Skip to main content

It has been amusing reading the discussions on this Forum regarding Evolution vs. Creation.
Some have used the terms “faith”, the “Bible“, “God“…while others refute with terms such as “fables” “Fairy Tales”, “fact” “true” and “proven ”.

Believers of Creationism have been labeled stupid, non-thinking, “sheeple”, and ignorant for basing their beliefs / convictions on a un-proven deity. One which cannot be physically seen, or touched. Their reply being “faith”.
Some go even further with endless “quotations”.

Evolutionist profess to be “scholarly” “academic” ”thinkers” and believe only in factual science.

While not delving into the basis/theory for Creationism (that’s pretty much been established among the believers/non-believers here) I would like to point out the facts, truths, and proofs of the Evolution Theory in order to present a more level “playing field” for those who wish to know what is concrete “fact” and what is “concept”.

Let’s call it the “Swiss Cheese” experiment.

Starting with a solid chunk of “cheese”, let’s examine.

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: \'thē-ə-rē, 'thir-ē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural the·o·ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theōria, from theōrein
Date: 1592
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject



Many THEORIES have been advanced as explanations for the origin and history of life on Earth. The most popular with the majority of evolutionary theorists is the primordial soup theory, which states that self-replicating entities, the precursors to life as we know it, arose spontaneously out of the chemical environment of the early Earth. This THEORY argues that the CHANCE reactions taking place at high rates in the chemical mixture of the early atmosphere EVENTUALLY gave rise to molecules with the property of replication.

The Primordial Soup Theory
The exact environment of the early atmosphere on Earth is NOT known,(first hole NOT KNOWN) but some chemicals have been hypothesized: carbon dioxide, ammonia, water, and methane. When gases such as these are placed in a flask (FLASK...Man made) and zapped with electricity, amino acids and other organic molecules are formed. (Stanley Miller pioneered these experiments; however, the atmosphere is now THOUGHT (hole, THOUGHT is not PROOF) to be less favorable to the formation of organic molecules than once believed.) These results IMPLY (hole) that energy stimulation of these molecules, POSSIBLY(hole)in the form of lightning or ultraviolet radiation, or even pressure waves, can under certain conditions form complex organic substances. At some point, after many repetitions of the energy stimulation, a molecule was formed by CHANCE that had a very unique property: it COULD replicate itself using various component molecules in its environment. For example, a molecule whose chemical properties allowed it to cause other molecules to react, thus forming two of the original molecule, COULD quickly set up a population of such self-replicating molecules. (This idea of the generation of life from nonliving chemicals is called abiogenesis.)
At first, the new replicator WOULD HAVE(not “had”?…HOLE) free run of the chemical resources in the primordial soup. The replicators WOULD PROBABLY(not DID?…hole) reproduce freely under such conditions because they would have a monopoly on the available resources. In addition, the sheer numbers of copies being made, added to the fact that the replicator would be very primitive and without editing mechanisms, would result in numerous copying errors. These errors are mutations that will later be used in the development of natural selection.
After a while, the replicators WOULD HAVE(hole)used up many of the available chemicals in the soup (especially in localized areas), and they came into direct competition with each other for the use of the remaining resources. This set up a situation where natural selection COULD (not DID?…hole) begin to operate on the population. Those replicators that were better at reproducing, either because they reproduced faster, out-competed others for resources, used fewer chemicals, etc., came to dominate the soup. Natural selection favored those that possessed traits allowing them to out-replicate the others.
After a LONG TIME (?), the resources of the area would become extremely scarce. Selection pressure would come into existence strongly favoring those replicators that could synthesize at least some of their own chemicals needed for reproduction. Once a certain chemical became scarce, selection pressure WOULD FAVOR (not FAVORED…hole) those replicators that produced the chemical themselves.
Eventually, it seems reasonable to THEORIZE (see definition of: theory)that replicators MIGHT (did?…hole) begin manufacturing enough chemicals that they would want to keep all the chemicals close by. One way to do this is to manufacture a container (made of chemicals that the replicator can already manufacture). This was the precursor to modern cells.
Other replicators would have ("would have" appears a lot) evolved alternative strategies for dealing with the intense competition for resources. They MAY HAVE(where’s DID…hole) developed ways of manufacturing chemicals that broke down other replicators into their component structures, thus providing raw materials from the destruction of competitors. Still others may have (?…hole) evolved new chemicals with new and improved properties and thus out-competed the other replicators.
Cooperative Replicators and the Development of Vehicles
Over time, replicators probably ( shouldn’t this word be omitted for this to be “fact”?…’nuther hole) began to cooperate among themselves, with multiple replicators existing together in an aggregate, each producing a different chemical or performing a different function. These "replicator teams" quickly came to incorporate the container idea mentioned above, for the dual reason of keeping chemicals in one area and holding the replicator team together. In time, under the influence of continual competition and selection, the replicators would come to develop more and more organized, advanced structures. These structures would likely (more “hole”) be devoted to manufacture of chemicals, storage, repair, etc. Cell organelles were born.
With the birth of the proto-cell, the first vehicle would arise. With organelles, replicators would become more and more specialized while developing greater and greater complexity in their biochemical pathways. The end result of all this developmental activity is the ancestral bacterium.
The Development of Eukaryotes
Bacteria, the most primitive of modern-day cells, lack a nucleus to direct and regulate cell function and are thus called prokaryotes. This is consistent with the model of their evolution: various replicators coming together and cooperating, but without the guidance of a central system. However, to form eukaryotic cells (cells with nuclei), a “Guidance System” is needed.
This guidance system will most likely (not DID) arise from the replicators themselves eventually. The replicators, increasingly specialized, will be too numerous in a complex cell to simply float about, and they will concentrate in one region. This region may (hole) develop a membrane for protection, and the nucleus is born.
Further development of the eukaryotic cell will take place when some of them begin to ingest other cells as sources of chemicals. At some point, the other cells might not (hole)have been broken down by the proto-eukaryote's digestive chemicals. These ingested cells might (hole)then provide extra energy to the larger cell, thus establishing an endosymbiotic relationship. This is believed (hole) to have taken place in the incorporation of mitochondria, chloroplasts, and even cilia into eukaryotic cells.
The Development of Multicellular Organisms
After a long while, individual eukaryotic cells probably (hole) made the same "discovery" made much earlier by the individual replicators. They would come to work in teams, each cell contributing to the good of the team just as the replicators had. In time, they might combine genetic material to yield multicellular organisms. In these organisms, all the genetic material of the entire organism is present in every cell, but only certain genes are turned on in each cell, giving rise to cell specialization.
Further Specialization and Development
From this point, it is fairly simple to imagine (hole)the general idea of the rest of the story of evolution: multicellular organisms branched and diversified to occupy new ecological niches, adapting as they went to their new environments. As these diversifications took place, the multicellular organisms increased in complexity in proportion to the demands of the environment. Eyes, skeletons, nervous systems, and backbones, as well as numerous other adaptations, all arose through gradual selection of mutations. As competition increased, species continued to diversify, (how?) especially in areas where population density was high. Life eventually moved out of the ocean and ventured onto land, where more and more species were formed. Eventually, extremely large and complex organisms evolved. Finally, one of the more advanced groups - the primates - emerged, and with it eventually came the human species.

Now, has our “solid” chunk of Evolutionary “cheese” suddenly become full of “holes”? Where's the SOLID, FACTUAL, PROOF?

Fill in those holes…and you have my attention.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I'm not a biologist, I'm not qualified. So, let me grant you that each "hole" is a gap in scientific knowledge.

So what? Are you saying that because science does not know everything, it does not know what it knows? That science is invalid because there is stuff left to find? That's just silly. This stuff happened billions of years ago, and we've only known about genetics and biochemistry for about 150 years. We have lots left to learn, and we learn more about it every day. You know we do.

Let's play Bizarro World and pretend you have made a point. Science is wack and discredited. What's your story? We'd all love to hear your plan. How did we come about?
Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.[1] After a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and may eventually diversify into new species. A nested hierarchy of anatomical and genetic similarities, geographical distribution of similar species and the fossil record indicate that all organisms are descended from a common ancestor through a long series of these divergent events, stretching back in a tree of life that has grown over the 3,500 million years of life on Earth.[2] To distinguish biological evolution from other senses of the term "evolution" used outside of the field of biology, such as cultural evolution, technological evolution and the evolution of language, it is sometimes referred to as genetic evolution or organic evolution[3][4][5]

"ALL organisms are descended from a "common" ancestor through a long series of these divergant events, stretching back in a Tree of Life that has grown over the 3,500 million years of life on Earth"

Wouldn't this refer to the "pea" that crawled out of the "soup"?
I did not imply that science, as a whole is wack.
Far from it. When science is taken for what it is, is a wonderfull thing!
However,thousands of times science has been proven wrong.But that's the whole point. That doesn't take anything away from it. It's just like anything else. If you're a target shooter, which I am, you miss the mark, you correct it, and try and get a little closer to bulls eye. Science is the same, if something is proven to be incorrect, or less valid than the latest theory, it is discarded as the science inches closer towards the truth, correcting itself along the way.
The only problem with science is that it's most loyal proponents are often convinced that they know the truth, and often refuse to consider other possibilities objectively. 800 years ago, the idea that all matter is actually a denser form of energy would have been called insane,ships would be sailing off of a flat Earth, and leeches would cure everything. But we know now what of those is true.

There are some things about life, truths and realities, that we don't understand. That doesn't mean that they don't exist. It simply means that we can't explain them...something I think the Creationaists are trying to make understood.

As for my "story"?...It would not be believed.

ps...I need a Ritz...not soda cracker.
Last edited by CageTheElephant
Of course science is proven wrong. Often. That's why scientists no longer think we'll sail off the edge of the earth. Science grows in scope and certainty all the time, but it will never know everything and can only attain an incomplete level of confidence (sometimes approaching, but never reaching certainty) in anything. When one is 99.999999... per cent sure about something, it's understood that one can state that knowledge as a working model with confidence and without having to remind us of the .00000000001% possibility of error.

Have a Ritz, I have lots.

The reason, well, one of the reasons, biologists think we all had a common ancestor is that we all use the same chemicals in much the same way. Ribonucleic acids are ubiquitous in life. There is no law of chemistry that says life MUST use these particular chemicals, but they work. Imaginative biologists entertain themselves wondering what other compounds might work on other planets.

quote:
There are some things about life, truths and realities, that we don't understand. That doesn't mean that they don't exist.
d'accord.
quote:
It simply means that we can't explain them...something I think the Creationaists are trying to make understood.
Here's where you lost me. The Creationists have nothing to make understood since they have no demonstrable theory of anything. They have nothing! Science has all the current knowledge.

Now, let us not suffer under the misapprehension that there is an equal chance that either Evolution or Creationism is right. It's not that easy. Science is 99%+ likely to be on the right track, and Creationism is <1% so likely. That is simply a matter of evidence.

We will not let you say that there are Theories A and B that explain phenomenon X, and that if Theory A is wrong, or incomplete, Theory B must be correct. That's asinine, and I'm sure you see it. Especially when the Theory of Evolution is so lopsidedly likely to be correct, no one may say that because we have an incomplete knowledge of the evolution of some obscure feature then Creationism must be correct.

They LIKE to say that, and they INSIST on saying that, but it's just absurd and reveals either profound stupidity, or dishonesty, or both. That's why I started my thread "Honesty Needed", because Creationists know what they're spouting is wrong, but they do it anyway. Not terribly Christian of them, is it?

And yes, I'd still like to hear your story about life as we find it. I'm all ears, go for it.
No rational ,knowledgeable person can deny that selective breeding has produced remarkable changes in some domestic species.Eurasian wolves have been bred into a myriad of dog breeds ,Irish wolf hounds to tea cup Chihuahuas.Grotesque forms of fish have been produced over hundreds of years.Humans have even bred the horns of of cattle and sheep.So there is no doubt that life forms change over short time periods. Think what would happen during vast expanses of time ? I believe God created everything and it has changed when necessary to survive.
Hi Deep,

First you tell cage, "Evolution discusses the diversity of life. Abiogenesis is, admittedly, a speculative pursuit. Evolution is a demonstrated reality."

The you back down by saying, "I'm not a biologist, I'm not qualified."

Evolution is NOT a demonstrated reality or fact -- evolution is a theory, an unproven theory. And, evolution can only be proven when you can show us the "Missing Link" fossils -- which for 150 years have remained hidden.

Even Darwin himself said that without the "Missing Link" fossils Darwinian Evolution will die. RIP Darwinian Evolution! For neither science nor those who will create fake fossils can ever produce what does not exist.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROS_BIB-2_InBeginning
Hi Ka-0-hub,

You tell us, "No rational, knowledgeable person can deny that selective breeding has produced remarkable changes in some domestic species."

That is true. And, this is called "micro-evolution" -- adaptation within the species. But, we have not seen any evidence of "macro-evolution" -- one species evolving into a totally different species. In other words, we have not seen a frog become a prince.

Then, you tell us, "Eurasian wolves have been bred into a myriad of dog breeds, Irish wolf hounds to tea cup Chihuahuas. Grotesque forms of fish have been produced over hundreds of years. Humans have even bred the horns of of cattle and sheep."

Once again, these are all examples of "micro-evolution" -- adaptation within species.

Next, you tell us, "So there is no doubt that life forms change over short time periods. Think what would happen during vast expanses of time?"

Yes, adaptation has absolutely occurred over time; adaptation to environmental changes, etc. -- within species. But, even given vast expanses of time -- there would still be no evolving from one species to another. Yet, this vast expanse of time would be required IF Darwinian Evolution were true.

It would take an eternity for non-life to become life; as is required for Darwinian Evolution to be fact. Evolutionist need, must have, many billions of years in their attempt to make their false theories work -- and, since God has not given them billions of years -- they are as doomed as their evolution theory. RIP!

Finally, you say, "I believe God created everything and it has changed when necessary to survive."

I agree with you. And that change is called "micro-evolution" -- adaptation within species.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROS_BIB-2_InBeginning
Hi Deep,

Your absence from the Religion Forum has not improved your ability to dialogue at all. As before, when presented rational comments -- you can only reply with the highly intelligent atheist/secularist style response, "unlike the raving, obsessed lunatic who followed you."

Yes, my Friend, this is what we have come to expect from our atheist Friends -- insults, name calling, and hot air.

Maybe you have been in "Hollywood" too long.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Ape-Scratching-Head_Animated
quote:
Originally posted by CageTheElephant:
Fill in the blanks with facts, please.


It seems you have a pretty decent understanding of some of the hypothesis on the origin of life. That is good. However, science does not yet have any "facts" on the origins of life (which has very little to do with evolution, by the way). There really aren't even any theories. There are, however, an abundance of plausible hypothesis.

All science knows for a "fact" is that it did have a beginning, likely on this planet, a couple or three billion years ago.

Please look up the difference between scientific theory and scientific hypothesis some day and I think you will have a better grasp.

All that said, my faith suggests to me that there was a Creator that started the process. But that is only a matter of faith and not science. Unlike others, I am happy to adjust matters of faith based on new evidence. My God is not afraid of the facts of this universe uncovered by His tool of science.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Deep,

First you tell cage, "Evolution discusses the diversity of life. Abiogenesis is, admittedly, a speculative pursuit. Evolution is a demonstrated reality."

The you back down by saying, "I'm not a biologist, I'm not qualified."


He also probably not a astronomer but I'm sure he would agree that the earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa despite what the bible says.

As to the rest of your idiotic rambling about missing links and such, well, you're simply a scientific moron and a beautiful example of pure, blind, ignorant faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Sofa King:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Deep,

First you tell cage, "Evolution discusses the diversity of life. Abiogenesis is, admittedly, a speculative pursuit. Evolution is a demonstrated reality."

The you back down by saying, "I'm not a biologist, I'm not qualified."

He also probably not a astronomer but I'm sure he would agree that the earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa despite what the bible says.

As to the rest of your idiotic rambling about missing links and such, well, you're simply a scientific moron and a beautiful example of pure, blind, ignorant faith.

Hi Sofa,

It is so encouraging to see your true "atheist" personality and vocabulary, i.e., MORON, IGNORANT, etc. -- shining through all your rhetoric.

Please show us from Scripture where God teaches that "the earth revolves around the sun" as you so arrogantly declare.

Since God created all the universe; I am sure He knew when He authored the Bible just how He created them to work. So, please, like they say in Missouri -- SHOW ME!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Tennis-Player-1a
quote:
Please show us from Scripture where God teaches that "the earth revolves around the sun" as you so arrogantly declare.


Bill bill Bill.

So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on [b] its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!


I/m sure you will agree that God's word is perfect. However, it is very clear that unwise men corrupted the word of God in this verse any many other like it that clearly show that man wrote what he observed. Yes, of course God knows that it would have been the earth that stopped moving, not the sun, but that had to have been lost in the translation.

I can't say I blame th author. Why, you can look up in the sky and clearly see that all the objects in the sky revolved around the flat circle of the earth. Yes, of course the earth is a circle, much like a CD. You can look all around you no matter where you stand and see the edges of it.

God cannot be faulted for this ignorance of reality. Man certainly can be.
quote:
Originally posted by Road Puppy:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Please show us from Scripture where God teaches that "the earth revolves around the sun" as you so arrogantly declare.

Since God created all the universe; I am sure He knew when He authored the Bible just how He created them to work. So, please, like they say in Missouri -- SHOW ME!

Wha- Whaddya$#@&in'kiddinme??!!??

Hi Puppy,

I am sorry; but, can you repeat that Scripture verse? You seem to have a problem with your typing finger -- or something.

If you are having a problem finding it, it is that book covered with dust, laying on your coffee table -- the one covered by magazines. The one spelled B I B L E.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1_-__Snoopy_Running
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Ka-0-hub,

You tell us, "No rational, knowledgeable person can deny that selective breeding has produced remarkable changes in some domestic species."

That is true. And, this is called "micro-evolution" -- adaptation within the species. But, we have not seen any evidence of "macro-evolution" -- one species evolving into a totally different species. In other words, we have not seen a frog become a prince.

Then, you tell us, "Eurasian wolves have been bred into a myriad of dog breeds, Irish wolf hounds to tea cup Chihuahuas. Grotesque forms of fish have been produced over hundreds of years. Humans have even bred the horns of of cattle and sheep."

Once again, these are all examples of "micro-evolution" -- adaptation within species.

Next, you tell us, "So there is no doubt that life forms change over short time periods. Think what would happen during vast expanses of time?"

Yes, adaptation has absolutely occurred over time; adaptation to environmental changes, etc. -- within species. But, even given vast expanses of time -- there would still be no evolving from one species to another. Yet, this vast expanse of time would be required IF Darwinian Evolution were true.

It would take an eternity for non-life to become life; as is required for Darwinian Evolution to be fact. Evolutionist need, must have, many billions of years in their attempt to make their false theories work -- and, since God has not given them billions of years -- they are as doomed as their evolution theory. RIP!

Finally, you say, "I believe God created everything and it has changed when necessary to survive."

I agree with you. And that change is called "micro-evolution" -- adaptation within species.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,



Bill there are a number of points which I could argue with you about .
1. The nebulous word species....Coined by science as a convenient term for different life forms.
2. Archaeopteryx.....If this Isn't a link between life forms ,what is it?
3.The mysteries which the Bible speaks of. Could the mechanics of the origin of life be one of those.


4.Prions molecules that aren't alive but act like they are?

But I will not because that would be piling on ,something that happens far to often on this forum.



Bill
quote:
Originally posted by Sofa King:
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Please show us from Scripture where God teaches that "the earth revolves around the sun" as you so arrogantly declare.

Bill bill Bill. "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!"

I'm sure you will agree that God's word is perfect. However, it is very clear that unwise men corrupted the word of God in this verse and many other like it that clearly show that man wrote what he observed. Yes, of course God knows that it would have been the earth that stopped moving, not the sun, but that had to have been lost in the translation.

Hi Sofa,

I will have to admit that I goofed and typed in error when I read your earlier post, "He also probably not a astronomer but I'm sure he would agree that the earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa despite what the bible says."

When responding to your comment "not vice versa despite what the bible says" -- I reversed the order. Maybe I was more tired than I realized. So, let me rephrase my comment/challenge to you.

Please tell me where Scripture teaches that the "sun rotates around the earth" -- as you imply when you say, "not vice versa despite what the bible says."

So, now that my head is clear and we both understand the orbit of the earth, moon, and sun -- let's continue with the discussion. You are implying that the Bible teaches that the "sun rotates around the earth" and you base this upon the Scripture passage in Joshua 10:12-14. Let's examine that passage.

Joshua 10:12-14, "Then Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, "O sun, stand still at Gibeon, And O moon in the valley of Aijalon." So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, Until the nation avenged themselves of their enemies. . . And the sun stopped in the middle of the sky and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. There was no day like that before it or after it, when the LORD listened to the voice of a man; for the LORD fought for Israel."

Yes, we know that the moon orbits the earth in wee bit more that 24 hours -- and both orbit the sun in about 365 days. And, we know that while this micro-orbiting is taking place, all of these bodies are in movement in a larger orbit. None of the planets are stationary.

Yet, since God created all of the heavenly bodies -- and hung them in space in the exact order He wanted to allow life on earth; why is it hard to believe that He could have stopped this motion momentarily if He so desired?

Pastor David Guzik, director of Calvary Chapel Bible College, Germany, tells us in his commentary on Joshua 10:

"So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day. And there has been no day like that, before it or after it."

How was the length of this day extended? It could have been a slowing of the earth’s rotation; it could have been a tilting of the earth’s axis; it could have been a miracle of reflection of light; it could have been simply the presence of God manifested in light.

Whatever it means, the result was clear. The sun seemed to stay still in the sky, and Israel was able to complete the victory.

Some criticize this account, saying that obviously, since the sun is still, and the earth rotates around the sun, that Joshua is wrong when he says the sun stood still. This kind of criticism doesn’t account for our normal way of speaking. We use the terms sunrise and sunset without a second thought. In addition, more modern astronomy tells us that the sun is in motion; perhaps the sun did literally stand still!


Have you ever watched a cat playing with a mouse? They will each move cautiously, often circling. Then, they stop and just look at one another. Was the cat circling the mouse -- or was the mouse circling the cat? Did the cat stop? Or did the mouse stop? Or did both? Or was it just an illusion?

Sofa, you say, "However, it is very clear that unwise men corrupted the word of God in this verse and many other like it that clearly show that man wrote what he observed."

No, you have, in no way, proven that this Scripture passage is in error -- nor any other Scripture passage. Keep in mind that while mortal men did the physical writing; God was the Author of what was being written. And, God does not make mistakes; regardless of the example that, in this world, we have atheists, secularists, and liberals.

There have been minor errors introduced by the men doing the copying of Scripture down through the ages -- but, in even that, God was in control. There are NO errors in the Bible's moral and spiritual teaching -- and NO errors in its record of historical facts. And, this account in Joshua is indeed a historical fact.

You say, "Yes, of course God knows that it would have been the earth that stopped moving, not the sun, but that had to have been lost in the translation."

How can you be sure that it was the earth that stopped and not the sun -- or not both? Did the cat stop -- or the mouse -- or both?

It is irrelevant. God wanted to give Joshua and his army a longer day so that they could accomplish their victory. And, He did just that. How? I have no idea; He is God and not me. But, when He tells me that He stopped the sun -- I believe Him. That is called FAITH. And, in my many years as a Christian believer, FAITH in God has never failed me yet. And, it will not.

Okay, I goofed in my earlier post. Golly, gee, I guess I really am only human. But, now we are back on track. And, you are wrong in implying that the Bible is in error in Joshua 10:12.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SAID-IT-1c
quote:
Originally posted by ka-0-hub:
Bill there are a number of points which I could argue with you about .
1. The nebulous word species....Coined by science as a convenient term for different life forms.
2. Archaeopteryx.....If this Isn't a link between life forms ,what is it?
3.The mysteries which the Bible speaks of. Could the mechanics of the origin of life be one of those.
4.Prions molecules that aren't alive but act like they are?

But I will not because that would be piling on ,something that happens far to often on this forum.

Hi Ka,

While you may consider the word "species" to be nebulous, I believe we can agree that a horse is not a dog, and a monkey is not a cat. So, within this broad definition of species; we must also say that a reptile in not a bird, nor a bird a reptile -- as you seem to imply with your Archaeopteryx example. No, a dinosaur did not become a bird, nor did a bird become a dinosaur.

The Archaeopteryx is most certainly NOT the "missing link" fossil which Darwin said was needed to keep Darwinian Evolution alive. So, once again, I must say to Darwinian Evolution -- RIP!

You may find this article interesting. This is only an excerpt:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ARCHAEOPTERYX (UNLIKE ARCHAEORAPTOR) IS NOT A HOAX —
IT IS A TRUE BIRD, NOT A “MISSING LINK”

by Jonathan Sarfati, CMI–Australiam, 24 March 2000

With all the publicity about the Archaeoraptor fiasco (see Archaeoraptor Hoax Update — National Geographic Recants!), some have recalled the 1986 claim by Sir Fred Hoyle and Dr Chandra Wickramasinghe that Archaeopteryx is a forgery. Archaeopteryx is one of the most famous of the alleged transitional forms promoted by evolutionists. This is probably why some anti-Darwinians are keen to dismiss it as a forgery.

However, in the article, Bird evolution flies out the window, the creationist anatomist Dr David Menton shows that Archaeopteryx is a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional formand certainly not a feathered dinosaur. And Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself (see Feduccia v Creationists), says: “Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROS_BIB-2_InBeginning
ka-O

All species are transitional species. Let's take our own for example. A million years ago, we were much different than we are now. We had not the intelligence, nor language, nor tool skills that we now do.

Imagine a million years into the future. Should our species be so lucky to live that long, we'll be as different from them as we are from those hairy ancestors of ours. We are a transitional species. All species necessarily are. Evolution happens to us all.
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
ka-O

All species are transitional species. Let's take our own for example. A million years ago, we were much different than we are now. We had not the intelligence, nor language, nor tool skills that we now do.

Imagine a million years into the future. Should our species be so lucky to live that long, we'll be as different from them as we are from those hairy ancestors of ours. We are a transitional species. All species necessarily are. Evolution happens to us all.

Hi Deep,

Can you show us even one "missing link" fossil that proves one species became another species?

So far, in three years on the Religion Forum, you have not produced even one. And, in the past 150 years, science has produced none.

In museums all over the world, there are literally millions of fossils -- but, not even ONE "missing link" fossil.

Do you suppose that is why it is called the "MISSING LINK" fossil?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROS_BIB-2_InBeginning
quote:
Originally posted by Sofa King:
quote:
So far, in three years on the Religion Forum, you have not produced even one. And, in the past 150 years, science has produced none.

Bill, please explain to us what you believe a "missing link" would look like.

Hi Sofa,

Who knows? No one has ever seen one. That is why it is called the "missing link"! But, if it existed, which it does not -- it would prove beyond all doubt that one species, let's say a horse -- evolved into another species, let's say a monkey. Or, in the other direction.

Give me a view of that "missing link" and I will follow your religion of evolution. However, folks have been trying to find one for 150 years, since Darwin told us that if it is not found, Darwinian Evolution is dead. RIP Darwinian Evolution!

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 0_-_CROSS-BIBLE_SAID-IT-1c
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
ka-O,

Check this out. I think you'll like it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY

That's episode #1 out of about 31, so far.

If you watch a few of these, you'll see how statements like "there are no transitional fossils" are meaningless, at best. We'll forgo their worst implications, for the moment.

Enjoy.

Hi Deep,

Instead of giving folks 31 YouTube videos to watch -- all created by Darwinian Evolutionist in a vain attempt to prove their unprovable point; why don't YOU just show us an example of the "missing link" fossil.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Ape-Scratching-Head_Animated
I've already made one post, under another topic making inquiries and stating one problem I have with Evolution I'll now list one other. The theory of evolution, which Cage succinctly listed under this topic, at least the accepted version of it. Evolution considers that the most basic organism evolves from simple to complex, over a long time from the "Primordial Soup" through replicating molecules or organisms. Another reason I have a problem with Evolution, other than the one I listed under the other topic heading, is that IF Evolution was fact and real that the evolution process would have no need for male or female but would exist, in and of itself in a unisex format. Where it is now we have Male and Female and even within our own species, as with other species, there is a vast difference between male and females ( that's obvious ) and then there is the process of human, animal, and insect reproduction. Evolution should not require or exist as male and female but rather one single sex evolving and replicating. It really is a stretch of imagination and a giant leap of faith to assume that evolution just happened as male and female and established reproduction all from one single molecule or organism. Remember, evolutionary, scientist are most, either atheist or agnostic but will not accept God or any "Intelligent Design" process in creation and the theory of how we got here. I'm saying that in order for the continuation of the species to continue through reproduction requiring male and female, necessitates that there be some "Intelligence" in the process otherwise evolution would just yield mutations or replications into various complex beings.

So, in addition to my last (standing question, under another topic heading which still is awaiting an answer) I will ask one more question to those of you who espouse Evolution as indisputable, undeniable, fact. The proposition is the explanation of how evolution would, our could, bring about male and female of a certain species and reproduction as the method to populate the species given that one simple molecule transcends, somehow, into a complex organism and continues to create all the various species that exist today? Additionally with no intelligence behind it, or given that it just happens, there is a failure of species to species reproduction but instead each "kind" begets it's own kind.

Please try to answer the question without resorting to personal attacks about how simple it is that we Christians should somehow know it ahead of time. Additionally, it is the burden of yours to answer the question rather than attempting to redirect the subject by pointing us to some source that you want us to read in order to defend your own beliefs and theories.
quote:
Evolution considers that the most basic organism evolves from simple to complex, over a long time from the "Primordial Soup" through replicating molecules or organisms.

It Does Not. Why do you persist in this untruth? The origin of life, from primordial chemicals, is the purview of "abiogenesis". It's a biochemical pursuit. Why can't you understand this? Are you daft?

I need not answer any more of the wack questions you presented. You have no idea of the standard model of accepted biology.

Honestly, hon, have you no more self respect than to relate such BS in lieu of demonstrable science? It is to your shame that you do so.
quote:
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob Gene:
quote:
Originally posted by gbrk:
Evolution considers that the most basic organism evolves from simple to complex, over a long time from the "Primordial Soup" through replicating molecules or organisms.

It Does Not. Why do you persist in this untruth? The origin of life, from primordial chemicals, is the purview of "abiogenesis". It's a biochemical pursuit. Why can't you understand this? Are you daft?

I need not answer any more of the wack questions you presented. You have no idea of the standard model of accepted biology.

Honestly, hon, have you no more self respect than to relate such BS in lieu of demonstrable science? It is to your shame that you do so.

Hi Deep,

Regardless of the name you give it -- the religion of Darwinian Evolution depends upon life coming from non-life. How does one get life from non-life -- except through the Creation of God?

You tell GB, "I need not answer any more of the wack questions you presented" -- which is another way of saying you "cannot" answer GB's questions. At least be honest about it.

And, then, in your final paragraph, just as GB predicted -- you resort to the old atheist escape clause: When you have no answer; start insulting the person asking the question. That, my Friend, is a typical Dawkinesque approach.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1_-_Bible-Science-Space_GODS-STORY-1
quote:
The proposition is the explanation of how evolution would, our could, bring about male and female of a certain species and reproduction as the method to populate the species given that one simple molecule transcends, somehow, into a complex organism and continues to create all the various species that exist today?



GB, it is a mystery. Science doesn't have a concrete answer and probably never will since the origins of sex started so very long ago. I fail to understand why you insist on inserting some sort of supernatural magic into area where science does not yet have an answer.

In any case, there is much research on this subject. Here are two links if you REALLY want to learn about the the origin and evolution of sex.

http://www.livescience.com/str...odite-ancestors.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E..._sexual_reproduction

Also, like Bill, you claim that no one answered your last question that you seem to ask with regularity. I most certainty did answer.

My faith is strong enough to stand up to the insights that science provides. How about you?
Sofa, forgive me if I missed your answer, explaining why there is an absence of incremental transitional interspecies beings walking around, living amongst us. I'm not looking for missing links in fossil records (although they aren't there either) I'm looking for them hear, alive, today that science can document. Please refer me to the date and topic heading of your answer and I'll check that out.

Deep (Billy Joe Bob Gene) or whoever you have evolved into, on this forum, "It Does Not" doesn't suffice as a sufficient answer. You claim, unintelligent spontaneous generation, regarding life and how we got here, how every species got here, and attempt to divert attention and divert the discussion by injecting various reading material and videos, of others, rather than revealing your own personal knowledge of the subject, that basis by which you place your faith on Evolution.

Deep, maybe instead of renaming yourself Billy Joe Bob Gene, when you were banned under your previous ID you should have just renamed yourself "Shallow" for the depth of your ability to defend that which you consider so plain and undeniable is obviously, by your responses (or lack of response) quite shallow.

You also state that "I need not answer any more of the wack questions you presented" .. Strange I didn't know you, sufficiently, answered even one yet.

You ask "Are you daft?" in reply to my post above yet the last paragraph deliberately states " Please try to answer the question without resorting to personal attacks". My dictionary defines "Daft" as infatuated with but I assume you meant it to be a reference to my intelligence or ability to comprehend something (but no I am not infatuated). Apparently either your ability to read or your comprehension skills are deficient for you continue to retort to personal attacks rather than substantive answers and replies instead of what was requested. One key word in the definition of "substantive" is considerate, something you seem incapable of, in your replies and interactions with those that take opposing views to your own.

If there is any shame, or humiliation, to be felt then it should be someone who continually post such dogmatic answers without the most infinitesimal substantial, personal, evidence, of that (Evolutional theory) which you base your faith upon all the while doing everything you can to avoid direct questions which challenge that very theory of how we, and the rest of creation, got here.

I have now proposed two, what I consider to be substantial questions about Evolution and citing two reasons I believe Evolution is completely false and unprovable.

1. The glaring absence of continuing evolving transitional inter-species and species to species transitional beings. Not fossils but alive, walking around us today and observable. If Evolution is unintelligent evolving of species from a most primitive (basic, unintelligent) form to a more advanced (complex, intelligent) form where are the incremental steps before us today? Even if Spontaneous Generation occurred then given, say, a lightning strike in an environment, with the elements and chemicals, capable of allowing generation of life then why did it only happen eons ago .. the same chemicals and elements are present today and lighting is still here ... everything is still here but the evidence of evolution. Simply Evolution is a false theory of why we got here but it's the ONLY one that Science can, and will, come up with and accept because Science can only see, measure, and document the PHYSICAL and ignores the possibility of the SPIRITUAL ( or GOD).

2. IF Evolution proceeded from spontaneous generation of life from non-life and "evolved" from simple (non-intelligent, basic) forms into a complex (intelligent, advanced) form then how do you explain reproduction and the requirement of male and female of each species in order to achieve population of the species? Given the very nature of Evolutionarily theory, as an answer to how we got here or how every species got here, and then considering the creation of every various and diverse species (animal, human, insect, fish, reptiles to name a few) evolution is glaringly and obviously deficient in it's explanations involving the most simple issue of male and female and the requirement of reproduction to populate the species.

I will, though, give you this much. You are very adequate at personal attacks, especially when it comes to attempts to divert the attention from the fact that you know very little about that which you have chosen to be the basis for your personal faith, when challenged about that which you have chosen to have placed your faith.

Yes if there is any shame to be had I would think it would be that some "simple" Christian has presented you with a question or challenge about that which you place your faith in as being the cause of how we got here. The burden of proof is upon you, not upon someone else to have to read this book or manual or view this video or youtube. Are you not capable of defense of your own beliefs?
Last edited by gbrk
Sofa,

Again, thank you for a considerate, respectful, response to my last question about a second reason I believe Evolution to be false, at least regarding Evolution as not being the way in which we got here.

I also have seemingly missed your addressing my first reason I believe Evolution to be false so please, in a response, direct me to the time, date, and topic heading under which you posted that response and I will reply or address that response once I read it.

I do very much realize that there are many scientific mysteries that may never have an answer. Just the same as I realize that there are many Spiritual answers that either human (man/woman) is not to know. God restricts that which He either knows we have not the ability to comprehend or understand (for human is limited in their intelligence, even though we are capable of great understanding at times).

The reason I feel Science will never understand or have the dogmatic (concrete) answer to creation is because science, by its very nature, refuses to give possibility to the Spiritual realm. The Spiritual cannot be touched, sampled, or measured yet is (I believe) every bit as real as the Physical and in fact it is my belief that the Physical came from the Spiritual Realm by a process which also is a mystery or that we are incapable of understanding. Our answer is one of Faith .. Faith in God, a unmeasurable supreme power (deity) which brought about Physical existence by thought alone. I use the word "thought" but that's just a human word such as "eternity" yet I believe by its very nature they are terms that human (man/woman) is and will be incapable of understanding or truly comprehending. Therefore we just accept it upon "FAITH" not requiring that we know every step and process by which creation occurred.

Another point that I, endeavored to achieve was that we all have Faith in something or someone. Even if you dogmatically place your faith that the origin of all species was from a lightning strike into a primordial soup. Or, if you have, faith that Richard Dawkins or Charles Darwin figured it all out and comprehended it all and therefore Evolution is how we got here your faith rest in a process or in a human mortal man. Many, like myself, have Faith that "God Created" yet none of us can adequately or really define or explain God nor more than you or Science has those concrete answers regarding it's principal of its faith.

God however is not some gray headed man, God is Spirit, not human at all. God is unmeasurably powerful and (I believe) beyond any human comprehension of who/what He really is. We accept on Faith though that God is God and without definition, without physical evidence have no problem in staking our eternal state upon that faith basis.

Regardless of what you believe, each of us should have full assurance in that which we accept and believe in and it be of our own possession. By that I mean our faith should rest in tangible personal reasons and a basis that is of ourselves and not of what another says or believes, whether that person be Dawkins, Darwin, or some Preacher or Priest.

I believe while there is no Physical "Proof" of God that God can and does manifest Himself in the lives and life of His Human creation by the interaction of God's Holy Spirit. To the Christian/Believer that interaction is continual for God's Holy Spirit dwells (lives) within that person's body along with their inner spirit. To a non-believer, atheist, agnostic, or non-Christian then that interaction and that communication comes only at the time God "enables" the person with knowledge of their spiritual state, their state of insufficiency and sinfulness and when God actually "draws" that person unto Himself. It is an undeniable experience for it's a supernatural experience that has one source .. God.

Again, although we do disagree, most likely will continue to disagree you at least were respectful in your reply, which we all should strive to be as others, whom we do not know, read this forum and replies and (I believe) disrespect or personal attacks do more to detract from our positions as well as doing harm to our own, forum, reputations. My purpose in these post and replies is not to preach or attempt to proselyte and force my beliefs upon another rather I defend my faith, as every Christian should be able to do. These same viewers of these post, many that we don't (and never will) know view these post along with many long time members. IF a person isn't secure in what they believe in, if a person is seeking answers or not content with that which they were taught (whether religious or not) then I want the post I make to at least be an option for them to consider and likewise I share my reasons that I, personally, don't believe other prevalent theories. Yes I'm aware that many Christians are, or can be, judgmental or condemning and I try not to project that tone in my post for I truly believe it is not my position, nor any other Christians, to do so. There is but one Judge and that person is not on this earth, at this time. I also, do, believe that each Christian has an obligation to share that which has effected them so personally and intimately and share that which is so life changing and altering (in a positive way) when ask or inquired of their basis of belief.
Last edited by gbrk
gb,

the topic is sufficiently large that a general answer seems appropriate.

The entire issue of "missing links" is a fabrication. A missing link to the satisfaction of a Creationists is impossible. There are no crocoducks.

Let's say I give you a missing link between species A and E. Call it C. According to your training, I've just then created the demand for missing links B and D. Not all examples of all living things fossilize.

You want a missing link now? First, we are all transitional beings. We are as different from our past as our ancestors will be from us. Second, to use your silly standard, regard the walking catfish, common in South Florida. A fish that lives on land. A perfect "transitional" species. There are others.

gb, you've learned your Kent Hovind nonsense well. But it's all tosh. It's all wrong. You are doing a disservice to culture and the accumulated human knowledge.

Even if you could disprove Evolution, it does exactly zero to prove Creationism. Now, I'd like to hear your theory of the explanation of life on Earth. Mine is the standard model of evolutionary biology. What is yours? I expect you'll be clear and honest in your response. You might also tell us why you believe it.
quote:
Originally by gbrk:
Sofa,

Again, thank you for a considerate, respectful, response to my last question about a second reason I believe Evolution to be false, at least regarding Evolution as not being the way in which we got here.

I also have seemingly missed your addressing my first reason I believe Evolution to be false so please, in a response, direct me to the time, date, and topic heading under which you posted that response and I will reply or address that response once I read it.

I do very much realize that there are many scientific mysteries that may never have an answer. Just the same as I realize that there are many Spiritual answers that either human (man/woman) is not to know. God restricts that which He either knows we have not the ability to comprehend or understand (for human is limited in their intelligence, even though we are capable of great understanding at times).

The reason I feel Science will never understand or have the dogmatic (concrete) answer to creation is because science, by its very nature, refuses to give possibility to the Spiritual realm. The Spiritual cannot be touched, sampled, or measured yet is (I believe) every bit as real as the Physical and in fact it is my belief that the Physical came from the Spiritual Realm by a process which also is a mystery or that we are incapable of understanding. Our answer is one of Faith .. Faith in God, a unmeasurable supreme power (deity) which brought about Physical existence by thought alone. I use the word "thought" but that's just a human word such as "eternity" yet I believe by its very nature they are terms that human (man/woman) is and will be incapable of understanding or truly comprehending. Therefore we just accept it upon "FAITH" not requiring that we know every step and process by which creation occurred.

Another point that I, endeavored to achieve was that we all have Faith in something or someone. Even if you dogmatically place your faith that the origin of all species was from a lightning strike into a primordial soup. Or, if you have, faith that Richard Dawkins or Charles Darwin figured it all out and comprehended it all and therefore Evolution is how we got here your faith rest in a process or in a human mortal man. Many, like myself, have Faith that "God Created" yet none of us can adequately or really define or explain God nor more than you or Science has those concrete answers regarding it's principal of its faith.

God however is not some gray headed man, God is Spirit, not human at all. God is unmeasurably powerful and (I believe) beyond any human comprehension of who/what He really is. We accept on Faith though that God is God and without definition, without physical evidence have no problem in staking our eternal state upon that faith basis.

Regardless of what you believe, each of us should have full assurance in that which we accept and believe in and it be of our own possession. By that I mean our faith should rest in tangible personal reasons and a basis that is of ourselves and not of what another says or believes, whether that person be Dawkins, Darwin, or some Preacher or Priest.

I believe while there is no Physical "Proof" of God that God can and does manifest Himself in the lives and life of His Human creation by the interaction of God's Holy Spirit. To the Christian/Believer that interaction is continual for God's Holy Spirit dwells (lives) within that person's body along with their inner spirit. To a non-believer, atheist, agnostic, or non-Christian then that interaction and that communication comes only at the time God "enables" the person with knowledge of their spiritual state, their state of insufficiency and sinfulness and when God actually "draws" that person unto Himself. It is an undeniable experience for it's a supernatural experience that has one source .. God.

Again, although we do disagree, most likely will continue to disagree you at least were respectful in your reply, which we all should strive to be as others, whom we do not know, read this forum and replies and (I believe) disrespect or personal attacks do more to detract from our positions as well as doing harm to our own, forum, reputations. My purpose in these post and replies is not to preach or attempt to proselyte and force my beliefs upon another rather I defend my faith, as every Christian should be able to do. These same viewers of these post, many that we don't (and never will) know view these post along with many long time members. IF a person isn't secure in what they believe in, if a person is seeking answers or not content with that which they were taught (whether religious or not) then I want the post I make to at least be an option for them to consider and likewise I share my reasons that I, personally, don't believe other prevalent theories. Yes I'm aware that many Christians are, or can be, judgmental or condemning and I try not to project that tone in my post for I truly believe it is not my position, nor any other Christians, to do so. There is but one Judge and that person is not on this earth, at this time. I also, do, believe that each Christian has an obligation to share that which has effected them so personally and intimately and share that which is so life changing and altering (in a positive way) when ask or inquired of their basis of belief.


Applause!
Possibly, one of the best reasonings for Creationism posted.
No scriptures. No "hell and brimstone"...
Just a straightforward answer for the basis of ones "faith".
Now, for a well versed, balanced reply...from the Evolutionist crowd.
And?
And.

It's superstitious BS.

The proponents of Creationism have yet to issue one demonstrable theory.


The proponents of Creationism have yet to propose anything that stands any test of objective scrutiny.


The proponents of Creationism have given us nothing but bible verses and weak speculation as reasons to believe in their wicked fiction.

When will you grow up? When will you learn how to gauge the natural universe?

BG

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×