that even a "light-sensitive spot" or the simplest version of any feature is far from a "one-jump" change that is trivial to produce.

14.Explain metamorphosis!
 How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves into the "mass of jelly" (out of which the butterfly comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?
15.It should be easy to show evolution.
 If evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only produced ... more (deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it?
ASIDE: The artificial creation of a new species is far too small of a change to prove that true "macro-evolution" is possible. A higher-order change, where the information content of the organism has been increased should be showable and is not. Developing a new species changes the existing information, but does not add new information, such as would be needed for a new organ, for example.

16.Complex things require intelligent design folks!
 People are intelligent. If a team of engineers were to one day design a robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, no matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have such a "robot" - it is called an "ant", and we squash them because they are "nothing" compared to people. And God made them, and he made us. Can there be any other explanation?
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on April 29, 2014, 12:47:06 PM
and the atheists, anti- theists still can't prove the unproven scientific theories. truth and logic wins every time
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on April 29, 2014, 02:49:44 PM
If so, then provide an answer to the following questions. "Evolution" in this context is the idea that natural, undirected processes are sufficient to account for the existence of all natural things.
See this Conservapedia article for more information on the "theory of evolution" and what it teaches.
1.Something from nothing?
We can't even define nothing. Do you mean a vaccum, because even that is something. Please define nothing and give a example.

2.Physical laws an accident?
 
Is gods nature a accident. Why do you believe in a good god, isn't a evil or joking god more reasonable.
3.Order from disorder?
 
No, the universe as a whole is more disordered as time goes by. Just becuase one corner has some complexity doesn't break anything. If so then it is the second law, not evolution that is wrong.
4.Information from Randomness?
Accidents are impossible now?
5.Life from dead chemicals?
 
Either the dust of the earth or eons of evolution. Life came from nonlife. Now is there a natural way or just a magic.
6.Complex DNA and RNA by chance?
Well we now think TNA could have been the original building block of life. TNA molecular structure. The TNA backbone is composed of a threose sugar (4 carbon), while DNA and RNA has a ribose sugar (5 carbon). The molecular picture is available here. In TNA, the phosphate groups are bound to the 2 and 3 positions rather than the 3 and 5 positions as in DNA and RNA. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/before_there_wa055451.html#sthash.Rm4ovVNZ.dpuf (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/before_there_wa055451.html#sthash.Rm4ovVNZ.dpuf)

7.Life is complex.
 
God is more complex, so would require something even more complex.
8.Where are the transitional fossils?
Every fossil would be fully formed, why wouldn't it.

Many evolutionists still like to believe in the "scarcity" of the fossil record. Yet simple statistics will show that given you have found a number of fossil instances of a creature, the chances that you have missed every one of its imagined predecessors is very small. Consider the trilobites for example. These fossils are so common you can buy one for under $20, yet no fossils of a predecessor have been found!.
You mean we have hard shelled creatures but not soft shell. That we have fossils of creatures that lived for millions of years buy none of it's much shorter lived ancestor. 

9.Could an intermediate even survive?
 Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don't forget that "natural selection" is supposed to retain those individuals which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited to either its old environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only alive, but improved?
ASIDE: Certainly a "light-sensitive spot" is better than no vision at all. But why would such a spot even develop? (evolutionists like to take this for granted). And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye strains all common sense and experience.
Um no, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jEhzAn1hDc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jEhzAn1hDc)

10.Reproduction without reproduction?
 
You are aware that cells split when they get to big right. And bacteria have sex of sorts so it is not new.

11.Plants without photosynthesis?
12.How do you explain symbiotic relationships?
actually it would make sense that evolution would grow synopsis.. Why would a all knowing god create symbiosis?
13.It's no good unless it's complete.
Watch the video.
14.Explain metamorphosis!
 How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves into the "mass of jelly" (out of which the butterfly comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?
Are you asking about how can evolution explain change.
15.It should be easy to show evolution.
Explain evolution that takes place in millions of years, can't use micro? How about the nylon eating bacteria than. Not just micro there, it is eating something that down not exist in nature.


16.Complex things require intelligent design folks!
God requires more gods.
Gods are intelligent. If a team of gods were to one day design a human which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more humans like itself, and was only 6 foot tall, Angels would marvel at this achievement. All of the angels experiences lead us to know that such a human could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, no matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in such a human being produced. But we already have such a "human" - it is called an "Man", and God squashs them because they are "nothing" compared to god. And a greater God made them, and he made us. Can there be any other explanation?
Followed to the logical extreme

and the atheists, anti- theists still can't prove the unproven scientific theories. truth and logic wins every time
And how would we do that. What method would prove it... Of course now the name calling right?
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on April 29, 2014, 04:30:02 PM
referring to yourself?? LOL LOL LOL LOL

on how many threads/topics have you debated evolution? how many times were you PROVEN correct??? none. evolution is an unproven theory, no matter how many times you debate it. the result is always the same. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same experiment over and over and trying for a different out come? LOL LOL of course if your theory isn't proven all you have to do is come up with a new one to try to prove what the old one couldn't! LOL LOL LOL LOL
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on April 29, 2014, 06:19:14 PM
 If I were your teacher (ebilly) I would give you an F on this test. You failed miserably! "nylon eating bacteria proves evolution" Really dude?
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on April 29, 2014, 06:34:01 PM
If I were your teacher (ebilly) I would give you an F on this test. You failed miserably! "nylon eating bacteria proves evolution" Really dude?
If you were a teacher you would have never passed certification. Please explain nylon eating bacteria being created when Nylon didn't exist until the 20th century.
referring to yourself?? LOL LOL LOL LOL

on how many threads/topics have you debated evolution? how many times were you PROVEN correct??? none. evolution is an unproven theory, no matter how many times you debate it. the result is always the same. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same experiment over and over and trying for a different out come? LOL LOL of course if your theory isn't proven all you have to do is come up with a new one to try to prove what the old one couldn't! LOL LOL LOL LOL
I am correct every time. Your intellect or lack thereof does not hinder the truth of my statement.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on April 29, 2014, 09:15:22 PM
in your mind you are correct? LOL LOL LOL the facts prove otherwise! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL you and even the real scientists have failed miserably to prove evolution is fact.....still!
 LOL LOL LOL LOL
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on April 29, 2014, 10:58:03 PM
There has not been a gene duplication event associated with Arthrobacter sp. K172 gaining the ability to digest the byproducts of nylon manufacture (what they essentially “eat” in the wastewater from nylon-producing plants). Rather, what happens is point mutations (single base pair changes in the DNA) that alter the active site of the enzyme EII, an enzyme the bacteria already possess. EII’s normal function is to break down a substance that is chemically similar to nylon. Thus, the mutations slightly alter EII so it can break down nylon that is very similar to the substance it normally breaks down. Clearly, this is not an example of a gain of information mutation but rather an alteration of currently existing information. Overall, the mutations are degenerative to EII because they reduce its specificity (now the bacteria can “eat” the normal product and nylon). Dr. Kevin Anderson and I in our paper addressing supposed beneficial mutations stated this about EII: Nonetheless, reduced specificity of a pre-existing enzyme is biochemically degenerative to the enzyme, even if it provides a presumed phenotypic benefit. The “beneficial” phenotype of nylon degradation requires the a priori existence of the enzyme and its specificity. Its degeneration is not a mechanism that accounts for the origin of either the enzyme or its specificity. The mutations that cause bacteria to gain the ability to eat nylon are not information-increasing, and therefore, they cannot serve as an example of the type of mutations necessary for molecules-to-man evolution.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on April 30, 2014, 12:51:37 AM
There has not been a gene duplication event associated with Arthrobacter sp. K172 gaining the ability to digest the byproducts of nylon manufacture (what they essentially “eat” in the wastewater from nylon-producing plants). Rather, what happens is point mutations (single base pair changes in the DNA) that alter the active site of the enzyme EII, an enzyme the bacteria already possess. EII’s normal function is to break down a substance that is chemically similar to nylon. Thus, the mutations slightly alter EII so it can break down nylon that is very similar to the substance it normally breaks down. Clearly, this is not an example of a gain of information mutation but rather an alteration of currently existing information. Overall, the mutations are degenerative to EII because they reduce its specificity (now the bacteria can “eat” the normal product and nylon). Dr. Kevin Anderson and I in our paper addressing supposed beneficial mutations stated this about EII: Nonetheless, reduced specificity of a pre-existing enzyme is biochemically degenerative to the enzyme, even if it provides a presumed phenotypic benefit. The “beneficial” phenotype of nylon degradation requires the a priori existence of the enzyme and its specificity. Its degeneration is not a mechanism that accounts for the origin of either the enzyme or its specificity. The mutations that cause bacteria to gain the ability to eat nylon are not information-increasing, and therefore, they cannot serve as an example of the type of mutations necessary for molecules-to-man evolution.

Creationist must have sticky fingers... They keep grasping at straws. Now it is ok if the information changes, but it isn't added. I wonder if your back hurts mark... You keep moving the goalpost.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: shadylane on April 30, 2014, 01:26:01 AM
Do You Believe that Evolution is True?

I don't know.
But the theory is more creditable than creationism.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on April 30, 2014, 01:50:53 AM
Creationism is perfectly logical. scientists have repeatedly failed to prove evolution or any of their other creation theories. the universe is too complex for scientists.  the logical conclusion is that it took a Creator to create the universe. that Creator is God. ya may not like it, but it is the ONLY logical explanation of how the universe was created and due to the complexity of everything in the universe it makes perfect sense that God created all. try as they might, scientists have tried for centuries to disprove God with what God created. an exercise in futility!
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: littlebit on April 30, 2014, 02:55:24 AM
Creationism is perfectly logical. scientists have repeatedly failed to prove evolution or any of their other creation theories. the universe is too complex for scientists.  the logical conclusion is that it took a Creator to create the universe. that Creator is God. ya may not like it, but it is the ONLY logical explanation of how the universe was created and due to the complexity of everything in the universe it makes perfect sense that God created all. try as they might, scientists have tried for centuries to disprove God with what God created. an exercise in futility!

Saying something is logical doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you repeat it... Maybe you are trying to convince yourself?
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on April 30, 2014, 03:25:21 AM
nope. logic is the result of sound reasoning. scientists have for centuries tried to disprove God created the universe. none of their theories have been proven. they can't prove where the elements in their theories came from. the universe is so immense and complex, scientists are unable to prove how it was created. people that do not believe God created the universe, place their trust in scientific findings. many that support the scientific findings are blindly trusting the accuracy of the findings. they weren't there and many are not qualified to know if the experiments were conducted properly , or if there was a bias to begin with that would taint the results. when theory after theory fails to be proven, the complexity and size of the universe demands a Creator. because of scientists' repeated failings after centuries of experiments, to prove how the universe was created, it is perfectly logical to believe God created the universe. There is no other logical explanation. any human being regardless of education/ intelligence level, can understand the logic of believing God created the universe.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on April 30, 2014, 11:43:40 AM
Creationist must have sticky fingers... They keep grasping at straws. Now it is ok if the information changes, but it isn't added. I wonder if your back hurts mark... You keep moving the goalpost.
God made everything with the ability to change and adapt, has always been the creationists position. One "kind" of life does not turn into another kind!
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on April 30, 2014, 12:26:03 PM
God made everything with the ability to change and adapt, has always been the creationists position. One "kind" of life does not turn into another kind!
You are not allowed to make up words. Define kind please. Are all monkeys one kind? How about rodents, are the mighty Checkachew really the same kind as the rabbit and Mouse. What about deer, are they the same kind as elk and moose, how about the horse. Take away the horns and they look similar. I want a list of all the kinds of mammals, or at least a example of when a kind isn't a kind.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on April 30, 2014, 03:15:56 PM
If they can reproduce (do it) they are the same kind! One must be very careful when using man made terms like mammal, or rodent, to describe a certain "kind" I don't have the time or energy to educate you or "make a list" of all animals. I can tell you that the words used to describe groups of animals are very misleading and probably adding to your confusion!
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on April 30, 2014, 03:24:42 PM
If they can reproduce (do it) they are the same kind! One must be very careful when using man made terms like mammal, or rodent, to describe a certain "kind" I don't have the time or energy to educate you or "make a list" of all animals. I can tell you that the words used to describe groups of animals are very misleading and probably adding to your confusion!
So Species, you know like the over a million species of roaches... Or wolf, fox, Hyena would all be there own kind.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: littlebit on May 01, 2014, 12:55:14 AM
You want truth and logic? Wrap your nugget around this.

If there was a God that wanted people to know and love him he would give us emperical  evidence that he really exists. Something along the lines of him manifesting himself as a 3000ft tall living Jesus reincarnation.  I bet something like that would convert Athiest, Jews, and Muslims alike in one fell swoop.
Christians claim he is all powerful. They claim that he loves each and every one of us as his own children.  This would be a doable miracle that would save countless souls that would have suffered for eternity unnecessarily. Wouldn't you do everything in your power to save your children?
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 01, 2014, 01:31:43 AM
LOL LOL LOL April 1st was a month ago littlebit! LOL LOL LOL LOL  evidence of God is all around you! You just choose to deny the proof or just don't know what you are looking at!
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 01, 2014, 01:37:49 AM
You want truth and logic? Wrap your nugget around this.

If there was a God that wanted people to know and love him he would give us emperical  evidence that he really exists. Something along the lines of him manifesting himself as a 3000ft tall living Jesus reincarnation.  I bet something like that would convert Athiest, Jews, and Muslims alike in one fell swoop.
Christians claim he is all powerful. They claim that he loves each and every one of us as his own children.  This would be a doable miracle that would save countless souls that would have suffered for eternity unnecessarily. Wouldn't you do everything in your power to save your children?
You forget that god was kind of a jerk, you know such a jerk that he ordered the deaths of children if they disobeyed there parents or that allowed slavery. God loves to watch his creatures squirm.
Also about slavery... How do you feel about the new season of Boondocks. Biblical Slavery for the win... I guess fish and Mark would vote Uncle Ruckus.

LOL LOL LOL April 1st was a month ago littlebit! LOL LOL LOL LOL  evidence of God is all around you! You just choose to deny the proof or just don't know what you are looking at!
Nope, sorry. Your assertions are laughable. Your logic is a joke. Try to explain your evidence or just admit man was not specially created by a loving god but instead by millions of years from Primates. Evidence for a Universe without a god is all around you, you just choose to deny the proof or just don't know what you are looking at!!
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 01, 2014, 02:15:24 AM
you are a broken record ebilly! LOL LOL LOL you and the real scientists have yet to prove any of your "theories", yet you continually want to reject the one fact that makes perfect sense and is the result of sound reasoning. scientists have even resolved themselves to the fact God created the universe .Man was created by a loving god(God).if you want to believe you evolved from lower life forms, have at it! LOL LOL LOL LOL If you knew the bible inside and out like you say you do you would KNOW that believing in evolution is a waste of time and you are doing satans work!

"Evidence for a Universe without a god is all around you, you just choose to deny the proof or just don't know what you are looking at!!"

one of the stupidest things you have stated. makes no sense what so ever. the real scientists constantly try to disprove God, and they constantly fail miserably! follow the crowd of losers at your own peril! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

 
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 01, 2014, 02:53:12 AM
you are a broken record ebilly! LOL LOL LOL you and the real scientists have yet to prove any of your "theories", yet you continually want to reject the one fact that makes perfect sense and is the result of sound reasoning. scientists have even resolved themselves to the fact God created the universe .Man was created by a loving god(God).if you want to believe you evolved from lower life forms, have at it! LOL LOL LOL LOL If you knew the bible inside and out like you say you do you would KNOW that believing in evolution is a waste of time and you are doing satans work!

"Evidence for a Universe without a god is all around you, you just choose to deny the proof or just don't know what you are looking at!!"

one of the stupidest things you have stated. makes no sense what so ever. the real scientists constantly try to disprove God, and they constantly fail miserably! follow the crowd of losers at your own peril! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
You are a broken record fish. ROFLOL you and your fake scientist have failed to even make a theory yet you continually want to reject the one that has all the evidence too it, and instead refuse to use sense or any form of reasoning. Creationist have even went so far as attack any evidence that points to natural causes because they are afraid of living life without a god. If you believe we were created from dust, have at it lol lol lol, if you knew logic inside and out like you say you do, you would know that stating something without evidence is a waste of time and you are doing nobodies work but setting mankind back...

Evidence for a god is all around you

one of the stupidest... Nope that is only the surface for you. Fake scientist can keep trying to disprove evolution. There is a reason they aren't real ones, Follow the crowd of Creatards at your own peril, just don't say it's fact.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 01, 2014, 12:57:53 PM
Nope, I am consistant! LOL LOL I don't keep coming up with another "theory" to try and disprove God! LOL LOL LOL LOL

evolution is an incomplete and unproven theory!LOL LOL LOL LOL

the bbt is an incomplete and unproven theory! LOL LOL LOL LOL

Natural causes? LOL LOL LOL

The bible states we were created from dust. ! LOL LOL LOL LOL

I never said I knew logic inside and out. You just can't quit lying, eh? LOL LOL LOL LOL

The fact that God created the universe is self evident! if you knew the bible inside and out as you say you do, you would know that LOL LOL LOL

Evidence OF God is all around you! LOL LOL LOL

keep making your stupid statements! it is a toss up of whether you excell at lying or stupidity! LOL LOL LOL

you blindly follow the scientists disproven theories, when even someone of your substandard intelligience can understand the logic supporting God created the universe! LOL LOL LOL LO

evolution is being disproven by the lack of evidence from real scientists. LOL LOL LOL you can go back to your comic books now! LOL LOL LOL LOL

Creation is fact. It is proven everyday. the real scientists prove it everyday by not being able to prove their theories! LOL LOL LOL many resolve to the fact the universe was created by God. there is no other logical explanation!LOL LOL LOL LOL

Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: Hi on May 01, 2014, 03:10:58 PM
I wanna cut and paste too!!!!

The Scientific Method

Creationists detest it so much that they've apparently invented their own, improved version, with the following highly logical rules:
Take as a given fact all those parts of the Bible we tell you to.
Use not the null hypothesis; make no attempt to disprove any creationist hypothesis; report not any negative findings.
Quote as authoritative anything a fellow creationist writes, regardless of his qualifications or subsequent discrediting of his methods or results.
Misquote or quote out of context famous "evolutionists" so that they appear to admit evolution isn't real.

The Holy Bible

That old Book persists in saying things that the creationists, who claim to take it as literal truth, have to admit are metaphorical (like the "doors" in the firmament that let the rain through). That means, of course, that they have to arbitrarily decide which parts are literally literal, and which are only metaphorically literal (and can't they twist the English language). I've never yet read a justification for who gets to make that determination and how, so I'll summarize it thus: Everything is literal except things that even we can't stomach. Even worse, the "scientifically accurate" Bible reveals not a single fact about nature that wasn't commonly known at the time. If only it had revealed the atomic structure of matter, or the inverse square law, or the existence of bacteria--or even the heliocentric solar system!

Plate Tectonics

Since this is such a new development in geophysics, creationists don't seem to have much to say about it yet. (They haven't been told yet that they can't believe in it.) Though they may not have heard it excoriated from the pulpit yet, it surely makes them uneasy, since it just doesn't jibe with young-Earth or Flood geology.

Universal Gravitation

Although "just a theory", universal gravitation continues to be, well, universal. It holds true in all places, under all conditions, so it renders the brainless quip about evolution being "just a theory" a bit specious, at best.

Ice Ages

Very inconvenient! They have to have occurred since the Flood, since, according to creationists, the surface of the Earth was reworked by the Flood (to create, for instance, the Grand Canyon practically overnight), which would have messed up all those marks of glaciers on the landscape. That means mile-thick ice sheets had to advance and retreat again and again, across half the Northern Hemisphere, with the speed of freight trains.

Size of the Earth

...has obviously expanded greatly since Noah's day, when he could, in a short period, collect pairs of all animals and birds from all over the world, without the benefit of modern air transport. Then after the Flood, the critters all had to migrate, at the double-quick, to their present habitats in Tasmania, the Galapagos, the coasts of Antarctica, Patagonia, the American Southwest, or wherever. It's clear the Earth was no more than a few hundred miles across, probably flat, and with no inconvenient oceans like, say, the Pacific.

The Slow Rate of Evolution

Having some time ago abandoned the completely silly proposition that Noah could actually have accommodated pairs--let alone sevens--of every animal species on Earth aboard the Ark, creationists have fallen back upon the rationalization that he collected not species but "kinds". They never, of course, clearly define "kind", because any such definition would create more problems in biological classification than it solved (and reveal how little they know about species diversity). Be that as it may, if a pair of the bovine "kind" walked off the Ark a few thousand years ago, they have had to evolve into all 24 present species and uncounted varieties of wild and domestic cattle since then. (Creationists: you really don't want to know how many species of the bat "kind" there are. And don't even think about beetles.) Creationists, then, are in the awkward position of believing in a much faster rate of evolution than is possible in nature, while detesting the term itself, and generally refusing to call diversification-since-the-Ark evolution (Lord, how they hate that word)!

The Number of Species in the World

There are just way too many of them! There are so many that we still don't even have a solid estimate of exactly how many--but five million is at least the right order of magnitude. That's so many that creationists have given up trying to stuff them all into the Ark (see above). A vanishingly tiny percent are even mentioned in the "scientifically accurate" Bible. Whole orders and phyla are left out. Of the few mentioned, there seems to be some slight confusion over such seemingly simple things as whether a bat is a bird or mammal, how many legs a grasshopper has, and who chews cuds and who doesn't. There's even embarrassing mention of creatures unknown to science, such as unicorns. My humbly-offered solution: Since the Bible is "scientifically accurate", then when it was written there were just a few hundred species! They could all fit onto the Ark.After the Flood (take your pick):

They speed-evolved into the millions we have now. God made a whole bunch more, just to test our faith in Holy Scripture.

Satan made a whole bunch more, just to ruin our faith in Holy Scripture. (I vote for this one, since I've been told recently by several good creationists that Satan invented evolution!)

Fossils

...have always been a thorn in the side of creationism. First of all, extinct creatures shouldn't even exist in a perfect Creation, since their very extinction implies that they were not so perfect. And there are so darn many of them, of so many different kinds. Every excuse they come up with for why there even are fossils of extinct organisms makes creationists look silly. And the very fact that they've come up with so many different, mutually exclusive explanations would seem to indicate that, essentially, they're clueless. I have personally been offered all these sound, creation-scientific explanations of what fossils are and how they got there:

Dinosaurs were too big to go on the Ark, so they got buried in the mud of the Flood.(How about extinct smaller creatures--and what about the "fact" that Noah collected pairs of all animals?)

Extinct creatures were on the Ark. They died out later. (How many seismosaurs, T. rexes, mastodons, and megatheria can you fit on the head of a pin?)

Fossils never were animals. They're a hoax by Satan and/or materialistic science.

Fossils never were animals. They're a hoax by God to test your faith. (And I will go to hell for falling for a trick pulled by the Almighty Himself? Doesn't that seem just a bit petty?)

Transitional Fossils
...can't possibly exist, since nothing ever gradually evolved into anything else. Less sophisticated creationists handle the issue by merely spouting the slogan "There are no transitional fossils". They heard that from a good born-again fundamentalist, so it must be true--no further research necessary. The few who are vaguely aware of the vast range of fossils that have been found, including beautiful examples of transitional series, merely draw lines: everything on that side of the line is ape, and everything on this side is human. If another fossil turns up with features exactly between the two, no problem--just assign it to one side or the other. No matter how fine the gradation, creationists will never admit seeing transition, because they know ahead of time that it can't exist. Amusingly, however, in series such as the hominid line leading to us, different creationist "experts" draw the line between ape and human in different places!

Human Embryos

...especially very small ones, actually have tails and gill slits. So do all mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, and fish embryos. One would almost think they are related somehow. Thank goodness for modern Creation Science, which has taught us how to ignore, deny, or find some rationalization (anything at all will do) to explain away this and all other evidence of evolution.



158 of God's perfectly-created elephant species had already died out before the Flood.

Only one pair of the elephant "kind" (are they "clean" or "unclean"?) were aboard, and immediately afterward evolved into 160 different species, 158 of which immediately became extinct.

DNA

Nasty stuff. It's really a shame that it had to turn up and confirm predictions of relationships made by evolutionary theory perfectly. And what a dirty trick to have human DNA fit right into the distribution, right next door to the chimps'! It's just not fair. It almost looks like Someone arranged the whole thing just to make evolution appear to be true. Worse yet, this ultimate blueprint for building entire human beings turns out to be just plain chemicals, with nothing magical or even particularly unusual that sets humans aside from other living things. And those geneticists can even tinker with the stuff, and build new creatures. They can replace defective genes in people, and even put human genes into pigs. Why wasn't something put into Leviticus to forbid such ungodliness?

Their Own Coccyxes

...when examined closely via X-rays or a prepared skeleton, look disturbingly like the vestigial remnants of tails. They certainly serve no purpose nowadays, and if you've ever broken yours, you've probably wondered why we were Created with such a useless source of potential agony. (Besides, coccyx sounds downright obscene.)

Their Appendixes

Same problem as the coccyx, only it's even more likely to cause the average creationist great discomfort, and occasionally death. The scientifically literate, when cursed with appendicitis, might bewail the incomplete evolution that has left him with a useless and sometimes dangerous abdominal organ. Perhaps the creationist praises his Creator for blessing him with a "cross to bear".

Honesty and Moral Behavior

...among evolutionists. It must really irk creationists that the great majority of us "evolutionists" are basically upright, moral folks. We shouldn't be, because belief in evolution "destroys our faith in the Bible", so naturally we have "no moral guide" and "no fear of eternal damnation", and since "we think we came from monkeys", we see ourselves as "animals with no eternal souls". I'll confess it right now: my basically upright, honest, cleanly-lived life is all a sham. I'm part of the One World Government Evolutionist Conspiracy (OWGEC), and my apparent morality is merely a deception to lure unsuspecting young creationists over to the Dark Side!

Viruses

Viruses hardly fit into the creationist's view of the world at all. In the first place, nothing even remotely like them is even remotely alluded to in either Testament. About the only "biblical" disease that anyone can remember is leprosy (a bacterial disease), and there's no clue that any of the writers that mentioned it knew that it was caused by any sort of micro-organism, let alone a virus. Egyptian cattle suffered a "murrain"-- with no apparent cause other than a divine curse. A blight on crops is mentioned in a place or two, which, if it were naturally caused, might be a viral disease, but again only the disease is mentioned, not any organic cause. Then there are the "emerods" (hemorrhoids) with which God afflicted some folks he was miffed at. I have been told both of the following by "creation scientists":

The Devil created viruses.

Viruses are not in the Bible because they are "imperfect".

But the really disturbing thing about viruses is that they occupy the twilight zone between living and dead, a zone that would seem ought not to exist in a creation in which creatures were "given life", or have "the breath of life". Of course, the creationist may arbitrarily assign them to either the "living" or "dead" category, but either assignment is a forced fit. Can they be alive if they don't move, breathe, eat, excrete, or metabolize at all, and can even be crystallized, like other non-living chemicals? Can they be dead if they can self-replicate (reproduce) using the same basic methods as other living things, parasitize other creatures, and are made of nearly the same proteins and nucleic acids as we are? Evolutionary theory doesn't demand that there be a sharp distinction between living systems and nonliving molecules. That's the premise of abiogenesis, which creationists insist on lumping in with evolution, so what the heck... we'll take it. Evolutionary theory can also explain where viruses came from, or why they exist. The fact that there are presently several tentative explanations in no way threatens the structure of evolutionary theory; we're perfectly happy with hypotheses until the preponderance of evidence clearly favors one over all others. In evolutionary theory (with abiogenesis) there should be some hazy area between living and nonliving, and viruses are dwellers of that twilight zone.

The Order of Creation

...is a bottomless can of worms for literal creationists, especially if one takes literally and in their most obvious meanings both Genesis 1 and 2, which don't match in many particulars. But consider just a couple of minor difficulties in the first chapter. For one, the light of day is created before the sun from which it comes. If we assume it was some divine form of light, requiring no material source, then what need of the sun? In the same curious order were plants created before the sun, which is needed for photosynthesis (especially confounding to the day-age folks).

Goosebumps

(the bumps, not the books [although many creationists hate those "occult" books, too]) Goosebumps were obviously "created" to erect and "fluff up" the hair or fur on a hairy or furry mammal ancestor, thereby improving its insulation value against the cold. Since most of us nowadays have so little body hair as to render it useless for insulation purposes, goosebumps are another vestigial reaction whose tool (fur) is no longer with us.

Insects

...which have so many generations of nasty babies so often that in just a few years they can change. Those ugly boll weevils, for instance, develop resistance to pesticides; and those filthy peppered moths in England (Darwin's home--coincidence? I don't think so.) change the shade of their camouflage. Evolutionists want to call those piddlin' changes "evolution"--which just shows that they don't even know what the term means. So we creationists have to tell them that "evolution" means apes popping out human babies. You'd think them evil-utionists'd have that straight by now. (For folks who trust Rush Limbaugh to ever get any facts right: the above is sarcasm.)

Planets

Anybody notice that in the last few years astronomers, using improved techniques and instruments (like Hubble), have begun to discover other planets around other suns? Have we noticed that several of those solar systems are at several of the stages of planetary-system evolution hypothesized for the creation of our own system? To further increase the squirm factor for our reality-challenged fellow citizens, perhaps they would be kind enough to locate the passages in the "scientifically accurate" Bible which acknowledge that there are, in fact, other worlds.

"In our image"

That's how God made man, according to Genesis, and therefore according to creationists. But every moderately bright 8-year-old immediately comes up with two questions which are never satisfactorily answered. If any answers are offered, they are usually cobbled-up rationalizations from outside the Bible. Generally, the kid gets the message that he's better off not asking such things. The first is whom the One and Only God meant by "our"--but that's really a theological question, not related directly to creationism. The second question, however, is right on target: If man was made "in [God's] image", then Adam must have looked just like God--right? But wait--it gets more confusing. Man is immediately referred to as "them", so maybe it's not just Adam who looks like God. Then to further confound literal-minded youngsters, "...in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." If God is male (the assumption of 97.83% of all creationists), then how could a female be made in His image? Let's grant the general creationist assumptions (correct me if I'm wrong): God is male; men are made "in [His] image" in only a general way (maybe even Adam didn't look exactly like Him); and women were made with necessary differences to enable reproduction. Still a load of embarrassing questions arise. Much has been made of Adam's navel, and why he would have one, having never been attached to a placenta. I want to know if God has one. I want to know if He has a digestive tract. If so, why? Does He eat? If so, what, and why would he need to? Does He excrete? Where? What happens to it? Does He have lungs? Why would He need them? Does He have sweat glands? And naughty stuff: does He have genitals? Why would He need those? Does He even have two legs, and feet, and toes? Why would He need them, unless He's bound by gravity, as we are? Childish questions? Of course, but only because they arise from a literal (i.e., childish) reading of Genesis. But the point is profound: either God has human-like organs and glands and body parts, or He doesn't. If He does, why, and what does He use them for? If He doesn't, then made "in [His] image" has no literal meaning.

Thermodynamics according to Isaiah

The temperature of Heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority is the Bible, Isaiah 30:26, describing Heaven: Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days. Thus, Heaven receives from the moon as much radiation as the Earth does from the sun, and in addition seven times seven (forty-nine) times as much as the Earth does from the sun, or 50 times in all. The light we receive from the moon is 1/10,000 of the light we receive from the sun, so we can ignore that. The radiation falling on Heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation, i.e., Heaven loses 50 times as much heat as the Earth by radiation. Using the Stephan-Boltzmann fourth power law for radiation, we have (H/E)4 = 50 where E is the absolute temperature of the Earth, 300 K (27 C). This gives H, the absolute temperature of Heaven, as 798 K (525 C)! (For old-fashioned Americans, that's close to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Your kitchen oven won't get nearly that hot.)

The exact temperature of Hell cannot be computed. However, Revelation 21:8 says: But the fearful and unbelieving... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone. A lake of molten brimstone (or sulfur) means that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, 444.6 C (above that point, it would be a vapor, not a lake). We have, then, that Heaven, at 525 C, is hotter than Hell, at less than 445 C.

So who says that the Bible has no accurate and useful scientific data?



Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 01, 2014, 04:33:54 PM
LOL LOL LOL LOL Hi  LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: littlebit on May 01, 2014, 05:06:03 PM
LOL LOL LOL April 1st was a month ago littlebit! LOL LOL LOL LOL  evidence of God is all around you! You just choose to deny the proof or just don't know what you are looking at!

You must have missed the part of my post that said emperical evidence.... Some thing so obviously a miracle (see 3000ft tall real life Jesus reference above) that even those crackpot secular scientist, athiest,  muslims, and Jews can't refute. Why wouldn't a loving God be willing to go above and beyond for his children?
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 01, 2014, 11:31:56 PM
Nope, I am consistant! LOL LOL I don't keep coming up with another "theory" to try and disprove God! LOL LOL LOL LOLCorrect you would have to have a theory first

evolution is an incomplete and unproven theory!LOL LOL LOL LOLIt is incomplete but it is proven. LOL LOL LOL

the bbt is an incomplete and unproven theory! LOL LOL LOL LOLAgain incomplete but it is proven. LOL LOL LOL

Natural causes? LOL LOL LOLDon't know whats so funny, it's bad you won't even consider that as a possibility. That fact alone proves that you are wrong. If you could prove god, I would be willing to listen. Heck if you could falsify evolution you would have a nobel prize. What would Falsify god, if nothing then your god is false.

The bible states we were created from dust. ! LOL LOL LOL LOLbible states that earth sits on a pillar. LOL LOL

I never said I knew logic inside and out. You just can't quit lying, eh? LOL LOL LOL LOLYou said that the bible it logical. You don't know what logic it.

The fact that God created the universe is self evident! if you knew the bible inside and out as you say you do, you would know that LOL LOL LOL The problem is that the bible isn't the only source of knowledge in the universe.

Evidence OF God is all around you! LOL LOL LOLAnd yet you can't point to a single one.

keep making your stupid statements! it is a toss up of whether you excel at lying or stupidity! LOL LOL LOLMaybe if I actually made stupid comments you would be able to understand them

you blindly follow the scientists disproven theories,Except you have failed to disprove a single one. Hollar bible all you want, but the bibles only real practical use in the real world in toilet paper. LOL LOL LOL It is not science and while there may be some good morals in it, you have to dispose of a lot of garbage first.    when even someone of your substandard intelligience can understand the logic supporting God created the universe! LOL LOL LOL LO

evolution is being disproven by the lack of evidence from real scientists.Fosil records, retroviral insertions, dna sequences, Forced evolution in agriculture, Medical advances. Seem like a lot of evidence.  LOL LOL LOL you can go back to your comic books now! Yes because you don't believe in a all powerful hero that will save the day... OH WAIT LOL LOL LOL LOL

Creation is factOH Really.. It is proven everydaySo we have new creatures popping into existence... . the real scientists prove it everyday by not being able to prove their theoriesYes because real science can't do it, the fake ones do... LOL! LOL LOL LOL many resolve to the fact the universe was created by God. there is no other logical explanation!LOL LOL LOL LOL You refuse to accept there might even be one.
There is no one as blind as one that refuses to see. You might have a point, but when you refuse to even look at the other side you prove you are a ignorant fool.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: shadylane on May 02, 2014, 01:31:53 AM
Ok, lets assume the Universe is too complex for evolution.
Therefor, God must have created it.
But, the Universe is obviously older than the bible says it is.
Therefor a God other than the one in the bible must have created it....
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 02, 2014, 03:09:49 AM
Nope I deal in facts, not theories. the universe was created by God. that is a self evident fact. none of the theories have been proven. incomplete but proven???????????LOL LOL LOL LOL

God is proven everyday. try as they might real scientists have failed miserably to disprove God. the wannabe scientists are just dumbassest. they blindly follow scienctific experiments they have not conducted and blindly believe the bs scientists shovel! LOL LOL LOL LOL

any evidence of  "natural causes" in the creation of the universe points to God! LOL LOL LOL LOL

logic is the result of sound reasoning. you wouldn't understand it! LOL LOL LOL I said the bible is logical. again I DID NOT say I knew logic inside and out. you are a liar by stating I said that. LOL LOL LOL LOL

I have given many proofs, you simply deny the truth and logic involved!

God is the source of all knowledge in the universe. scientists just twist it to try to disprove God, they have repeatedly failed miserably! LOL LOL LOL LOL

I don't have to disprove what hasn't been proven! LOL LOL LOL LOL you are a broken record!

odd you would say that about the bible. a book you say you know inside and out. that you chose to stop believing in God and it was the hardest thing you ever had to do.

Odd you have stated you would take a stand FOR Christianity, but still blaspheme God at every opportunity. Go ahead and slam about the inspired word of God. If you knew the bible inside and out like you say you do, you know what's coming!

 incomplete fosil(fossil) record proves evolution? LOL LOL LOL LOL

well at least you admit why you read comic books! LOL LOL LOL

the real scientists prove it everyday by not being able to prove their theories Yes because real science can't do it, the fake ones do... LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL real science can't prove creation, but the fake science can??????????? LOL LOL LOL LOL

when scientists include God in the "theorie" I might listen. which theory states "this is how we think God created the universe"?

only a fool blindly follows a theory that is unproven, as fact!

Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 02, 2014, 03:12:55 AM
how old does the bible say the universe is? state the bible verse???

better read genesis again. God was around BEFORE the earth was created , and before the bible was written!
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 02, 2014, 03:23:59 AM
why didn't God go above and beyond for His children hi? God is not required to do anything! but what do you think about God sending Jesus to die for us so we can be forgiven of our sins? not enough for you????????
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 02, 2014, 03:44:19 AM
how old does the bible say the universe is?6000 years, give or take a decade or two state the bible verse???
 Adam to Seth  .............    130 yrs    (Genesis  5:3)     *
    *  Seth to Enos  .............    105 yrs    (Genesis  5:6)     *
    *  Enos to Cainan ............     90 yrs    (Genesis  5:9)     *
    *  Cainan to Mahalaleel ......     70 yrs    (Genesis  5:12)    *
    *  Mahalaleel to Jared .......     65 yrs    (Genesis  5:15)    *
    *  Jared to Enoch ............    162 yrs    (Genesis  5:18)    *
    *  Enoch to Methuselah .......     65 yrs    (Genesis  5:21)    *
    *  Methuselah to Lamech ......    187 yrs    (Genesis  5:25)    *
    *  Lamech to Noah ............    182 yrs    (Genesis  5:28-29) *
    *  Noah to the Flood .........    600 yrs    (Genesis  7:6)     *
    *  Flood to Arphaxad .........      2 yrs    (Genesis 11:10)    *
    *  Arphaxad to Salah .........     35 yrs    (Genesis 11:12)    *
    *  Salah to Eber .............     30 yrs    (Genesis 11:14)    *
    *  Eber to Peleg .............     34 yrs    (Genesis 11:16)    *
    *  Peleg to Reu  .............     30 yrs    (Genesis 11:18)    *
    *  Reu to Serug  .............     32 yrs    (Genesis 11:20)    *
    *  Serug to Nahor ............     30 yrs    (Genesis 11:22)    *
    *  Nahor to Terah ............     29 yrs    (Genesis 11:24)    *
    *  Terah to Abraham ..........     70 yrs    (Genesis 11:26)    *
    *                                 -------                       *
    *  Adam to Abraham  ..........   1948 yrs  (This same geneology *
    *                                           is in Luke 3:34-38) *
 Abraham to Isaac ..........   100 yrs  (Genesis 21:5)  *
       *  Isaac to Jacob ............    60 yrs  (Genesis 25:26) *
       *  Jacob to Egypt ............   130 yrs  (Genesis 47:28) *
       *                              ---------                  *
       *  Abraham to Egypt              290 yrs         
  ---- Jacob and his family went to Egypt                      *
    *                                                               *
    *       Jacob went to Egypt                (Genesis 46:8,11)    *
    *       Levi went to Egypt  (Jacob's son)  (Genesis 46:8,11)    *
    *       Kohath went to Egypt (Levi's son)  (Genesis 46:8,11)    *
    *                                                               *
    *       Kohath had a son named Amram       (Exodus 6:18)        *
    *       Amram had a son named Moses        (Exodus 6:20)        *
    *                                                               * 
    *  ---- Moses to the Exodus ..... 80 yrs   (Exodus 7:7,         *
    *                                           Acts 7:21-23, 29-30)*
    *                                                                 In Wilderness ................ 40 yrs (Numbers 32:13,        *
    *                                         Deuteronomy 2:7, 29:5 *
    *  Wilderness to death Joshua ... 30 yrs (Joshua 14:7,10, 24:29)*
    *                                --------                       *
    *  Exodus to death Joshua         70 yrs   
 Under King Cushanrishathaim ..   8 yrs  (Judges 3:8)          *
    * Under Othniel ................  40 yrs  (Judges 3:10-11)      *              * Under King Eglon .............  18 yrs  (Judges 3:14)         *
    * Under Ehud ...................  80 yrs  (Judges 3:15,30)      *              * Under King Jabid .............  20 yrs  (Judges 4:1-3)        *              * Under Deborah ................  40 yrs  (Judges 4:4, 5:31)    *              * Under Midianites .............   7 yrs  (Judges 6:1)          *              * Under Gideon .................  40 yrs  (Judges 6:7, 8:22,28) *              * Under Abimelech ..............   3 yrs  (Judges 8:32-35, 9:22)*              * Under Tola ...................  23 yrs  (Judges 10:1-2)       *              * Under Jair ...................  22 yrs  (Judges 10:3)         *
    * Under Ammonites ..............  18 yrs  (Judges 10:5-8)       *
    * Under Jephthah ...............   6 yrs  (Judges 12:7)         *
    * Under Ibzan ..................   7 yrs  (Judges 12:8-9)       *
    * Under Elon ...................  10 yrs  (Judges 12:11)        *
    * Under Abdon ..................   8 yrs  (Judges 12:13-14)     *
    * Under Philistines ............  40 yrs  (Judges 13:1)         *
    * Under Samson .................  20 yrs  (Judges 13:24, 15:20, *
    *                                                 16:30-31)     *
    * Under Eli/Samuel .............  40 yrs  (I Samuel 4:15,18,    *
    *                                          7:15, 8:1,4-7,19-22, *
    *                                          9:1-2)               *
    *                              ---------                        *
    * Judges to Samuel               450 yrs  (Acts 13:20)          *
    *                       
 Under King Saul ..............  40 yrs  (Acts 13:21)          *
    * Under King David .............  40 yrs  (I Chron 29:26-27)    * 
    * Under King Solomon ...........  40 yrs  (I Kings 11:42-43)    *
    * Under King Rehoboam ..........  17 yrs  (I Kings 14:21)       *
    * Under King Abijam ............   3 yrs  (I Kings 14:31,15:1-2)*
    * Under King Asa ...............  41 yrs  (I Kings 15:8-10)     *
    * Under King Jehoshaphat .......  25 yrs  (I Kings 22:41-42,50) *
    * Under King Jehoram ...........   8 yrs  (II Chron 21:5)       *
    * Under King Ahaziah ...........   1 yr   (II Chron. 22:1-2)    *
    * Under Queen Athaliah .........   6 yrs  (II Chron. 22:10-12)  *
    * Under King Joash .............  40 yrs  (II Chron. 23:13,15,  *
    *                                                    24:1)      *
    * Under King Amaziah ...........  29 yrs  (II Chron. 25:1)      *
    * Under Uzziah .................  52 yrs  (II Chron. 26:3)      *
    * Under Jotham .................  16 yrs  (II Chron. 27:1)      *
    * Under Ahaz ...................  16 yrs  (II Chron. 28:1)      *
    * Under Hezekiah ...............  29 yrs  (II Chron. 29:1)      *
    * Under Manasseh ...............  55 yrs  (II Chron. 33:1)      *
    * Under Amon ...................   2 yrs  (II Chron. 33:20-21)  *
    * Under King Josiah ............  31 yrs  (II Chron. 34:1)      *
    * Under King Jehoahaz ..........   3 mon  (II Chron. 36:1-2)    *
    * Under King Jehoiakim .........  11 yrs  (II Chron. 36:3-7)    *
    * Under King Jehoiachin ........   3 mon  (II Chron. 36:9)      *
    * Under King Zedekiah ..........  11 yrs  (II Chron. 36:11-21)  *
    *                               ---------                       *
    *             KINGS OF JUDAH     513 yrs 
 Adam to Abraham ..................    1948 yrs               *
    *  Abraham to Egypt .................     290 yrs               *
    *                                                               *
    *  From Egypt to Moses: (X) Let X = 63     63 yrs               *
    *                                                               *
    *       X = (Kohath to Amram to Moses)                          *
    *                                                               *
    *  Moses to the Exodus ..............      80 yrs               *
    *  Exodus to death Joshua ...........      70 yrs               *
    *  Judges to Samuel .................     450 yrs (Acts 13:20)  *
    *  Kings of Judah ...................     513 yrs               *
    *  Babylonian Captivity .............     586 B.C.E.            *
    *                                    ---------------            *
    *  Adam to Jesus                          4000 yrs       
the year is 2014 so 4000 plus 2014 means earth is 6014
THANK YOU.
better read genesis again. God was around BEFORE the earth was created , and before the bible was written!
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: littlebit on May 02, 2014, 03:45:47 AM
Numerous gods before the Christian one has died and risen from the grave. Always done to show they transcend what humans fear most.

Countless gods before the Christian god have conceived a child with a mortal woman.

Christianity is a mix of other religions, because the different states and countries within the Roman Empire had their own gods and religions. They were always starting wars in the name of them. To quell the unrest, the Emperor had a religion concocted that had several of the same myths, holidays, and beliefs that these religions had in common to make it easier for the citizens to convert to.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 02, 2014, 04:03:49 AM
why didn't God go above and beyond for His children hi? God is not required to do anything! but what do you think about God sending Jesus to die for us so we can be forgiven of our sins? not enough for you????????
Not really, no. In fact even if any of it were true (Which you haven't even laid one piece of evidence that any judge would accept.) All you have laid out is that a faulty designer created faulty units and instead of accepting his creations he blames them and then sends his son to die just to prove to his creations how good he is. Now mind you this designer is supposed to be all knowing and all powerful, so fixing sin wouldn't have taken a nanosecond to do. He instead decides that he needs his Ego stroked even more. After he sends his son to die, (Which really meant nothing as he respawned in three days and was given second in command of the heavenly armies) he has his believers telling everyone that they go to hell unless they follow his one specific beliefs. Such a cluster to beliefs that there are thousands of denominations each saying they are the only way to heaven. Now with all this he decides to pull one more prank and actually makes it possible to figure out a way it could have all happened naturally. This isn't a good god, this is a Jerk who gets off on being better than everybody else.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 02, 2014, 04:10:31 AM
what is the source of your c&p? what about the period between the ot and the nt? are those yrs in jewish calendar yrs or our calendar yrs.

remember, to God 1 day is as a thousand yrs and a thousand yrs is as 1 day. there are those that think the earth was created in 6000 yrs. the age of the earth is irrelevant. there are many " theories". but no proof of the exact age of the earth. how can there be dinosaur bones millions of yrs old if the earth is 6014 yrs old?


any god other than the God of the bible is a myth. greek mythology for example?

Constantine did change the Sabbath, made Christianity legal, moved Christmas to dec 25. all to fool people to believe the pagan rituals were Christian holidays. jeremiah 10 explains how to observe those days. Contantine was a pagan

many things were done back then to trick people to go to what was referred to as Christianity, but was not. the bible is pretty clear on what Christianity is.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 02, 2014, 04:16:34 AM
evidence a judge would accept?? LOL LOL LOL LOL before a person testifies in court don't they swear an oath to be truthful "so help me God" LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

respawned???????????? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL Jesus was resurrected. have you been lying all along about reading the bible and knowing it inside out???????????????????? I think so! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

you really have lost it and are living in a fantasyland!!!!!!!!!!LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Now you can admit you have never read the bible. your comments prove it!!!!!!!!!!!!LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 02, 2014, 01:04:40 PM
what is the source of your c&p?It's called the bible, ever read it. I put the versus down for you what about the period between the ot and the nt?They are mentioned. We know how long it was from Nebecnezer to jesus. /color] are those yrs in jewish calendar yrs or our calendar yrs. Um earth years. The earth goes around the sun once a year. Israel doesn't go faster of slower.

remember, to God 1 day is as a thousand yrs and a thousand yrs is as 1 dayDoesn't mater, bible is talking about human days. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.. there are those that think the earth was created in 6000 yrs. the age of the earth is irrelevantExcept every scientist thinks it's bull.. . there are many " theories". but no proof of the exact age of the earthCreationist can't even prove when the earth was created. LOL. how can there be dinosaur bones millions of yrs old if the earth is 6014 yrs old?Good question fish, How can dinosaur bones exist if your bible is true.


any god other than the God of the bible is a myth. greek mythology for example? any god is a myth, like the mythos of christianity for example.

Constantine did change the Sabbath, made Christianity legal, moved Christmas to dec 25. all to fool people to believe the pagan rituals were Christian holidays. jeremiah 10 explains how to observe those days. Contantine was a paganWell they all were but that is neither here nor there. 

many things were done back then to trick people to go to what was referred to as Christianity, but was not. the bible is pretty clear on what Christianity is.
Well next time maybe god should get a proofreader before writing another book. This one is full of fail.
evidence a judge would accept?? LOL LOL LOL LOL before a person testifies in court don't they swear an oath to be truthful "so help me God"Actually they dont have to say so help me god, and another point where religion crawls on secularism   LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

respawned???????????? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL Jesus was resurrectedYes respawned, same thing. . have you been lying all along about reading the bible and knowing it inside outNo but have you????????????????????? I think so! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

you really have lost it and are living in a fantasylandTalking snakes and a world wide conspiricy to disprove god... Who is living in a fantasy life. !!!!!!!!!!LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Now you can admit you have never read the bible. your comments prove it!!!!!!!!!!!!LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL Not knowing how stupid and evil your book of mythos really is. Please read it again, everyone please read the bible. We need more atheist.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 02, 2014, 02:07:52 PM
 Why can't the universe (and the earth) be 6000 years old? There is just as much evidence as there is for billions of years. I can answer one or two questions at a time but please don't put twenty on here I'm old and tired. Read some of Walter Brown's book "In the beginning" In Brown's In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood he suggests evidence against evolution and for creation science and flood geology (including hydroplates). It is divided into three sections, the first of which explores discoveries made by scientists that Brown says do not fit the theory of evolution.[5] The second section outlines various alternate explanations to geological and astronomical subjects such as the mid-oceanic ridge and comets, which Brown asserts modern science cannot explain. The final section presents a variety of other questions encountered in the creation-evolution controversy.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: Hi on May 02, 2014, 02:23:00 PM
There are trees older than 6000 years.........thats one of the simplest reasons.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 02, 2014, 02:23:16 PM
If God used something similar to a "white hole" to create the universe and the earth was one of the last things to come out it would be (and is) the center of the universe. And the universe would APPEAR much older than it is! read up on white holes too! If the universe is infinite then the CENTER is wher your a standin when you look at it! Doesn't matter ifen yur a goin around the sun or not!  http://www.universetoday.com/76909/white-holes/ (http://www.universetoday.com/76909/white-holes/)
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 02, 2014, 02:28:34 PM
There are trees older than 6000 years.........thats one of the simplest reasons.
I've read about those (spruce trees in Sweden) they died several times and were reborn. Just another crock of crap trying to disprove creation!
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 02, 2014, 02:32:46 PM
Evidence that Humans and Dinosaurs
 lived together, at the same time!


 Ica burial stone found in Peru

Response to the History Channel's The Quest for Dinosaurs program

The evolutionism myth is used to promote the erroneous belief that humans and dinosaurs lived millions of years apart from each other. Children and adults are indoctrinated with this 'belief' starting from early childhood with books that teach it.  It's reinforced in the public school system, the media and the entertainment industry.  Recent examples include the highly misleading TV documentary called Walking with Dinosaurs that aired on the Discovery Channel, and the History Channel's The Quest for Dinosaurs  program.

The Bible clearly teaches that  humans and dinosaurs (called "dragons" in the past) were created on the same day.  One must engage in hermeneutical back flips to interpret the Bible in any other way on this point.  It also goes on to describe interactions between humans and these creatures.


Close-up of a 3-toed dinosaur footprint in the mud taken in 1966.  Click here to read more about it.



(click on image above to see full size version)
 

What many people are not aware of is that there exists a considerable body of evidence that supports the biblical claim of human/dinosaur interaction.  Some of this evidence suggests that this may be happening even today in certain parts of the world like the African Congo, and even here in the United States.

This evidence exists in many forms. Some examples include:

1.  Eye witness accounts by many people of creatures that are exactly like dinosaurs in appearance. The descriptions include not only sightings, but people actually hunting and killing them are being killed by them. These stories have been documented all over the world in many different cultures. They exist in the writings of several well-known ancient people, and have been documented by scientists as recently as a few years ago.  Some of the best information along these lines come from evolutionists in their book titled "A Living Dinosaur?".   
   
2.  Art work and various ancient artifacts depicting live dinosaurs by themselves, or interacting with humans. These include burial stones, burial cloths, clay figurines, cave drawings, etc.
   
3.  Fossilized footprints of humans and dinosaurs together. While some of these particular discoveries may be questionable, others appear to be far more reliable.

Because evolutionists and the news media have so thoroughly indoctrinated our society into believing we lived millions of years apart from dinosaurs, many will immediately dismiss such evidences as hoaxes, or the result of overactive imaginations. However, like many other 'anomalies' that evolutionists try to explain away or dismiss, this evidence is far too abundant worldwide to ignore.

The problem for evolutionists is that if this is true, it would deal a major blow to evolutionism theory. Some evolutionists will say that if a few dinosaurs were found alive today, it would not do harm to evolutionism. But we're not talking about a few isolated incidents. There are many incidents around the world that are documented in many different cultures. The evidence suggests that this interaction between humans and dinosaurs has in the past been wide-spread, not isolated. If true, this would indeed present a major problem for evolutionists to explain using their world view of origins.

In the months to come, we will be trying to obtain permission to put as much of this evidence as we can on our web site.

 
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 02, 2014, 02:34:15 PM
If God used something similar to a "white hole" to create the universe and the earth was one of the last things to come out it would be (and is) the center of the universe. And the universe would APPEAR much older than it is! read up on white holes too! If the universe is infinite then the CENTER is wher your a standin when you look at it! Doesn't matter ifen yur a goin around the sun or not!  http://www.universetoday.com/76909/white-holes/ (http://www.universetoday.com/76909/white-holes/)
Any proof for that white hole of yours, or just a hypothesis? I mean there are just too many holes in the idea of a white hole.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 02, 2014, 02:58:06 PM
I can't prove how God made everything in 6 days. I can read up on things like white holes and clearly see that its possible our dates are wrong. They have changed several time during my lifetime.
1965
 Age: 10-25 Billion Years
 Size: 25 Billion Light Years

The farthest objects in 1965 were the quasars. The most distant known quasar, named 3C9, was found to be about 12 billion light years away. This gives a size for the universe of about 25 billion light years.

In 1958, Alan Sandage again lowered the value of Hubble's constant, but ended up with a range of ages for the Universe between 15 and 25 billion years. As of 1965, this uncertainty remained, since subsequent studies by a variety of astronomers found different values within this range.

1993
 Age: 12-20 Billion Years
 Size: 30 Billion Light Years

Quasars continue to define the size of the universe into the early 1990's. Quasars had been found with recessional velocities nearly 90% the speed of light, giving distances of 15 billion light years. This gives a size of the universe of 30 billion light years across.

The value of Hubble's constant remained uncertain, giving a range in age for the universe of 12-20 billion years.

2006
 Age: 13.7 Billion Years
 Size: 94 Billion Light Years

The most distant objects in the Universe are 47 billion light years away, making the size of the observable Universe 94 billion light years across. How can the observable universe be larger than the time it takes light to travel over the age of the Universe? This is because the universe has been expanding during this time. This causes very distant objects to be further away from us than their light travel time. For additional information, see Ned Wright's Cosmology FAQ.

The Hubble Key Project, conducted by the Hubble Space Telescope from 1991 to 2000, nailed down the value of the Hubble Constant and hence the age of the Universe. Results from the WMAP satellite further confirmed and refined the age of the Universe to be 13.7 billion years.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: Hi on May 02, 2014, 03:15:42 PM
i dont see your point.....we are far from being able technology wise to nail down a specific age, either way those numbers are far form 6000.  I also dont see how you can believe in things like white holes and dismiss other scientific theories.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 02, 2014, 04:43:46 PM
i dont see your point.....we are far from being able technology wise to nail down a specific age, either way those numbers are far form 6000.  I also dont see how you can believe in things like white holes and dismiss other scientific theories.
Also notice we were never wrong, only able to nail the date down better.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 02, 2014, 07:48:51 PM
Also notice we were never wrong, only able to nail the date down better.
Every generation of atheists say they have it "nailed down" and every time they are wrong (including your generation)
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 02, 2014, 07:54:18 PM
i dont see your point.....we are far from being able technology wise to nail down a specific age, either way those numbers are far form 6000.  I also dont see how you can believe in things like white holes and dismiss other scientific theories.
I don't dismiss all scientific theories. I have just learned that the ones that stay true to the Bible always seem to make more sense! As most scientists learn more about their particular field of study they always conclude that we were created by God! There is no other answer. Young earth sounds crazy only because we have been taught wrong for many years now, but if you really look into it and study it ......it makes more sense to me than the billions of years/ molecules to man theory!
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 02, 2014, 08:01:28 PM
hi disproved your post ebilly. LOL LOL LOL LOL

You have lied about reading the bible. I reread it often. I learn someting new many times.

YES! Everyone should read the bible, even you! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 02, 2014, 10:59:31 PM
hi disproved your post ebilly. LOL LOL LOL LOLum how? (now lets see how you misunderstand how I told you what the bible said, and what the truth is.)

You have lied about reading the bible.I have red it, but the thing is I read other things as well. I test all things by there fruit, and science has given us pretty good fruit.  I reread it often. I learn someting new many times.

YES! Everyone should read the bible, even you! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOLAnd hold it to the same criteria you hold anything else you read.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 02, 2014, 11:10:43 PM
Every generation of atheists say they have it "nailed down" and every time they are wrong (including your generation)
The difference is that we learn, we improve... We might be off, but most likely we will just nail it closer to the exact date.
Tell us how the earth sits on a foundation, or about the firmament
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 03, 2014, 04:24:20 AM
you don't know what the truth is. you believe your lies are the truth!

you have red(read) the bible? you have not proven it! LOL LOL LOL LOL comic books don't count!

science? you trust there(their) fruit??? which is.................

read slower...I read the bible, I also reread the bible. I suggest you do the same! LOL LOL LOL LOL
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 03, 2014, 04:27:14 AM
at least you admit you are off! LOL LOL LOL LOL

maybe read this?LOL LOL LOL LOL http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/05/problems-with-big-bang-expanding.html (http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/05/problems-with-big-bang-expanding.html)

not news to most, scientific theories on the creation of the universe are still unproven! EVERY SINGLE ONE!LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 04, 2014, 07:55:39 PM
The difference is that we learn, we improve... We might be off, but most likely we will just nail it closer to the exact date.
Tell us how the earth sits on a foundation, or about the firmament
Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? 22It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. ( The Bible also says "circle of the earth" kinda blows your flat earth theory all to hell doesn't it?) The "Firmament" could easily have been a canopy of water which helped things survive before the flood and aided in the flooding when it occurred!
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 04, 2014, 08:16:33 PM
Do you not know? Have you not heard? Has it not been declared to you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? 22It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in. ( The Bible also says "circle of the earth" kinda blows your flat earth theory all to hell doesn't it?No circles are flat, orbs are 3d. Learn math. ) The "Firmament" could easily have been a canopy of water which helped things survive before the flood and aided in the flooding when it occurred!
Um No the firmament would kill all life by freezing the planet. Learn science.
And Prometheus came down and brought fire to the humans..
every culture has myths.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 04, 2014, 08:22:39 PM
Um No the firmament would kill all life by freezing the planet. Learn science.
And Prometheus came down and brought fire to the humans..
every culture has myths.
Um...No God put it there and He kinda knows what he's doing!
"learn science" LOL LOL What do you think? Scientists put a firmament up there and tested it? (And you helped right?) Your a joke Dude on every subject.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 04, 2014, 08:36:39 PM
Um...No God put it there and He kinda knows what he's doing!
"learn science" LOL LOL What do you think? Scientists put a firmament up there and tested it? (And you helped right?) Your a joke Dude on every subject.
No it's simple science. If you have a ton of ice above the earth less sunlight gets through. It's not that hard to figure out that if you build a house out of ice is insulate you. If you build are firmament around the planet you keep the light from getting to earth.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 04, 2014, 10:37:01 PM
what you are describing ebilly is based on different scientific models, none have been proven. same for evolution, it has not been proven.

read genesis. the answer is there, not in your comic book!
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 04, 2014, 11:15:23 PM
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

— Psalm 19:1 KJV
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 04, 2014, 11:22:49 PM
what you are describing ebilly is based on different scientific models, none have been proven. same for evolution, it has not been proven.

read genesis. the answer is there, not in your comic book!
Ice is a theory now. We have fridges Fish, we know about ice. We have made homes of ICE, they are called Igloos and we know how they work.
ICE, how does it work...
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 04, 2014, 11:30:43 PM
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

— Psalm 19:1 KJV
And there is no Firmament... That means god has nothing to show his handiwork.
EPIC FAIL IS EPIC
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 05, 2014, 12:48:41 AM
If you have a ton of ice above the earth less sunlight gets through. It's not that hard to figure out that if you build a house out of ice is(it will) insulate you. If you build are(a) firmament around the planet you keep the light from getting to earth.

Ony a ton of ice? not near enough to block any light! LOL LOL LOL there was no light! God didn't create the sun yet. how do you know there was ice????? LOL LOL LOL LOL  a firmament around the planet????????? the planet did not exist .....yet!LOL LOL LOL LOL 

Ice is a theory???LOL LOL LOL LOL   nope, ice on earth is a fact!LOL LOL LOL LOL  your theory of ice around the planet is the result of an unproven model. you keep ice in the fridge??????LOL LOL LOL you made a home of ice??? lets see a picture!LOL LOL LOL LOL 


prove there is no firmament! read gen 1: 14-19:
Genesis 1:14-19

King James Version (KJV)

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


 the firmament is  referred to as the expanse in other versions.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 05, 2014, 01:25:54 AM
If you have a ton of ice above the earth less sunlight gets through. It's not that hard to figure out that if you build a house out of ice is(it will) insulate you. If you build are(a) firmament around the planet you keep the light from getting to earth.

Ony a ton of ice? not near enough to block any lightI used ton as a lot, not as 2000 lbs ! LOL LOL LOL there was no lightSun exist after earth, again. ! God didn't create the sun yet. how do you know there was ice When water is less than 32 degrees fahrenheit it freezes. ????? LOL LOL LOL LOL  a firmament around the planet????????? the planet did not exist .....yet!LOL LOL LOL LOL 

Ice is a theory???LOL LOL LOL LOL   nope, ice on earth is a factMake up your mind. You said it was, now you deny it. Lying again I see. !LOL LOL LOL LOL  your theory of ice around the planet is the result of an unproven modelYes, it was from your bible, of course it is a unproven model. . you keep ice in the fridgeA refrigeration device... Yes. ??????LOL LOL LOL you made a home of iceWhen I was 8. I didn't think there was a person dumb enough to think you can't make homes of ice. I am sorry. ??? lets see a picture!LOL LOL LOL LOL 


prove there is no firmament! read gen 1: 14-19:
Genesis 1:14-19We have been to space. I get sat tv... No need for a drill to get through that pesky ice.

King James Version (KJV)

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:Except they are not in the Firmament, they are trillions of miles away. We orbit said stars. 

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.Stars existed long before the earth ever existed adam would have never seen the stars.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.Moon gives off no light but reflects light from the sun

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,Except the moon doesn't give light and the Sun existed before the earth.

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.You can't divide light from darkness, If you don't have light you have darkness. That is about as saying separating the heat from the cold..

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Plants were created on the third day, sun doesn't exist till the fourth.


 the firmament is  referred to as the expanse in other versions.
So no one even knows what the Firmament is?
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: littlebit on May 05, 2014, 01:52:44 AM
The firmament is the sky, conceived as a solid dome.

According to Genesis, God created the firmament to separate the "waters above" the earth from those below. And God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water."
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 05, 2014, 03:24:53 AM
The firmament is the sky, conceived as a solid dome.

According to Genesis, God created the firmament to separate the "waters above" the earth from those below. And God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water."
Thank you for that little bit of info. That would mean that there is 10^109 atoms of water in the sky. But we have been to the moon and know that there is no icy shield... As often as Fish fails you think he is a majicarp.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 05, 2014, 03:47:25 AM
water does not always freeze at 32 degrees! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL  there was no light until God created the sun!

you said ice was a theory! losing track of your lies??? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL  ice is a fact on earth!!
 
the bible said Ice was around the earth? prove it ! what chapter and verse?

you said a "fridge". LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL twisting or lying again? hard to keep track?? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

I want to see the home you said you made!LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

God created the stars after He created the earth! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL


we may have been to the moon, but we have not been to the limits of space, but you are the one saying there is ice out there!LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

 Genesis 1:16.

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

ya might want to revisit what a firmament is. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL  no one knows the limit of the "expanse" !!!LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL


ya might want to review genesis again. God created the sun and the moon(and stars) on the 4th day. what did He create the 1st 3 days???????LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

eh, you are catching on! the moon reflects light from the sun!!!!LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

ya might want to think this one through.......... again  "You can't divide light from darkness, If you don't have light you have darkness. That is about as (as what?)saying separating the heat from the cold.." If you don't have light you have darkness? How profound!!!!!! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

you got caught in another lie....again you said "Sun exist after earth, again.",Except the moon doesn't give light and the Sun existed before the earth.  what was sprouting on earth the 3rd day? vegetation. genesis 1:11-13 what was created the 4th day?? the sun, moon and stars genesis 1:14-19. you sure have a habit of getting caught lying......again!!!! by your own post!!!!!!!!! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

You said " Plants were created on the third day, sun doesn't exist till the fourth. " you burned yourself!!!!!!!!!!LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 05, 2014, 03:49:15 AM
you are the one saying there was/is ice out there! prove it! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 05, 2014, 12:57:20 PM
water does not always freeze at 32 degreesOh so tell me when fresh water freezes at near absolute zero. ! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL  there was no light until God created the sun!Dude there were two days when light was without the sun. It's in your bible. Day one light, day four the sun. Cant keep up with your lies.

you said ice was a theoryUm no, you were the one that said we can't know if ice blocks out light because it is only a untested theory. Are you that dumb. I was laughing at you, the fool that said ice is a theory. ! losing track of your lies??? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL  ice is a fact on earth!!
 
the bible said Ice was around the earth? prove it ! what chapter and verse? Gen 1:6. Any water that high would exist as a solid, not a gas.

you said a "fridge". LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL twisting or lying again? hard to keep track?? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOLMy fridge is cold enough to make ice, So neither.

I want to see the home you said you made!LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL Really, well i didn't make this one but it was similar to this...(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Igloo.jpg)

God created the stars after He created the earth! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL And yet we could see the stars even though it should be so far away that Adam wouldn't have seen his first star till he was four years old.


we may have been to the moon, but we have not been to the limits of space, but you are the one saying there is ice out there!LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL No you did. You said the stars were in the firmament, the firmament is water. Thus we should have to drill to leave our planet and we dont....Oh and Voyager 1 and 2 have left our solar system so... We are starting to see the limits aren't we.

 Genesis 1:16.

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

ya might want to revisit what a firmament is. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL  no one knows the limit of the "expanse" You mean a vacuum. We understand that pretty well. !!!LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL


ya might want to review genesis again. God created the sun and the moon(and stars) on the 4th day. what did He create the 1st 3 days???????LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOLFirst day light, (Which is stupid if you are going to create the sun later.) Second day he separated the water from the land. Third day the plants. Fourth the sun... WORST CREATION EVER.

eh, you are catching on! the moon reflects light from the sun!!!!LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL And god calls them lights.

ya might want to think this one through.......... again  "You can't divide light from darkness, If you don't have light you have darkness. That is about as (as what?)saying separating the heat from the cold.." If you don't have light you have darkness? How profound!!!!!! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL And god said he separated them like it was some oily water mixture.

you got caught in another lie....again you said "Sun exist after earth, again.",Except the moon doesn't give light and the Sun existed before the earth.  what was sprouting on earth the 3rd day?whoops you are right. I added reality to your fantasy. It was a accident and Next time I will leave the laws of logic and reason outside your fantasy.  vegetation. genesis 1:11-13 what was created the 4th day?? the sun, moon and stars genesis 1:14-19. you sure have a habit of getting caught lying......again!!!! by your own post!!!!!!!!! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

You said " Plants were created on the third day, sun doesn't exist till the fourth. " you burned yourself!!!!!!!!!!LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOLYou bible says that plants came first.
And when you try to understand genesis you have to ignore all the plotholes. This is worse then the ending to lost.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 05, 2014, 03:14:47 PM
You keep forgetting we are talking about GOD! He wants light without the sun then that's what happens! He wants plants without rain....That's what happens! He wants a "Firmament" Then there is a flea flicking firmament! Try to imagine the wisdom of God, and then having humans write it down so people like ebilly can understand it! There is nothing wrong with the book....its the people reading it!
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 05, 2014, 03:54:53 PM
You keep forgetting we are talking about GOD! He wants light without the sun then that's what happens! He wants plants without rain....That's what happens! He wants a "Firmament" Then there is a flea flicking firmament! Try to imagine the wisdom of God, and then having humans write it down so people like ebilly can understand it! There is nothing wrong with the book....its the people reading it!
And that's the point Mark. You want to keep adding the mystical magical qualifier to god. You have to start out assuming he exist, and not only exist but have infinite faith in him. Every time something seems impossible you add to the god. Your god can't fail, because any time someone knocks a chunk out you rebuild it with your imagination.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 05, 2014, 04:19:58 PM
And that's the point Mark. You want to keep adding the mystical magical qualifier to god. You have to start out assuming he exist, and not only exist but have infinite faith in him. Every time something seems impossible you add to the god. Your god can't fail, because any time someone knocks a chunk out you rebuild it with your imagination.
Its also how you get to Heaven! (I'll know all the answers then!) Will you?
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 05, 2014, 04:31:11 PM
LOL LOL LOL LOL God is a fact! He has never been disproven!!! LOL LOL LOL LOL

you are the one with the ice theory around the earth. Can't keep track of your lies??LOL LOL LOL LOL

it says waters!

taking credit for someone else's work?? LOL LOL LOL LOL

how do you know adam couldn't see the stars until he was 4 yrs old! were you there???

I did not say the stars are the firmament. you are lying again! no surprise!LOL LOL LOL LOL The firmament is also called an expanse!

we are only continuing to see the limits our space craft can go. we don't know the limits of the universe!

you have don't know the laws of logic and reason!LOL LOL LOL LOL you would not be debating the fact God created all if you did! LOL LOL LOL LOL

where is the verse that says "And god said he separated them like it was some oily water mixture." prove it!

you finally admitted you lied!!!!!! LOL LOL LOL LOL will wonders never cease!!LOL LOL LOL LOL

God doesn't need the sun for light. look up the new Jerusalem. ever hear of illumination?????????

"You(your) bible says that plants came first." yes it does. what's your point???

you are the one that keeps building with your imagination. LOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOL

 

Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 05, 2014, 04:47:54 PM
LOL LOL LOL LOL God is a fact! He has never been disproven!!! LOL LOL LOL LOLYet he has never been proven either. You can't prove a negative, no one can.

you are the one with the ice theory around the earth. Can't keep track of your lies??LOL LOL LOL LOLWater as a liquid can not exist in space

it says waters!

taking credit for someone else's work?? LOL LOL LOL LOLNo, I already said It looked similar.

how do you know adam couldn't see the stars until he was 4 yrs old! were you there???The nearest star is 4 light years away, that means it would take 4 years for the light to reach earth, Duhhh.

I did not say the stars are the firmament. you are lying again! no surprise!LOL LOL LOL LOL The firmament is also called an expanse!You said they were in the Firmament. The Firmament is water, (Ice) so please explain.

we are only continuing to see the limits our space craft can go. we don't know the limits of the universe!How far has your bible flown... Oh no where?

you have don't know the laws of logic and reason!LOL LOL LOL LOL you would not be debating the fact God created all if you did! LOL LOL LOL LOLNo that is not true, If you believe something without reason you are doing things illogically.

where is the verse that says "And god said he separated them like it was some oily water mixture." prove it!He seperated the darkness from the light.

you finally admitted you lied!!!!!! LOL LOL LOL LOL will wonders never cease!!LOL LOL LOL LOLI admitted I used reason.

God doesn't need the sun for light. look up the new Jerusalem. ever hear of illumination?????????When in doubt give your god a new superpower.

"You(your) bible says that plants came first." yes it does. what's your point???Plants need sunlight to grow and heat from the sun.

you are the one that keeps building with your imagination. LOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOL
Scientist do use their imaginations.That is why we have computers, medicine and combustion engines. When christians had the world we had 500 years of dark ages. We should be seeing the stars by now and building starships. Thanks you your silly religion we are a half millennium away.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 05, 2014, 04:56:34 PM
Its also how you get to Heaven! (I'll know all the answers then!) Will you?
Knowing all the answers, that would be a hell to me. Perfection is the worst kind of hell, and perfect knowledge would be the worst. Do you only believe in god because of a far flung promise of heaven. What if you are wrong? What if in the end there is not punishment or reward for behavior. What if the last conscious thought is that you gave up your dreams for nothing. Hell is not the worst thing I can imagine, it is a life unlived. It is a life that you were to afraid to live.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 05, 2014, 06:07:06 PM
Knowing all the answers, that would be a hell to me. Perfection is the worst kind of hell, and perfect knowledge would be the worst. Do you only believe in god because of a far flung promise of heaven. What if you are wrong? What if in the end there is not punishment or reward for behavior. What if the last conscious thought is that you gave up your dreams for nothing. Hell is not the worst thing I can imagine, it is a life unlived. It is a life that you were to afraid to live.
I believe in God because the Universe, Earth, Life, all screams Intelligent Design. Can you not simply look outside and know that God had to create all that you see? Why is this so hard for you? You can believe that a dot that came from nothing did it, but you can't believe in God? Is it your misinterpretation of the Bible? And what makes you think I'm giving up my dreams? If I live a good Christian lifestyle and it turns out there is no Heaven....What have I lost?
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 05, 2014, 07:31:44 PM
I believe in God because the Universe, Earth, Life, all screams Intelligent DesignIn other words, you can't think of a answer thus god. Why not just end at i don't know.. Can you not simply look outside and know that Godwhat is a god? Please define what a god is to someone who has never heard of a god.  had to create all that you see?Why would I? Why is this so hard for you?I like to know that the things I believe in make sense.  You can believe that a dot that came from nothing did itWell it's a simple way to put it. but we don't know where it came from. , but you can't believe in God? Is it your misinterpretation of the BibleA book so important to mankind should not need a translator. ? And what makes you think I'm giving up my dreams? If I live a good Christian lifestyle and it turns out there is no Heaven....What have I lost?
You have lost the fun of learning about the way the world works. You have lost your chance to advanced humanity... And you have left nothing behind.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 05, 2014, 08:48:39 PM
You have lost the fun of learning about the way the world works. You have lost your chance to advanced humanity... And you have left nothing behind.
"lurnin bout the whay the world wurks" Really billy? I learneded yur version of how the world wurks 40 years ago! Now I have expanded my mind to understand the Spiritual side of things. Your missing out my friend, not me!
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 05, 2014, 09:12:29 PM
"lurnin bout the whay the world wurks" Really billy? I learneded yur version of how the world wurks 40 years ago! Now I have expanded my mind to understand the Spiritual side of things. Your missing out my friend, not me!
But the thing is, you haven't. Do you know the answer to every spiritual question. god dun it.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 05, 2014, 09:54:31 PM
I have shone you time after time using science, how God dun it!
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 05, 2014, 11:33:43 PM
I have shone you time after time using science, how God dun it!
And I have shown that it doesn't add up, and you have to add magic to make it work.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 06, 2014, 01:41:14 AM
 :deadhorse:
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 06, 2014, 02:05:41 AM
:deadhorse:
Then why do you keep on doing it. You know you wont change my mind, and that you don't have the evidence to prove it. You know that you are not going to change the world or even your slice of it. If you are so annoyed why do you keep making post like this.
I do it cause I love to debate. If you feel like this is going nowhere and isn't any fun what is your purpose... I do it for the Lulz honestly.   :2popcorn:
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 06, 2014, 02:16:29 AM
If you pulled your head out, you would see the evidence of God!!!!!!!!!!! LOL LOL LOL LOL belief in God is the result of logic(sound reasoning) your denial that God exists proves you are incapable of sound reasoning! LOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOL

how do you know water couldn't be a liquid in space?????

you said it was similar to the ice home you made. let's see a picture of the one you built!!!!!!!LOL LOL LOL LOL

how do you know the nearest star was 4 light yrs away from adam? it maybe 4 light yrs away from us but may be not from adam.!!LOL LOL LOL LOL

you called the firmament water. prove it is! oh yeah, another theory!!!LOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOL

got stumped again?????????LOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOL we only know hat the spacecrafts have sent back. we don't know the limit of the expanse!LOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOL odd how new universes pop up!LOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOL

"No that is not true, If you believe something without reason you are doing things illogically. " a perfect summation of your outlook on God!  LOL LOL LOL

the bible did not say God separated the dark from the light like some oily water mixture!!

nope, Gods powers are used when needed. illumination will be used in the new Jerusalem, just as it was during creation of the earth!! God is omnipotent, remember?????????????

plants need the sun and heat to grow, but not to be planted. God made them sprout without the sun. God is omnipotent!! how do you know there was no heat????

you are the one that keeps building with your imagination. LOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOL

not one of your "theories" has been proven as fact! not a single one! they are not even believable after sound reasoning!! they are based on models that are built on incomplete data that changes.

your bubble has burst!LOL LOL LOL your theories are meaningless, there is no santa claus, there is no easter bunny!LOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOL

However, God is eternal. you even(you say) believed in Him before!  Truth and logic alwaqys wins! your comic books failed again!

you don't like to debate. liars can't debate. you just have an addiction to negative attention. that is why you keep coming back.

I'll help you with your fix! LOL LOL LOL maybe you will tire and see the light. if not, no loss!
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: Lepard LLC on May 06, 2014, 02:11:17 PM
For Mark

http://dailycurrant.com/2014/04/19/scientists-successfully-teach-monkey-theory-of-evolution/ (http://dailycurrant.com/2014/04/19/scientists-successfully-teach-monkey-theory-of-evolution/)
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 06, 2014, 04:31:20 PM
If you pulled your head out, you would see the evidence of God!!!!!!!!!!! LOL LOL LOL LOL belief in God is the result of logic(sound reasoning) your denial that God exists proves you are incapable of sound reasoning! LOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLAll you have to do is prove it.

how do you know water couldn't be a liquid in space????? Because space is cold, mcay, and cold things freeze.

you said it was similar to the ice home you made. let's see a picture of the one you built!!!!!!!LOL LOL LOL LOLI was seven... Of course i don't still have a picture.

how do you know the nearest star was 4 light yrs away from adam? Trigonometry.  it maybe 4 light yrs away from us but may be not from adam.!!LOL LOL LOL LOLSo adam was not on earth?

you called the firmament water. prove it is! oh yeah, another theory!!!LOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLDude it's in your bible. Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water."

got stumped againNope,?????????LOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOL we only know hat The sombrero space station is our best source of knowladge LOL  ? the spacecrafts have sent back. we don't know the limit of the expanse!LOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOL odd how new universes pop upNew universes would not pop up in ours, that's just stupid. ?!LOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOL

"No that is not true, If you believe something without reason you are doing things illogically. " a perfect summation of your outlook on God!  LOL LOL LOLSo science is not enough reason. A world that we have is not built on christ, it is built on silicone. ?

the bible did not say God separated the dark from the light like some oily water mixture!!and god separated the darkness from the light. Sure sounds that way. ?

nope, Gods powers are used when needed. illumination will be used in the new Jerusalem, just as it was during creation of the earth!! God is omnipotent, remember?????????????Your superhero is a Gary Stu. Pretty sad bro. ?

plants need the sun and heat to grow, but not to be planted. God made them sprout without the sun. God is omnipotent!! how do you know there was no heat????More magic. And heat comes from the sun, without it we would freeze. ?

you are the one that keeps building with your imagination. LOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLYes, but it all works. You are stuck in your fantasy, unable to dream because it might defy god. LOL LOL?

not one of your "theories" has been proven as fact! not a single one! they are not even believable after sound reasoning!! they are based on models that are built on incomplete data that changes. Except they do work. We have seen evidence for all of it. If science and religion were burned today, science would return. The theories might be tweaked but they would be the same. Religion would exist as well, but Christ and the bible would never return. ?

your bubble has burst!LOL LOL LOL your theories are meaningless, there is no santa claus, there is no easter bunny!LOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLExactly, there is no Santa, (But you can't prove it) there is no easter bunny, and there is no god. Thank you. ?

However, God is eternal. you even(you say) believed in Him beforeYes, I was ill informed and learned that I was wrong. ?!  Truth and logic alwaqys wins!Yes but it is slow. Thankfully Europe is progressing faster than merica. ? your comic books failed again!Calling me on comic books, believes in a magic man. ?

you don't like to debate Then stop?. liars can't debateis that why you are losing. ?. you just have an addiction to negative attentionMaybe, it's funny to see you squirm. ?. that is why you keep coming back That and I love seeing rednecks fight over der god. It's hilarious that if you actually believed you would show me instead of telling me. I had originally wanted a battle of wits, but found you unarmed. I guess I should have stopped but it's just so much fun.  ?.

I'll help you with your fix! LOL LOL LOL maybe you will tire and see the light. if not, no loss!
Tire, why would I do that. You are so funny.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 06, 2014, 08:18:03 PM
For Mark

http://dailycurrant.com/2014/04/19/scientists-successfully-teach-monkey-theory-of-evolution/ (http://dailycurrant.com/2014/04/19/scientists-successfully-teach-monkey-theory-of-evolution/)
Funny, but I could shoot and eat "Pongo Pete" for dinner! You might have noticed also.....just how many people know the truth!
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 06, 2014, 09:20:00 PM
Funny, but I could shoot and eat "Pongo Pete" for dinner! You might have noticed also.....just how many people know the truth!
Funny, ,I didn't know a persons place on the food chain was important, also satire is satire. It's funny you keep spouting "THE TRUTH" Yet your only way to prove it is by saying the opposing theories are wrong. How would the world change if we accepted god. How would the world change if we got rid of all the science that christians don't agree with.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 06, 2014, 09:30:18 PM
you are still a broken record!LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOLGod's existance is proven evrydaY LOL LOL LOL

what about the heat given off by the sun? it couldn't be a liquid in some areas of theuniverse??LOL LOL LOL you don't know?LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL

lame excuse for lying about something simple as an igloo! LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL

how do you know the distance of ALL stars in adams time, compared to today? you don'tLOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL

so again, where is the water in the firmament????????LOL LOL LOL

better recheck that universe stuff! another one popped up not too long ago. what about the planet that recently was discovered that may be compatible for life??LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL

the universe was built by God through Jesus. it is not built on Christ! God proves science and vice versa , remember?????

afraid to read about the new jerusalem in revelations? Illumination is the light!LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL

what was the tempurature of the earth during the 1st 3 days of creation????????????

I deal in facts. you are the one reading the copmic books  LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL

none of your imaginative theories have been proven! God is proven everyday!

the bible says God separated the dark from the light like some oily water mixture!! prove it with the verse! LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL

none of the theories work . if they did they would be facts! LOL LOL LOL LOL NONE of your theories have been proven LOLLOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL
LOLLOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL there is no evidence!

there is no science without God! LOLLOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL tweaking theories ????that never happensLOLLOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL

God is proven everyday!LOLLOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL

only a fool stops believing in God.

truth and logic always wins, it is only slow for the ones that deny it! Europe is falling faster than America. your comic books are filled with fanntasy. my bible is filled with facts that you cannot refute!LOLLOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOLLOLLOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL

I'm not losing!LOLLOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL especially to a liar! LOLLOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL

I'm not the one squirming, I am not the one resorting to lies!

better watch the redneck stuff! LOL LOL LOL you are the one raising a bastard, because you won't marry the mother of your child! LOL LOL LOL LOL or maybe she has standards and won't marry you! LOL LOL LOL LOL

when you have no morals, when you have to resort to lies, when you do not have the conviction of your beliefs, you are a loser in every sense of the word!  LOLLOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL

I don't tire. I am helping you get your fix of negative attention. something you obviously crave!LOL LOL LOL that's why you keep coming back!

 



Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 06, 2014, 09:57:37 PM
Funny, ,I didn't know a persons place on the food chain was important, also satire is satire. It's funny you keep spouting "THE TRUTH" Yet your only way to prove it is by saying the opposing theories are wrong. How would the world change if we accepted god. How would the world change if we got rid of all the science that christians don't agree with.
You might want to look through the Religion Section a little closer. I've been using nothing but science to prove your theory wrong on here for many years now!
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 06, 2014, 10:56:54 PM
You might want to look through the Religion Section a little closer. I've been using nothing but science to prove your theory wrong on here for many years now!
And when I point out they are not and explain the problems you go to your next copy paste. You want to say you are using science then defend it don't just go to your next copy paste.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 06, 2014, 11:31:25 PM
And when I point out they are not and explain the problems you go to your next copy paste. You want to say you are using science then defend it don't just go to your next copy paste.
Many times its because your so far off, I can' bring myself to even respond. But mostly its the way you cut it up into 20 different comments. I'm old Dude! I can easily show you the flaws in your religion....Just not 20 at a time.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 07, 2014, 12:34:41 AM
Many times its because your so far off, I can' bring myself to even respond. But mostly its the way you cut it up into 20 different comments. I'm old Dude! I can easily show you the flaws in your religion....Just not 20 at a time.
Fine then stop asking so many. Ask one question, and I will give you one answer, and ask you a question.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 07, 2014, 12:47:29 AM
Fine then stop asking so many. Ask one question, and I will give you one answer, and ask you a question.
You are the STUDENT grasshopper! When you can take the pebble from my hand.........
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 07, 2014, 12:58:05 AM
You are the STUDENT grasshopper! When you can take the pebble from my hand.........
Be careful, there are no bad students only bad teachers.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 07, 2014, 01:12:01 AM
I have one for you.......How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen).  What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? Please spare me your RNA hypothesis!
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 07, 2014, 01:27:32 AM
did you quit college? no longer trying to be a teacher? the public education system will benefit!! LOL LOL LOL LOL ya might want to take your own advice  about the cut and pastes! you are just retyping instead of c&p! LOL LOL

and remember, rednecks built this country!
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 07, 2014, 02:12:47 AM
I have one for you.......How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen).  What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? Please spare me your RNA hypothesis!
Well what is wrong with RNA, you keep saying I can't use it but what is wrong with it. It exist in nature, and is simpler. Tying it with TNA, a sugar molucule I do not understand why you are against it.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 07, 2014, 11:28:17 AM
Well what is wrong with RNA, you keep saying I can't use it but what is wrong with it. It exist in nature, and is simpler. Tying it with TNA, a sugar molucule I do not understand why you are against it.
Got nothing huh?
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 07, 2014, 11:30:48 AM
How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things?  How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 07, 2014, 12:41:56 PM
God created dna,rna,tna, all the molecules, pretty simple for most to understand! LOL LOL LOL
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 07, 2014, 12:46:27 PM
  How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? Sure looks like God to me Fish!  LOL LOL
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: Hi on May 07, 2014, 02:52:11 PM
I learnded everthing i need to know about evolution 40 years ago.........funniest thing ive read all thread....
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 07, 2014, 03:22:11 PM
I learnded everthing i need to know about evolution 40 years ago.........funniest thing ive read all thread....
Hi can't answer the questions either. Funniest thing I've seen all day! (Try to get your quotes straight) I learneded yur version of how the world wurks 40 years ago!
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 07, 2014, 04:29:54 PM
  How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? Sure looks like God to me Fish!  LOL LOL
More from the great Paul davis, or Why Quote mining fails in the age of the internet.

How the unique properties of life originated from inert matter is still one of the great unsolved problems of biology. Creationists, of course, claim that our failure to solve it means that God did it: as Ingersoll noted in yesterday’s quote, “Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.”

And perhaps we’ll never know precisely how life began, for it happened in the distant past and involved chemical reactions that could not fossilize.  But I have confidence in three things: life originated naturally and not through God’s fiat; that we will show that this was possible within 50 years or so by demonstrating the evolution of life-like systems in the laboratory under primitive Earth conditions; and that while life may have originated more than once, all living species descended from only a single proto-organism (lots of evidence for that one). If we can demonstrate the origin of life in the lab through realistic experiments, then—although we may not know how it really happened several billion years ago—we can say that it could have happened naturally, and therefore we need not invoke God.
Got nothing huh?
Actually I answered, tell me what is wrong with TNA. .
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 07, 2014, 04:40:49 PM
  How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? Sure looks like God to me Fish!  LOL LOL
Hate to do the copy paste thing but you are asking for a encyclopedia here and a simple word or a hundred won't do.

Introduction
Every so often, someone comes up with the statement "the formation of any enzyme by chance is nearly impossible, therefore abiogenesis is impossible". Often they cite an impressive looking calculation from the astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, or trot out something called "Borel's Law" to prove that life is statistically impossible. These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the following errors.

Glossary
Acyl transferase:
An enzyme or ribozyme that synthesizes peptides.
Ligase:
An enzyme or ribozyme that adds a monomer to a polymer, or links two shorter polymers together.
Monomer:
Any single subunit of a polymer. An amino acid is a monomer of a peptide or protein, a nucleotide is a monomer of an oligonucleotide or polynucleotide.
Nucleotide:
Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and Uracil. These are the monomers that make up oligo- or polynucleotides such as RNA.
Oligonucleotide:
A short polymer of nucleotide subunits.
Polymerase:
A enzyme or ribozyme that makes a polymer out of monomers. For example, RNA polymerase makes RNA out of single nucleotides.
Ribozyme:
A biological catalyst made from RNA.
Self-replicator:
A molecule which can make an identical or near-identical copy of itself from smaller subunits. At least four self-replicators are known.
Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations

1) They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

2) They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

3) They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

5) They seriously underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

I will try and walk people through these various errors, and show why it is not possible to do a "probability of abiogenesis" calculation in any meaningful way.

A primordial protoplasmic globule
So the calculation goes that the probability of forming a given 300 amino acid long protein (say an enzyme like carboxypeptidase) randomly is (1/20)300 or 1 chance in 2.04 x 10390, which is astoundingly, mind-beggaringly improbable. This is then cranked up by adding on the probabilities of generating 400 or so similar enzymes until a figure is reached that is so huge that merely contemplating it causes your brain to dribble out your ears. This gives the impression that the formation of even the smallest organism seems totally impossible. However, this is completely incorrect.

Firstly, the formation of biological polymers from monomers is a function of the laws of chemistry and biochemistry, and these are decidedly not random.

Secondly, the entire premise is incorrect to start off with, because in modern abiogenesis theories the first "living things" would be much simpler, not even a protobacteria, or a preprotobacteria (what Oparin called a protobiont [8] and Woese calls a progenote [4]), but one or more simple molecules probably not more than 30-40 subunits long. These simple molecules then slowly evolved into more cooperative self-replicating systems, then finally into simple organisms [2, 5, 10, 15, 28]. An illustration comparing a hypothetical protobiont and a modern bacteria is given below.(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/urcell1.jpg)


The first "living things" could have been a single self replicating molecule, similar to the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group [7, 17], or the self replicating hexanucleotide [10], or possibly an RNA polymerase that acts on itself [12].(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/srep.gif)



Another view is the first self-replicators were groups of catalysts, either protein enzymes or RNA ribozymes, that regenerated themselves as a catalytic cycle [3, 5, 15, 26, 28]. An example is the SunY three subunit self-replicator [24]. These catalytic cycles could be limited in a small pond or lagoon, or be a catalytic complex adsorbed to either clay or lipid material on clay. Given that there are many catalytic sequences in a group of random peptides or polynucleotides (see below) it's not unlikely that a small catalytic complex could be formed.

These two models are not mutually exclusive. The Ghadiri peptide can mutate and form catalytic cycles [9].

No matter whether the first self-replicators were single molecules, or complexes of small molecules, this model is nothing like Hoyle's "tornado in a junkyard making a 747". Just to hammer this home, here is a simple comparison of the theory criticised by creationists, and the actual theory of abiogenesis.


Note that the real theory has a number of small steps, and in fact I've left out some steps (especially between the hypercycle-protobiont stage) for simplicity. Each step is associated with a small increase in organisation and complexity, and the chemicals slowly climb towards organism-hood, rather than making one big leap [4, 10, 15, 28].(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif)

Where the creationist idea that modern organisms form spontaneously comes from is not certain. The first modern abiogenesis formulation, the Oparin/Haldane hypothesis from the 20's, starts with simple proteins/proteinoids developing slowly into cells. Even the ideas circulating in the 1850's were not "spontaneous" theories. The nearest I can come to is Lamarck's original ideas from 1803! [8]

Given that the creationists are criticising a theory over 150 years out of date, and held by no modern evolutionary biologist, why go further? Because there are some fundamental problems in statistics and biochemistry that turn up in these mistaken "refutations".

The myth of the "life sequence"
Another claim often heard is that there is a "life sequence" of 400 proteins, and that the amino acid sequences of these proteins cannot be changed, for organisms to be alive.

This, however, is nonsense. The 400 protein claim seems to come from the protein coding genome of Mycobacterium genetalium, which has the smallest genome currently known of any modern organism [20]. However, inspection of the genome suggests that this could be reduced further to a minimal gene set of 256 proteins [20]. Note again that this is a modern organism. The first protobiont/progenote would have been smaller still [4], and preceded by even simpler chemical systems [3, 10, 11, 15].

As to the claim that the sequences of proteins cannot be changed, again this is nonsense. There are in most proteins regions where almost any amino acid can be substituted, and other regions where conservative substitutions (where charged amino acids can be swapped with other charged amino acids, neutral for other neutral amino acids and hydrophobic amino acids for other hydrophobic amino acids) can be made. Some functionally equivalent molecules can have between 30 - 50% of their amino acids different. In fact it is possible to substitute structurally non-identical bacterial proteins for yeast proteins, and worm proteins for human proteins, and the organisms live quite happily.

The "life sequence" is a myth.

Coin tossing for beginners and macromolecular assembly
So let's play the creationist game and look at forming a peptide by random addition of amino acids. This certainly is not the way peptides formed on the early Earth, but it will be instructive.

I will use as an example the "self-replicating" peptide from the Ghadiri group mentioned above [7]. I could use other examples, such as the hexanucleotide self-replicator [10], the SunY self-replicator [24] or the RNA polymerase described by the Eckland group [12], but for historical continuity with creationist claims a small peptide is ideal. This peptide is 32 amino acids long with a sequence of RMKQLEEKVYELLSKVACLEYEVARLKKVGE and is an enzyme, a peptide ligase that makes a copy of itself from two 16 amino acid long subunits. It is also of a size and composition that is ideally suited to be formed by abiotic peptide synthesis. The fact that it is a self replicator is an added irony.

The probability of generating this in successive random trials is (1/20)32 or 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040. This is much, much more probable than the 1 in 2.04 x 10390 of the standard creationist "generating carboxypeptidase by chance" scenario, but still seems absurdly low.

However, there is another side to these probability estimates, and it hinges on the fact that most of us don't have a feeling for statistics. When someone tells us that some event has a one in a million chance of occuring, many of us expect that one million trials must be undergone before the said event turns up, but this is wrong.

Here is a experiment you can do yourself: take a coin, flip it four times, write down the results, and then do it again. How many times would you think you had to repeat this procedure (trial) before you get 4 heads in a row?

Now the probability of 4 heads in a row is is (1/2)4 or 1 chance in 16: do we have to do 16 trials to get 4 heads (HHHH)? No, in successive experiments I got 11, 10, 6, 16, 1, 5, and 3 trials before HHHH turned up. The figure 1 in 16 (or 1 in a million or 1 in 1040) gives the likelihood of an event in a given trial, but doesn't say where it will occur in a series. You can flip HHHH on your very first trial (I did). Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040, a self-replicator could have turned up surprisingly early. But there is more.

1 chance in 4.29 x 1040 is still orgulously, gobsmackingly unlikely; it's hard to cope with this number. Even with the argument above (you could get it on your very first trial) most people would say "surely it would still take more time than the Earth existed to make this replicator by random methods". Not really; in the above examples we were examining sequential trials, as if there was only one protein/DNA/proto-replicator being assembled per trial. In fact there would be billions of simultaneous trials as the billions of building block molecules interacted in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines that could provide catalytic surfaces or templates [2,15].

Let's go back to our example with the coins. Say it takes a minute to toss the coins 4 times; to generate HHHH would take on average 8 minutes. Now get 16 friends, each with a coin, to all flip the coin simultaneously 4 times; the average time to generate HHHH is now 1 minute. Now try to flip 6 heads in a row; this has a probability of (1/2)6 or 1 in 64. This would take half an hour on average, but go out and recruit 64 people, and you can flip it in a minute. If you want to flip a sequence with a chance of 1 in a billion, just recruit the population of China to flip coins for you, you will have that sequence in no time flat.

So, if on our prebiotic earth we have a billion peptides growing simultaneously, that reduces the time taken to generate our replicator significantly.

Okay, you are looking at that number again, 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040, that's a big number, and although a billion starting molecules is a lot of molecules, could we ever get enough molecules to randomly assemble our first replicator in under half a billion years?

Yes, one kilogram of the amino acid arginine has 2.85 x 1024 molecules in it (that's well over a billion billion); a tonne of arginine has 2.85 x 1027 molecules. If you took a semi-trailer load of each amino acid and dumped it into a medium size lake, you would have enough molecules to generate our particular replicator in a few tens of years, given that you can make 55 amino acid long proteins in 1 to 2 weeks [14,16].

So how does this shape up with the prebiotic Earth? On the early Earth it is likely that the ocean had a volume of 1 x 1024 litres. Given an amino acid concentration of 1 x 10-6 M (a moderately dilute soup, see Chyba and Sagan 1992 [23]), then there are roughly 1 x 1050 potential starting chains, so that a fair number of efficent peptide ligases (about 1 x 1031) could be produced in a under a year, let alone a million years. The synthesis of primitive self-replicators could happen relatively rapidly, even given a probability of 1 chance in 4.29 x 1040 (and remember, our replicator could be synthesized on the very first trial).

Assume that it takes a week to generate a sequence [14,16]. Then the Ghadiri ligase could be generated in one week, and any cytochrome C sequence could be generated in a bit over a million years (along with about half of all possible 101 peptide sequences, a large proportion of which will be functional proteins of some sort).

Although I have used the Ghadiri ligase as an example, as I mentioned above the same calculations can be performed for the SunY self replicator, or the Ekland RNA polymerase. I leave this as an exercise for the reader, but the general conclusion (you can make scads of the things in a short time) is the same for these oligonucleotides.

Search spaces, or how many needles in the haystack?
So I've shown that generating a given small enzyme is not as mind-bogglingly difficult as creationists (and Fred Hoyle) suggest. Another misunderstanding is that most people feel that the number of enzymes/ribozymes, let alone the ribozymal RNA polymerases or any form of self-replicator, represent a very unlikely configuration and that the chance of a single enzyme/ribozyme forming, let alone a number of them, from random addition of amino acids/nucleotides is very small.

However, an analysis by Ekland suggests that in the sequence space of 220 nucleotide long RNA sequences, a staggering 2.5 x 10112 sequences are efficent ligases [12]. Not bad for a compound previously thought to be only structural. Going back to our primitive ocean of 1 x 1024 litres and assuming a nucleotide concentration of 1 x 10-7 M [23], then there are roughly 1 x 1049 potential nucleotide chains, so that a fair number of efficent RNA ligases (about 1 x 1034) could be produced in a year, let alone a million years. The potential number of RNA polymerases is high also; about 1 in every 1020 sequences is an RNA polymerase [12]. Similar considerations apply for ribosomal acyl transferases (about 1 in every 1015 sequences), and ribozymal nucleotide synthesis [1, 6, 13].

Similarly, of the 1 x 10130 possible 100 unit proteins, 3.8 x 1061 represent cytochrome C alone! [29] There's lots of functional enyzmes in the peptide/nucleotide search space, so it would seem likely that a functioning ensemble of enzymes could be brewed up in an early Earth's prebiotic soup.

So, even with more realistic (if somewhat mind beggaring) figures, random assemblage of amino acids into "life-supporting" systems (whether you go for protein enzyme based hypercycles [10], RNA world systems [18], or RNA ribozyme-protein enzyme coevolution [11, 25]) would seem to be entirely feasible, even with pessimistic figures for the original monomer concentrations [23] and synthesis times.

Conclusions
The very premise of creationists' probability calculations is incorrect in the first place as it aims at the wrong theory. Furthermore, this argument is often buttressed with statistical and biological fallacies.

At the moment, since we have no idea how probable life is, it's virtually impossible to assign any meaningful probabilities to any of the steps to life except the first two (monomers to polymers p=1.0, formation of catalytic polymers p=1.0). For the replicating polymers to hypercycle transition, the probability may well be 1.0 if Kauffman is right about catalytic closure and his phase transition models, but this requires real chemistry and more detailed modelling to confirm. For the hypercycle->protobiont transition, the probability here is dependent on theoretical concepts still being developed, and is unknown.

However, in the end life's feasibility depends on chemistry and biochemistry that we are still studying, not coin flipping.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: Hi on May 07, 2014, 05:39:50 PM
Hi can't answer the questions either. Funniest thing I've seen all day! (Try to get your quotes straight) I learneded yur version of how the world wurks 40 years ago!

Whats the point in answering you at all?  I already know you think god did it all because if you look around the world screams God, and I also know you don't understand anything we say to you that is science related because you think our understanding of evolution hasnt changed in 40 years.  Anything i say to you you'll promptly type into google looking for a creationists point of view and cut and paste it, and I can do that myself if i needed to.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 07, 2014, 05:42:41 PM
More from the great Paul davis, or Why Quote mining fails in the age of the internet.

How the unique properties of life originated from inert matter is still one of the great unsolved problems of biology. Creationists, of course, claim that our failure to solve it means that God did it: as Ingersoll noted in yesterday’s quote, “Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.”

And perhaps we’ll never know precisely how life began, for it happened in the distant past and involved chemical reactions that could not fossilize.  But I have confidence in three things: life originated naturally and not through God’s fiat; that we will show that this was possible within 50 years or so by demonstrating the evolution of life-like systems in the laboratory under primitive Earth conditions; and that while life may have originated more than once, all living species descended from only a single proto-organism (lots of evidence for that one). If we can demonstrate the origin of life in the lab through realistic experiments, then—although we may not know how it really happened several billion years ago—we can say that it could have happened naturally, and therefore we need not invoke God.Actually I answered, tell me what is wrong with TNA. .
Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? 
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: Hi on May 07, 2014, 05:44:09 PM
Heres the explain it like Im 5 version

The theory of evolution is the scientific theory that explains why there is so much variety and complexity in the natural world. Be warned that it doesn't explain what initially started life in the first place - all it explains is the variety of life we have. Also: it is not in any sense a moral philosophy. It is our understanding of our observations of the natural world. Evolution does not equal eugenics or anything like that. It's just a statement of the facts we see in the world. What we choose to do in light of understanding these facts does not come into it — in fact, understanding evolution can improve human wellbeing, as we can understand diseases much better.
Another thing: the word ‘theory’. In normal everyday language, we usually use theory to mean ‘guess’ or ‘hypothesis’. In scientific terms, the theory is an explanation of the observable facts. A body of knowledge, if you will. For instance, ‘music theory’ is the body of knowledge surrounding musical composition. ‘Germ theory’ is the body of knowledge that explains illness and disease. ‘Cell theory’ is the theory that explains that all life is made of cells. ‘The theory of gravity’ is the study of gravity, and the explanations for the facts (or even laws) of gravity that we see in nature. The theory of evolution is no different. Evolution is a scientific, observable, fact, just like cells, germs, and gravity. The ‘theory of evolution’ is the study and explanation of these facts. If you've ever heard a creationist say ‘evolution is still only a theory’ or ‘evolution is not yet a law’ or ‘they're still trying to prove the theory of evolution’, then they are simply wrong, and misunderstanding the scientific meaning of the word theory. Theories don't become laws — theories contain laws. A law is just a simple mathematical observation that always seems to be true e.g. in electronics, ohm's law is that electrical current is equal to the voltage divided by resistance. Ohm's law is a part of the ‘theory of electronics’ if you like, although that term isn't really used.
Ok, let's take 3 basic principles and then extend them.
The children of parents are different to their parents. A puppy is not identical to its parents, just like you are not identical to your parents, but offspring does share qualities of both parents.
Some changes are actually due to ‘mistakes’ made when reproducing. Sometimes the genes of a parent are slightly distorted when they make a baby. Most of these mistakes have no noticeable effect on the offspring. However...
Some differences/mistakes can aid survival, some can cause premature death. For instance, an animal might be born with a genetic disease. This would be a ‘bad’ mutation. Alternatively, an animal might be born with slightly thicker fur. If this animal lived in a cold place, this would be a ‘good’ mutation. Organisms with better chance of survival have a better chance of passing their genes on to the next generation — including the new and improved ‘mistake’ genes. This is the most important principle. Once you fully internalise this, you will understand evolution.
Now take these principles, and let them do their thing for millions of years. Eventually, these tiny mistakes and changes will build up. If we start with a very simple organism, a series of very gradual changes could turn it into a more complex organism.
Now, is evolution ‘chance’? No! But is it therefore designed with an end goal? Also no! So what is the guiding force behind evolution? Well, it's called natural selection. This also explains the variety of organisms in the world. The world is full of different kinds of place. Let's take 3 places in the world as examples. Arctic, desert and forest. And now let's take an organism - the fox. Foxes live in all 3 of these places, but they're very different. Let's imagine a creature called (for now) proto-fox who lived hundreds of thousands of years ago. And now imagine that proto-foxes have spread out all over the world. Proto-foxes with thicker fur and more fat will survive better in the arctic, so out of a given litter of proto-foxes, the fat furry ones are more likely to live to have babies and and the skinny bald ones are more likely to die. These changes are essentially random, but whether they live or die is not random. After many generations, there will be no skinny bald ones left - just furry ones.
Now let's look at the desert. Proto-foxes in the desert are better off skinny and with big ears to help them lose heat and keep cool. So out of a given litter, babies with bigger ears and skinny bodies are more likely to live and have more babies than fat ones with small ears. After many generations, there will be no fat small-eared proto-foxes left in the desert. Finally, the proto-foxes living in the forest will do better if they can eat lots of different things - there is such a variety of food in the forest, having a strong stomach able to handle all kinds of meat, fish and plant is a huge bonus. Baby proto-foxes living in the forest with strong stomachs are more likely to live and have more babies, while a baby with a weak stomach will more likely die and have no babies. Eventually, all the foxes in the forest will have strong stomachs.
Now these 3 animals are too different to be called a proto-fox. We just have arctic, desert and red foxes! By just putting these animals in a different habitat and letting them either live to have babies or die childless based on the random changes they inherited from their parents, we get 3 distinct strands of what was once the same animal. This works with plants, bacteria, animals and fungi - all living things inherit from their parents, and all can potentially make good or bad mistakes. Whether these mistakes are passed on to their young is decided by the place in which they live and other factors. Now remember, the offspring of these 3 kinds of fox may find themselves in new environment, which will cause the offspring to diverge still into more and more varieties. From this, we can start with a single cell billions of years ago, with variety in its offspring, who had variety in their offspring, who had variety in their offspring, who had variety in their offspring. This makes evolution a beautiful family tree. It means we can look at our cousin the chimpanzee and look for a common ancestor we both share. But it also means we can look at an oak tree, and discover that a much longer time ago, we share a common ancestor with this oak tree. A starfish is nothing like a human, but at some point in history, our ancestors were begat by a single species. All life on Earth is related distantly, because we all evolved from the first life.
The evidence for evolution: how do we know it is true? There is an overwhelming body of evidence for evolution. To roughly go over a few...
The fossil record is one handy piece of evidence. Rocks lower down in the earth are ‘older’ (as more rock piles up over then, they get buried). In these older rocks, deeper in the earth, we find much simpler fossilised organisms, and can observe a change to more complex organisms in the higher up rocks. We know the rocks are older because we have many dating methods, which we can cross-reference when examining a rock. They give the same answer each time, which is strong evidence that the dating methods are accurate.
Another way we know is by looking at DNA, the stuff that makes us us. Here's a triumphant example. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, but our closest relatives, the great apes - chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans - all have 24 pairs of chromosomes. This seems to suggest that the ancestor we all share had 24 pairs of chromosomes too (the great apes are not our ancestors - they are our cousins, like our 3 foxes above were cousins). Where did this chromosome go in humans? This would seem to put the theory of evolution in jeopardy, but no! We have mapped and understood all the chromosomes in both chimpanzees and humans and compared them and... what's this?? One of the pairs of chromosomes in humans is exactly the same as 2 of the chimp chromosomes but fused together! We can perfectly see the exact difference and mechanism by which human chromosomes became different from the other great apes - 2 of them joined together into a single chromosome.
The life on Earth is evidence of evolution itself. We can see the different stages of evolution in different organisms. Take, for instance, the amazingly complex and clever eye. Our eyes are very well developed compared with most animals (save some birds of prey etc). How could such a complex thing have evolved? Well, we have a pretty good idea how, and we can actually see every stage of eye evolution in other organisms. An eye at its most basic is a light sensitive cell. We can find those in nature. Next is a patch of cells in such a shape that can detect direction of light. We can find those too. Next is a hole of cells creating a simple pin-hole. We see those in nature. And then we find the next step up, creatures with a lens. Then animals with a further step, muscles to focus the lens. Each ‘stage’ of the eye can be found in other animals. We can use this to trace the development of our own eyes.
The last evidence for evolution I will mention here is observation. Evolution is an ongoing process - everything is still evolving and we can see it evolving. The easiest example is the bacteria and viruses that make us ill. These organisms live, die and reproduce so quickly that they evolve extremely quickly, too. Why do we need to have a new flu vaccination every year? Because the influenza virus evolves. Why do we need to finish a course of anti-biotics if they are prescribed? Because if we only use half of the anti-biotics, we only kill the weakest half of the bacteria making us ill. The strongest half lives on and reproduces even more (because they won't have competition from their weaker brethren). We'd be helping the bacteria to evolve. This experiment is an example of a way that we have actually observed evolution, including a new irreducibly complex adaptation — the ability to digest citric acid.
The mechanism for evolution - natural selection - is simple, logical and effective. The evidence is overwhelming (there is a lot more than what I mentioned above). In fact, there is more evidence for evolution than any other theory in science. Just remember: natural selection, natural selection, natural selection. Random good changes will help an organism have more babies thanks to their environment. Random bad changes will cause an organism to have fewer babies thanks to their environment. Nature naturally selects the best changes! From here it is a numbers game. Things die and things live. The genes of those who live long enough to reproduce are passed on.
There are other mechanisms than natural selection that guide evolution, but they have a much smaller impact.
Now, if you've been raised under creationism, you may have been taught some misleading things. If you have any objections or questions, please ask. I'd be happy to try to answer your questions - I was once a creationist myself and realised that a lot of what the people at my Church told me about evolution was not true.
tl;dr Random changes are naturally selected by non-random factors such as climate. Over millions of years, this produces big changes and a wide variety of species.
Edits and errata: clarity, spelling and missing words. eslice corrected me on the consistency of the fossil record. RaindropBebop pointed out to me that ‘I'd also add one thing for the OP: natural selection does not select for good traits. It selects against bad ones. Traits which do not result in the extinction of a genetic line may not be good traits; but merely good enough.’ but simply distinguishing between good and bad is more LI5. mattc286 and CubicKinase point out that some other mechanisms that act on evolution are: Non-random mating, genetic drift, genetic migration, biased mutation, gene flow, sexual/artificial selection, and linkage. mattc286 also warns against equivocating evolution with natural selection.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 07, 2014, 06:02:51 PM
Evolution is taught as HISTORY! Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 07, 2014, 06:04:25 PM
1.How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 07, 2014, 06:39:24 PM
Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?
Appeal to authority now? Dr Skell is a chemist not a Biologist. That would be like learning Spanish from William Shakespeare.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 07, 2014, 07:21:03 PM
Appeal to authority now? Dr Skell is a chemist not a Biologist. That would be like learning Spanish from William Shakespeare.
Typical evolutionist....Thinks he's smarter than the staff at Harvard! What is it that you do again? Come on Dude, I really can't remember if it was taco's or burgers?
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 07, 2014, 07:37:48 PM
Typical evolutionist....Thinks he's smarter than the staff at Harvard! What is it that you do again? Come on Dude, I really can't remember if it was taco's or burgers?
Typical Creationist. Uses logical fallacies and then when found out change the subject. I do think in evolution I am smarter than someone who does not study evolution. Now my question... If prayer works why do some christian starve while some atheist are rich.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 07, 2014, 08:25:52 PM
Typical Creationist. Uses logical fallacies and then when found out change the subject. I do think in evolution I am smarter than someone who does not study evolution. Now my question... If prayer works why do some christian starve while some atheist are rich.
Define rich.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 07, 2014, 09:26:50 PM
proof of God.......again! LOL LOL LOL LOL

And perhaps we’ll never know precisely how life began, for it happened in the distant past and involved chemical reactions that could not fossilize.  But I have confidence in three things: life originated naturally and not through God’s fiat; that we will show that this was possible within 50 years or so by demonstrating the evolution of life-like systems in the laboratory under primitive Earth conditions; and that while life may have originated more than once, all living species descended from only a single proto-organism (lots of evidence for that one). If we can demonstrate the origin of life in the lab through realistic experiments, then—although we may not know how it really happened several billion years ago—we can say that it could have happened naturally, and therefore we need not invoke God.


can't explain it, can't prove any theory. but ignores sound reasoning! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOLLOL LOL LOL LOL
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 07, 2014, 09:44:30 PM
How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? (This video simply explains the concept of a short biochemical pathway.) Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJzAvTAL9WI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJzAvTAL9WI)
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 07, 2014, 09:46:35 PM
Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”4 Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5 The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 07, 2014, 09:50:00 PM
How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs).
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 07, 2014, 10:22:33 PM
Define rich.
In all ways measurable by science. More money, happier, has more love in there life, never hungry.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 07, 2014, 10:24:56 PM
In all ways measurable by science. More money, happier, has more love in there life, never hungry.
where does happiness and love come from?
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 07, 2014, 11:27:46 PM
where does happiness and love come from?
Chemical interactions in the brain. When we find something beneficial we consider it happy and our brain releases dopamine. When we find a girl or guy attractive or compatible we have other chemicals released in there brain.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 07, 2014, 11:43:30 PM
So the goo knew that we were going to have lightning strike it a second time and make a female that is completely compatible with us and that we would need to release a chemical called love and then another for happiness? Wow, and you can't believe in God???????   If its OK with you ebilly... I would prefer to start calling you "The goo knew guru" It just has a certain ring to it!  LOL
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 08, 2014, 02:17:22 AM
if the goo was that advanced, why wouldn't it wait for the couple to be married before conceiving?

or just letting the other head do the thinking(not the one on your shoulders)?????????????????????? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

When we find a girl or guy attractive or compatible we have other chemicals released in there(their) brain.

we control the chemicals released in the other person's brain???? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 08, 2014, 02:22:53 PM
So the goo knew that we were going to have lightning strike it a second time and make a female that is completely compatible with us and that we would need to release a chemical called love and then another for happiness? Wow, and you can't believe in God???????   If its OK with you ebilly... I would prefer to start calling you "The goo knew guru" It just has a certain ring to it!  LOL
Um, no. I said none of that. The goo (Really) had nothing to do with sex, and we see animals (And plants) that can self inseminate, possessing both male and female sexual organs. A organism that would be either male or female would have a advantage when resources got thinner. And you are asking about the mind, we are not fully aware but there would be three emotions that the first complex life form would need. Fear, lust, and rage. fear would allow a animal to run away from danger, Lust for mating, and rage to fight when it could not run away.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: ebilly99 on May 08, 2014, 02:45:28 PM
if the goo was that advanced, why wouldn't it wait for the couple to be married before conceiving?
Goo was A-sexual, it impregnated itself and split

or just letting the other head do the thinking(not the one on your shoulders)?????????????????????? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
Again you think the goo had a sex. LOL

When we find a girl or guy attractive or compatible we have other chemicals released in there(their) brain.
Our body tries. We release Pheromones, but they don't always work.

we control the chemicals released in the other person's brain???? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
It's called Pheromones, and like I said it doesn't always work.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: Hi on May 08, 2014, 06:20:37 PM
Its pretty important to note that evolution does not require belief...it requires understanding.  This isnt all made up stuff that requires faith to believe, it is accepted scientific theory and requires understanding.  The same scientific theory that built your computer, flies your planes, and gets us to space and even other planets quite safely.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 08, 2014, 07:13:04 PM
Its pretty important to note that evolution does not require belief...it requires understanding.  This isnt all made up stuff that requires faith to believe, it is accepted scientific theory and requires understanding.  The same scientific theory that built your computer, flies your planes, and gets us to space and even other planets quite safely.
EVOLUTION IS A RELIGIOUS FAITH



Both evolutionists and scientists are agreed on this point: Evolution is a religion, and it must be accepted by faith. This is science vs. evolution; this is the Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

This material is excerpted from the book,  EVOLUTION AND SOCIETY.  An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists. You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page,  Evolution and Society.

Evolutionists freely admit that evolution is a religion, and can only be accepted by faith.

Darwinism is a mythology.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the inevitable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not prove to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.

It is a faith.

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."—*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," p. xxii (1977 edition).

Evolution makes man into his own god. It is "a nontheistic religion."

"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a nontheistic religion, a way of life."—*American Humanist Association, promotional brochure.

This bewitching power that captivates men so that they will live and die in defense of pointless thinking and factless theory is termed by them a "religion."

"It is a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds over men's minds."—*Encounter, November, p. 48 (1959).

*Huxley, *Charles Darwin's personal champion, made a startling admission:

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation."—*Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903).

A co-developer of the Piltdown Man hoax, said this:

"A Belief in Evolution is a basic doctrine in the Rationalists' Liturgy."—*Sir Arthur Keith, Darwinism and Its Critics (1935), p. 53.

"Biogenesis" is the theory that life originated from nonlife one day when some sand and seawater changed itself into a living being. It is accepted by faith, for there is no evidence to support such an idea.

"It is therefore a matter of faith, on the part of the biologist, that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available."—*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 150.

The theory of evolution up the ladder from simple organisms to more complex ones, requires a level of faith not based on fact that is astonishing.

"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous."—*R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute (1943), p. 63.

Is evolution then a science or a faith? Lacking evidence for its support, what is it?

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory—is it then a science or faith?"—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by *Charles Darwin (1971 edition), pp. x, xi (1971 edition).

There are thousands of facts in support of Creation and the existence of the Creator who made that creation. But evolution is solo fide; it is by faith alone.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."—*Louis Trenchard More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur, p. 33.

The best description of the facts discovered by geologists—is to be found in the book of Genesis.

"If I, as a geologist, were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis."—*Wallace Pratt, quoted by W.L. Copithorne, in "The Worlds of Wallace Pratt," The Lamp, Fall 1971, p. 14.

After looking over all the evidence, the Genesis account of Creation is far more believable than is the evolutionary tale.

"Given the facts, our existence seems quite improbable—more miraculous, perhaps, than the seven-day wonder of Genesis."—*Judith Hooper, "Perfect Timing," New Age Journal, Vol. 11, December 1985, p. 18.

Two other avowed evolutionists declare their allegiance to the "dogma" received as part of their training in the secular universities.

"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training."—*L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.

Evolution became a scientific religion, before which men come and bow and yield their reasoning powers.

"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it. . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is  Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980) [emphasis his].

The theory is merely an article of faith; part of the atheistic creed.

"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.

It has become an orthodoxy that is preached with religious fervor. Only those lacking in faith hesitate to accept this theory with evidence supporting it.

"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith."—*M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November 1959, p. 49.

It takes plenty of faith, boys, plenty of faith.

"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator."—R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.

Somehow it is supposed to have happened. And when it did happen, it did it all by itself.

First should come the facts, not the other way around.

"The facts must mold the theories, not the theories the facts . . I am most critical of my biologist friends in this matter. Try telling a biologist that, impartially judged among other accepted theories of science, such as the theory of relativity, it seems to you that the theory of natural selection has a very uncertain, hypothetical status, and watch his reaction. I'll bet you that he gets red in the face. This is `religion,' not `science,' with him."—*Burton, "The Human Side of the Physiologist: Prejudice and Poetry," Physiologist 2 (1957).

Evolution is based on faith alone, for there is not fact to accompany it.

"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arthur N. Field.

It gives to mankind the most incredible of deities: random chance.

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with and even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

It is a creed, dispensed by the intellectuals, to the great masses of mankind.

"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."—*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).

It is an entrenched dogma that substitutes for religion.

"[Karl] Popper warns of a danger: `A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.' This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory."—*Colin Patterson, Evolution (1977), p. 150.

It is the underlying mythology in the great temple of modern atheism.

"Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy that functions as a virtual religion."—*E. Harrison, "Origin and Evolution of the Universe," Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974), p. 1007.

*Brady is concerned less about the shaky foundations of evolutionary theory than the devastating effect it is having on scientific endeavor.

"What is at stake is not the validity of the Darwinian theory itself, but of the approach to science that it has come to represent. The peculiar form of consensus the theory wields has produced a premature closure of inquiry in several branches of biology, and even if this is to be expected in `normal science,' such a dogmatic approach does not appear healthy."—*R. Brady, "Dogma and Doubt," Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 17:79, 96 (1982).

*Lessel says that *Sagan's boastful declarations about evolutionary theory, actually changes matter and energy into a god with moral qualities.

"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power."—*T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).

The American Humanist Association, founded in 1933, is the 20th century equivalent of the 19th century, American Atheist Association, and is one of the leading evolutionists' bastions in the United States. A decade later it became a nonprofit organization. Notice that they themselves consider it a "religion:"

"Humanism is the belief that man shapes his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a nontheistic religion, a way of life . . The American Humanist Association is a nonprofit, tax exempt organization, incorporated in the early 1940's in Illinois for educational and religious purposes.
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: fish on May 08, 2014, 08:25:01 PM
evolution requires a disbelief in God. evolution is a religion!! evolution is still an unproven "theory". people can agree with the theory, but that doesn't make it a fact. God is proven every day!
Title: Re: Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
Post by: mark on May 08, 2014, 09:14:27 PM
"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator."—R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.