Scopes Monkey Trial [Archive]

06-13-2003, 09:46 AM

So you guys that say there is no fossil proof of evolution, what then is this clearly not totlay human as we are yet they are not totaly ape. I think that God (yes i believe in God) could have used evolution as a tool to creat us after all we do not know how he did it.

< < Back to Start of Article Finds help trace modern man's origins

In the 160,000-year-old fossilized skulls of three Ethiopians - two adults and a child - scientists think they see for the first time the faces of the immediate ancestors of modern humans.
.
Except for a few archaic characteristics, they are as recognizable as Hamlet's poor Yorick. They are longer than those of earlier ancestors or any contemporary Neanderthals in Eurasia. Their midfaces are broad, but the nasal bones are tall and narrow. The brow ridges are less prominent than the glowering visages looking down from earlier branches of the family tree. And the cranial vaults are higher and within modern dimensions.
.
The discovery of the oldest near-modern human remains, announced Wednesday, is considered a major step in establishing the time and place for the emergence of anatomically modern Homo sapiens - probably about 150,000 years ago, as genetic studies have suggested, in Africa.
.
"We can now see what our direct ancestors looked like," said Tim White, a paleoanthropologist from the University of California at Berkeley, who is a leader of the international team that excavated and analyzed the skulls.
.
That had been impossible until now because of the frustrating gap in fossil evidence between 100,000 and 300,000 years ago, the presumed interval of transition from prehumans to modern humans.
.
Christopher Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London, who did not participate in the research, hailed the findings as "some of the most significant discoveries in early Homo sapiens so far."
.
Another independent observer, Richard Klein of Stanford University, said, "These are basically modern people, remarkably modern in appearance."
.
The discovery team and other scientists said in interviews that the research appeared to confirm the idea that modern humans originated in Africa and then spread to Asia and Europe. In that case, they said, the enigmatic Neanderthals, who became extinct in Europe 30,000 years ago, could not have been direct forebears of today's humans.
.
In a report in new issue of the journal Nature, released online Wednesday, White and his collaborators concluded that the Ethiopian skulls "represent the probable immediate ancestors of anatomically modern humans" and that "their anatomy and antiquity constitute strong evidence of modern-human emergence in Africa."
.
The "out of Africa" hypothesis, forcefully advocated by Stringer among others, had gained wide support in the two decades since molecular research on the genetic diversity among human populations pointed to a common ancestor in Africa, who inevitably became known as the African Eve. The research was based on evolutionary changes in mitochondrial DNA, which is passed from mother to daughter. Other studies of the male Y chromosome reached similar conclusions.
.
But scientists had been unable to pin down the time of origin or find supporting fossil evidence. The earliest fossils of modern Homo sapiens, from Ethiopia, South Africa and Israel, are not much more than 100,000 years old.
.
If correct, White's group emphasized, the new research ruled out the alternative multiregional hypothesis, held by a minority of scientists. They proposed that modern humans evolved in different parts of Africa, Asia and Europe at roughly the same time from ancient local populations. The Homo erectus species, which had migrated out of Africa much earlier, was thought to have evolved into Asian humans and European humans, possibly through intermediate stages, including Neanderthals.
.
Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, who is a leading proponent of the multiregional theory, questioned whether the skulls had any bearing one way or other on the Neanderthals' place in human evolution.
.
"All the specimens show is that there was a trend of evolution in Africa toward modernity, just as there was in China and Europe," Wolpoff said.
.
But White's group said the fossil skulls showed that Homo sapiens with almost entirely human characteristics had already evolved in Africa before Neanderthals evolved into their classic form. Soon afterward, fully modern Homo sapiens entered Europe, presumably from Africa by way of the Middle East, and the Neanderthals went into their fateful decline.
.
"We can conclusively say that Neanderthals had nothing to do with modern humans," said Berhane Asfaw, a co-leader of the discovery team from the Rift Valley Research in Addis Ababa, the Ethiopian capital.
.
In a background news release to the journal articles, the discoverers said that even if descendants of the transitional people from Ethiopia "interbred with surviving Neanderthal populations, the latter appear to have contributed very little to the modern human gene pool."
.
The team concluded, "In this sense, we are all African."
.
The skull fossils were found in 1997 in an arid valley bordering the Middle Awash River near the village of Herto, 140 miles (220 kilometers) northeast of Addis Ababa. The fossils were buried between layers of volcanic ash, from which geologists determined their age to be about 160,000 years.
.
The fossils were so badly fragmented, however, that it took years of cleaning, reassembling and analyzing before the discoverers felt they could report their findings. They also kept hoping they would gather more remains. They collected more than 600 stone tools, including hand axes. But they never uncovered the lower jaws to the skulls or any parts of the skeletons.
.
Anthropologists suspect that the skulls had been deliberately removed from the bodies as part of some ancient mortuary practice. The three skulls were excavated a few hundred feet from one another. The most complete one, probably that of an adult male, especially impressed scientists with its humanlike size and shape, very nearly modern.
.
So the discoverers decided the specimen belonged in the same genus and species as modern humans, Homo sapiens. But there were just enough differences, the scientists concluded, that the fossils were probably a subspecies, Homo sapiens idltu, to differentiate them from fully modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens. Idltu is a word meaning "elder" in the local Afar language.
.

06-13-2003, 09:52 AM

Palmetto, I don't agree with everything that you wrote, but you make a valid point. THIS Christian, who admits that none of us currently knows whether or not God used some form of 'evolutionary process' to 'create' man, is not comfortable with the concept of personal attacks on someone long dead, just because you disagree with a theory he proposed.

Pachyderm2

06-13-2003, 09:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Palmetto State Dude said:

Regardless of whether you believe in evolution, to treat Charles Darwin like he was some kind of geek biting off chicken heads at some freak show in the very least shows ignorance on your part, and is certainly NOT VERY CHRISTIAN. I wonder if Jesus would say the things you guys have said about Darwin. WWJD????

[/ QUOTE ]

hhhmm, I'm thinking of the time Jesus kicked some serious money changing booty around at the temple. That's what Jesus would do with Darwin's "theory".

Urbs

06-13-2003, 10:53 AM

Agreed

bennyhanna1

06-13-2003, 11:09 AM

cool post venom, wasn't the planet of the apes movie (original), in the trial part, wasn't that supposed to be like the scopes trial? i heard that somewhere, that it was sort of a jab at him or something

President Wilson

06-13-2003, 01:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So you guys that say there is no fossil proof of evolution

[/ QUOTE ]

There is proof of " micro " evolution. That simply means variation within a kind, including human kind. Just look at your article on the proof for man comming from an ape

[ QUOTE ]
"We can now see what our direct ancestors looked like," said Tim White

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree! Here's what they look like!

, Richard Klein of Stanford University, said, "These are basically modern people, remarkably modern in appearance."

Perhaps they are remarkably modern in appearance because they are fully Human!

How does a modern human, prove that we came from an ape? It actually proves our point very clearly.

[ QUOTE ]
The fossils were so badly fragmented, however, that it took years of cleaning, reassembling and analyzing before the discoverers felt they could report their findings. They also kept hoping they would gather more remains. They collected more than 600 stone tools, including hand axes. But they never uncovered the lower jaws to the skulls or any parts of the skeletons.

[/ QUOTE ]

They were definately modern, look at this part of the article you posted

[ QUOTE ]
The fossils were so badly fragmented

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Anthropologists suspect that the skulls had been deliberately removed from the bodies as part of some ancient mortuary practice.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
collected more than 600 stone tools, including hand axes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the clincher!

The most complete one, probably that of an adult male, especially impressed scientists with its humanlike size and shape, very nearly modern.

A. You find a fragmented skull that you can barely make out
B. It " impressed " scientists because it had, lol

" humankike size and shape "

Because it was human!

These people performed burial rituals, had axes and tools and the full gammit. You find a fragmented human skull, and are suprised that it looks human!

heres more

[ QUOTE ]
But White's group said the fossil skulls showed that Homo sapiens with almost entirely human characteristics had already evolved in Africa

[/ QUOTE ]

1. What it shows, is that humans have always been human!

[ QUOTE ]
"All the specimens show is that there was a trend of evolution in Africa toward modernity, just as there was in China and Europe," Wolpoff said.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. All the speciments as you said were fully human!
2. You are right, just like in China and Europe all the specimens you find are also fully human

Venom

06-13-2003, 01:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
William Ustav said:
Hahahahahahha, that's some great pictures!!! /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

But... ummm... what is the scopes trial /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif ???

[/ QUOTE ]
Here is some information William, scopes. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/scopes.asp)

William Ustav

06-13-2003, 02:07 PM

Thanks, venom!!!

CheezitMan22

06-13-2003, 02:09 PM

wait a sec, you guys dont beleive in evolution?i think THAT's nuts...

Pete914

06-13-2003, 02:10 PM

I promised myself I would stay out of these threads, but its too late now. Look, I don't care how much evidence you have against evolution, mocking anyone that tries to come up with a new theory is pure ignorance. That is how science moves forward-new theories. I'll even assume for a second that evolution is complete BS. If that were true, and Darwin was completely wrong, oh well. He made observations in nature and tried to come up with a new theory. Just like every other inventor and renowned scientist has. And if you look in textbooks (you do accept physics, chemistry, and quantum mechanics, do you not?) there were a lot of smart scientists/theorists that were wrong about a great many things, yet they felt they had evidence to back their findings. A good example is the progression of the accepted theory of the atom. At first it was thought that they were small hard spheres. Then it was discovered that there were electrons and a nucleus. Then orbitals were discovered, etc. All of the anti-evolution members on this site sure seem big into the chemistry related with muscles, and base their articles in Hyperplasia Magazine based on studies done by others. What if all those theories are also wrong? Just because something has been "proved" by one or two experiments does not mean that it always holds true. If you look at the sample sizes of many studies, and you know anything about statistics, then you know that many more studies would have to be conducted.

I would like to finish by saying I love ABC and have the utmost respect for its moderators, but the mocking of Darwin is completely inappropriate and immature. How would you feel if I started posting mocking pictures of Jesus? In fact, this thread is boarderline propaganda.

Venom

06-13-2003, 02:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Heen05 said:
wait a sec, you guys dont beleive in evolution?i think THAT's nuts...

[/ QUOTE ]
Why?
Do you think the bible is nuts?

Give your evidence for it.

CheezitMan22

06-13-2003, 02:15 PM

Oh gawd lol...im not good at this. evolution isnt something we beleive in, its something we accept. im not gonna get into bible talk with you, cause i know you would own me lol. oh well, but seriously, asking me for evidence about evolution adn things from the bible isnt gonna get you much /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif at least not from me...maybe in like, 5-10 years?plus, it would take me forever, even if i did come up with something

President Wilson

06-13-2003, 02:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't care how much evidence you have against evolution,

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to see some evidence for it

[ QUOTE ]
. If that were true, and Darwin was completely wrong, oh well. He made observations in nature and tried to come up with a new theory

[/ QUOTE ]

Darwin did not come up with a new theory. Evolution was around way longer then Darwin.

Secondly, his Grandfather actually came up with Darwinian evolution, Darwin took that idea.

Thirdly, Darwin stated that Natural Selection was the creating force. He was wrong. Modern day evolutionists have this to say about that

Dr. Brace, in the prominent Journal-American Scientist stated that

[ QUOTE ]
Readers of American Scientist may not realize the extent to which a major part of the field of biology and almost all of paleontology has rejected Darwins insights concerning organic evolution. Natural selection is dismissed as contributing nothing more than fine-tuning

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And if you look in textbooks (you do accept physics, chemistry, and quantum mechanics, do you not?)

[/ QUOTE ]

We do, macroevolution however has never been observed. Additionally, Dead matter, can never produce life. And yet its taught as if it could take place, when the science that we all agree with proved spontanious generation wrong a tremendously long time ago.

[ QUOTE ]
there were a lot of smart scientists/theorists that were wrong about a great many things, yet they felt they had evidence to back their findings

[/ QUOTE ]

What evidence is there for the general theory of evolution?

[ QUOTE ]
If you look at the sample sizes of many studies, and you know anything about statistics, then you know that many more studies would have to be conducted.

[/ QUOTE ]

There has never been a study to show that life could come from non-life

Venom

06-13-2003, 02:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Oh gawd lol...im not good at this. evolution isnt something we beleive in, its something we accept.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would you just accept something you don't even understand? We have hundreds of posts dealing with this, if you want to see how flawed it is, do a search, or look in the bible studies in our signature.

Than come back, with your best evidence, or what you believe is very convincing to you, and we'll show you the fallacies. Take your time; it doesn't have to be long. But if you make a statement like this, you must have a reason. If the reason is because of popularity, you know that doesn't cut it.

But you should never just believe something, that's like injecting steroids because you heard they would get you huge, and having no clue about the side effects of them.

Pete914

06-13-2003, 02:31 PM

Look, Im not providing evidence to back evolution. I am saying that it is disrespectful to mock anyone that tried (and failed, according to you) to advance or come up with a new theory. So he tried, so he failed, so he should be mocked? Have you never been wrong before?

CheezitMan22

06-13-2003, 02:38 PM

whoa...i never said i didnt understand it...

Venom

06-13-2003, 02:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Heen05 said:
whoa...i never said i didnt understand it...

[/ QUOTE ]
Than show us what you understand.

06-13-2003, 02:43 PM

Well that artical was showing that these skulls etc were not totally human. And by cutting out phrases to prove your point you took out the meaning of the artical. Actual modern humans like us took another 50,000 or so years to come about. So at 160,000 in age these peoples could not be human in the sense that you are trying to portray them as. Yeah they had tools, so do chimps in the wild and dolphins for that matter, does that make them human? As for the susposed funeral that also (if you read in the artical) could be them eating their own. To come on here and say that Darwin was wrong is also a false statement. Evolution is all about adapting to the enviroment. We can see this by looking at peoples in the andes. Their hearts, lungs are much larger than ours to allow them to breath in the higher less oxygenated peaks. Yet you take a lowland human give them enough time and they too "adapt" to that enviroment. What this shows is that over a longer period of time the Bear(in a above post) could indeed turn into a whale like creature. Finally what I am trying to say is that you can not prove your point with hard scientific data and neither can the other side. So until you or them can do that do not try to force your belief in creationism, as hard fact.

CheezitMan22

06-13-2003, 02:45 PM

Ok, you guys win, you are right.

Venom

06-13-2003, 02:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Heen05 said:
Ok, you guys win, you are right.

[/ QUOTE ]
We were not trying to win, just to help.

You take your time, and if you feel there is something which shows this is scientific post it up. No rush.

President Wilson

06-13-2003, 02:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well that artical was showing that these skulls etc were not totally human

[/ QUOTE ]

Heres a quote from the article

 So the discoverers decided the specimen belonged in the same genus and species as modern humans, Homo sapiens 

They were fully human. If a few fragmented skulls are found that show the modern traits of humans, including intelligence, its safe to conclude that they are human.

[ QUOTE ]
So at 160,000 in age these peoples could not be human in the sense that you are trying to portray them as. Yeah they had tools, so do chimps in the wild and dolphins for that matter, does that make them human?

[/ QUOTE ]

These were homo sapiens. I don't recall chimps ever designing an axe. They also were reported to butcher extremely large animals and have middle stone age technology. No ape has ever attained this

06-13-2003, 03:02 PM

Shape? No but studies have been done that have seen them use sharp rocks to cut things as well as sticks as tools. I guess I should have known better than to argue with people like you all on this, not that you are bad folks just that like I said you can not prove your belief and neither can we, so we will have to see....

President Wilson

06-13-2003, 03:04 PM

Here are quotes from the scientific journal Nature on this subject

 Nature 423, 747 - 752 (2003); doi:10.1038/nature01670

Stratigraphic, chronological and behavioural contexts of Pleistocene Homo sapiens from Middle Awash, Ethiopia



Straight from the journal

[ QUOTE ]
Clarifying the geographic, environmental and behavioural contexts in which the emergence of anatomically modern Homo sapiens occurred has proved difficult, particularly because Africa lacked adequate geochronological, palaeontological and archaeological evidence. The discovery of anatomically modern Homo sapiens fossils at Herto, Ethiopia, changes this.

[/ QUOTE ]

" Anatomically Modern Homo Sapiens "

on their technology

[ QUOTE ]
The archaeological assemblages contain elements of both Acheulean and Middle Stone Age technocomplexes. Associated faunal remains indicate repeated, systematic butchery of hippopotamus carcasses. Contemporary adult and juvenile Homo sapiens fossil crania manifest bone modifications indicative of deliberate mortuary practices.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many people today, with less technology then the above Human beings.

06-13-2003, 03:05 PM

Well here is a quote for you: The discovery of the oldest near-modern human remains, announced Wednesday, is considered a major step in establishing the time and place for the emergence of anatomically modern Homo sapiens . Now the phrase here to look at and this is the tone for the Whole article is, "oldest near-modern human remains" not actual human but NEAR human. these are not human in our sense Mr. Pres...sorry but they are not they are inbetween the homnids and us....

**DONOTDELETE**

06-13-2003, 03:07 PM

CheezitMan22

06-13-2003, 03:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I've never heard of a dolphin making an axe. How does that work exactly?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL!!!!!!!
/forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /forum/images/graemlins/ooo.gif /forum/images/graemlins/cool.gif /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /forum/images/graemlins/confused.gif /forum/images/graemlins/blush.gif

06-13-2003, 03:19 PM

I do know what evolution is it calls for mutations that push the species to surive, and or change for the better in the long run. These skulls we are talking about are called human cause they have more to do with us then the hominds that came before. But as stated above at 160,000 years they are far to old to be call MODERN HUMAN that is the problem I have with you both, the phrase homo sapien is us and they are not yet to that stage for lack of a better classification they are called near human or near homo sapien. As for tools dolphins have been seen to use rocks and other items to crack open shellfish, if that is not tool use what is. Most of the so called axes that you are talking about you would walk right by and not even know it was "worked" by a human. I know this I have seen these axes in person, and even doctors that have spent decades studying this make mistakes. Most so-called axes and nothing more than a flint rock dropped onto the ground and got an edge. AS for whales and bears well even other creationists have known that whales once walked on the land their flippers still have feet bones in them. I do not know this is the only way of thought. If and when you can prove that God did not use evolution and adaptation to creat us then I will change my mind.

**DONOTDELETE**

06-13-2003, 03:34 PM

CheezitMan22

06-13-2003, 03:42 PM

So on the extreme end of things, what you are saying is that if we DO accept evolution, we are going against the word of G-d and that we will go to hell or something?hmmm

06-13-2003, 03:45 PM

LOL you crack me up the bear and wahle thing was really good. I said that given enough time the bear could become a Whalelike creature...not a half whale half bear. I have no doubt that these are human, but share a closer link to the ape-like creatures that came before. Yeah I have read the article and I have seen the axes they are comparing them with . You are right they are more than a sharp flint rock. All I am trying to say is that these skulls point to a link with apes that obivously is distressing to you creationists. We have nothing to prove. I bet you all still believe the earth is only 6000 yrs old and that man walked with the dinos.....

**DONOTDELETE**

06-13-2003, 03:49 PM

06-13-2003, 03:53 PM

yeah me proving something.....If you looked at the bones in the flippers of a whale you would find tht they indeed resemble those in our feet in designe and make up. No I do not have all the answers, but you can not say that there is not enough evidence to say hmmmm maybe there are other ways god did this.......not just Bam! and so it shall be you read in the bible. I could go into how the old testament is really the egyptian book of the dead and also taken from far older summerian texts, and that really throws monky wrenches in the whole god wrote this we must take it word for word thing....

**DONOTDELETE**

06-13-2003, 03:53 PM

06-13-2003, 04:03 PM

Well just so you know I just posted all of this cause I was brought up in a religion that allowed for no thought about it. I admire Darwin it took a lot more than guts to do what he did. I have no room for people that mock what othes believe like you all did. If we were created totaly by god liek in gensis (sorry my spelling is bad), or if we were totaly evolved, so what we are here and that is what matters. Personaly after studying anthropology and religion and archaeology, I believe that God helped us along to get to where we are there is too much evdience both ways for me to disregard one for the other. But I respect those that believe one or ther other. As for the disscussion on the article, I have seen and read many such info before. I think that these peoples, are going to tuen both religion and science over a little.

**DONOTDELETE**

06-13-2003, 04:11 PM

06-13-2003, 04:18 PM

Well I have posted here before about my experiences, (I had fun as well), I believe after reading the bible and other books and such, that the bible is not directly the ord of god. I think it is a good moral, oral history, and a great philosopical book. But I do not think god wrote it as such. I believe in him and really think that he is there to help us. I try to not get "ugly" I love talking about religion and such most do not understand and have never even read the bible. I can not quote it like you all but I can hold my own.

**DONOTDELETE**

06-13-2003, 04:22 PM

hotbodzz

06-13-2003, 04:34 PM

What is creationism?

Many people find that the most important part of a theory is a clear description of what the theory says and does not say.

(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. (There are questions below about conventional science, so please restrict your discussion here to the positive aspects of creationism.) This is the one question of over-reaching importance, so much so that you might consider many of the following questions merely asking for certain details of what makes up a comprehensive statement of creationism. It should be noted that many people prefer quantitative details where appropriate.

It is often a great help to communication if each party understands what the other means by certain critical expressions.

(2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are likely to be misunderstood.

(3) Include the evidence for creationism (please remember that merely finding problems with conventional science does not count as support for creationism, as there may be other theories which differ from both conventional science and creationism). A good example of evidence for creationism would be some observation which was predicted by it. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which has an alternative explanation.

In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is important that not only must the conflicting theories be well described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting theories be proposed, but also that there be established some rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the evidence.

(4) Can you suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating?

There are many alternatives to creationism. Some of the alternatives are: theistic evolution and old-earth creationism.

(5) Distinguish your theory of creationism from some of these alternatives and give some reasons for it rather than the others.

Many people find a theory which is open to change in the face of new evidence much more satisfying than one which is inflexible.

(6) Describe features of creationism which are subject to modification. Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change creationism? Is it open to change, and if so, what criteria are there for accepting change?

Exposition of creationism.
Definitions of terms.
Evidence for creationism.
Rules of evidence.
Distinguishing characteristics of creationism.
Evidence which modifies creationism.
How do creationists describe conventional science?

It is helpful in any discussion that both sides understand what the other is talking about. In answering the questions above, you have helped us in understanding your theory. Often communication is helped if each participant explains what he thinks the other person is saying. It should also help those who support conventional science to clarify their exposition. These questions are in a sense parallel to the questions asked before about creationism.

(7) Explain what you think some of the terms used in conventional science mean. Here are some which seem to lead to misunderstanding:

evolution
primitive
natural selection
theory
(8) It would also be helpful if you could give a brief description of your understanding of conventional science. Please do not state here what your objections are to conventional science - that can be talked about later. Just say what conventional science says.
(9) It might be helpful if you explain why you think that conventional science came to its present position, and why people hold to conventional science. (And once again, please restrict this to a description, as debate can come later.)

Many people who support conventional science feel that those who oppose it do so because of unwelcome consequences.

(10) What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?

What are the meanings of the terms used by conventional science?
What is does conventional science say?
What is the evidence for conventional science?
What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?
How does creationism explain the evidence for conventional science?

In answering the earlier questions, you have described your theory and given us evidence for it. Now we ask for your opinions on the evidence for conventional science.

Many people hold to conventional science because they believe that it has been developed over centuries, driven by discoveries. They wonder how any person could explain the evidence any other way. Here is a very brief list of questions about evidence which many people find convincing.

(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)

(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

(13) In the contemporary world, different animals and plants live in different places. Why is there the present distribution of animals and plants in the world? For example, how is it that marsupials are restricted to Australia and nearby islands and the Americas, monotremes to Australia and nearby islands, and few placental mammals are native to Australia? Or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)

(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

Coherence of many different dating methods.
Chronological distribution of fossils.
Spatial distribution of living things.
Relationships between living things.
Theological questions

It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.

For example, some people feel that it is necessary to give naturalistic explanations for the wondrous events described in the Bible. Other people are curious as to why there should be a search for naturalistic explanations for these events, rather than acceptance of these events as signs from God, outside of the normal.

(15) If you feel that the events of the Bible must be explained as the normal operation of natural phenomena, please explain why.

Some people who believe in God find it difficult to accept that God would mislead people by giving evidence for conventional science.

(16) Why is there all the evidence for an earth, and life on earth, more than 100,000 years old, and for the relationships between living things, and why were we given the intelligence to reach those conclusions?

Why should the wondrous events described in sacred writings be given naturalistic explanations?
Why does the plain reading of nature seem to support conventional science?
Summary

These questions are intended to clarify the debate about creationism versus conventional science. As mentioned above, many of the questions are intended to explore what creationists think about the issues in a way that allows each side to understand better what is involved. I believe that they are fair questions to ask in achieving that end, but if anyone has objections to the content, tone or presuppositions, comments are certainly welcome.

Venom

06-13-2003, 04:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Heen05 said:
So on the extreme end of things, what you are saying is that if we DO accept evolution, we are going against the word of G-d and that we will go to hell

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, we answer this literally in every single debate. Do a search or study the links in our signatures, to see a few reasons why.

But be patient; very very soon we will put out a Giant study on why you need to believe Gods word.

CheezitMan22

06-13-2003, 05:03 PM

Heh, cool. will this be for mainly christians?Cause then its gonna...uh..not pertain to me as much.

President Wilson

06-13-2003, 05:03 PM

Hi Hotbodz,

the questions you posted from the talk of origins website are answered right here

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp

Venom

06-13-2003, 05:04 PM

It's about the bible. If you want to understand the bible it will help you. /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

President Wilson

06-13-2003, 05:24 PM

That site answers your questions in a very concise manner, I will answer some here.

[ QUOTE ]
What are the consequences of accepting conventional science?

[/ QUOTE ]

You find that animals only bring forth after their own kind,and there is no evidence for any kind of animal turning into another kind of animal.

[ QUOTE ]
What is the evidence for conventional science?

[/ QUOTE ]

See above

[ QUOTE ]
Why are many Christians evolutionists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is anyone an Evolutionist? It has no evidence to support it. I would therefore say, it is due to indoctronation in schools. Not due to evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
Some people say that scientific creationism does a disservice to Christianity by holding Christianity up to ridicule. How would you answer that charge?

[/ QUOTE ]

Study the Complexity of the DNA contained in one cell in your body. We believe an intelligent design, required an intelligent designer. I see no reason why that would do a disservice to Christianity

An extremely recognized Biologist Michael Denton has this to say about the Cell

 Perhaps in no other area of modern biology is the challenge posed by the extreme
complexity and ingenuity of biological adaptations more apparent than in the fascinating new molecular world of the cell. To grasp the reality of life as it has been
revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would
see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.

Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which a functional protein or gene is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? Alongside the level of ingenuity and complexity exhibited by the molecular machinery of life, even our most advanced [twentieth century technology appears] clumsy. . . . It would be an illusion to think that what we are aware of at present is any more than a fraction of the full extent of biological design. In practically every field of fundamental biological research ever-increasing levels of design and complexity are being revealed at an ever-accelerating rate. 

[ QUOTE ]
Where did all of the water come from and go to from the flood?

[/ QUOTE ]

This question also assumes that the pre-flood world was like the world is today. The Bible states clearly that the water was 15 cubits over the tallest mountain. Sea-shell fossils have been found on top of mountain ranges all over the world. The top of Mt. Everest is covered with petrified, closed clams. They had to be buried alive to be petrified in the closed position. This was definitely a worldwide flood. The Bible says in Psalm 104 that as the flood ended the mountains lifted up and the valleys sank down and the water hasted away( due to the broken up plates ). If the mountains pressed down and the ocean basins lifted up as it was before the catastrophy, there is enough water in the oceans right now to cover the entire earth 8,000 feet deep .

Which is why there thousands of Flood accounts from around the globe.

[ QUOTE ]
Explain how the degree of genetic variation in contemporary animals resulted from the few on the Ark.

[/ QUOTE ]

Darwin explained this. This is both scientific and scriptual. It is variation however to allow a kind of animal to live. And has nothing to do with MacroEVolution

In fact an evolutionist article just explains this

 P.R. Grant, Natural Selection and Darwins FinchesScientific American, 265(4):60;65, October 1991 

Princeton zoology professor Peter Grant recently released some results of an intensive 18-year study of all the Galápagos finches during which natural selection was observed in action.

The speed at which these changes took places was most interesting. At that observed rate, Grant estimates, it would take only 1,200 years to transform the medium ground finch into the cactus finch, for example. To convert it into the more similar large ground finch would take only some 200 years.

Notice that (although the article fails to mention it) such speedy changes can have nothing to do with the production of any new genes by mutation, but are based upon the process described, that is, choosing from what is already there. It therefore fails to qualify as evidence for real, uphill (macro) evolution though many starry-eyed students will doubtless be taught it as evolution in action

Instead, it is real, observed evidence that such (downhill) adaptive formation of several species from the one created kind can easily take place in a few centuries. It doesn't need millions of years. The argument is strengthened by the fact that, after the Flood, selection pressure would have been much more intense with rapid migration into new, empty niches, residual catastrophism and changing climate as the Earth was settling down and drying out, and simultaneous adaptive radiation of differing food species.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you feel that there must be a mechanistic, naturalistic or materialist exposition of the wondrous events described in the Bible?

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is irrelevent. If there was a Global flood, then there would be signs both historically, and Geologically to support it. There is plenty of this. DNA is organized information, I would refer you to Old Schools post on this Theory By Clicking Here (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=bodybuilder&Number=459 154&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1) . But the above question is ridiculous.

But perhaps it is a sound one. Afterall, evolutions do not feel they need anything outside of imagination to support their theory.

[ QUOTE ]
Explain what you think some of the terms used in conventional science mean. Here are some which seem to lead to misunderstanding:

evolution
primitive
natural selection

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution - A Modern Religion

Primitive - look it up in websters dictionary, the question is irrelevent

Natural Selection - Simple, God created animals with a great deal of genetic information. Natural Selection, selects information already contained in the gene code. See above quote from Scientific America in an earlier post of mine

[ QUOTE ]
It is the impression of many people who support conventional science that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they are stating that Evolution is scientific, then I suppose science is based on imagination. IF they re-word the question like this

[ QUOTE ]
It is the impression of many people who support The Religion of Evolution that many people who are creationists are so because of religious reasons. This is puzzling to people who consider themselves to be religious, yet accept the findings of conventional science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Macro Evolution is very religous, so I can see why, they consider themselves to be so

[ QUOTE ]
Distinguish your theory of creationism from some of these alternatives and give some reasons for it rather than the others.

[/ QUOTE ]

It conincides perfectly with God's record of the events.

[ QUOTE ]
Another way of phrasing it is: is there any kind of observation which, if it were seen, would change creationism?

[/ QUOTE ]

These have been listed, I'll will repost them:

Demonstrate these to falsify the Creation theory:

Natural chemical processes that produces all of the components of life from non-life in quantities sufficient to account for all life on earth.

A natural process that purifies amino acids in their left handed form, and sugars in their right hand form for use as the building blocks of life.

The origin of the DNA, RNA, protein manufacturing process.

The origin of photosynthesis and the appearance of chlorophyll.

The origin of reproduction at the chemical level.

The origin of the genetic code and the chemical infrastructure to make it work.

Once you have determined what these processes are, show that these processes are much more likely to happen than the processes that break down the components of life.

Once you have demonstrated that the chemical origin of life is possible from off-the-shelf chemicals, show the biochemical changes that occur to increase the meaningful information content of organisms to produce the vast variety of creatures found today.

A corollary to this would be to show that mutations in the vast majority of cases are beneficial and promote evolution

[ QUOTE ]
It might be helpful if you explain why you think that conventional science came to its present position, and why people hold to conventional science

[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean evolution, the answer is Strong faith.

Ok, our turn. Here are the creationist questions about evolution

1. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

2.How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

3.Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

4.When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Single-celled animals evolve?
Fish change to amphibians?
Amphibians change to reptiles?
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)

5.How did the intermediate forms live?

6.When, where, why, how, and from what did:
-Whales evolve?
-Sea horses evolve?
-bats evolve?
-Eyes evolve?

-Ears evolve?

-Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

7.Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?


The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?

8.The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?

9.The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

10.DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

11.The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?

12.The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

13.The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?

14.The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?

14.The immune system or the need for it?

15.How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

16.When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

*How did photosynthesis evolve?

*How did thought evolve?

*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?

06-13-2003, 05:28 PM

2. It is puzzling how someone can believe in a theory with no evidence......um is not that the definiton of FAITH the beliefe in god with out actual proof?

President Wilson

06-13-2003, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
7707MUTT said:
2. It is puzzling how someone can believe in a theory with no evidence......um is not that the definiton of FAITH the beliefe in god with out actual proof?

[/ QUOTE ]

Heres the answer

click here (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=bodybuilder&Number=521346& page=&view=&sb=5&o=&vc=1)

06-13-2003, 05:40 PM

Sorry can not open that here at work

President Wilson

06-13-2003, 05:41 PM

You will enjoy it quite a bit when you do get a chance friend.

06-13-2003, 05:43 PM

Well I dunno I kinda got religious material "burned" out of me if you know what I mean. I do not like it it is a huge repeat from my childhood. I know what I believe and what I do not. You all make good strong cases for your side. But I have my own thoughts and feelings as well.

President Wilson

06-13-2003, 05:47 PM

You do believe in God, so you will enjoy this quite a bit.

hotbodzz

06-13-2003, 05:48 PM

I suppose so. I just wanted to hear a creationist's point of view to these questions.

The biggest theory I have trouble accepting is the young world theory. There are 5 or 6 types of dating practices, all yielding very close to the same results. The chances of this happening coinincidentally are about as likely as a rock turning into a frog.

06-13-2003, 05:49 PM

Yes i do believe, which is why I read some of the religious posts. I still have great resverations about religion and God 16 years of non believeing is hard to repress.

konaforever

06-13-2003, 05:59 PM

They make fun of Darwin because if evolution proves true, it would prove their religion not true.

Well, actually it wouldn't. They would just reinterpret the bible to mean something else and say that the bible said evolution existed the whole time. That they just misunderstood it, like everything else that we know to be true but is contrary to the bible.

Personally, I like to think for myself. Not from some book. No matter who you think wrote it.

[ QUOTE ]
Palmetto State Dude said:

That's not funny. It's rude, hurtful, and disrespectful, and I'm seriously offended by it.

Regardless of whether you believe in evolution, to treat Charles Darwin like he was some kind of geek biting off chicken heads at some freak show in the very least shows ignorance on your part, and is certainly NOT VERY CHRISTIAN. I wonder if Jesus would say the things you guys have said about Darwin. WWJD????

Charles Darwin was an incredibly intelligent and insightful man, a genius in his time, and just because he came up with a THEORY that doesn't fit in with YOUR belief system is no reason to degrade him and detract from his other scientific accomplishments. And to portray him to other members of this board (many of whom are young and very impressionable) as an idiot is reprehensible.

[/ QUOTE ]

konaforever

06-13-2003, 06:01 PM

My cat is the Messiah. Prove otherwise, please.

hotbodzz

06-13-2003, 06:19 PM

Been reading through some articles on the subject, I am just curious to creationist's thoughts on them. What about Dr. Gish, wasn't he caught lying about chicken and frog proteins closely resembling humans? What are your opinions on t

The creationist movement also does not like to talk about the scientists who leave after being given the opportunity to do real field research. In 1957, the Geoscience Research Institute was formed in order to search for evidence of Noah's Flood in the geological record. The project fell apart when both of the creationists involved with the project, P. Edgar Hare and Richard Ritland, completed their field research with the conclusion that fossils were much older than allowed under the creationist assertions, and that no geological or paleontological evidence of any sort could be found to indicate the occurrence of a world-wide flood. (Numbers, 1992, pp 291-293) Hare concluded, "We have been taught for years that almost everything in the geological record is the result of the Flood. I've seen enough in the field to realize that quite substantial portions of the geologic record are not the direct result of the Flood. We have also been led to believe . . . that the evidence for the extreme age of the earth is extremely tenuous and really not worthy of any credence at all. I have tried to make a rather careful study of this evidence over the past several years, and I feel that the evidence is not ambiguous but that it is just as clear as the evidence that the earth is round." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 294) Ritland, for his part, pointed out that Morris's book The Genesis Flood contained "flagrant errors which the uninitiated person is scarcely able to detect". (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 294) Ritland concluded that further attempts to justify Flood geology would "only bring embarrassment and discredit to the cause of God". (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 293)

A few years later, creationist biologists Carl Krekeler and William Bloom, who taught creationist biology at the Lutheran Church's Valparaiso University in Indiana, left after concluding that a literal interpretation of Genesis was not supported by any of the available scientific evidence. Krekeler concluded, "The documentation, not only of changes within a lineage such as horses, but of transitions between the classes of vertebrates-- particularly the details of the transition between reptiles and mammals--forced me to abandon thinking of evolution as occurring only within 'kinds'. " (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 302) Krekeler also criticized the creationist movement for the "dozens of places where half-truths are spoken, where quotations supporting the authors' views are taken from the context of books representing contrary views, and where there is misrepresentation." (cited in Numbers, 1992, p. 303) The two became theistic evolutionists, and later wrote a biology textbook which accepted evolutionary theory.

Perhaps as a result of these defections, the creationist movement no longer finances or carries out any field research of any sort. Its sole method of "scientific research" consists of combing through the published works of evolutionary mechanism theorists to look for quotations which can be pulled out of context and used to bolster creationist beliefs.

Adam Knowlden

06-13-2003, 06:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That's not funny. It's rude, hurtful, and disrespectful, and I'm seriously offended by it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you like me to restring your violin?
Lighten up bro. You have picked on us much more than this. /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I wonder if Jesus would say the things you guys have said about Darwin. WWJD????

[/ QUOTE ]

WWJD? I'm glad you asked! Lets see, what He would do:

 Matthew 18:6
But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. 

Charles Darwin's philosophy has caused many to turn from God and turn to athiesm, WWJD? The above quote from His own mouth clearly shows. He will render judgement.

 Ezekiel 33
1 Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
2 Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman:
3 If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people;
4 Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.
5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.
6 But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.
7 So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me.
8 When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
10 Therefore, O thou son of man, speak unto the house of Israel; Thus ye speak, saying, If our transgressions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, how should we then live?
11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
12 Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth.
13 When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.
14 Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right;
15 If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die.
16 None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.
17 Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal.
18 When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby.
19 But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.
20 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways. 

We are to warn the world of their vein philosophies. What is a vain philosophy?

 Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 

Evolutionism, is a vain philosophy. It goes against the God's account of how He created, and it stems into a philosophy of humanism.

WWJD? I can tell you what he would not do. Sit by and let the world follow false teaching.

 2 Peter 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in ****able heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.


Darwin rejected the Lord, by this we can know where his philosophy came from,

 John 8
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.


His religion came from his father the devil.

Here are some quotes from evolutionists, showing the reason this philosophy was so accepted into society.

[ QUOTE ]
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."—*Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June, 1966, p. 19. [Grandson of evolutionist *Thomas Huxley, *Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential writers and philosophers of the 20th century.]

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the Creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion. Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any new form of life, there is no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution."—*Julian Huxley, "At Random, A Television Preview," in Evolution after Darwin (1960), p. 41.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"In the world of Darwin, man has no special status other than his definition as a distinct species of animal. He is in the fullest sense a part of nature and not apart from it. He is akin, not figuratively but literally, to every living thing, be it an amoeba, a tape worm, a flea, a seaweed, an oak tree, or a monkey—even though the degrees of relationship are different and we may feel less empathy for forty-second cousins like the tapeworms than for, comparatively speaking, brothers like the monkeys."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "The World into Which Darwin Led Us," Science, 131 (1960), p. 970.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
With this single argument the mystery of the universe is explained, the deity annulled, and a new era of infinite knowledge ushered in."—*Ernst Haeckel, The Riddle of the Universe (1899), p. 337.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Beyond its impact on traditional science, Darwinism was devastating to conventional theology."—*D. Nelkin, Science Textbook Controversies and the Politics of Equal Time (1977), p. 11.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"[Man] stands alone in the universe, a unique product of a long, unconscious, impersonal, material process with unique understanding and potentialities. These he owes to no one but himself and it is to himself that he is responsible. He is not the creature of uncontrollable and undeterminable forces, but he is his own master. He can, and must, decide and manage his own destiny."—*George G. Simpson, "The World into Which Darwin Led Us," in Science, 131 (1960), p. 966.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are quotes from the men that popularized evolution in this country.

WWJD?

[ QUOTE ]
Charles Darwin was an incredibly intelligent and insightful man, a genius in his time, and just because he came up with a THEORY that doesn't fit in with YOUR belief system is no reason to degrade him and detract from his other scientific accomplishments. And to portray him to other members of this board (many of whom are young and very impressionable) as an idiot is reprehensible.

[/ QUOTE ]

First he was not even a scientist, he was an ordained minister. He was mad at God for various things that happened in his life, and went about looking to explain the world without God. Moreover, he stole the concept from his grandfather.

He was also a racist...

[ QUOTE ]
At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (1874, p. 178).

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Everyone who has had the opportunity of comparison must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is his buddy Huxley:

[ QUOTE ]
No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites (1871, p. 20).

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is Fairfield:

[ QUOTE ]
The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters such as teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species [*%#*%*#] sapiens (1980, 89:129).

[/ QUOTE ]

Moreover, Karl Marx based his politics on Darwinism.

[ QUOTE ]
"[Darwin's work].....serves me as a natural scientific basis for the class - struggle in history."

Marx also believed that the theory of historical materialism.....

".....is destined to do for history what Darwin's theory has done for biology."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest theory I have trouble accepting is the young world theory

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey bro,

well the earth neither looks "young" nor "old". It's all on the glasses the viewer is wearing. To me 10000 years is old.

For example, how do you know the earth is older than your current age? We were not here before then to know.

We have to go by the fact that our parents existed before us, and we have written history of accounts before us. That's the only way we know there even was an earth before we personally existed.

We personally don't know if the earth is 6 billion, 6 trillion, or 600 years old going by "how it looks" or "our opinion". We have to go by written history, much like you have to go by the fact that your parents existed x amount of years before you. Keep going back through history, and that's really the only way we know anyone existed before us. We have written historical accounts.

Our most reliable sources of information for age of the earth comes about by written history and population growth rates, which can all be traced back between 6-10000 years.

Of course evolutionists will say, "Well so what, that's not counting pre-historic times". This term "Pre-historic" is not true either. The bible states man has always been able to talk, write, and read. A short time after creation, people were already inventing things such as musical instruments, and metal-working (Genesis 4:21-22). God gave man that ability.

Real live Cave men!

http://www.time2travel.com/n_images/coober.jpg

[ QUOTE ]
Do I believe in "cavemen?" I sure do. Cavemen are just men who live in caves. There are real live cavemen that live in Australia today. At the town of Coober Pedy where it's so hot, people live under ground, instead of on top, and they have TV sets in their houses. Real live cavemen with TV sets!

You see, there have been many times in the past when people have lived in caves. You could imagine that after the event of the Tower of Babel, people spread out over the earth, and some of them would have gone and lived in caves. Because people have been so indoctrinated by evolution, they tend to think that because someone lived in a cave, they were primitive -- they were not as advanced as us or something like that.

Actually, it is interesting to look at the cave paintings of some of the people that lived in the past, like Cro Magnon man. Now, I certainly couldn't draw paintings as good as they have done. They showed people with their clothes and hats on. They were exquisite paintings. You see, these people were obviously highly intelligent and were not "ape men." Just because they live in a cave, doesn't mean they were primitive.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if you accept that we evolved from the same line as monkeys you won't accept that. Pre-history is needed for evolution to make any sense.Interestingly enough population statistics also support a very young earth.

Now these are written records for the earth's age.

Evolutionists will use dating of radioactive residues to age the earth.

[ QUOTE ]
There are 5 or 6 types of dating practices, all yielding very close to the same results. The chances of this happening coinincidentally are about as likely as a rock turning into a frog.

[/ QUOTE ]

We could explain how those are flawed, but the main point is evolution does teach frogs(actually all plants and all animals) came from dead matter.

Dr Werner Gitt has observed,

[ QUOTE ]

&#8216;There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.&#8217;2

[/ QUOTE ]

Adam Knowlden

06-13-2003, 06:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They make fun of Darwin because if evolution proves true, it would prove their religion not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the same manner that you mock creation because it would prove your religion of evolution is wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
They would just reinterpret the bible to mean something else and say that the bible said evolution existed the whole time. That they just misunderstood it, like everything else that we know to be true but is contrary to the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly, many have done this. But there is no rational reason to do so, certainly no biblical reason to do so. There is no evidence for macro evolution so there is no logical reason to do so. That is why we are constantly told we are looking for a "missing link". Well, let me break it to you. The whole chain is missing!

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I like to think for myself. Not from some book. No matter who you think wrote it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you invent evolution? I highly doubt you would have just created the idea on your own. No you were taught the religion from a book.

screwnamez

06-13-2003, 06:42 PM

Then how do you know any of the events detailed in the bible happened?? How do you know God created everything?? I mean, if you weren't around to see it all, don't you feel a little bit silly putting so much stock in it??

Adam Knowlden

06-13-2003, 06:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Then how do you know any of the events detailed in the bible happened??

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you know World War one happend? You have the written historical account, and also the results of the war.

We have so much archeological evidences from the bible backing up it's historical accounts it's not even funny. But in my opinion the greatest archeological evidence is the result of Noah's flood.

The prophecies in the bible are also insanely accurate. The turmoil in the Middle East, terrorism, Israel, etc is all predicted in the bible, leading to the rise of the Anti-Christ. But that is another post.

[ QUOTE ]
How do you know God created everything?? I

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where we get into information. There is no doubt information does not arrive from nothing, especially dead matter.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps one of the most serious challenges to evolutionary theory comes from the arena of information theory. Scientists are beginning to see life as an information-based process in which the DNA contained within each cell is based on a genetic language. In turn, this language contains huge amounts of information, more than would be contained in a library of one thousand volumes. This amount of information is not a total for the entire organism-there is this much information in each cell! Therefore, any explanation of life must explain the origin of this information. Dr. John Baumgardner, well-known geophysicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, states,

 "Language involves a symbolic code, a vocabulary, and a set of grammatical rules to relay or record thought. Many of us spend most of our waking hours generating, processing, or disseminating linguistic data. Seldom do we reflect on the fact that language structures are clear manifestations of non-material reality."

"This conclusion may be reached by observing the linguistic information itself is independent of its material carrier. The meaning or message does not depend on whether it is represented as sound waves in the air or as ink patterns on paper or as alignment of magnetic domains on a floppy disk or as voltage patterns in a transistor network. The message that a person has won the $100,000,000 lottery is the same whether that person receives the information by someone speaking at his door or by telephone or by mail or on television or over the Internet.

"Indeed Einstein pointed to the nature and origin of symbolic information as one of the profound questions about the world as we know it. He could identify no means by which matter could bestow meaning to symbols. The clear implication is that symbolic information, or language, represents a category of reality distinct from matter and energy."1


[/ QUOTE ]

The presence of non-material information not only implies a super-physical realm, but also a super-physical Intelligence. Without this super-physical Intelligence, the information in the code would have no meaning, no context, and even no existence. The very existence of the code can only be explained through a pre-existing Intelligence who put it there.

President Wilson

06-13-2003, 07:29 PM

I think it was asked what would Jesus think about Darwin's thoughts? Here are a few of them

1. [ QUOTE ]
'I can hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true...this is a ****able doctrine'

[/ QUOTE ]

2. [ QUOTE ]
'I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God'

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its self explanatory what Jesus feels about that doctrine.

The bible also states this

[ QUOTE ]
Acts17: 26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth,

[/ QUOTE ]

We are all one blood. This is against racism.

Funny, the title of Darwins work was,

" The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races "

Thats the opposite of what Jesus said.

What does Darwin believe about those less fortunate?

[ QUOTE ]
With savages, the weak in body and mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of everyone to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands who, from a weak constitution, would formerly have succumbed to smallpox. Thus the weak members of civilised society propagate their kind.

No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but, excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered in the manner previously indicated more tender and more widely diffused. Nor can we check our sympathy, even without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature &#8230; We must, therefore, bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind.

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 2nd Ed., pp. 133&#8211;134, 1887

[/ QUOTE ]

funny he should think this way. Jesus feels that we should help the week

[ QUOTE ]
Matthew 25:31-46
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Compare and contrast

Darwin - " We must, therefore, bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind. "

The Lord - Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

Seems like mirror opposites

konaforever

06-13-2003, 08:19 PM

OldSchool said:
[ QUOTE ]

In the same manner that you mock creation because it would prove your religion of evolution is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. My belief is based on empirical evidence. Anyway, I'm not beholden to the belief in evolution. If it was disproved tommorrow, I wouldn't be any worse for wear. I would adjust my beliefs. I can do this because it ISN'T my religion.

[ QUOTE ]

Did you invent evolution? I highly doubt you would have just created the idea on your own. No you were taught the religion from a book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But I read it and decided for myself, based on my scientific understanding and analysis that it's a solid theory. There is evidence to back up evolution. Maybe not 100 percent, but definitely more than creationism has.

So if I have to choose between the two. I choose the one with greater evidence. In this case, evolution.

barny

06-13-2003, 08:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There is evidence to back up evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have yet to see any, can you clarify this for me? It just seems like you believe in it religously. Much like you believe your cat is a messiah.

06-13-2003, 08:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:
You guys are cracking me up! /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif I nearly spit up my protein shake!

It's clear Darwin had no clue what he was talking about. He and Gould are the kings of "switch and bait."

[/ QUOTE ]

um...not trying to be an ***...but dont you think that you guys discriminating against darwin and all of the people that believe in science over religion is just as bad as athiests discriminating against people who do believe in god? i meen...if you believe in something and someone else doesnt doesnt meen that your theory is always right (im not talking directly to you yu...)....what im trying to say is that you guys saying "oh yeah darwin was a stupid dick" is just as bad as people saying "there is no god..where was he during 9\11) which happens at my school all the time. i think that everyone should respect each others belives..you guys can find a lot of mistakes with the scientific way of looking at evolution, while some people can find a lot of mistakes with your believes....but that does not meen one theory is better then the other, it just means you belive in one thing, and your neighbor believes in something else....dont you people agree with me? in reality there is not actual clear proof that proves 100% that evolution did, or did not occur....

06-13-2003, 09:09 PM

IMO this post is just telling one side of the story...yes there have been a lot of evidence that support that your trying to get across, but there has also been a lot of evidence that prove evolution...ive read books on both, and both sides provide a good argument, it just depends on what you personaly want to believe....you can post up 300000 articles, but someone else can post 400000 articles about the opposite....there is not right or wrong when you talk about evolution, there is only what you want, and dont want to believe....quoting a stupid quote that darwin said doesnt autmaticaly meen he was an idiot, everyone has said their fair share of stupid things in life.

konaforever

06-13-2003, 09:24 PM

If you can honestly say that you haven't seen ANY evidence to back up evolution, you're not very open minded whatsoever to anything outside of your beliefs. Either that, or you can't read, which is a much better reason.

And I just said that I wasn't beholden to the idea of evolution. It's not my religion. It's what I currently believe out of scientific evidence. Creationism has nothing besides the bible to back it up, which is to say that it has NO SCIENCE as evidence.

I don't care if we came from outter space. You do because it would ruin your belief in God.

[ QUOTE ]
Barny said:
[ QUOTE ]
There is evidence to back up evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have yet to see any, can you clarify this for me? It just seems like you believe in it religously. Much like you believe your cat is a messiah.

[/ QUOTE ]

President Wilson

06-13-2003, 09:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
people that believe in science over religion i

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the crux of the argument. evolutionists themselves know that dead matter can never produce life. They have no evidence in this area. It is a fact. Spontaneous generation was disproved centuries ago.
That is what science states.

The main point is this. Either dead matter can turn into life, or life was created. Those are the only two options.

[ QUOTE ]
in reality there is not actual clear proof that proves 100% that evolution did, or did not occur....

[/ QUOTE ]

I would say that science proved spontaneous generation wrong a long time ago. Check into it. Evolution cannot even begin without the advent of life. Every experiment has only hurt this cause.

In fact Rudolf Virchow formulated what is known as the biogenetic law: Life comes only from life.

**DONOTDELETE**

06-13-2003, 09:35 PM

**DONOTDELETE**

06-13-2003, 09:40 PM

CheezitMan22

06-13-2003, 09:52 PM

ok, if evolution is so wrong, why do most people accept it?why do they teach it at school?i dunno, just a though. you guys are rebels /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

**DONOTDELETE**

06-13-2003, 09:55 PM

CheezitMan22

06-13-2003, 10:00 PM

Religion, huh?

President Wilson

06-13-2003, 10:04 PM

Here are a few of the problems with life orgionating from dead matter

Cohen, Jon, Getting All Turned Around Over the Origins of Life on Earth Science, vol. 267 (March 3, 1995), pp. 1265-1266.


right handedness -

" p. 1265
"Why do the sugar molecules in DNA and RNA twist to the right in all known organisms? Similarly, all of the amino acids from which proteins are formed twist to the left. The reason these molecules have such uniform handedness, or &#8216;chirality is not known, but there is no shortage of theories on the subject. And, as was clear at a recent meeting on the topic in Los Angeles, there is also no shortage of passion, which is understandable, because the question of homochirality speaks to the mother of all scientific mysteries: the origin of life."

The state of the origin of life

Dose, Professor Dr. Klaus, "The Origin of Life; More Questions than Answers," Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 348-356. Dose is Director, Institute for Biochemistry, Johannes Gutenberg University, West Germany.

 p. 348
" More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."


 p. 348
"Considerable disagreements between scientists have arisen about detailed evolutionary steps. The problem is that the principal evolutionary processes from prebiotic molecules to progenotes have not been proven by experimentation and that the environmental conditions under which these processes occurred are not known. Moreover, we do not actually know where the genetic information of all living cells originates, how the first replicable polynucleotides (nucleic acids) evolved, or how the extremely complex structure-function relationships in modern cells came into existence."


 p. 349
"It appears that the field has now reached a stage of stalemate, a stage in which hypothetical arguments often dominate over facts based on experimentation or observation."


and finally

p. 352
"In spite of many attempts, there have been no breakthroughs during the past 30 years to help to explain the origin of chirality in living cells."

What do scientists know about the origin of life?

Dyson, Freeman, Honoring Dirac," Science, vol. 185 pp. 1160-1161. Dyson was at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey.

p. 1161

"The problems of reconstructing possible pathways of prebiotic evolution in the absence of any kind of fossil evidence are indeed formidable. Successful attack on these problems will require, on the one hand, the boldness to imagine and create new concepts describing the organization of not-yet-living populations of molecules and, on the other hand, the humility to learn the hard way, by laborious experiment, which molecular pathways are consistent with the stubborn facts of chemistry. We are still at the very beginning of the quest for understanding of the origin of life. We do not yet have even a rough picture of the nature of the obstacles that prebiotic evolution has had to overcome. We do not have a well-defined set of criteria by which to judge whether any given theory of the origin of life is adequate."

Thats straight forward.

Which came first?

Eigen, Manfred, William Gardiner, Peter Schuster, and Ruthild Winkler-Oswa****ch, "The Origin of Genetic Information," Scientific American, vol. 244

[ QUOTE ]
p. 91
"The primitive RNA strands that happened to have the right backbone and the right nucleotides had a second and crucial advantage. They alone were capable of stable self-replication. Which came first, function or information? As we shall show, neither one could precede the other; they had to evolve together."

[/ QUOTE ]

That is an impossibility

What about simple cells?

Green, David E., and Robert F. Goldberger, Molecular Insights into the Living Process (New York: Academic Press, , 420 pp.

p. 403
"The popular conception of primitive cells as the starting point for the origin of the species is really erroneous. There was nothing functionally primitive about such cells. They contained basically the same biochemical equipment as do their modern counterparts.

How, then, did the precursor cell arise? The only unequivocal rejoinder to this question is that we do not know."

and the fantasy of it all

pp. 406-7
However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet.

It is still a mystery to the evolutionist

Haskins, Caryl P., "Advances and Challenges in Science in 1970," American Scientist, vol. 59

p. 305
"But the most sweeping evolutionary questions at the level of biochemical genetics are still unanswered. How the genetic code first appeared and then evolved and, earlier than that, how life itself originated on earth remain for the future to resolve, though dim and narrow pencils of illumination already play over them. The fact that in all organisms living today the processes both of replication of the DNA and of the effective translation of its code require highly precise enzymes and that, at the same time the molecular structures of those same enzymes are precisely specified by the DNA itself, poses a remarkable evolutionary mystery. Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such coincidence could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival. By a pre-Darwinian (or a skeptic of evolution after Darwin) this puzzle would surely have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation."

What about Scientific America, one of the top evolutionary journals out there. What do they have to say?

Horgan, John, "In the Beginning," Scientific American, vol. 264 (February 1991), pp. 117-125.

1. p. 118
"None of these approaches has gained enough support to qualify as a new paradigm. On the other hand, none has been ruled out. That bothers Miller who is known as both a rigorous experimentalist and a bit of a curmudgeon. Some theories, he asserts, do not merit serious attention. He calls the organic-matter-from-space concept &#8216;a loser,&#8217; the vent hypothesis &#8216;garbage&#8217; and the pyrite theory &#8216;paper chemistry.&#8217; Such work, he grumbles, perpetuates the reputation of the origin-of-life field as being on the fringe of science and not worthy of serious pursuit."


2. p. 119
"DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins."

3. p. 119
"But as researchers continue to examine the RNA-world concept closely, more problems emerge. How did RNA arise initially? RNA and its components are difficult to synthesize in a laboratory under the best of conditions, much less under plausible prebiotic ones."

4. p. 125
"About a decade ago Orgel and Crick managed to provoke the public and their colleagues by speculating that the seeds of life were sent to the earth in a spaceship by intelligent beings living on another planet. Orgel says the proposal, which is known as directed panspermia, was sort of a joke.

5. And the faith one must have in the process!

[ QUOTE ]
p. 125
"Does he ever entertain the possibility that genesis was a miracle not reproducible by mere humans? Not at all, Miller replies. I think we just haven&#8217;t learned the right tricks yet, he says."

[/ QUOTE ]

After all the evidence points against it, the above statement is made. Which is similar to others, I.E.

Wald, George, The Origin of Life," in The Physics and Chemistry of Life , 270 pp.
p. 9

" One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."

That is pure religion

What are the ingrediants for life?

Scott, Andrew, New Scientist, vol. 106 , pp. 30-33.

" 1. p. 30 Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The fundamental forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest. But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment."

2. p. 32
"The emergence of the gene-protein link, an absolutely vital stage on the way up from lifeless atoms to ourselves, is still shrouded in almost complete mystery."

3. And the religion of it all

 p. 33
"In their more public pronouncements, researchers interested in the origin of life sometimes behave a bit like the creationist opponents they so despise glossing over the great mysteries that remain unsolved and pretending they have firm answers that they have not really got. We still know very little about how our genesis came about, and to provide a more satisfactory account than we have at present remains one of science's great challenges."


That is the state found in the origin of life question. In other words, the Biogenetic Law only continues. Life cannot have arrisen from dead matter.

**DONOTDELETE**

06-13-2003, 10:04 PM

konaforever

06-13-2003, 10:09 PM

I would need much more than my chemistry for engineers class at college to even formulate answers to these questions. But that doesn't mean that evolution is not a viable theory. Is it flawless? No. That's why it's a theory. There are few things in life that can be proven 100 percent.

Now please prove creationism to me to the extent you want evolution proven.

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:

You haven't even attempted to answer the questions presented to evolutionists that was already posted twice in this thread. If you can accurately answer these questions, then you have a good arguement for evolution.

Show me naturalistic explanations for the following:

1.Natural chemical processes that produces all of the components of life from non-life in quantities sufficient to account for all life on earth.
2.A natural process that purifies amino acids in their left handed form, and sugars in their right hand form for use as the building blocks of life.
3.The origin of the DNA, RNA, protein manufacturing process.
4.The origin of photosynthesis and the appearance of chlorophyll.
5.The origin of reproduction at the chemical level.
6.The origin of the genetic code and the chemical infrastructure to make it work.
7.Once you have determined what these processes are, show that these processes are much more likely to happen than the processes that break down the components of life.
8.Once you have demonstrated that the chemical origin of life is possible from off-the-shelf chemicals, show the biochemical changes that occur to increase the meaningful information content of organisms to produce the vast variety of creatures found today.
9.A corollary to this would be to show that mutations in the vast majority of cases are beneficial, give rise to new information, and promote evolution.

Evolution says, "no God is needed", creation says, "There would be no life without God".

You seek natural explanations to the above scenarios. I propose there are no natural explanations for creating information from nothing, the universe from nothing, all life from nothing, ect.

Time is always given supernatural properties. For example, if man walked through the air, we'd say that's a miracle. If he walks slowly is it less of a miracle?

If a princess kisses a frog and it turns into a prince, it's a miracle. But according to evolution the frog did turn into the prince.

The missing ingredient? time.

[/ QUOTE ]

**DONOTDELETE**

06-13-2003, 10:14 PM

konaforever

06-13-2003, 10:16 PM

Evolution is not a religion. No matter how many times you guys say that is it. It's a scientific theory on how life was created, taught in a science class. That's it. It doesn't say that there isn't a God. That's what you take from it, since all your beliefs come from the Bible. You say it's a religion because you don't want it to be taught in schools.

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:

I'm not sure Heen, it's a sad fact that this religion is being taught in schools. What ever happened to the separation of church and state?

So many people are swayed by this so called "proof" that they just accept it as fact, rather than looking deeper into it for themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

**DONOTDELETE**

06-13-2003, 10:18 PM

John D.

06-13-2003, 10:20 PM

Hi guys,

Personally, I still feel that there is evidence to prove evolution just as much as there is for creationism. That's why they are called theories and not laws. We really don't know and I personally won't put silly pics up showing something silly with god or jesus. Let's face it you would be pissed and I would be thrown off the board or something.

Well that's my rant. Back to lifting!

President Wilson

06-13-2003, 10:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
. It's a scientific theory on how life was created

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no scientific theory on how life was created. Science shows that life can only come from life. The PBS special, was one of the most funded projects ever. Of all time, period. They had an Unlimited budget, and had thee top scientists in the world working for them.

Richard Hutton was in charge of this limitless budget.

The Washington Post asked him, " What are some of the larger questions which are still unanswered by evolutionary theory?"

[ QUOTE ]
There are open questions and controversies, and the fights can be fierce. Just a few of them: The origin of life. There is no consensus at all here '; lots of theories, little science. That's one of the reasons we didn't cover it in the series. The evidence wasn't very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats an understatement, and without answering this, evolution cannot even get off the ground

konaforever

06-13-2003, 10:27 PM

Disproving evolution does not prove creationism.

And just saying that it's impossible for life to arise without God isn't proof. Nor is quoting from the bible proof.

The point is, there's no way you can prove creationism 100 percent either. Not even 1 percent, for that matter.

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:
[ QUOTE ]
konaforever said:

Now please prove creationism to me to the extent you want evolution proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Open your eyes and read the first 4 pages of this thread, we've been doing this the whole time, while debunking evolution in the process.

[/ QUOTE ]

**DONOTDELETE**

06-13-2003, 10:29 PM

konaforever

06-13-2003, 10:37 PM

With semantics, you can twist anything to mean another.

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:

/forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif Answer me this using the following definition from Webster's:

 Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof 

Has anyone proved evolution? No, that's why it's a theory - it's debateable.

Do you firmly believe in it? Yes you do.

So you firmly believe in something for which there is no proof, correct?

You have faith. Not in God, but in Darwin and his assumption that this:

http://www.onlinecorp.com/images/people.gif http://www.botany.org/bsa/sections/teaching/banana.gif http://www.worldwildlife.org/windows/images/whale.jpg

came from this:

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/fractals/natural/rocks.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

konaforever

06-13-2003, 10:39 PM

I find it interesting that creationists spend more time trying to debunk evolution than proving creationism. Maybe it's because there is no way to prove creationism.

[ QUOTE ]
President Wilson said:

There is no scientific theory on how life was created. Science shows that life can only come from life. The PBS special, was one of the most funded projects ever. Of all time, period. They had an Unlimited budget, and had thee top scientists in the world working for them.

Richard Hutton was in charge of this limitless budget.

The Washington Post asked him, " What are some of the larger questions which are still unanswered by evolutionary theory?"

[ QUOTE ]
There are open questions and controversies, and the fights can be fierce. Just a few of them: The origin of life. There is no consensus at all here '; lots of theories, little science. That's one of the reasons we didn't cover it in the series. The evidence wasn't very good.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats an understatement, and without answering this, evolution cannot even get off the ground

[/ QUOTE ]

06-13-2003, 10:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:
[ QUOTE ]
what im trying to say is that you guys saying "oh yeah darwin was a stupid dick"

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, when did any of us say that? We all said he was wrong. I have never attacked who he was as a person - period.

When it comes down to it, what you believe is rooted in faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

well he is wrong in your eyes, the eyes of a religious person...if you get a group of scientists they could also give you hunderds of reasons why science is right, just like you give us hundereds of reasons why religion is right, this debate can go on for years..one side sais that god made all creatures, while the other sais that it happened through evolution....neither sides will ever be able to prove each other wrong, because for every scientific fact i give you, youll give me 10 religious facts, and for everyone religious fact you give me, ill give you 10 scientific facts....there really is no way one can prove another....yes, there are many religious evidence that "prove" how everything started, but there are also many scientific facts as well....its all a mystery, just like we dont know what the universe is, we dont know if it ends, or if its a part of a bigger one...or what...religious people belive that it happened this way, while the rest believe it happened a nother....there is no way to change how either side looks at things...some people have faith and "believe", while others relay on "seeing is beliving" .

06-13-2003, 10:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:
[ QUOTE ]
konaforever said:
Evolution is not a religion. No matter how many times you guys say that is it. It's a scientific theory on how life was created, taught in a science class. That's it. It doesn't say that there isn't a God. That's what you take from it, since all your beliefs come from the Bible. You say it's a religion because you don't want it to be taught in schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes yu but religion is also just a believe...just a theory.....ive heard people compare it to how people used to belive there are multiple gods that control different things (zeus...and all of those) but then again that EVOLVED into just having one god....so dont you think in a thousand years people will believe something different?...if there is a god (im am NOT saying there isnt) why are there starving children? and terrorism? if he created everything , and helped people in the past, why doesnt he do they same thing today? ....and for example the picture of the rocks....we didnt evolve from rocks, we evolved from "chemicals" a rock didnt just wake up one day with legs and a braing..chemicals, evolved, and that evolved into other things etc. etc...

/forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif Answer me this using the following definition from Webster's:

 Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof 

Has anyone proved evolution? No, that's why it's a theory - it's debateable.

Do you firmly believe in it? Yes you do.

So you firmly believe in something for which there is no proof, correct?

You have faith. Not in God, but in Darwin and his assumption that this:

http://www.onlinecorp.com/images/people.gif http://www.botany.org/bsa/sections/teaching/banana.gif http://www.worldwildlife.org/windows/images/whale.jpg

came from this:

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/fractals/natural/rocks.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

President Wilson

06-13-2003, 10:58 PM

It is definately a religion. One of the top scientists in the world has this to say

Stevan Weinberg

 For there is a scientific problem even more fundamental than the origin of the universe. We want to know the origin of the rules that have governed the universe and everything in it. Physicists, or at least some of us, believe that there is a simple set of laws of nature, of which all our complicated present physical and chemical laws are just mathematical consequences. We do not know these underlying laws, but as an act of faith if you like, we expect that eventually we will.


Lets highlight this: but as an act of faith if you like , we expect that eventually we will.

Lets look at faith

Faith - belief in something for which there is no proof

There is no proof for life comming from non life, nor the origin of even laws, nor can science give an answer for the origin of stars. Weinberg has this to say about that

[ QUOTE ]
Among the most important relics are the structures we see in the sky: many stars are grouped into clusters, the clusters themselves along with loose stars like our sun are grouped into galaxies, and the galaxies themselves are grouped into clusters of galaxies. A second great disappointment of modern astrophysics has been that we still do not have a clear and detailed understanding of how these structures were formed. We do not even know whether the smaller structures formed first and then coalesced into the larger ones, or whether the larger structures formed first and then broke up into the smaller ones.

It is also a bit disturbing that all these estimates of the ages and compositions of the stars rest on elaborate calculations of what is going on inside them, but all that we observe is the light emitted from their surfaces.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have faith that life could come from dead matter, though all science shows that this cannot occur. That is religion.

Lets look at this

religion - a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Faith was demonstrated above.

It is also a supernatural faith

supernatural - 1. of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe

No experiment has produced life from non life, and no experiment has given credence to the various theories. It is above the visible observable universe

2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

Life from non-life breaks the Biogenetic law. It transends it. And enters into the supernatural, as religions do.

06-13-2003, 11:03 PM

so what is it that you are trying to get across? is it -god started and made everything? and there is no such thing as "evolution" only adaptation?....well this is my question....if god does exist and watch over us, why doesnt he make sure that everyone belives in him? why does he allow a person to believe in something else? and why does he allow crime? and starvation? and why did people see him/hear him thousands of years ago, but not anymore? why are there different stories about different mysteries? such the devil, and what happened to dinosaurs?

**DONOTDELETE**

06-13-2003, 11:15 PM

President Wilson

06-13-2003, 11:17 PM

Hi duderoi,

you are reaching the right point. It is obvious that we were designed, and that the Universe was created with laws and organization.

When I say the right point. When one realizes this, they can begin to look for answers as you are today. But the point is. The Bible states this

[ QUOTE ]
Romans 1:19-32
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; F6 for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so F7 that they are without excuse:

[/ QUOTE ]

And this goes further into your question, click here (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=bodybuilder&Number=521346& page=&view=&sb=5&o=&vc=1)

Once you realize the above, you can find the answers to your questions. God states this

Isaiah 1: 18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

You can find the answers, and I will help you out on them a bit latter friend, I have a few things I need to accomplish at the moment.

Great questions though

06-13-2003, 11:19 PM

yeah i checked it out...and what? its just the christian view on the theory...i dont understand the point of challenging everything science has uncovered.....science has showed us just how old dinos are , and where they came from/ what they evolved to, they had used methods to do so that are known to work...

President Wilson

06-13-2003, 11:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
and where they came from/ what they evolved to, they had used methods to do so that are known to work...

[/ QUOTE ]

Science has far from showed what dinosours evolved to.

06-13-2003, 11:21 PM

well and in your opinion, religion has shown more?

President Wilson

06-13-2003, 11:26 PM

This is up to date, from an up to date issue of Scientific America, this is from the March Issue, and these are some of the most up to date evolutionists in the world

[ QUOTE ]
"How did these incredibly strong, wonderfully lightweight, amazingly intricate appendages evolve? ; Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers."

[/ QUOTE ]

translation - We see variation within a kind( what the bible states ) but no mechanism to change one animal into another

As for dinosours, heres what they have to say about that

The Scientific American authors end their article grudgingly acknowledging the work of creationists, saying:

[ QUOTE ]
"Creationists and other evolutionary skeptics have long pointed to feathers as a favorite example of the insufficiency of evolutionary theory. There were no transitional forms between scales and feathers, they argued."

[/ QUOTE ]

and they admit, they have no transition

[ QUOTE ]
"Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today's birds."

[/ QUOTE ]

President Wilson

06-13-2003, 11:30 PM

Heres what science states

A.H. Brush, "On the origin of feathers", Journal of Evolutionary Biology 9:131 142,

" At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.Clearly, feathers provide a unique and outstanding example of an evolutionary novelty.
"

On the origin of Repltiles

Carroll, Lewis L., "Problems of the Origin of Reptiles," Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. 44 .
p. 393

"Unfortunately not a single specimen of an appropriate reptilian ancestor is known prior to the appearance of true reptiles. The absence of such ancestral forms leaves many problems of the amphibian-reptilian transition unanswered."

**DONOTDELETE**

06-13-2003, 11:32 PM

06-13-2003, 11:35 PM

alright thanks yu..ill check it out....

06-13-2003, 11:37 PM

also....i have a question i have been wondering about for a while....isnt over eating (gluteny) a sin? if so, doesnt that meen that every time you eat on thanks giving or just eat a lot its a sin? ...also why do you thank god before you eat for giving you the food if you earned the money youreself to buy the food?

**DONOTDELETE**

06-13-2003, 11:38 PM

06-13-2003, 11:40 PM

ok yu i do i now do agree with you that darwin had a few flaws in his theory...but that still doesnt answer why did god let hitler kill over 5 million jews? why did god let one person kill millions who belived deeply in him?

Adam Knowlden

06-13-2003, 11:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Disproving evolution does not prove creationism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed it does.

There are only two options.

1. Life created itself, "In the Beginning Dirt".

2. Life was created, "In the Beginning God"

If there is a third option please enlighten us.

Life is defined by a set of elegant instructions recorded on the DNA molecule, and there is more to life than replication.

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution is not a religion. No matter how many times you guys say that is it. It's a scientific theory on how life was created, taught in a science class. That's it. It doesn't say that there isn't a God. That's what you take from it, since all your beliefs come from the Bible. You say it's a religion because you don't want it to be taught in schools.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is also a rather philosophical subject to label a theory like evolution science and label creation religion.

The definition of "science" has haunted philosophers of science in the 20th and 21st century. The earlier approach of Bacon, who is considered the founder of the scientific method, was pretty straightforward:

observation -induction -hypothesis -test -hypothesis by experiment -proof/disproof -knowledge.

Of course this, and the whole approach to modern science, depends on two major assumptions: causality and induction.

The philosopher Hume made it clear that these are believed by "blind faith" (Bertrand Russell's words). Kant and Whitehead claimed to have solved the problem, but Russell recognized that Hume was right. Actually, these assumptions arose from faith in the Creator-God of the Bible, as historians of science like Loren Eiseley have recognized.

The important question is not "Is it science?" We can just define "science" to exclude everything that we don't like, as evolutionists do today. Today, science is equated with naturalism: only materialistic notions can be entertained, no matter what the evidence. The prominent evolutionist Professor Richard Lewontin said:

 We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.&#8217;1


Now that's open-minded isn't it? Isn't 'science' about following the evidence wherever it may lead? This is where the religion (in the broadest sense) of the scientist puts the blinkers on. Our individual worldviews bias our perceptions. The atheist paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, made the following candid observation:

 Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective &#8220;scientific method&#8221;, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.&#8217;2


So the fundamentally important question is, 'which worldview (bias) is correct?', because this will determine the correctness of the conclusions from the data.

Of course the founders of modern science were not materialists (Newton, widely considered the greatest scientist ever, is a prime example) and they did not see their science as somehow excluding a creator, or even making the Creator redundant. This recent notion has been smuggled into science by materialists.

Michael Ruse, the Canadian philosopher of science also made the strong point that the issue is not whether evolution is science and creation is religion, because such a distinction is not really valid. The issue is one of "coherency of truth". See The Religious Nature of Evolution. In other words, there is no logically valid way that the materialist can define evolution as "science" and creation as "religion", so that he/she can ignore the issue of creation.

However, we can make a valid distinction between different types of science: the distinction between origins science and operational science. Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today's Creation.

repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. However, origins science deals with the origin of things in the past-unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events. There is a fundamental difference between how the two work. Operational science involves experimentation in the here and now. Origins science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation Studying how an organism operates (DNA, mutations, reproduction, natural selection etc.) does not tell us how it came into existence in the first place.

And this is where faith must step in.

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't say that there isn't a God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Materialism and naturalism say God was not needed.

It has the philosophy of humanism attached to it, which is blantanly anti-god.

[ QUOTE ]
I find it interesting that creationists spend more time trying to debunk evolution than proving creationism. Maybe it's because there is no way to prove creationism.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fact that there is no evidence for macro evolution is evidecne of creation. God clearly stated He created seperate kinds of animals. The fact that there is no evidence for life coming from non-life is evidence that there is a creator.

There is plenty. Now exactly which aspect of creationism do you want "proof" for?

There is tons of creation research.

[ QUOTE ]
And just saying that it's impossible for life to arise without God isn't proof. Nor is quoting from the bible proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you basically said:

1. Life can't arise on it's own.

2. Life was not created.

[ QUOTE ]
The point is, there's no way you can prove creationism 100 percent either. Not even 1 percent, for that matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

We said evidences, not proof. Now, I suggest very strong evidence on the creation side. There is no proof, in that respect.

Both sides are observing nature.

We use the evidences we see to interpert our worldviews.

All you have done thus far is shown your religious philosophy, you have given zero evidence.

Adam Knowlden

06-14-2003, 12:07 AM

Hey duderoi,

those are good questions. I will give brief answers, because we could dedicate entire posts to those questions!LOL

[ QUOTE ]
also....i have a question i have been wondering about for a while....isnt over eating (gluteny) a sin? if so, doesnt that meen that every time you eat on thanks giving or just eat a lot its a sin? ...also why do you thank god before you eat for giving you the food if you earned the money youreself to buy the food?

[/ QUOTE ]

Gluttony is when you put food before God. It is idolatry.

It has nothing to do with eating too much at Thanksgiving, or body builders bulking up.

We give thanks because the bible says every good thing comes from above. Everything you have is from the Lord. Everything. It's all His.

The bible says he causes the sun to shine on the wicked. Every good thing on this planet, including your next breath, is from God.

The least we can do is say thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
god does exist and watch over us, why doesnt he make sure that everyone belives in him?

[/ QUOTE ]

He has basically done everything to do this except twist arms.

God wants true love. Not forced love.

Think of it like this. You are a body builder. You could grab your girlfriend by the neck and say, "Tell me you love me!!!!!". Is that what you want? No.

You want her to freely love you. That is what God desires.

He has given plenty of evidence he exists. The evidence isn't what holds anyone back. It is their pride and love for their sinful nature.

 16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever


The love of the world is holding us back. The love of money, sex, any sin, is what is truely holding people back from God. It is not a matter of God not revealing Himself. It is a matter of people not wanting God in their life. But Jesus said,

 36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.



There is nothing on this planet that is worth exchanging one's soul for. But the choice to freely love God is up to us!

[ QUOTE ]
and why does he allow crime? and starvation? a

[/ QUOTE ]

We live in a fallen world under the curse of sin, and under the influence of the evil one. But God will destroy all that when He returns.

[ QUOTE ]
why are there different stories about different mysteries? such the devil, and what happened to dinosaurs?

[/ QUOTE ]

What happens to all extinct species? Environmental changes, competition, and predators.

The reason that dinosaur extinction is such a huge mystery is because of our fascination with monsters, and the fact that evolutionists have labeled them as living millions of years before man.

I hope that helped a little! If you want more clarification let us know!

Venom

06-14-2003, 12:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Heen05 said:
ok, if evolution is so wrong, why do most people accept it?

[/ QUOTE ]

First, evolution is in the minority with the American population.

Second, majority has been wrong all throughout history. They used to believe the world was flat, and hundreds of other theories which were wrong. This is a major fallacy, and means nothing.

Venom

06-14-2003, 12:27 AM

And make sure you read our studies duderoi, we answer a lot of those questions there.

Adam Knowlden

06-14-2003, 12:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
ok, if evolution is so wrong, why do most people accept it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It gives people freedom from God. That is the real reason.

You probably don't know the first thing about dating methods, yet you accept it because someone else with a PHd said so. There are many with the same credentials(in some cases more!) who say the dating methods aren't correct.

It's whom you want to believe, and really the motivations behind wanting to believe it.

Venom

06-14-2003, 12:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
OldSchool said:
[ QUOTE ]
ok, if evolution is so wrong, why do most people accept it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It gives people freedom from God. That is the real reason.

You probably don't know the first thing about dating methods, yet you accept it because someone else with a PHd said so. There are many with the same credentials(in some cases more!) who say the dating methods aren't correct.

It's whom you want to believe, and really the motivations behind wanting to believe it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very true. If you read the link Yu gave you, you will see several reasons why this is so.

John D.

06-14-2003, 03:08 AM

Well once again both sides have produced very compelling evidence on both sides. I still like to take the middle road in that evolution (or adaptations of different species) is a tool of God. I still have lots of questions about the Bible though. I've been reading a lot and here is one thing that has stumped me.

In the beginning there was Adam and Eve right? Well, where did all the other people come from? How did (I believe Kane) meet the other woman and have kids? Also with the ages of the men in the bible (I believe one was like over 900 years old), how can your estimate of a young earth be reality? Wouldn't other men had lived just as old and how come this can't be seen with science today? I think these are important questions to ask cause they dirrectly question the actual process of creationism. Thanks for any answers you got.

Venom

06-14-2003, 03:19 AM

http://www.answersingenesis.org/AfterEden/cartoons/ae3-12-2001.gif

The Cain question is asked allot. /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif Very popular.
Go here. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp)

I got to train, get more later. /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Good questions John. /forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif I am really glad to hear your studying.

President Wilson

06-14-2003, 03:25 AM

Cains wife, is the most famous wife in the history of mankind.

Omskakas

06-14-2003, 04:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
OldSchool said:
[ QUOTE ]
Disproving evolution does not prove creationism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed it does.

There are only two options.

1. Life created itself, "In the Beginning Dirt".

2. Life was created, "In the Beginning God"

If there is a third option please enlighten us.

[/ QUOTE ]

3. It was brought here by green space bunnies.

4. "Life" as we know it is just an illusion of something of which you and I are part with.

5. Living things have always existed

6. Life came here from another dimension trough a wormhole

Do you want me to continue? There are unlimited options about how life could have begun. Most of these are are of course very absurd, but don't you think that a theory that explains that life and everything was created by a supreme being that has always existed isn't absurd?! I will underline this: Proving one theory wrong does not make another theory the truth.

President Wilson

06-14-2003, 04:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
3. It was brought here by green space bunnies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Crick transfered the problem as well. That is simply a transfer of the problem to another planet. The green space bunnies, even though this is a joke, would still have either been decended from a life form that came from dead matter or was created. The option is still between choice A and B

[ QUOTE ]
4. "Life" as we know it is just an illusion of something of which you and I are part with.

[/ QUOTE ]

We can eliminate the We are not really here scenereo.

[ QUOTE ]
6. Life came here from another dimension trough a wormhole

[/ QUOTE ]

Same answer as the green bunnies

[ QUOTE ]
Do you want me to continue? T

[/ QUOTE ]

You havent provided any new options, only transfered the problem

[ QUOTE ]
There are unlimited options about how life could have begun.

[/ QUOTE ]

Key word there is " begun "

Was it created, or did it create itself. The options are still two fold. Transfering the problem does not change the case.

[ QUOTE ]
Most of these are are of course very absurd,

[/ QUOTE ]

And none of them change the options

[ QUOTE ]
but don't you think that a theory that explains that life and everything was created by a supreme being that has always existed isn't absurd?!

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the complexity and clear design we see in organisms points to a designer. That is far from obsurd.
To believe that over 100, 000 trillion synapses in our central nervous system could have happened by chance, seems much more improbable, then that wiring being implemented by a designer.

screwnamez

06-14-2003, 04:51 AM

Thanks Omskakas, you summed it up perfectly

John D.

06-14-2003, 05:05 AM

Okay I read it. So what you are saying is that the brother married and have sex with the sister. Okay, fine. However, the whole thing with someone living over 800 years sounds rather interesting. For one, why can't people live over 100 let alone 800 now? Another question, how did people get to South America, Australia, and other continents?

Omskakas

06-14-2003, 07:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
President Wilson said:

Key word there is " begun "

Was it created, or did it create itself. The options are still two fold. Transfering the problem does not change the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Transfering the problem elsewhere does help a little because then we can forget environment and time limitations that life being born here on earth might have.

However, if you say that the problem still is two-fold: by itself or by a god. Then don't you have a bigger problem in your hands: How did the life of God begun? That must be the most complex organism/being of them all!

Adam Knowlden

06-14-2003, 09:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Transfering the problem elsewhere does help a little because then we can forget environment and time limitations that life being born here on earth might have.

[/ QUOTE ]

All this does is admit the absurdity of abiogenesis.

This is a theory called panspermia. Crick is a firm believer in this. I think it's sillier than abiogenesis. But we operate in a country of religious freedom.

Philosophers agree there are only two scenarios that have ever been concieved in the realm of metaphysics.

All others are simply offshoots of the two.

[ QUOTE ]
However, if you say that the problem still is two-fold: by itself or by a god. Then don't you have a bigger problem in your hands: How did the life of God begun? That must be the most complex organism/being of them all!

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a great question.

I'll let Dr. Bert Thompson explain.

 This question often is asked by sincere, well-meaning people. It rarely is far from the minds of youngsters as well. On occasion, it is asked in the creation/evolution debate by those who deny God&#8217;s existence. When pressed to explain where the matter/energy of the Universe originated, the atheist more often than not responds with the statement, "You tell me where God came from and I&#8217;ll tell you where matter/energy came from." The atheist intends for this response to produce a "stalemate" that will prevent him from having to answer the question of the origin of matter/energy. He reasons thusly: "Christians cannot answer the question of the origin of God; therefore I will not have to answer the question of the origin of matter/energy."

This attempt at subterfuge will not work, however. First, the atheist is comparing, to use a colloquial expression, "apples and oranges." He is equating matter/energy (something proven to require an origin in time/space) with God (Who has no origin). The atheist thus is equating the non-eternal and temporal (matter/energy) with the eternal (God). That is both illogical and impossible. Such a comparison (in terms of "origin") has no validity. Second, as a result of his mistake, the atheist has posed what is termed in philosophical terms a "nonsensical" question. That is to say, he has asked a question that makes no sense, and as everyone knows, nonsensical questions cannot be answered because of that very fact&#8212;they make no sense. The atheist has asked, 'Where did God come from?' This, of course, implies that God 'came from' somewhere&#8212;that is, He had an origin. But by definition, God is eternal. He has no origin, because eternal entities do not have origins; they are eternal. Not only has the atheist erred in making an invalid comparison (eternal vs. temporal), but he also has erred in ascribing some kind of 'origin' to an eternal entity (God). God did not 'come from' anywhere, nor is He 'going to' anywhere. That would posit an origin, and possibly an end, for God when, in fact, He has neither.

The Scriptures speak clearly to God&#8217;s eternal nature. Deuteronomy 33:27 speaks of 'the eternal God.' The psalmist referred to God as He who is 'from everlasting to everlasting' (90:2). Isaiah observed that it is God Who inhabits eternity (57:15). In Psalm 102:24, the writer spoke of the Earth and heavens, and noted that 'they shall perish, but thou shalt endure.... [T]hy years have no end.' God Himself told Moses, 'I AM THAT I AM' (Exodus 3:14)&#8212;the formula for self-existence. God is the Eternal One Who always has existed, and Who always will exist. He lives in the ever-present. One may not describe God legitimately as a Being Who 'has been' or 'will be'; rather, He is described as without beginning or end, thereby precluding any 'origin.' Likewise, He has no destiny. How, then, can one ask the question, 'Where did God come from?' It is&#8212;in the truest sense of the word&#8212;a nonsensical question. It is right and proper to inquire regarding the origin of matter/energy (or any other temporal, non-eternal entity), because such entities do, in fact, have origins. But one cannot inquire logically regarding the origin of an entity that is defined as eternal, for such a question is meaningless. Granted, finite minds struggle to understand completely the infinite. But that is why God gave us His Word. If we 'rightly divide the word of truth,' we will find that it contains 'all things that pertain unto life and godliness' (2 Timothy 2:15; 2 Peter 1:3).

Omskakas

06-14-2003, 12:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
God is the Eternal One Who always has existed, and Who always will exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so a being that has always exsisted doesn't have to have an origin. I'm willing to accept your argumentation if you prove me that 1) God does exist 2) he has always existed. Can it get any simpler than that? /forum/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

William Ustav

06-14-2003, 02:32 PM

Now I'm not very advanced in this, but as I see it proof of God existing lies in things that people have seen or felt.

But I don't really know, so I'm gonna let Jacob and Adam get back to you on that, just wanted a foot in in this discussion... /forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

hotbodzz

06-14-2003, 03:02 PM

To say that something(God) has no origin is a very, very, very difficult thing to comprehend. My head starts spinning just trying to think about it. Something never beginning or never ending is..........I can't really put it into words.

**DONOTDELETE**

06-14-2003, 03:08 PM

William Ustav

06-14-2003, 04:17 PM

Oh my God, Yu!!! That was some of the most mindblowing facts I've ever read!!! Especially this part interested me the most...
[ QUOTE ]
We know from the Bible that Sodom and Gomorrah were located in the Valley of Siddim (Gen 14:3), a known name for the Dead Sea. In 1973 Walter Rast and Thomas Schaub began to excavate a site known as Bab edh-Dhra, which it located in this area (on the eastern shore of Transjordan across from the Lisan peninsular). They found remains of a heavily fortified and large community. Another thing caught the attention of excavators: the evidence of extensive destruction by fire. The townsite was covered by a layer of ash many feet in thickness. Many dead bodies were found inside buildings. The archeologists also found that the fire did not start from inside the building (as would be the case of an earthquake) but in every case started on the roof of the building, then the roof burned through, collapsed into the interior and then the fire spread inside the building. Archeologists have no explanation for this but the Bible does. The Bible talks about Gods destruction of these cities because of their sin and speaks of God raining fire and brimstone down on these cities from heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really awesome stuff!!! If this doesn't prove it, I don't know what will!!! I know there will always be sceptics, but come on!!! If so much that's written in the Bible, mocked by non-believers for ages, keeps getting prooved like this, I can't understand how someone can not believe in the Lord. /forum/images/graemlins/frown.gif

**DONOTDELETE**

06-14-2003, 04:27 PM

William Ustav

06-14-2003, 04:52 PM

BTW, might just as well ask it here... what's the "best" (i.e. most accurate) version of the Bible? I mean, if I take an example... in the old swedish Bible translation, it was told that Adam "felt" Eve, and then they had kids. But in the new one it basically says Adam slept with Eve. Now, I'm just thinking, what if they use the f-word in the next version, etc, etc. I mean - looking at different translations (I have two different swedish Bibles, one english, one estonian, and one french) I can see clear differences in some thing. Like Jesus smashed that stone and pulverised that mountain, while in the other it might say Jesus pulverised that stone and smashed that mountain... okay, that was a bad example, but you get my point... /forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Omskakas

06-14-2003, 04:53 PM

Ok, so you have proof that Bible has some historical accuracy. But it you still don't have the evidence that I'm looking for.

Few interesting points:

[ QUOTE ]
1. They are composed of eye witness accounts to Jesus Christ. By several eye witnesses to Christ.

2. When were these 25 books of eye witness accounts composed?

The Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke were each written within 20 years after Christs death. Dr. John A. T. Robinson states that the Gospel of Matthew was written as early as A.D. 40, within eight years of Christ.

[/ QUOTE ]

That means that a person called Jesus might have actually lived. He was a wise man, maybe a philosopher? But anyway, the whole new testament was written by the followers of Jesus, years or decades after his death. Can you say a legend?

[ QUOTE ]
z. Evidence has also been found for the Tower of Babel and the confusion of languages

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm interested. What kind of evidence?

[ QUOTE ]
Joshuas conquest of the Promised Land
Critics of the Bible have claimed for decades that the Bible's statements in Joshua about the conquest of the Promised Land in the centuries before the monarchy of King David were pure fiction. In light of this new archeological evidence critics will be forced to relinquish their rejection of the Bible's record of Israel's conquest as stated by Joshua. In the book of Joshua (6:5), God told Joshua, When you hear them sound a long blast on the trumpets, have all the people give a loud shout; then the wall of the city will collapse and the people will go up, every man straight in." Even this miracle is confirmed by archaeology. Professor John Garstang found and recorded his amazing finding, ;there remains no doubt: the walls fell outwards so completely that the attackers would be able to clamber up and over the ruins into the city.; The evidence from all other archaeological digs around ancient cities in the Middle East reveal that the walls of cities always fall inwards as invading armies push their way into the city.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a suggestion: The city was destroyed by an earthquake. Afterwards, maybe decades afterwards, those who wrote Bible/history of the Jews made up a story about the event.

[ QUOTE ]
We know from the Bible that Sodom and Gomorrah were located in the Valley of Siddim (Gen 14:3), a known name for the Dead Sea. In 1973 Walter Rast and Thomas Schaub began to excavate a site known as Bab edh-Dhra, which it located in this area (on the eastern shore of Transjordan across from the Lisan peninsular). They found remains of a heavily fortified and large community. Another thing caught the attention of excavators: the evidence of extensive destruction by fire. The townsite was covered by a layer of ash many feet in thickness. Many dead bodies were found inside buildings. The archeologists also found that the fire did not start from inside the building (as would be the case of an earthquake) but in every case started on the roof of the building, then the roof burned through, collapsed into the interior and then the fire spread inside the building. Archeologists have no explanation for this but the Bible does. The Bible talks about Gods destruction of these cities because of their sin and speaks of God raining fire and brimstone down on these cities from heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw a document about this some months ago. Scientists speculated about something like earthquake and below ground gas deposits which could have destroyed the city in the way it was burnt. If I remember right they were mining and selling tarmac in those cities for living. Sounds like another fairy tale, this time with salty woman to me.

**DONOTDELETE**

06-14-2003, 05:34 PM

Adam Knowlden

06-14-2003, 06:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so a being that has always exsisted doesn't have to have an origin. I'm willing to accept your argumentation if you prove me that 1) God does exist 2) he has always existed. Can it get any simpler than that?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said proof in the sense you are looking for does not exist. You are basically asking to see God.

Science deals with evidencecs. Mathematics deals with proof. I do not have to "prove" anything in the sense you are asking for. I have to show reasonable theories based on evidences. And throw the theory out if the evidences contradict it.

If you want to discuss proof, the burden of proof is on you to reveal to me how the odds of life evoling from dead matter were defied.

[ QUOTE ]
1) God does exist

[/ QUOTE ]

The evidence is information theory and the Law of Biogenesis.

[ QUOTE ]
he has always existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a philosophical question. Not a scientific one.

First let's examine the defenitions of the words.

Finite-

Having bounds; limited: a finite list of choices; our finite fossil fuel reserves.
Existing, persisting, or enduring for a limited time only; impermanent.

Having a limit; limited in quantity, degree, or capacity; bounded; -- opposed to infinite; as, finite number; finite existence; a finite being; a finite mind; finite duration.

Infinite-

1. Unlimited or boundless, in time or space; as, infinite duration or distance.

2. Without limit in power, capacity, knowledge, or excellence; boundless; immeasurably or inconceivably great; perfect; as, the infinite wisdom and goodness of God; -- opposed to finite

Syn: Boundless; immeasurable; illimitable; interminable; limitless; unlimited; endless; eternal.

[ QUOTE ]
Whatever is finite, as finite, will admit of no comparative relation with infinity; for whatever is less than infinite is still infinitely distant from infinity; and lower than infinite distance the lowest or least can not sink. --H. Brooke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Philosophically I would say that for a finite universe to exist it would only seem rational that an infinite creator would have to be the source of all it's boundaries. And Brooke describes that perfectly.

Really you want a sign from God.

 9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:

10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:

11 And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

12 And Jesus answering said unto him, It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.



Here Jesus explains to unbelievers the sign they will recieve:

1The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.

2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.

3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?

4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.



If you really want proof of God, you have to push aside your pride.

 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is , and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.


Faith is vital for God to reveal Himself to you:

 7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.

12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.

13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.

15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.

16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:

19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

20 By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.

21 By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff.

22 By faith Joseph, when he died, made mention of the departing of the children of Israel; and gave commandment concerning his bones.

23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king's commandment.

24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter;

25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward.

27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.

29 By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.

30 By faith the walls of Jericho fell down, after they were compassed about seven days.

31 By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.

32 And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets:

33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions.

34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.

35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:

36 And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment:

37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;

38 (Of whom the world was not worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.

39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:

40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.



That is the only proof you will accept. I said we have evidences. Information is extremely complex and could have never come from dead matter. Your brain is so complex that it makes a network of supercomputers look like a joke.

But God made it clear, he gave plenty of evidence of His handiwork.

 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.



[ QUOTE ]
That means that a person called Jesus might have actually lived. He was a wise man, maybe a philosopher? But anyway, the whole new testament was written by the followers of Jesus, years or decades after his death. Can you say a legend?

[/ QUOTE ]

C.S. Lewis made a great philosophical standpoint on this issue.

His famous Trilemma argument is a good example of using logic to find contradictions in statements.

Jesus Christ is reported to have claimed to be God. The reports are either true or false.

1) If the reports are false, the reporters either knew they were false or they did not.

1a) If they knew they were false, they were liars-but who would die for what they know is a lie?

1b) If they did not know, then it is a big problem to explain how legends could accumulate around a historical figure in such a short time.

2) If the reports are true, then Jesus was either speaking falsely or truly.

2a) If Jesus spoke falsely He either knew it or he did not.

2ai) If He knew, He was a liar.

2aii) If He knew not, then He was a lunatic, since a claim to be God is the most absurd claim a mere creature can make.

2b) If Jesus spoke truly, then He really is God.

Those are the only options. Yet we see the apostels willingly dying torturous deaths for the Lord.

 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.


[ QUOTE ]
I have a suggestion: The city was destroyed by an earthquake. Afterwards, maybe decades afterwards, those who wrote Bible/history of the Jews made up a story about the event.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what you are saying is the evidence fits the story, but because I don't like it, that means it didn't happent the way the bible said, the Jewish historians must have lied.

That's not a very scientific way to look at things. You have already dismissed the process without examining any evidence.

In the Old Testament, in Joshua chapter 6, we have an account of the Israelites defeating the city of Jericho when they came into the Promised Land after wandering in the wilderness for 40 years. According to the biblical account, after the Israelites marched around the city once a day for six days, on the seventh day they encircled the city seven times. On the seventh time around, the priests blew the trumpets, the people shouted and the walls fell flat.

The first major excavation of the site of Jericho, located in the southern Jordan valley in Israel, was carried out by a German team between 1907 and 1909. They found piles of mud bricks at the base of the mound the city was built on.

It was not until a British archaeologist named Kathleen Kenyon reexcavated the site with modern methods in the 1950s that it was understood what these piles of bricks were. She determined that they were from the city wall which had collapsed when the city was destroyed!

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/jericho6.gif

Cross-section of the fallen bricks from the wall of Jericho.

The story in the Bible goes on to say that when the walls collapsed, the Israelites stormed the city and set it on fire. Archaeologists found evidence for a massive destruction by fire just as the Bible relates. Kenyon wrote in her excavation report,

[ QUOTE ]
"The destruction was complete. Walls and floors were blackened or reddened by fire, and every room was filled with fallen bricks, timbers, and household utensils; in most rooms the fallen debris was heavily burnt."

[/ QUOTE ]

What caused the strong walls of Jericho to collapse? The most likely explanation is an earthquake. But the nature of the earthquake was unusual. It struck in such a way as to allow a portion of the city wall on the north side of the site to remain standing, while everywhere else the wall fell.

http://www.christiananswers.net/eden/rahab-and-spies2.jpg

The spies leave Rahab's Jericho wall house.

Rahab's house was evidently located on the north side of the city. She was the Canaanite prostitute who hid the Israelite spies who came to reconnoiter the city. The Bible states that her house was built against the city wall. Before returning to the Israelite camp, the spies told Rahab to bring her family into her house and they would be saved. According to the Bible, Rahab's house was miraculously spared while the rest of the city wall fell.

This is exactly what archaeologists found. The preserved city wall on the north side of the city had houses built against it.

The timing of the earthquake and the manner in which it selectively took down the city wall suggests something other than a natural calamity. A Divine Force was at work. In the New Testament, we read,

"By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the people had marched around them for seven days. By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient" (Hebrews 11:30-31).

More recent excavations-

The walls DID come tumbling down!

As to their evidence, Dr. Bryant Wood, Director of the Associates for Biblical Research and one of the leading experts on the archaeology of Jericho, recently responded.

"It matters little what the Italian archaeologists did not find in their month-long dig. The evidence is already in. Three major expeditions to the site over the past 90 years uncovered abundant evidence to support the Biblical account."

As Wood went on to point out, John Garstang (1930-1936) and Kathleen Kenyon (1952-1958) both dug at Jericho for six seasons and a German excavation directed by Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger dug for three. All found abundant evidence of the city's destruction by fire in a layer related to the Biblical date of 1400 BC.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/jericho-bryantwood.jpg

ABR's Bryant Wood standing beside a section of the collapsed wall of Jericho.

In September 1997, Dr. Wood visited Jericho and examined the results of the Italian excavation first hand. Incredibly, he found the Italians had uncovered the stone outer revetment wall at the base of the tell with part of the mudbrick wall built on top of it still intact. In the balk of the Italian excavation, at the outer base of the revetment wall, Wood noticed the remains of the collapsed mudbrick city walls which had tumbled. Not only did the Italians find the same evidence uncovered in the earlier excavations, it fits the Biblical story perfectly!

Wood reports:

"The Italian excavation actually uncovered most of the critical evidence relating to the Biblical story. But even more exciting is the fact that all the evidence from the earlier digs has disappeared over time. We only have records, drawing and photos. But the Italians uncovered a completely new section of the wall which we did not know still existed. I had my photograph taken standing next to the wall where the mudbrick collapse had just been excavated!"

AllenAyres

06-14-2003, 06:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
William Ustav said:
BTW, might just as well ask it here... what's the "best" (i.e. most accurate) version of the Bible?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the NIV version is probably accepted as the most accurate version, tho I could be wrong /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Usually, the versions are updated when studying the original transcripts and a better understanding of languages has come about. In the NIV, if there's a controversial section where people may disagree with the translation of the original greek or hebrew, then there's a footnote to the other possible meanings.

Adam Knowlden

06-14-2003, 07:39 PM

Well I would say if you are looking for the most accurate translation the King James Version is the closet to the actual Hebrew and Greek you will get.

I have studied the Greek and Hebrew and the KJV is insanely accurate translation.

**DONOTDELETE**

06-14-2003, 08:16 PM

konaforever

06-14-2003, 09:01 PM

That's an exaggeration if I ever heard one. Are you saying it's more accurate than any modern day book covering the Vietnam war or any other book on modern history?

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you have proof that Bible has some historical accuracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try more than any other piece of writing in the history of the world. I've already discussed this.

[/ QUOTE ]

06-14-2003, 09:40 PM

^ yeah i agree.....the bible just symbolicly tells things...or tells stories which are very controvecial...and havent actualy been 100% proven....

Adam Knowlden

06-14-2003, 10:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That's an exaggeration if I ever heard one. Are you saying it's more accurate than any modern day book covering the Vietnam war or any other book on modern history?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are comparing written history with a war that has volumes of video taped documentary.

We are saying the archeological evidence matches perfectly with the written historical accounts of the bible. All you've done is state your beliefs, you have thus to rebuttle one claim scientifically.

[ QUOTE ]
^ yeah i agree.....the bible just symbolicly tells things...or tells stories which are very controvecial...and havent actualy been 100% proven....

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, I'm not trying to be sarcastic.

How do you know? My guess is your knowldege on the bible is very minute.

That is a big assumption to make for one whose understanding of the bible is at a very low level.

Exactly what constitutes "proof" for you.

We have written accounts and acheological evidences. I again stress that science does not "prove" anything. Math proves, science derives theories based on evidences.

Now my suggestion is that if you want to make this a true scientific or philosophical debate you guys break down exactly why the archeological evidence contradicts the biblical account.

Instead of just saying, "The bible is symbolic" or "it's not accurate", explain exactly why it's not. All you are doing with statements like that is arugeing from silence. Those are poor debate tactics.

konaforever

06-15-2003, 01:51 AM

Perfectly, huh? Nothing, not even the bible, is perfect. Sure, some of the main facts in the bible do check out, but that doesn't mean everything is correct and the truth. Just as I could write a story based on real and modern events, but with details that would be impossible to verify in six thousand years. Someone could find that story and assume it the truth because some of the facts check out. Nice.

Also, the Bible covers nothing on far eastern culture. Gee, I wonder why. Maybe it's because the writers of the Bible didn't have much contact with people from the far east. Or maybe people in the far east aren't worth saving. Or maybe the world revolves around the middle east. For a book that's all knowing, it leaves a lot out.

[ QUOTE ]
OldSchool said:
[ QUOTE ]
That's an exaggeration if I ever heard one. Are you saying it's more accurate than any modern day book covering the Vietnam war or any other book on modern history?

[/ QUOTE ]

We are saying the archeological evidence matches perfectly with the written historical accounts of the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Vash

06-15-2003, 02:38 AM

Do you think I am bad person to just not care about any of this? Don't get me wrong, I love the Holy Trinity with all of my heart, but I just really don't care whether the Lord put us here just as we are or if he put us here as "monkeys". All I know is that I am here now and I am thankful for the life I have been given.

konaforever

06-15-2003, 10:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
OldSchool said:

Indeed it does.

There are only two options.

1. Life created itself, "In the Beginning Dirt".

2. Life was created, "In the Beginning God"

If there is a third option please enlighten us.

Life is defined by a set of elegant instructions recorded on the DNA molecule, and there is more to life than replication.

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationism doesn't state that life arose from God. It states that God created Man. There's a difference.

So even if God created life in the form of a single celled organism, that would not fit your definition of creationism.
Even by this scenario, where God creates a single celled organism and life evolves from there, evolution is the mechanism for change into modern man.

So disproving evolution does NOT prove the type of creationism that your religion offers.

Intelligent Design does, but this is a cop out theory held by people overwhelmed by the evidence that evolution does exist.

[ QUOTE ]

The fact that there is no evidence for macro evolution is evidecne of creation. God clearly stated He created seperate kinds of animals. The fact that there is no evidence for life coming from non-life is evidence that there is a creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

And there is no evidence that life arose in all it's full glory as seperate animals and not as a single celled organism. Your belief that all the animals were created at once is the downfall.

You can't have it both ways: that just because life made by a creator means that it created man as is.

[ QUOTE ]

So you basically said:

1. Life can't arise on it's own.

2. Life was not created.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. Don't put words in my mouth.

I stated that "saying" that life couldn't arise with God isn't proof. You have to prove life can't form without God with actual facts, not rhetoric.

On a side note, what if we find life on Mars? What does that say about God? Why would he put life on Mars when it doesn't state that in the Bible? Even if this life is only in the form of single celled organism.

konaforever

06-15-2003, 11:17 AM

Evidence of evolution is plentiful. The problem is that you choose not to believe in it. You disregard fossil records and carbon dating. You choose not to believe in evolution because that would go against the bible and your faith. The problem is, all the evidence in the world could point to evolution and you still would not change your mind because of your religious beliefs. You choose what to and what not to believe based on your religion. That's not thinking for yourself. I don't have a stance on God. I don't know if he exists or not. So I can be much more unbiased than you or many other creationists.

Common sense would dictate that modern man did not arise in his current form. Look at all our vestigial organs. Why do we have fingernails and hair on our body that serve not purpose besides a reminder of their former uses? How about the appendix? And the coccyx, which is part of our spine and a remnant of a tail? These are all reminders of what we used to be and where we came from.

Even if you don't believe those as evolutionary traits, why would God make us as we are with those traits? Why gives us parts with no uses? Apparently, God doesn't know how to design the human body. Perfect as he's supposed to be. Nothing like creating something with extraneous parts.

Have you ever questioned your beliefs? The more I learn about what creationists think, the more I think they're deluding themselves. Apparently, we coexisted with dinosaurs at one point. Apparently, the Flintstones is the most accurate representive of what life was life thousands of years ago. Fred had his own pet Dinosaur. Come on.

So that means we coexisted with neanderthals and other humanoid forms that we have found in the fossil records. Funny how there's no mention of this in the Bible. And why does the ape so closely resemble our body structure? Why would God make a creature that so closely resembles us in many aspects? Wouldn't he want man to be unique in every way from the animals? Don't these things make you just wonder?

If they don't, you're too stuck in your beliefs to even questions. That's sad to me. It's one thing to look at the evidence objectively, but another when you're biased.

Venom

06-15-2003, 12:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Vash said:
Do you think I am bad person to just not care about any of this? Don't get me wrong, I love the Holy Trinity with all of my heart, but I just really don't care whether the Lord put us here just as we are or if he put us here as "monkeys". All I know is that I am here now and I am thankful for the life I have been given.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. But let me quote what I said earlier to heen:

[ QUOTE ]
Venom said:
[ QUOTE ]
Heen05 said:
So on the extreme end of things, what you are saying is that if we DO accept evolution, we are going against the word of G-d and that we will go to hell

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, we answer this literally in every single debate. Do a search or study the links in our signatures, to see a few reasons why.

But be patient; very very soon we will put out a Giant study on why you need to believe Gods word.

[/ QUOTE ]

President Wilson

06-15-2003, 12:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Evidence of evolution is plentiful. The problem is that you choose not to believe in it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution is a faith based religion. If there is plenty of evidence, post the absolute best available.

[ QUOTE ]
You disregard fossil records and carbon dating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you feel that carbon dating has much to do with evolution and if so, why?

As for fossil evidence, the whole chain is missing.

[ QUOTE ]
that would go against the bible and your faith

[/ QUOTE ]

The fossil record devoid of evidence for macroevolution actually supports the bible, and Catastrophism.

It however requires massive faith on those who follow the religion of evolution

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is, all the evidence in the world could point to evolution

[/ QUOTE ]

Fortunately, that is far from the problem.

[ QUOTE ]
You choose what to and what not to believe based on your religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Post your absolute best evidence for your religion, and show us how unreasonable we are being. If evolution is so established, this should be an easy task

[ QUOTE ]
That's not thinking for yourself

[/ QUOTE ]

The technology of one cell is beyond the scope of human technology. It is clearly designed and could never have arrisen by chance. Thats clear thinking.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't have a stance on God. I don't know if he exists or not. So I can be much more unbiased than you or many other creationists.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are not a creationsist you must believe in spontaneous generation. That is 100 percent faith based, and is therefore a faith based religion

[ QUOTE ]
Common sense would dictate that modern man did not arise in his current form. Look at all our vestigial organs

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.

First of all, we can shred this argument. But first let me ask you a question

* You need an increase in genetic information to evolve from one kind of animal to another

Question - How does a loss of information prove macroevolution?

[ QUOTE ]
Why do we have fingernails

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do we have fingernails? Are you serious?

[ QUOTE ]
and hair on our body that serve not purpose

[/ QUOTE ]

Our hair serves no purpose?

[ QUOTE ]
besides a reminder of their former uses?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your question is irrelevent, hair and fingernails are not vestigal.

[ QUOTE ]
And the coccyx, which is part of our spine and a remnant of a tail?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL! Do you know how many muscles attatch to your coccyx!?
No evolutionist even use this argument any longer.

This is why I am saying that evolution is your religion. You actually believe that something that has great use, has no use, when it was proven wrong quite a long time ago.

Do you realize that at the scopes trial they had over 180 vestigal organs. Each has been proven to be extremely useful. I wonder how many people would have been willing to have those removed.

[ QUOTE ]
appendix

[/ QUOTE ]

 The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system 

Frederic H. Martini, Ph.D., Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology, p. 916, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,

What the evolutionists have to say about vestigial organs

 Scadding, S. R., Do ;Vestigial Organs Provide Evidence for Evolution? Evolutionary Theory, vol. 5 , pp. 173-176. Scadding was in the Zoology Department, at the University of Guelph. 

p. 173
An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that "vestigial organs" provide no evidence for evolutionary theory."

p. 175
"Even the current short list of vestigial structures in humans is questionable. Anatomically, the appendix shows a lymphoid function.

"The coccyx serves as a point of insertion for several muscles and ligaments including the gluteus maximus. The semilunar fold of the eye aids in the cleansing and lubrication of the eyeball."

 Translation - Evolution hinders science. Instead of finding out an organs function, you hinder progress, by stating that it is functionless, only to find that the evolutionary theory was once again dead wrong. 

[ QUOTE ]
These are all reminders of what we used to be and where we came from

[/ QUOTE ]

A boosted immune system, A greater ability to manipulate objects with finger nails, hair to keep you warm, and a coccyx to which several important muscles attatch are proof that we came from a rock?

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you don't believe those as evolutionary traits

[/ QUOTE ]

You havent shown any!

[ QUOTE ]
why would God make us as we are with those traits

[/ QUOTE ]

So that we can function...

[ QUOTE ]
Why gives us parts with no uses?

[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't. And again, vestigial organs, are the opposite of evolution. You need a gain of information, not a loss!

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently, God doesn't know how to design the human body

[/ QUOTE ]

Your right, the 100 billion neurons in your central nervous system, and the hundred trillion connections between them, and the eye which Yu posted on which is an architectual wonder allowing you to read this is a terrible design.

The fact that each of your trillions of cells is a marvel beyond the scope of manmade technology, shows a terrible designer.

[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever questioned your beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if that is your evidence for having me do so.

Venom

06-15-2003, 01:26 PM

bennyhanna1

06-15-2003, 01:27 PM

the thing about carbon dating is that its not very accurate, tests have shown that its not very reliable. I was watching a show on it, and they tested living peguins to be hundreds of years old.. there were so many other crazy things like that

Adam Knowlden

06-15-2003, 01:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Gee, I wonder why. Maybe it's because the writers of the Bible didn't have much contact with people from the far east. Or maybe people in the far east aren't worth saving. Or maybe the world revolves around the middle east. For a book that's all knowing, it leaves a lot out.

[/ QUOTE ]

This shows your complete ignorance of the bible. The kings of the east are mentioned.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, some of the main facts in the bible do check out, but that doesn't mean everything is correct and the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation- the evidence fits just like you said. But I don't accept it, so instead of providing any coutner evidence, I will continue to show my religious beliefs.

[ QUOTE ]
Just as I could write a story based on real and modern events, but with details that would be impossible to verify in six thousand years. Someone could find that story and assume it the truth because some of the facts check out. Nice.

[/ QUOTE ]

What missing details? The details are down to the core that the archeology agrees with the bible 100%.

You again are showing nothing but your religious beliefs.

[ QUOTE ]
Creationism doesn't state that life arose from God. It states that God created Man. There's a difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again showing your ignorance of the bible and creation.

 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.


[ QUOTE ]
So disproving evolution does NOT prove the type of creationism that your religion offers.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can not avoid this. If Naturalism, the driving faith of evolution is wrong, indeed God created.

If you can find another scenario please let us know. You haven't provided one yet.

[ QUOTE ]
Intelligent Design does, but this is a cop out theory held by people overwhelmed by the evidence that evolution does exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please enlighten us to this "Overwhelming evidence".

[ QUOTE ]
And there is no evidence that life arose in all it's full glory as seperate animals and not as a single celled organism. Your belief that all the animals were created at once is the downfall.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fossil record you so vehemely believe in declares this.

Darwin said:

 " The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory( Darwin, )."


Gould said:

 The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record " 

and

 " The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed "


Translation- there is evidence no missing links so evolution must have happened in bursts.

The fossil record backs up the what the creation theory states perfectly.

According to Gould the evolution of any organism is characterized by long periods of equilibrium (no evolutionary change) during which time many offspring, and thus many fossils, are produced -- punctuated by relatively rapid bursts of evolution that left no fossil record. In the May 1981 issue of Discover magazine, Gould explained that "two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically sudden origin of new species and failure to change thereafter" actually "predicted" this new evolutionary theory!

In other words a lack of evidence proved it happened!

[ QUOTE ]
You can't have it both ways: that just because life made by a creator means that it created man as is.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is zero evidence to support this notion, all the evidence shows man has always been man. If there evidence please present it. The bruden of evidence is on you to show credibility that man has not always been man.

[ QUOTE ]
You have to prove life can't form without God with actual facts, not rhetoric.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I don't have to prove anything. Only provide evidences, that is science. Information can only arise from an information giver. Show me evidence that this is wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
On a side note, what if we find life on Mars? What does that say about God? Why would he put life on Mars when it doesn't state that in the Bible? Even if this life is only in the form of single celled organism.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a whole other topic. Stick to the debate at hand.

Venom

06-15-2003, 01:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
John D. said:
For one, why can't people live over 100 let alone 800 now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is a good article, here. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4082.asp) Theres more if needed.

06-15-2003, 01:38 PM

but its true old school....if we were living at a time that needed some kind of believe....and we didnt have the bible...one could write one..and over the years it would escalate into being the main belive system of a society....

Adam Knowlden

06-15-2003, 01:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
but its true old school....if we were living at a time that needed some kind of believe....and we didnt have the bible...one could write one..and over the years it would escalate into being the main belive system of a society....

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree and that's why we have to test the facts at hand.

Evolution has done the very notion you have described.

It is laying the foundation for an atheistic society, whose religious dogma is preached as absolute truth.

Venom

06-15-2003, 01:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
John D. said:
Another question, how did people get to South America, Australia, and other continents?

[/ QUOTE ]
Most believe the tower of Babel describes this. Read here. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n1_peleg.asp)

This verse sounds pretty clear on the subject.:

Genesis 11:9
9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

06-15-2003, 02:17 PM

so what will happen if this revelation does not come? do you think everyone will not beileve as much/stop believing?

**DONOTDELETE**

06-15-2003, 04:05 PM

**DONOTDELETE**

06-15-2003, 04:13 PM

Venom

06-15-2003, 04:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
duderoi said:
so what will happen if this revelation does not come? do you think everyone will not beileve as much/stop believing?

[/ QUOTE ]

As Yu said, it will come. But what your saying has already happened. Just like it did in the past. Look at these two parallels to the last days:

Luke 17:26-27
26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Noah is a direct parallel to the tribulation. He preached daily, all the way up until God told him to enter the ark. But no one listened to him. He did not have to go through the pains of the flood, just like we will not have to go through the tribulation, God spared him, and will keep us from this trial as well.

But like they are doing now, going about they're business saying saftety, and peace. That's when all throughout scripture God comes, when people completely ignore his warnings, and sin without thought.

Again, same thing in Sodom:

Luke 17:28-30
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. 30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

Look at what they thought of lots preaching:

Genesis 19:4-11
4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. 9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door. 10 But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. 11 And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

Genesis 19:12-14
12 And the men said unto Lot, Hast thou here any besides? son in law, and thy sons, and thy daughters, and whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring them out of this place: 13 For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it. 14 And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law, which married his daughters, and said, Up, get you out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city. But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law.

And again this parallels the rapture, Lot preached to them the whole time. And no one listened. Than God saved him from this (like the rapture) and they were punished.

Here is another great verse:

Matthew 24:32-51
45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? 46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. 47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. 48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; 49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; 50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, 51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

With the signs that are showing, just like Sodum, and Noahs days, don't become lazy and mock. Because that's when God always comes.

Here is another prophecy on ignoring Gods warnings. I'll quote it from the last days thread. It's on evolution:

[ QUOTE ]
Venom said:
Here is a great prophecy audio, (http://www.answersingenesis.org/AnswersMedia/play.aspx?mediaID=010305_ans) read. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1281.asp)

[/ QUOTE ]

06-15-2003, 05:23 PM

yeah but thats the thing....are we going to know when it comes? is there going to be physical prof that its there?

konaforever

06-15-2003, 05:44 PM

I could, but you wouldn't trust it. Would you really take a quote from other evolutionists as support? I'm sure you've seen all the data, statistics, studies, etc, etc, before ad nauseum. It's not going to sway you now if I present it. My arguments are my own, based on what I know and what I think.

In the end, when you process all that info and filter it through those brains of yours, that is what it comes down to: making your own judgements. Obviously, all three of you have at least studied both sides, which is more than I can say for many creationists. You've made your choice. I don't agree with it, but at least I can gain some knowledge as to why you think why you do.

You believe in God even though there is no evidence. All you have is the bible and things you attribute to what he did. You don't actually KNOW if he did those things.

I'm from Hawaii and the Hawaiians believed in many Gods. There was the God of volcanos, Pele, whom they believed controlled when and where lava flowed. They believed this because they didn't understand the mechanisms by which it did. So they attributed supernatural forces to it to understand.

Basically, that's what you do to life. You, nor I, don't fully understand the mechanisms on how it started. You attribute it to a God. I don't. I believe there is some other driving force.

I'm sure if you tried to have a debate with the Hawaiiians at the time that they believed in Pele, they would have laughed at you. How could something so wonderous and powerful as lava be caused by natural forces in the Earth?

The same goes in this situation. You scoff at what you don't understand and what goes against your faith.

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:
Kona, so far you ave presented a very weak arguement. You have shown us no facts, no studies, no scientific data or quotes from evolutionists to support any one of your points.

This clearly shows a lack of knowledge on your part. Jacob, Venom, Old School and I know your religion of evolution like the back of our hands. We've studied both sides and looking at the evidence from a scientific standpoint, there is absolutely no way we can trust in evolution, only God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Venom

06-15-2003, 05:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
duderoi said:
yeah but thats the thing....are we going to know when it comes? is there going to be physical prof that its there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Extremely physical.

Matthew 24:4-31
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Revelation 19:11-21
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. 17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. 19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. 20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

God himself is going to come down, and fight this battle. Extremely clear.

And throughout the tribulation its clear, incredible catastrophes, more than has ever been seen. And they know who its from.

Revelation 16:8-11
8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. 9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory. 10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain, 11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.

Revelation 6:9-17
12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; 13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. 14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; 16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

They know whom they are fighting against, and they blaspheme God the whole time.

It will literally be hell on earth. There will be no atheists in these days, you will either have to serve Satan or be killed.

Revelation 13:11-17
11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. 13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. 15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

There will be no more questions, or playing games. You will either get the mark, and worship Satan, or die for Christ sake. This is why he said:

Luke 17:20-37
32 Remember Lot's wife. 33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

There will only be two choices. Serve satan, or be killed by him. If you serve Satan you will not be with God in heaven, if you are killed for Christs sake, you will be.

Revelation 6:9-17
9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

Revelation 15:2-4
2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.

That's just a tip, but this is extremely real, and they will know, and have to make a decision. Read more in O.S's study.

And after 7 years, Christ will come down and rule, so they'll know than to.

hotbodzz

06-15-2003, 06:01 PM

There is an evolution show on the Discovery Channel at 8pm tonight, "Living with Cavemen" that supposedly presents new evidence for evolution. I highly doubt it too credible though if Alec Baldwin is hosting it. I gotta watch though, my interest is peaked.

Omskakas

06-15-2003, 06:13 PM

Konaforever: I couldn't said it better myself. In ancient times people worshipped the sun and the moon because they didn't know what they were. Now, "sun and moon" in christianity are evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang. They can't be (yet!) explained by science with accuracy and evidence (heck, we are talking about things that have happened millions or billions of years ago) that they would convince everybody. So, the reaction is: there must be a creator, a god behind all this. And this is the main thing I don't agree with.

I guess everyone here believes in gravitation? You probably know that science does not know exactly how gravitation works. No one has ever found a single graviton(sp?) particle. Yet nobody (that I know of) thinks that that's why there must be a god because he keeps our feet on the ground.

Oh, I have some quotes from evolutionists:

"The facts simply do not make sense unless evolution is true"
George Gaylord Simpson (1962) preface to the Origin of Species

"Nothing in the biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution"
Theodosius Dobzhansky (1973), American Biology Teacher vol. 35(3)

Oh, btw. Quotes taken out of their context are useless, no matter who the author is. /forum/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Adam Knowlden

06-15-2003, 06:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's not going to sway you now if I present it. My arguments are my own, based on what I know and what I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct. Neither of us is going to sway the other.

My only purpose in taking this to the present point, was to get people to think critically about what they are told is scientific.

Evolution is a far cry from fact.

[ QUOTE ]
You believe in God even though there is no evidence. All you have is the bible and things you attribute to what he did. You don't actually KNOW if he did those things.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is plenty of evidence.

You even admit that there is some "driving force" behind everything. In other words, there is supernaturalism, you just don't know what or who it is. I can understand your confusion. It is silly to think life came from dead matter. That defies all logic and laws of science. However, evolutionists admit the mechanism behind evolution is unknown(an mechanism that provides a increase in information from nothing) and is a complete and utter mystery to evolutionists.

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, that's what you do to life. You, nor I, don't fully understand the mechanisms on how it started. You attribute it to a God. I don't. I believe there is some other driving force.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is why metaphysics and origins is ultimately religious. That is the point we have been trying to make.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe there is some other driving force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Webster's defenition of religion- Belief in a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

You have just given us your religious belief. Evolution, which you just admited is an unknown force, has created everything you see. Evolution is your god. This mysterious supernatural mechanism is responsible for all life throughout all time and space.

It is an all-powerful force that drives the universe.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure if you tried to have a debate with the Hawaiiians at the time that they believed in Pele, they would have laughed at you. How could something so wonderous and powerful as lava be caused by natural forces in the Earth?

The same goes in this situation. You scoff at what you don't understand and what goes against your faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

We scoff at what goes against all emperical and observational science.

Let's take your example of man not always being fully human.

We have approximately 6 billion people on the planet.

Yet what do we see:

Observationally- humans produce humans

Emperically- humans produce humans

For you to tell me humans were at one time anything other than humans you must have pretty overwhelming evidence.

Actually it better be really solid. Because that is a very bold statement.

We can get strange looking babies that for sure, but throughout all of history, humans have always produced humans.

We see no examples of macro evolution anywhere in all plants and animals today. Yet we are to believe it has happened mult-millions of times.

We scoff at conclusions derived from an extreme lack, rather, no evidence.

Adam Knowlden

06-15-2003, 06:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I guess everyone here believes in gravitation? You probably know that science does not know exactly how gravitation works. No one has ever found a single graviton(sp?) particle. Yet nobody (that I know of) thinks that that's why there must be a god because he keeps our feet on the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a really bad comparison. First all you've done with that statement is prove that evolution is an unknown force that you have faith in.

I can pick up my protein shake right now and drop it on the ground. Emperical and observational evidence of gravity. I can also prove gravity with math.

Now give me observational or emperical evidence of humans producing something that is non-human.

Give me emperical evidence that life can come from non-life.

Give me emperical proof of this supernatural force that defies all logic and scientific laws. And don't just say, "the evidence is overwhelming". Let's see this "overwhelming evidence".

Where is the emperical evidence of this supernatural force changing dinosaurs into birds.

Here's what evolutionists Richard Prum and Alan Brush, March 2003, had to say about evolution:

 How did these incredibly strong, wonderfully lightweight, amazingly intricate appendages evolve?
Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers.&#8217;


Translation- we have no idea, not even a rational theory.

I can tell you there best proof, "it's there". Not scienctific. Naturalism is a fantasy.

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing in the biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution"

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me one example of evolution benefiting the science of biology.

Please do not tell me phylogenetic origins. Let's look at an insect family chart:

http://answersingenesis.org/images/j96insec.gif

These charts almost always use dotted lines when the supposed evolutionary path is unknown.

In these instances, you should simply ignore the dotted lines. By doing so, you will usually be left with a diagram showing that the different types of species depicted (in the case of this diagram, insects) have remained basically the same throughout history.

Without the dotted lines, this insect chart simply shows the diversity within a kind, revealing that today's insects haven't really changed from so-called 'ancient' insects.

The dotted lines reinforce the fact that there is no evidence to prove the existence of a common ancestor for the insects shown.

Go to your local library and check all the evolutionary trees you find. You'll find this is a revealing and worth-while exercise.

[ QUOTE ]
"The facts simply do not make sense unless evolution is true"

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation- evolution must be true, because to state otherwise would be to admit "God created", and that of coures is against my religion of naturalism.

[ QUOTE ]
Konaforever: I couldn't said it better myself. In ancient times people worshipped the sun and the moon because they didn't know what they were.

[/ QUOTE ]

And now you admit you put your faith in an unknown force that creates everything from nothing.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, "sun and moon" in christianity are evolution, abiogenesis and the big bang. They can't be (yet!) explained by science with accuracy and evidence (heck, we are talking about things that have happened millions or billions of years ago) that they would convince everybody. So, the reaction is: there must be a creator, a god behind all this. And this is the main thing I don't agree with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Comparing something we can see like the sun and the moon with a magical force that no one has ever seen that changes molecules to man, is a really bad logic flow.

[ QUOTE ]
heck, we are talking about things that have happened millions or billions of years ago)

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation- I have faith it occured.

John D.

06-15-2003, 07:23 PM

Yeah! I read that last night. It was pretty interesting. Sorry for the questions, I'm just trying to find my way I guess.

Anyway, I'm up to the point where God said the guys that gave a bad report about the new land the Isrealies where going to and rebeled against God and Moses. Now, how come during this time God was very active and now it doesn't seem like he is? I mean look at all the stuff going on in the Middle East now. How come God doesn't send a profit or something to stop the killing? Was this foretold in the bible (if so then I'm looking forward to reading about it)? Thanks for the help and for being patient.

**DONOTDELETE**

06-15-2003, 07:34 PM

CheezitMan22

06-15-2003, 07:38 PM

so ur saying not everything had a common ancestor?we werent all a unicellular prokaryote (or whatever lol)??

President Wilson

06-15-2003, 08:13 PM

I would further add. When we say that people used to worship the Sun and the Moon, that the case has not changed much.

Only now, people are perscribing Nature with supernatural creative abilities. Evolution is no different from a religion which worships any other form of Nature.

Romans Speaks of this

[ QUOTE ]
Romans 1:19-32
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; F6 for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so F7 that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

[/ QUOTE ]

This main part

 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen 

Jeremiah also speaks of this

Jer 2:27 - Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: 

What is the difference between then and now? In both cases people prescribe a rock with supernatural, creative abilities.

And Spontaneous generation is 100 percent supernatural. There is no mechanism for it to come about, which is why it falls into the realm of religion.

06-15-2003, 08:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Venom said:
[ QUOTE ]
duderoi said:
yeah but thats the thing....are we going to know when it comes? is there going to be physical prof that its there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Extremely physical.

Matthew 24:4-31
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Revelation 19:11-21
11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. 12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. 13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. 17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. 19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. 20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

God himself is going to come down, and fight this battle. Extremely clear.

And throughout the tribulation its clear, incredible catastrophes, more than has ever been seen. And they know who its from.

Revelation 16:8-11
8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. 9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory. 10 And the fifth angel poured out his vial upon the seat of the beast; and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain, 11 And blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.

Revelation 6:9-17
12 And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; 13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. 14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. 15 And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; 16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 17 For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

They know whom they are fighting against, and they blaspheme God the whole time.

It will literally be hell on earth. There will be no atheists in these days, you will either have to serve Satan or be killed.

Revelation 13:11-17
11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. 13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. 15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

There will be no more questions, or playing games. You will either get the mark, and worship Satan, or die for Christ sake. This is why he said:

Luke 17:20-37
32 Remember Lot's wife. 33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

There will only be two choices. Serve satan, or be killed by him. If you serve Satan you will not be with God in heaven, if you are killed for Christs sake, you will be.

Revelation 6:9-17
9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

Revelation 15:2-4
2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.

That's just a tip, but this is extremely real, and they will know, and have to make a decision. Read more in O.S's study.

And after 7 years, Christ will come down and rule, so they'll know than to.

[/ QUOTE ]

so i guess this is pretty much the proving point between belivers and athiests...if it does happen it will be a prof that god does exist...if it does not it will just give athiest another winning arguement......

Venom

06-15-2003, 08:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
so i guess this is pretty much the proving point between belivers and athiests...if it does happen it will be a prof that god does exist...if it does not it will just give athiest another winning arguement......

[/ QUOTE ]

If they want to put there money on waiting, and risking all eternity. Have fun.

As far as God existing, read this:

[ QUOTE ]
President Wilson said:
[ QUOTE ]
7707MUTT said:
2. It is puzzling how someone can believe in a theory with no evidence......um is not that the definiton of FAITH the beliefe in god with out actual proof?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the answer
click here (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=bodybuilder&Number=521346& page=&view=&sb=5&o=&vc=1)

[/ QUOTE ]

06-15-2003, 08:35 PM

so there is no actual prof of when its going to happen? right?

Venom

06-15-2003, 08:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
duderoi said:
so there is no actual prof of when its going to happen? right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Is there proof in the sky when it's about to rain?

Matthew 16:1-3
1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven. 2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. 3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?

06-15-2003, 08:45 PM

well you see thats the thing...scince has proven rain...heck you can see,feel, hear, smell, and sometimes taste (in houston you can cause of the polution)...but with something like that that only some people belive in you cannot.

Venom

06-15-2003, 08:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
duderoi said:
well you see thats the thing...scince has proven rain...heck you can see,feel, hear, smell, and sometimes taste (in houston you can cause of the polution)...but with something like that that only some people belive in you cannot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can they predict the exact hour when it's about to rain? Or the exact weather? Nope, but they can say rain is coming soon, and it looks bad.

The signs are showing Christ is coming soon, be prepared.

And I was not trying to prove this, whether someone believes this or not, will not prevent the Lord from coming. I'm just telling you the signs are as clear as 100 black clouds in the sky. If someone believes this or not won't effect the event.

Romans 3:3-4
3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar

President Wilson

06-15-2003, 09:08 PM

What a Joke!

http://www.answersingenesis.org/AfterEden/cartoons/ae3-18-2002.gif

The Discovery program starts out by saying

" We have no evidence for our evolution "

" Therefore time wiped it out! " " Time is The enemy "

LOL. Time is the hero of evolution, now its there enemy because it wipes out all their evidence?

WHich is exactly what the scientific journals admit to

John Reader "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, p. 802

 "The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. ...but ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."



Thats pathetic. Then they go about making up a scenereo based on fragmented skulls that can fit on a Billiard table!
Thats called belief in a world of imagionation!

" We have no evidence, but you need to know that you used to be an ape. Stay Tuned. "

Evolutionists always skip over the evidence and then indoctrinate the audience.

 Truth About Lucy

Lucy was a Knuckle walker

Long-armed, Short-legged, Knuckle-walker," Science News, vol. 100 p. 357.

" limb bone fossils have been rare finds, but Leakey now has a large sample. They portray as long-armed and short-legged. He was probably a knuckle-walker, not an erect walker, as many archaeologists presently believe."

Take a look at this scientific journal

Richmond, B.G. and Strait, D.S., Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor, Nature 404(6776):382, 2000

 Bipedalism has traditionally been regarded as the fundamental adaptation that sets hominids apart from other primates. Fossil evidence demonstrates that by 4.1 million years ago, and perhaps earlier, hominids exhibited adaptations to bipedal walking. At present, however, the fossil record offers little information about the origin of bipedalism 

Translation - Its Pure Imagionation!

More on Lucy

"A UPGMA clustering diagram illustrates the similarity between the radii of A. anamensis and A. afarensis and those of the knuckle-walking African apes, indicating that these hominids retain the derived wrist morphology of knuckle-walkers " 287

 Cartmill, Matt, Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad Natural History, vol. 92 (November 1983), pp. 65-79.


p. 77
A myth, says my dictionary, is a real or fictional story that embodies the cultural ideals of a people or expresses deep, commonly felt emotions. By this definition, myths are generally good things ;and the origin stories that paleoanthropologists tell are necessarily myths.

Cartmill, Matt, David R. Pilbeam, and Glynn Isaac, One Hundred Years of Paleoanthropology, American Scientist, vol. 74 (July/August 1986), pp. 410-420.
p. 416

"It is now known that these so-called robust australopithecines coexisted with for over a million years. The marked anatomical differences between the two imply that they were different species with quite different adaptations. Thus, the notion of one general adaptive niche for hominids must be a mistake. Whatever explains hominid origins cannot also be a sufficient explanation of human origins, for not all hominids became human."

Translation - Lucy was completely different from humans. We lived at the same time as they did, and they are just an extinct form of ape!

More on Lucy!

Gould, Stephen Jay, "A Short Way to Big Ends," Natural History, vol. 95 (January 1986), pp. 18-28.
p. 28

"Oxnard is our leading expert on the quantitative study of skeletons. He has used the techniques of multivariate analysis a set of statistical tools, forming the basis of my own technical work as well, that can integrate large suites of measurements and extract general estimates of similarity and difference from all measures considered together. Oxnard has spent years studying the australopithecines, the group of African hominids considered by all experts to be our closest genealogical cousins (probably our ancestors as well). Oxnard has argued in several books and articles that australopithecines are anatomically more different from us than other experts imagine. In short, he sees australopithecines as uniquely different from apes and humans, not as imperfect people on the way up."

More on Lucy

Dr Charles E. Oxnard, Fossils, Teeth and Sex -- New perspective on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1987, p. 227.

"The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been".

Oxnard's firm conclusion? 'The australopithecines are unique.'3

Neither Lucy nor any other australopithecine is therefore intermediate between humans and African apes. Nor are they similar enough to humans to be any sort of ancestor of ours.

Lucy and the australopithecines show nothing about human evolution, and should not be promoted as having any sort of "missing link" status. The creationist alternative, that humans, apes and other creatures were created that way in the beginning, remains the only explanation consistent with all the evidence.

Its nothing more than a unique ape

However, I will close by confirming what the program began with!

Gould, Stephen Jay, "Empire of the Apes," Natural History, vol. 96 (May 1987), pp. 20-25.
p. 24

" The Holy Grail of human evolution the period when our lineage began its separate end run to later domination, and a time for which no fossil evidence exists at all."

James A., and Leonard B. Radinsky, "Vertebrate Paleontology: New Approaches and New Insights," Paleobiology, vol. 6 (Summer 1980), pp. 250-270. Hopson was in the Anatomy Department at the University of Chicago.
pp. 263-4

"Interestingly, despite almost a decade of technically sophisticated analyses of australopithecine remains, there is still considerable controversy over their functional and phylogenetic significance in particular whether they are too divergently specialized to be considered suitable ancestors for "

The famous Lueton has this to say

Lewin, Roger, Bones of Contention (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), 348 pp.
p. 27

"It is an unfortunate truth that fossils do not emerge from the ground with labels already attached to them. And it is bad enough that much of the labeling was done in the name of egoism and a naive lack of appreciation of variation between individuals; each nuance in shape was taken to indicate a difference in type rather than natural variation within a population. This problem has in some part been eased in the half-century since Hooton made his pithy remarks. But it remains inescapably true that applying the correct label is astonishingly difficult, not least because such labels are in a sense arbitrary abstractions; and especially so when the material on which the analysis is being done is fragmentary and eroded. "It is an incredibly difficult problem,&#8217; says Lord Zuckerman. "It is one so difficult that I think it would be legitimate to despair that one could ever turn it into a science."

As we witnessed tonight on the program, its pure imagionation! Lets continue to page 43

p. 43
"In fact, 'virtually all our theories about human origins were relatively unconstrained by fossil data,' observes David Pilbeam. "The theories are fossil-free or in some cases even fossil-proof." This shocking statement simply means that there is and always has been far more fleshing out of the course and cause of human evolution than can fully be justified by the scrappy skeleton provided by the fossils. As a result, he continues, "our theories have often said far more about the theorists than they have about what actually happened."

And to repeat what I said at the begging

[ QUOTE ]
"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table, ... the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present. ...but ever since Darwin's work inspired the notion that fossils linking modern man and extinct ancestor would provide the most convincing proof of human evolution, preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."

John Reader (photo-journalist and author of "Missing Links"), "Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?" New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802

[/ QUOTE ]

06-15-2003, 09:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Venom said:
[ QUOTE ]
duderoi said:
well you see thats the thing...scince has proven rain...heck you can see,feel, hear, smell, and sometimes taste (in houston you can cause of the polution)...but with something like that that only some people belive in you cannot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can they predict the exact hour when it's about to rain? Or the exact weather? Nope, but they can say rain is coming soon, and it looks bad.

The signs are showing Christ is coming soon, be prepared.

And I was not trying to prove this, whether someone believes this or not, will not prevent the Lord from coming. I'm just telling you the signs are as clear as 100 black clouds in the sky. If someone believes this or not won't effect the event.

Romans 3:3-4
3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar

[/ QUOTE ]

no but they can say "it is going to rain" and you have seen rain! you know that it can come...but have you seen jesus? has he ever come before?

Venom

06-15-2003, 09:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
no but they can say "it is going to rain" and you have seen rain! you know that it can come?

[/ QUOTE ]
All throughout history, what I am saying has occurred. Sodom, Noah, Egypt, and thousands of other prophecies. And Christ's first coming.

I showed several examples of this occurring before. Obviously this is different, but it is an accurate comparison. All prophecy is pointing to now, if you cannot see this, that is fine. I am telling you its as clear as seeing several dark clouds in the sky. And like a weather man, I am telling you he's coming soon. Just like Noah, lot, and Mosses time.

konaforever

06-15-2003, 09:37 PM

Fingernails help up manipulate objects? The best use I can think for them is opening cd cases, which are impossible otherwise. Though I doubt God gave us those for that important purpose. And toe nails are even more useless.

How does hair on our body keep us warm? I'm not talking about hair on the head. I'm talking about hair on the body. I don't have enough hair on my body to keep a grasshopper warm. Yet there it is.

And we did not come from rocks. We came from millions of years of chemical reactions. Not from granite.

[ QUOTE ]
President Wilson said:

A boosted immune system, A greater ability to manipulate objects with finger nails, hair to keep you warm, and a coccyx to which several important muscles attatch are proof that we came from a rock?

[/ QUOTE ]

06-15-2003, 09:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Venom said:
[ QUOTE ]
no but they can say "it is going to rain" and you have seen rain! you know that it can come?

[/ QUOTE ]
All throughout history, what I am saying has occurred. Sodom, Noah, Egypt, and thousands of other prophecies. And Christ's first coming.

I showed several examples of this occurring before. Obviously this is different, but it is an accurate comparison. All prophecy is pointing to now, if you cannot see this, that is fine. I am telling you its as clear as seeing several dark clouds in the sky. And like a weather man, I am telling you he's coming soon. Just like Noah, lot, and Mosses time.

[/ QUOTE ]

i trust you, but there is no actual prof that they came is that correct? its not something you will find in a scientific world history book...correct?

Venom

06-15-2003, 09:43 PM

Your asking whether my examples are historical events, or just something in the bible?

CoLDTuRKeY

06-15-2003, 10:58 PM

Post deleted by President Wilson

President Wilson

06-15-2003, 11:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Fingernails help up manipulate objects? The best use I can think for them is opening cd cases, which are impossible otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

As with many other objects.

[ QUOTE ]
How does hair on our body keep us warm?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever watch a sporting event on a cold day? Hair tremendously helps keep heat inside the body. Not only does it keep you warm, but it is asthetically pleasing( attractive ). The Bible speaks of the beauty of hair all throughout scripture. I believe most bodybuilders can appreciate the usefullness of asthetics.

[ QUOTE ]
And toe nails are even more useless.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you stub when you bang your foot into a door? Your toe. Nails on both your hands and toes are excellent for protection as well. If you have ever hit your fingertip with a weight while training, you realize that right away. Countless athletes would have split their fingers right open and bled on many more occations if not for their fingernails. Just slaming your finger in a door shows you their function. Your finger tips are the first to manipulate any object. Having extra protection where it is most needed, is extremely useful

I can go on and on.

bennyhanna1

06-15-2003, 11:05 PM

hey coldturkery lighten up man, no ones perfect, youre like following the stereotype that allll christians are perfect people. Everyone makes mistakes, we all have fun and everything. Since i am christian does that mean im not allowed to joke around? I want to thank all you guys like yu, venom, JW, and OS for helping me affirm my faith in the bible! keep up the good work

Adam Knowlden

06-15-2003, 11:05 PM

You are right fingernails are useless. Cut yours off then.

Regardless, vestigial organs are not proof of evolution. They are a loss of information. That is anti-evolution. Evolution requires new information arriving from nothing.

Duderoi, I believe you are asking for evidence that Jesus is coming soon?

Christ said,

When 2nd coming draws near, there will be no peace in Israel, and the anti-christ will arrive to set up a peace treaty, with what Joel 2 desrcibes:

 2 I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land.



whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land. For parting the land he promised to the descendants of Abraham.

Wait a minute now? Israel was not even a nation for 2700 years! That is why 1948 is so vital!

 32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.



We know from the law of first mention the fig tree is symbolic of Israel. Christ said when Israel is restored(at that time it was overrun by Rome) to itself, his coming is near!

Perhaps no other group of people has endured as much persecution as have the Jews during the past 4000 years. The persecutions included 400 years of slavery in Egypt, near-total destruction of their homeland by the Assyrians and Babylonians more than 2500 years ago and near-total destruction of their homeland again by the Romans about 1900 years ago. During the past 1900 years, Jews were scattered worldwide and persecuted worldwide. Adolph Hitler tried to kill all Jews during the Second World War. Before that era, entire villages of Jews were burned to the ground, along with Jewish men, women and children. Jews were banned from living in several European countries. The Bible told the Jews that they would face worldwide persecutions, and they did. And the Bible also told the Jews that God will never allow people to completely destroy the Jews, and the Bible has kept that promise too.

In Amos 9:14-15, the prophet said that there would come a time when the Jews would again have Israel as their own land and that they would never be uprooted again. Amos delivered this prophecy about 2700 years ago, shortly before the kingdom of Israel lost its independence to the Assyrian Empire.

The most important date in the 20th century was May 14, 1948, and on that day the most important even in our time took place. A nation was reborn in one day. A nation that lay dead for 2,000 years was raised to life. Within hours of declaring independence in 1948, the surrounding countries attacked tiny Israel. But Israel prevailed and was able to expand Israel's borders.

This within itself is a huge miracle. The Jews which had nothing re-conquered their land! They were vastly outnumbered and were attacked form all sides. There are so many miracle battles that took place during this time it boggles the mind! In one instance 400 Jews captured 20,000 Arabs! The re-establishment of Israel is the greatest miracles in our time.

In Amos 7:14 and 15 God said, "I will bring back the captives of my people Israel. They will build the waste cities and inhabit them. I will plant them in their land, and no longer shall they be pulled up from the Land that I have given them."

This is also backed up by the vision of the valley of Dry bones.

Humanly speaking, there is no way that tiny nation should have survived any one of the wars waged against them by their Arab neighbors of the Middle East;let alone four of them between 1948 and 1973! The 1948 war for independence pitted some 45 million Arabs against approximately 64,000 Jews,yet, when the dust settled about two years later, Israel had won an astounding victory. They were outnumbered militarily 40 to1, by population 100 to1, by equipment 1000 to1 and in land area 5,000 to1, but they came out on top.
In the Sinai War, Israel did not wait to be attacked and on October 29, 1956 launched her own preemptive strike. By the time the action ceased on November 5, the Arabs had lost between 2-3 thousand men killed and 5,600 taken prisoner. Israel lost 171 dead, 600 wounded, and only 4 taken prisoner.

The "Six Day War" began on June 5, 1967 and ended June 10th. In only six days, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan were defeated,with Egypt taking the brunt of it. Russia had poured multiplied billions of dollars worth of military hardware into these countries and backed them with their own technicians, but Israel all but completely destroyed their combined air forces on the first day! Then in the days that followed, they systematically humiliated not only the enemies surrounding them, but Russia as well in that their technology was proven inferior. Egypt suffered huge losses with seven divisions totaling between 80,000 to 100,000 men being completely routed or killed. Their entire force of 600-700 tanks supplied by the Soviets was destroyed, but Israel lost only 679 killed and 2,563 wounded.

The "Yom Kippur" War of 1973 was, in many respects, the most astounding of all in that Israel was caught totally off-guard and came closer to defeat than had been the case in any of the other wars. On Saturday (The Jewish Sabbath ,and in this case the holiest day of the year the Day of Atonement, in which observant Jews fasted for a full 24 hours), Israel was simultaneously attacked by Egypt from the South and Syria from the North in what turned out to be the largest conventional war in terms of armored forces since WWII. Some 5000 tanks were employed on both sides,a force larger than Hitler had used in invading Russia and more than the total numbers owned by Britain and France combined! Over a million men entered the fight! 838,000 Arabs against 275,000 Jews. But even though Golda Meir, the Prime Minister of Israel at the time, feared during those dark days that they would be defeated, when it was all over Israel had once again snatched victory out of the jaws of defeat. But they paid a much higher price in terms of lives, losing over 4,000 soldiers in battles that cost their enemies over 15,000 casualties

Imagine the impact this prophecy had on believers in the 17th, 18th, and early 19th century. Believers had to wonder how a dead nation could be revived. But God said it would happen. And after it happened they would never be taken from them again. That is the key here. Israel will never be destroyed again. The next battle to happen is the Battle of Armageddon. God also revived the language of Hebrew. The only time in history that a dead language had been completely restored and acknowledged as an official language by the world.

But besides all that all the turmoil in the Middle East has been predicted in the bible. The anti-christ will come to establish a false peace with Israel.

The other major prophecy that lets us know Christ's return is near, is that the set up for the anti-christ is perfect.

Let's begin with the EU.

Daniel and Revelation both predicted a revial of the roman empire. At first it would start with ten nations, then 13, then 15, and slowly consume the entire earth.

From this empire a great politician would arise and rule the entire world.

Dr. Jack Van IMpe describes the scenario here:

[ QUOTE ]
This Jew loved his Lord Yahweh. And when the King wanted them to eat and drink things that were offered to idols he refused. Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the meat or drink that the King offered. And as a result God used this prophet. In the tenth chapter he's in prayer and his intercession has been hindered for a period of 21 days through demonic powers in the heavens and finally Gabriel breaks through and tells him exactly what was going on and how Michael was, at that moment, in the heavenlies still battling the hosts that were trying to keep the message from him. And the message was this: in that tenth chapter, verse 13 and 14,

10:13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.
10:14 Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.

I am come to tell you Daniel what shall befall your people, the Jews, in the latter days. What does the term "latter days" mean? Chapter 11, verse 40; chapter 12, verse 4,

11:40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

the time of the end. Then let's move back to chapter two because there we have this great image described that Nebuchadnezzar saw in a dream. He forgot what the dream was and called in his magicians, astrologers, soothsayers saying, I had a dream and I can't remember it. Tell me what the dream was. If you can't, I&#8217;ll kill you. They said that isn't fair. Only the Gods without flesh could answer something like that. Well there was a rumor about a Godly prophet named Daniel who might be able to help them and guess what? This young man was just a teenager at the time, but oh he had the power of God, the anointing of the Holy Spirit upon him. And he came in to the presence of the King and he said I think I can help you, but give me 24 hours. During that time he sought the Lord. He returned and said, Nebuchadnezzar here is what your dream was. You saw this great image. It had a head of gold, chest and arms of silver, stomach and thighs of brass, two legs of iron and ten toes of iron mixed with clay. He said I can't believe this, you are a genius. Oh no it's not me. I take no credit for this. I have a great God Yahweh. And Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel 2:28,

2:28 But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days. Thy dream, and the visions of thy head upon thy bed, are these;

but the God in heaven hath revealed his secrets unto men, unto you King Nebuchadnezzar, to tell you what shall be, watch it, in the latter days. Again Daniel 11:40; Daniel 12:4, the time of the end. But he said God has also showed me the interpretation. I fear to tell you what it is. Go ahead Daniel. I won't judge you. Give me the truth. He said you are that head of gold, but the chest and arms of silver will soon overtake you, the Medes and the Persians. And then there will be the stomach and thighs of brass, Greece, who will destroy the Medes and the Persians, and then the two legs of iron, Rome, will overtake the Greeks and at the end time there will be ten toes that will come back to life, for they have been almost paralyzed for centuries and they will represent the two legs of iron because the toes are still iron mixed with clay coming back into restoration or revival. Now you say, but is this all so? If one will read Daniel 5:28 and Daniel 8, verses 20, 21 and Daniel 11:2,

5:28 PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

8:20 The ram which thou sawest having two horns are the kings of Media and Persia.
8:21 And the rough goat is the king of Grecia: and the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king.

11:2 And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.

he will find that this prophet even mentioned the very nations though they be two or three centuries into the future. Why? Because God revealeth unto him history right from that point to the end of time, to the conclusion to the time Messiah returns. Wow. The King was shocked. Let's move to chapter 7. There Daniel has a dream and it concerns four beasts. Once again, the first one is a lion, the second a bear, the third a leopard and the fourth a composite beast and this fourth one is an amalgamation of all the four and has ten horns. Ten toes, Daniel 2; the horns, Daniel 7. The ten horns are ten Kings that shall arise, Revelation 17:12,

17:12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

and one can find that also in Daniel 7:24.

7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

So at the end of time, ten nations would come together and they would be an offshoot of the final beast, the Roman Empire, and none of this happened until 1948 when Benelux started the project and ten came into existence by January 1, '81, but they did not really become organized and become a national worldwide entity until your lifetime, January 1, 1993. It's here. The prophecy has happened. Just like God gave it to Daniel, as he explained it to Nebuchadnezzar the King and as God showed him what would happen in the latter years, the latter times. But let's go on. There is more in this exciting book and I&#8217;m just giving you the overview now then we are going to delve into it microscopically. We find that this ten horn Kingdom actually produces 13 nations, Daniel 7, verses 8, 20 and 24.

7:8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

7:20 And of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.

7:24 And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

The prophet says in chapter 7, verse 8, I considered the horns, ten, watch it, there came up among the ten another little horn, number 11, before whose face there were three of the original horns plucked up by the roots. So one has to go to 13 in order for three to be removed and still end up with ten as we will at the time when Messiah is upon the earth, Daniel 2:44.

2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

This little horn of Daniel 7:8

7:8 I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.

is the infamous antichrist, and he is the one called the King of fierce countenance in chapter 8, verse 23.

8:23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

He is the one who rides to world prominence forming a world government, probably the new world order, through a peace program for he comes in peaceably, Daniel 11:21,

11:21 And in his estate shall stand up a vile person, to whom they shall not give the honour of the kingdom: but he shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatteries.

but he honors the God of forces, Daniel 11:38.

11:38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

Where does he come in on this peace platform? Back to chapter 9. And in verse 24

9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

the prophet is shown that seventy weeks is determined upon his people the Jews. So this is not for gentiles, though we will be part of it, but it is primarily for the Jews. And the final seventieth week is recorded in verse 27

9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

where it says, he, that's this antichrist, shall make the covenant of peace, he comes in peaceably, with many, beginning with Israel and other nations for one week and that's the Hebrew word "heptad" meaning seven years. And in the midst of the seven years, after 42 months, Revelation 11:3, Revelation 12:6,

11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

12:6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

he breaks the contract and then all hell breaks lose on earth. What happens? We find that he observes, I&#8217;m talking about the prophet Daniel, enemies coming against Israel, after this 42 month period, from the south. At the time of the end shall the King of the south push at him, Daniel 11:40.

11:40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

Who is the King of the south? Egypt. And the King of the north shall come up against him like a whirlwind. Who is the King of the north? Rosh. You draw a line from Israel directly to the north pole you go right through Moscow and this is the King of the north of Ezekiel 38 and 39, verses 15

38:15 And thou shalt come from thy place out of the north parts, thou, and many people with thee, all of them riding upon horses, a great company, and a mighty army:

and many others within those two chapters plus Jeremiah 1:13, Jeremiah 6:22, Jeremiah 10:22,

1:13 And the word of the Lord came unto me the second time, saying, What seest thou? And I said, I see a seething pot; and the face thereof is toward the north.

6:22 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, a people cometh from the north country, and a great nation shall be raised from the sides of the earth.

10:22 Behold, the noise of the bruit is come, and a great commotion out of the north country, to make the cities of Judah desolate, and a den of dragons.

etc. So it's right there in the book of Daniel and in chapter 11, verse 44,

11:44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.

tidings out of the east, the orient, shall trouble him. So we see the antichrist involved. He has made a peace contract with Israel, it is broken in the middle, they are moving from Egypt with many other Muslim nations aligned with Egypt and with Rosh from the north and then these oriental forces. Can you believe that this is all in the word of God? But the thrilling thing is that these precious Jewish people are going to be preserved through the tribulation. We believe the church will be gone through the "come up hither" of Revelation 4:1.

4:1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

The seventy weeks are determined upon Daniel's people, Jewish people, and the angel came to show him what would befall his people in the latter days. No doubt about it. This has nothing to do with the church of Jesus Christ, we're gone, it has to do with Israel. But God loves his people and he preserves them through that horrendous tribulation period. Where is that? The story of the Hebrew children in the fiery furnace in the third chapter of Daniel; the story of Daniel in the lion's den in the sixth chapter of the book of Daniel. Preservation. And that's why in Daniel chapter 12, verse 1,

12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

we read there shall be a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation and at that time, thy people, Daniel, the Jews shall be delivered. So it's all right there. All right, as these nations are coming against Israel, because the peace contract has been broken, we find, and this is exceedingly interesting, Messiah comes, Jesus Christ returns and that's Daniel 2:45

2:45 Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.

when the stone cut out of the mountain without hands smites the feet of the image. I like that. Not the head, Babylon; not the chest and arms, the Medes and the Persians; not Greece, the stomach and thighs; not the two legs of iron, but in the last days the final world government, the final empire, the ten toes of Daniel's image. That's Christ coming. He is that stone. The Bible makes this dogmatically clear as we are going to see later in the tape. When does he come? Daniel 2:44,

2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

in the days of these ten, the final ten. There will be some manipulations number wise, but when it gets back to the final ten shall the God of heaven set up his Kingdom which shall never be destroyed. So Messiah comes, and we find in Daniel 12, verses 11 and 12

12:11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.
12:12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

that there is a period of 1335 days and people say why? The last half of the tribulation is only 1260 days, why an additional 75 days? Because this is when Messiah judges the nations, found in Matthew 25, verses 31 to 46

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

to purge the world so that the just can enter into the millennial Kingdom. And who is included in that? In chapter 12, verse 2,

12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

he raises Jews from the dead. Some to life for this moment so that they might be in that 1000 year reign with the church of Jesus Christ that is returned with the lamb, with the Messiah from heaven in Revelation 19:14

19:14 Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.

and that is why Jude 14

1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

says the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints and from that time on there's a millennium of peace under Messiah and Daniel tells the whole story. And if this is exciting to you, we are going to go into it verse by verse and you are really going to become exhilarated spiritually.

[/ QUOTE ]

CoLDTuRKeY

06-15-2003, 11:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
bennyhanna1 said:
hey coldturkery lighten up man, no ones perfect, youre like following the stereotype that allll christians are perfect people. Everyone makes mistakes, we all have fun and everything. Since i am christian does that mean im not allowed to joke around? I want to thank all you guys like yu, venom, JW, and OS for helping me affirm my faith in the bible! keep up the good work

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe in and worship God and I know I'm sure as hell not perfect.

Adam Knowlden

06-15-2003, 11:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
hey coldturkery lighten up man, no ones perfect, youre like following the stereotype that allll christians are perfect people. Everyone makes mistakes, we all have fun and everything. Since i am christian does that mean im not allowed to joke around? I want to thank all you guys like yu, venom, JW, and OS for helping me affirm my faith in the bible! keep up the good work

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks bro.

We are simply poking fun at Satan's lies.

He is getting people to justify there denial of God.

"Ha ha, look at you you think you came from a rock!"

God laughs at such foolishness:

 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,

3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh : the LORD shall have them in derision.

5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.



No need to get upset. I am sincerely interested in all this evidence that is so overwhelming. I consider myself a student of appologetics. An applogetisist is always willing to hear full persuasions on both sides. It's simply not enough to say, "I don't think so because that's why". I have to show why logically.

I am not making fun, but sincerely trying to find answers.

konaforever

06-15-2003, 11:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
OldSchool said:
You are right fingernails are useless. Cut yours off then.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do. I trim them.

[ QUOTE ]

Regardless, vestigial organs are not proof of evolution. They are a loss of information. That is anti-evolution. Evolution requires new information arriving from nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no loss of information. The gene is just turned off. Some people go bald. It's not that their genes lost information; it's that the gene isn't "on". We have a lot of "junk" info in our DNA. There's a reason it is there. There is so much information in our DNA. We still don't fully understand what does what. This loss you speak of does not exist.

What is unknown is how information is added to our DNA. Science is still working on that. That doesn't mean it's not possible.

President Wilson

06-15-2003, 11:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
We have a lot of "junk" info in our DNA. There's a reason it is there.

[/ QUOTE ]

You answer this right here

[ QUOTE ]
There is so much information in our DNA. We still don't fully understand what does what.

[/ QUOTE ]

Junk DNA, like the 180 vestigial organs, speaks of the unknown rather then vestigial. Same scenereo. And it once again shows how evolutionary thought clouds science. Rather then calling something junk, as they did for several organs over the last 70 years, they could be looking for what it actually does. A misunderstanding, does not constitute something being vestigial. On the contrary. It only shows a lack of knowledge. Further, as the investigation furthers, they are finding its purpose

Adam Knowlden

06-15-2003, 11:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I do. I trim them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me trim them. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif Completely remove them. Let's see how useless they are then.

[ QUOTE ]
The gene is just turned off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even by your defenitoin that is not leading towards macroevolution.

What you are saying is more than a "off" gene in a particular individual, but that the entire trait is no longer needed, and thus leading towards macro evolution. That is indeed a loss of information, that in no way begins justifying new information.

[ QUOTE ]
We have a lot of "junk" info in our DNA

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
There is so much information in our DNA. We still don't fully understand what does what.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly we don't know what it all is, so to say some is "junk" is contradictive of your pervious statement.

Dr. Batten has this to say:

 When introns were discovered, some scientists suggested that these represented 'junk' DNA. Introns, as well as other sequences which did not code for protein, were considered to be left-overs of evolutionary ancestry &#8212; 'vestigial' DNA.

History has shown the foolishness of rushing to the 'vestigial' argument. Well over 100 organs in the human body were pronounced as useless left-overs of evolution at one stage, but the list has shrunk to almost zero as research has revealed the functions.1

Little by little, the so-called 'junk' DNA is revealing its functions.2 In a further revelation, researchers have found that mutations in an intron interfere with imprinting, the process by which only certain maternal or paternal genes are expressed, not both. Expression of both genes results in a variety of diseases and cancers.3,4 The discovered intron segment in some way promotes the transcription of an antisense-RNA sequence which is involved in suppressing the expression of the paternal gene in this case.

The burgeoning field of molecular biology continues to reveal unimagined complexity in the biochemistry of cells. It would be foolish indeed to pronounce anything as &#8216;junk&#8217;. Like the 'vestigial organs' idea, it seems that evolutionary ideas about the molecular machines in cells feed on lack of knowledge.

References

Reik, W., and Constancia, M., 1997. Making sense of antisense? Nature 389:669&#8211;671. Return to text

Wutz, A., Smrzka, O.W., et al., 1997. Imprinted expression of the Igf2r gene depends on an intronic CpG island. Nature 389:745&#8211;749. Return to text


[ QUOTE ]
What is unknown is how information is added to our DNA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moreso, how dead matter added information to itself. Then varied to the point that all the transvariation we see today was not only possible, but probable.

**DONOTDELETE**

06-16-2003, 12:28 AM

konaforever

06-16-2003, 12:32 AM

Well, water for one. Who knows what the primordial soup was made of, exactly.

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:
[ QUOTE ]
And we did not come from rocks. We came from millions of years of chemical reactions. Not from granite

[/ QUOTE ]

Chemical reactions? What chemicals exacty? How did those reactions occur? Do you even understand the evolutionary theory yourself? /forum/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

**DONOTDELETE**

06-16-2003, 12:44 AM

bennyhanna1

06-16-2003, 12:47 AM

HAHAHA^ funny man yu /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif all kidding aside... that is a good point

**DONOTDELETE**

06-16-2003, 01:02 AM

Adam Knowlden

06-16-2003, 01:22 AM

Yes I currently have rocks in my downstairs shower. I am leaving the water on for a million years. SO far nothing has happened. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif

There are so many problems with purely natural explanations for the chemical origins of life on earth that many scientists have already abandoned all hopes that life had a natural origin on earth.

These scientists include Francis Crick (solved the 3-dimensional structure of DNA24) and Fred Hoyle (famous British cosmologist and mathematician), who, in an attempt to retain their atheistic worldviews, then propose outrageously untestable cosmological models or easily falsifiable extra-terrestrial-origins-of-life/panspermia scenarios which still do not account for the natural origins of life.

These terrible excuses for offshoots of abiogensis actually create more problems than solutions.

Science can, however, disprove hypotheses which are internally contradictory or go against the laws of physics, chemistry, mathematics, or geological evidence. Accordingly, a belief that life arose naturally on earth can be effectively disproven, to the point that anybody who chooses to believe in it can be shown to be holding great amounts of faith. At this point, one must ask the more personal and philosophical question, why?

The basic idea behind the chemical origins of life is that simple molecules became more complex molecules which eventually allowed the first auto-catalytic self-reproducing molecule to exist. Many would define the chemical origins of life as the existence of a single molecule that was not only able to replicate on its own, but could produce any molecules necessary to facilitate that replication.

With every new cosmology, pre-biotic synthesis finds itself in "****ed if you do, ****ed if you don't" scenario:

1. Pre-biotic synthesis can only take place in a reducing atmosphere, but that very fact would guarantee the destruction of highly sensitive pre-biotic chemicals by UV rays.

2. You could protect the molecules with oxygen, but in doing so you'd eliminate any chance of their production in the first place.

AllenAyres

06-16-2003, 01:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:
[ QUOTE ]
OldSchool said:
Well I would say if you are looking for the most accurate translation the King James Version is the closet to the actual Hebrew and Greek you will get.

I have studied the Greek and Hebrew and the KJV is insanely accurate translation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. The KJV appears to be the most accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe if you speak/think in the King James English... /forum/images/graemlins/tongue.gif words and their meanings have changed over the hundreds of years since the KJV was written - if you speak Modern English, then there's probably several versions that more accurately reflect the original Greek and Hebrew.

konaforever

06-16-2003, 01:54 AM

Yeah. That's exactly what I said: water is all you need for life.

What I wrote is that water is one of the components that life, as we know it, needs in order to exist.

Nothing like taking a statement and running 180 with it.

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:
[ QUOTE ]
Well, water for one. Who knows what the primordial soup was made of.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the existance of water proves life came from non-life? I have a glass of water right next to me, how can I grow a human? Do I just have to wait a few billion years?

[/ QUOTE ]

President Wilson

06-16-2003, 02:46 AM

Great to see you Allen

For those who don't know Mr. Ayres, he is one of the main reasons for Abc's success. The man has done just an incredible amount for the site and given us extreme expertise.

Allen is one of the most generous, hardcore, dedicated, and coolest individuals I know. A true warrior and a man of God.

Venom

06-16-2003, 02:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
President Wilson said:
Great to see you Allen

For those who don't know Mr. Ayres, he is one of the main reasons for Abc's success. The man has done just an incredible amount for the site. He is one of the most generous, hardcore, dedicated, and coolest individuals I know. A true warrior and a man of God.

[/ QUOTE ]
He's an example to us all; someone trying to learn about Christ should watch this man. Incredibly generous. /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif

konaforever

06-16-2003, 03:18 AM

Just because we don't understand the process of how life was created, doesn't mean that God created life. Maybe someday we will understand, but science has not advanced far enough. Just this century, our understanding of our univerese, as well as our place in it, has increased. Major breakthroughs include the mapping of the human genome, telescopes that can see far into our universe; and, thanks to Einstein, the theory of relativity. Every day our knowledge increases.

Centuries ago, we did not understand the stars and the heavens above. Creationists believed that there were supernatural forces that moved the planets and stars. We know better now.

Lack of knowledge is not an excuse for God.

[ QUOTE ]
Yu Yevon said:
So the existance of water proves life came from non-life? I have a glass of water right next to me, how can I grow a human? Do I just have to wait a few billion years?

[/ QUOTE ]

**DONOTDELETE**

06-16-2003, 03:43 AM

Venom

06-16-2003, 04:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm praying for you, kona.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me to. /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Job 28:28
28 And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

President Wilson

06-16-2003, 04:18 AM

So far, the only argument I have seen for evolution is that
hair and finger nails are vestigial( obviously completely wrong here ). And that even though spontaneous generation
is impossible, we know better now?

Click Here I already addressed this (http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=bodybuilder&Number=558528& Forum=bodybuilder&Words=Cohen%2C%20Jon%2C&Match=En tire%20Phrase&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Old=1week&Main =557113&Search=true#Post558528)

The Bible states that Animals will bring forth after their own kind. This is what is seen.

The Bible states that God created life. All we see is clear and unmatched design.

Take DNA. Dr. Warner Gitt the famous information scientist explains this

 The figures obtained from a comparison with man-made storage devices are nothing short of astronomical if one includes the DNA molecule (see Figure 1). In this super storage device, the storage density is exploited to the physico-chemical limit: its value for the DNA molecule is 45 x 1012 times that of the megachip. What is the explanation for this immense difference of 45 trillion between VLSI technology and natural systems? There are three decisive reasons:

(1) The DNA molecule uses genuine volumetric storage technology, whereas storage in computer devices is area-oriented. Even though the structures of the chips comprise several layers, their storage elements only have a two-dimensional orientation.

(2) Theoretically, one single molecule is sufficient to represent an information unit. This most economical of technologies has been implemented in the design of the DNA molecule. In spite of all research efforts on miniaturisation, industrial technology is still within the macroscopic range.

(3) Only two circuit states are possible in chips; this leads to exclusively binary codes. In the DNA molecule, there are four chemical symbols (see Figure 1); this permits a quaternary code in which one state already represents 2 bits.

The knowledge currently stored in the libraries of the world is estimated at 1018 bits. If it were possible for this information to be stored in DNA molecules, 1 per cent of the volume of a pinhead would be sufficient for this purpose. If, on the other hand, this information were to be stored with the aid of megachips, we would need a pile higher than the distance between the Earth and the Moon.



Gitt, Warner Technical Journal, 10(2):181-187, 1996.

That technology is so far beyond man, that it clearly shows the verse, that states that Man is without excuse.

[ QUOTE ]
Ro 1:20 -
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

[/ QUOTE ]

Gods clear design is staring clear in everyone's face.

While I have yet to see one proof for the religion of evolution. In fact, science has proven abiogenesis experimentally wrong for centuries.

Pachyderm2

06-16-2003, 10:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
President Wilson said:
Great to see you Allen

For those who don't know Mr. Ayres, he is one of the main reasons for Abc's success. The man has done just an incredible amount for the site and given us extreme expertise.

Allen is one of the most generous, hardcore, dedicated, and coolest individuals I know. A true warrior and a man of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I must say: It is an absolute PLEASURE to make your acquantance Mr. Ayers. Thanks for all that you do around ABC and as one of God's warriors!

Adam Knowlden

06-16-2003, 12:39 PM

Websters dictionary for supernatural-

Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
Of or relating to a deity.
Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
Of or relating to the miraculous.


[ QUOTE ]
the process of how life was created

[/ QUOTE ]

The law of biogenesis-

[ QUOTE ]
The principle that living organisms develop only from other living organisms and not from nonliving matter.
Generation of living organisms from other living organisms.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can chose to reflect this as ignorance on the part of science. But the fact remains you are proposing a supernatural force that has defied the law of biogenesis, and must do this in the framwork of natuaralism.

[ QUOTE ]
Centuries ago, we did not understand the stars and the heavens above

[/ QUOTE ]

We still don't. But this is comparing apples to oarnges.

The heavens operate on laws such as

-law of conservation of mass

-law of conservation of matter

-law of constant proportion

You are proposing supernatural forces that defy those laws.

That is outside the realm of science. That is religion.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe someday we will understand, but science has not advanced far enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science can not formulate scenarios that violate it's own laws. All that has been accomplished is demonstrating an extreme faith that life arise from non-life and information arises from nothing.

Let's see some quotes from evolutionists:

[ QUOTE ]
"Our hypothetical nucleic acid synthesis system is therefore analogous to the scaffolding used in the construction of a building. After the building has been erected the scaffolding is removed, leaving no physical evidence that it was ever there. Most of the statements in this section must therefore be taken as educated guesses. Without having witnessed the event, it seems unlikely that we shall ever be certain of how life arose"
(Voet D. & Voet J.G., "Biochemistry," John Wiley and Sons: New York, 1995 p23, in Ashton J.F., ed., "In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation," New Holland: Sydney, Australia, 1999, p.165. (emphasis in the original)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"If I were a creationist, I would cease attacking the theory of evolution-which is so well supported by the fossil record-and focus instead on the origin of life. This is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology. The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion."
(Horgan, John [Senior Writer, Scientific American], "The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age," [1996], Little, Brown & Co: London, 1997, p138)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atmos, 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. J. Lipson, F.R.S. professor of physics, University of Manchestor, UK, "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, vol 31, p 138, 1980)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Bird is concerned with origins and the evidence relevant thereto. He is basically correct that evidence, or proof, of origins-of the universe, of life, of all of the major groups of life, of all of the minor groups of life, indeed of all of the species-is weak or nonexistent when measured on an absolute scale, as it always was and will always be."
(Nelson, Gareth [Chairman and Curator of the Department of Herpetology and Ichthyology, American Museum of Natural History, New York], "Preface," in Bird W. R., "The Origin of Species Revisited," Regency: Nashville TN, 1991, Vol. I, pxii)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The 'fundamental' forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest... But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment."
(Andrew Scott, "Update on Genesis", New Scientist, vol. 106, May 2nd, 1985, p. 30)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The 'fundamental' forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest... But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculation? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment."
(Andrew Scott, "Update on Genesis", New Scientist, vol. 106, May 2nd, 1985, p. 30)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"We must admit at the outset that we do not know how life on earth originated. However, in the last 30 years or so a multidisciplinary effort of scientists from several specialties has made it possible to construct a scenario in which simple living organisms evolved from nonliving constituents more than 3 billion years BP (before present). "
"In the last three decades, the origin of life has been the subject of dozens of books, scores of essays, thousands of articles, relating an enormous amount of experimental and theoretical work. Periodicals devoted exculsively to the subject have been founded. Textbooks dedicate whole chapters to it.....But I must add a warning. If not considered totally outlandish any more, the field still remains largely confined to speculation. When it comes to events that happened several billion years ago, hard data are scarce and, perforce, are supplemented by reasoning and imagination, if not blind faith."
(Hickman, C.P. [Professor Emeritus of Biology at Washington and Lee University in Lexington], L.S. Roberts [Professor Emeritus of Biology at Texas Tech University], and F.M. Hickman. 1986. Biology of Animals. Times Mirror/Mosby College Publishing, St. Louis. p. 698., pg. 110)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"It is, perhaps, ironic that we tell beginning students in biology about Pasteur's experiments as the triumph of reason over mysticism yet we are coming back to spontaneous generation, albeit in a more refined and scientific sense, namely to chemical evolution."
(From The Origins of Life, by evolutionist Cyril Ponnamperuma)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"In its affirmative form, the law of Biogenesis states that all living organisms are the progeny of living organisms that went before them. The familiar Latin tag is omne vivum ex vivo-All that is alive came from something living; in other words, every organism has an unbroken genealogical pedigree extending back to the first living things. In its negative form, the law can be taken to deny the occurrence (or even the possibility) of spontaneous generation. ... The Law of Biogenesis is arguably the most fundamental in biology..."
(Medawar P. & Medawar J., "Aristotle to Zoos: A Philosophical Dictionary of Biology", Harvard University Press, 1983, p39, in Bird W.R., "The Origin of Species Revisited," 1991, Vol. I, pp.311-312)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Some scientists say, just throw energy at it and it will happen spontaneously. That is a little bit like saying: put a stick of dynamite under the pile of bricks, and bang, you've got a house! Of course you won't have a house, you'll just have a mess. The difficulty in trying to explain the origin of life is in accounting for how the elaborate organisational structure of these complex molecules came into existence spontaneously from a random input of energy. How did these very specific complex molecules assemble themselves?"
(Davies Paul .C.W. [renouned physicist] & Adams Phillip [journalist], "More Big Questions," ABC Books: Sydney, Australia, 1998, pp.53-54, 47-48, 48)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"... Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the power of 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court ..."
(Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is a probability way beyond estimate. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic."
(Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara: Meteksan Publishing Co., 1984, p. 39.)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"there is no chance (< 10^-1000) to see this mechanism [mutation-selection] appear spontaneously and, if it did, even less for it to remain...Thus, to conclude, we believe there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology."
(Marcel P. Schutzenberger, formly with University of Paris in "Algorithms an the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution" in "Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Intepretation", pg. 75)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Contrary to the popular notion that only creationism relies on the supernatural, evolutionism must as well, since the probabilities of random formation of life are so tiny as to require a 'miracle' for spontaneous generation tantamount to a theological argument."
(Chandra Wickramasinge)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Durer's 'Melancholia' is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it."
(French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grasse in _Evolution of Living Organisms_ (New York: Academic Press, 1977), 104)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Mutation does not introduce new levels of complexity, and it cannot be shown that it is a step in the right direction. Most observed mutations are harmful, and there is no experimental evidence to show that a new animal organism or even a novel structural features has ever been produced from the raw material produced by mutation."
(Davis, P., and Kenyon, D., Of Pandas and People, Haughton Publishing Company, Dallas, TX (1993))

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"the spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability."
(W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Co., 1991, p. 304. )

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Essentially, the same amino acid chain being found also in other animals and even in plants, we have a case in histone-4 where more than 200 base pairs are conserved across the whole of biology. The problem for the neo-Darwinian theory is to explain how the one particular arrangement of base pairs came to be discovered in the first place. Evidently not by random processes, for with a chance 1/4 of choosing each of the correct base pairs at random, the probability of discovering a segment of 200 specific base pairs is 4-200, which is equal to 10-120. Even if one were given a random choice for every atom in every galaxy in the whole visible universe the probability of discovering histone-4 would still only be a minuscule ~10-40."
"Two points of principle are worth emphasis. The first is that the usually supposed logical inevitability of the theory of evolution by natural selection is quite incorrect. There is no inevitability, just the reverse. It is only when the present asexual model is changed to the sophisticated model of sexual reproduction accompanied by crossover that the theory can be made to work, even in the limited degree to be discussed .... This presents an insuperable problem for the notion that life arose out of an abiological organic soup through the development of a primitive replicating system. A primitive replicating system could not have copied itself with anything like the fidelity of present- day systems .... With only poor copying fidelity, a primitive system could carry little genetic information without L [the mutation rate] becoming unbearably large, and how a primitive system could then improve its fidelity and also evolve into a sexual system with crossover beggars the imagination."
(Hoyle, Fred [former Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University], "Mathematics of Evolution," [1987], Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, pp.102-103)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'."
(Sir Fred Hoyle, English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."
(Francis Crick, first to resolve the structure of DNA, quoted in "In the Beginning" by John Horgan, Scientific American, Feb 1991, Pg. 125)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"[the probability of the coincidental formation of Cythochrome-C, an essential protein for survival is] as unlikely as the possibility of a monkey writing the history of humanity on a typewriter without making any mistakes"
"In essence, the probability of the formation of a Cytochrome-C sequence is as likely as zero. That is, if life requires a certain sequence, it can be said that this has a probability likely to be realised once in the whole universe. Otherwise some metaphysical powers beyond our definition must have acted in its formation. To accept the latter is not appropriate for the scientific goal. We thus have to look into the first hypothesis"
(Ali Demirsoy, Kalitim ve Evrim (Inheritance and Evolution), Ankara: Meteksan Publishing Co., 1984, p. 61)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Oparin believed that the organic molecules from which life originated collected as a &#8220;soup&#8221; in surface waters...However, a basic problem is that a high concentration of complex organic molecules would be required. This violates the second law of thermodynamics, which basically tells us (in this context) that it would be more energetically favorable for such a mixture of organic compounds to disintegrate into simple parts than to collect into a multitude of complex, organized molecules."
(Murck, B.W. and B.J. Skinner. 1999. Geology Today: Understanding our Planet. J. Wiley & Sons, Inc. NY. 527pp.; p. 442)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals. How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise , the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon. . . . In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth."
(Sir Fred Hoyle, British physicist and astronomer, The Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph, London, 1983, pp. 20-21, 23)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"This generalized proposition-that processes of chance and natural law led to living organisms emerging on Earth from the relatively simple organic molecules in 'primordial soups'-is valid only if there is a finite probability of the correct assembly of molecules occurring within the time-scale envisaged. Here there is another great problem. In the above example for a relatively small protein of 100 amino acids, selection of this correct sequence had to be made by chance from 10^130 alternative choices. The operation of pure chance would mean that within a maximum of about 500 million years (or somewhat less), the organic molecules in the 'primordial soup' might have to undergo 10^130 trial assemblies to hit on the correct sequence. The probability of such a chance occurrence leading to the formation of one of the smallest protein molecules is unimaginably small. Within the boundary conditions of time and space which we are considering, it is effectively zero." "It is still to be demonstrated how these essential molecules, such as haemoglobin, chlorophyll and other proteins and nucleic acids were formed. But even if we were to allow a primeval soup to have existed for the full history of the Earth (4,000-4,500 million years), complex proteins and nucleic-acid molecules could never have been produced by random, chance interactions. However, here are you and I on Earth today. And the evidence of the fossil record shows that some sequence o events of almost zero probability did take place over 3,500 million years ago. Before the event, the chances that it would occur were exceedingly small. What is more, from out understanding of the possible processes leading to the origin of life and the critical part played by living organisms in the development processes, the transition from non-living to living matter probably occurred only once and could have occurred only once. The origin of life was an almost utterly improbable event with almost impossible odds against a chance happening But life did originate. So was it by chance? Or was it by design and control?" "And then what of the ' primitive soup' required for Chemical Evolution? If such an environment ever existed on Planet Earth for any appreciable time, it would require relatively large quantities of nitrogen-containing organic compounds (amino-acids, nucleic acid bases and so on). It is likely that such nitrogen-rich soups would have given significant quantities of ' nitrogenous cokes', trapped in various PreCambrian sediments. (The formation of such 'cokes' is the normal result obtained by heating organic matter rich in nitrogenous substances.) No such nitrogen-rich materials have yet been found in early PreCambrian rocks on this planet In fact the opposite seems to be true: the nitrogen content of early PreCambrian organic matter is relatively low (less than 0.15%). From this we can be reasonably certain that: * there never was any substantial amount of 'primitive soup' on Earthwhen ancient PreCambrian sediments were formed; * if such a 'soup' ever existed it was only for a brief period of time. Subtract from the basic concept of the Chemical Evolution Theory the ideas of substantial amounts of 'primitive soup' and a long period of time, and there is very little left."
(Brooks J., "Origins of Life," Lion: Tring, Hertfordshire UK, 1985, pp.84-85, 87, 118)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"The origin of the [genetic] code is perhaps the most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology. The existing translational machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal) and so essential that it is hard to see how it could have come into existences or how life could have existed without it. The discovery of ribozymes has made it easier to imagine an answer to the second of these questions, but the transformation of an 'RNA world' into one in which catalysis is performed by proteins, and nucleic acids specialize in the transmission of information, remains a formidable problem."
(Maynard Smith, John [Emeritus Professor of Biology at the University of Sussex] & Szathmary, Eors [Institute for Advanced Study, Budapest, "The Major Transitions in Evolution," W.H. Freeman: Oxford UK, 1995, p.81 )

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"It was already clear that the genetic code is not merely an abstraction but the embodiment of life's mechanisms; the consecutivetriplets of nucleotides in DNA (called codons) are inherited but they also guide the construction of proteins.
"So it is disappointing, but not surprising, that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself."
(Maddox, John, "The Genesis Code by Numbers," Nature, vol. 367 (January 13, 1994) )

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Evolution lacks a scientifically acceptable explanation of the source of the precisely planned codes within cells without which there can be no specific proteins and hence, no life."
(David A Kaufman, Ph.D., University of Florida, Gainsesville)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The [genetic] code is meaniningless unless translated. The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components WHICH ARE THEMSELVES CODED IN DNA: THE CODE CANNOT BE TRANSLATED OTHERWISE THAN BY PRODUCTS OF TRANSLATION [emphasis original]. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo [all life from eggs, or idiomatically, what came first, the chicken or the egg?]. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine."
(Jaques Monod (1972), Chance and Necessity, Collins London, pp 134-135)
"It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means."
"We proposed that RNA might well have come first and established what is now called the RNA world. This scenario could have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today: a capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis."
"The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. As we have seen, investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best. The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future."
(Orgel, Leslie E., "The Origin of Life on the Earth," Scientific American, vol. 271 (October 1994), pp. 77-83. )

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
DNA cannot do its work, including forming more DNA, without the help of catalytic proteins, or enzymes. In short, proteins cannot form without DNA, but neither can DNA form without proteins."
(Klaus Dose, "The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers", Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, cilt 13, no. 4, 1988, p. 348)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed to take us across the gap from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective replicator. This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but it is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied to the origin of life by Alexander Oparin."
(Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Sceptics Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. Summit Books, New York: 1986, p. 207. )

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"There is no agreement on the extent to which metabolism could develop independently of a genetic material. In my opinion, there is no basis in known chemistry for the belief that long sequences of reactions can organize spontaneously -- and every reason to believe that they cannot. The problem of achieving sufficient specificity, whether in aqueous solution or on the surface of a mineral, is so severe that the chance of closing a cycle of reactions as complex as the reverse citric acid cycle, for example, is negligible."
(Orgel, Leslie (1998), "The origin of life -- a review of facts and speculations," Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 23 (Dec 1998): 491-495. (pp. 494-495))

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation from all these quotes:

Statistically abiogenesis is impossible, scientifically abiogenesis is impossible, we must use faith and imagination to even pursue this wild dream.