Freeze and Dabo negative religious recruit UT

[Grey_pilgrim]

Why is it not true? Because it doesn't fit your belief that everything evolved over millions and millions of years? Read Genesis 1 again. Here I'll quote a few of pertinent verses:

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.
8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. - Genesis 1:3-8

After every day that God made His creation for that day, He said there was evening and there was morning, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd day, etc. That tells me it was a 24 hour day each time. He didn't say there was 100 evenings and 100 mornings.

You realize starlight that we see from our nearest Galaxy takes 2.5 million years to get here? Scientifically explain how we can see that light if the earth is less than 7,000 years old.

 

[InVOLuntary]

I know I'm kinda late here but changing a theory is part of the scientific method. And these aren't wholesale changes. As we find out more about the universe and how it works we tweak our theories to reflect that. You choose to believe in God and the biblical version of creation and that fine. I wouldn't belittle some for it, I once believed the same. But don't be surprised when someone says you're crazy if you tell the earth is around 7,000 years old. (I don't know if you believe the biblical version of creation just guessing that you do. And if you don't I apologize.)

If I believed the biblical version as some do, I would aleast say God set in motion the universe and evolution is a part of it. Cause the science is there. While scientist may not yet have a good answer for what caused the Big Bang, we can study the effect and come up with working theories that explains, to the best of our current knowledge, how and why it works the way it does.

My whole reason for posting that it was a theory. You can't say it's fact because it's theory. I believe that God created everything. How he did it I can't explain. Many people that dont believe in God because it can't be proven. Well many of these theories can't be proven either. That's my point. I find it very hard to believe that on a planet of many organisms, only one species evolved into a supremely intelligent creature.

 

[Grey_pilgrim]

Some claim that evolution is unbiblical and unscientific. Others claim that science proves evolution. Which view is right? Four clear observations show why evolution—which asserts that fish became fishermen by nature’s provision of new biological information—is utterly unscientific.

1. Fossils do not show evolution.

Many undisputed fossil lineups should show transitions between the unrelated creatures that evolutionists insist share common ancestry. But the few fossil forms claimed by some evolutionists to represent transitions between basic kinds are disputed by other evolutionists on scientific grounds.1

2. Living creatures do not evolve between kinds.

Experiments designed to detect evolution should have caught a glimpse by now, but they have not. When researchers simulated fruit fly evolution by systematically altering each portion of fruit fly DNA, they found only three resulting fruit fly categories, published in 1980: normal, mutant, or dead.2 A 2010 study found no net fruit fly evolution after 600 generations.3 Similarly, microbiologists watched 40,000 generations of E. coli bacteria become normal, mutant, or dead.4 None truly evolved.5

Big-picture evolution did not happen in the past, and it is not happening now. Other evidence excludes evolution from real science.

3. Genetic entropy rules out evolution.

Population geneticists count and describe genetic mutations over many generations in creatures like plants and people. Mutations are copying errors in the coded information carried by cells. The overwhelming majority of mutations have almost no effect on the body. Also, far more of these nearly neutral mutations slightly garble genetic information than any others that might construct new and useful information.6 Therefore, many more slightly harmful mutations accumulate than any other kind of mutation—a process called “genetic entropy.” Each individual carries his own mutations, plus those inherited from all prior generations.

Cells are left to interpret the damaged information like scholars who try to reconstruct text from tattered ancient scrolls. Ultimately, too little information remains, resulting in cell death and eventually extinction. Genetic entropy refutes evolution by ensuring that information is constantly garbled and by limiting the total generations to far fewer than evolutionary history requires.

4. All-or-nothing vital features refute evolution.

Finally, transitioning between basic kinds is not possible because it would disable vital creature features. For example, the reptile two-way lung could not morph into a bird’s unique one-way lung. The reptile lung would have to stop breathing while it waited for evolution to either construct or transfer function to the new bones, air sacs, and parabronchi required by the new bird system.7 Such a creature would suffocate in minutes, ending its evolution.

Similarly, to transition from an amphibian’s three-chambered heart to a mammal’s four-chambered heart would require either a new internal heart wall that would block vital blood flow, or new heart vessels that would fatally disrupt the amphibian’s vital blood flow.

Care to link any scientific paper proving anything in your post? Or you just gonna throw that out there for us to believe without someone backing it up.

There's fossilized evidence of dinosaurs having feathers.

 

[Darth_Shiveman]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4[/youtube]

Checkmate, atheists.

 

[Grey_pilgrim]

My whole reason for posting that it was a theory. You can't say it's fact because it's theory. I believe that God created everything. How he did it I can't explain. Many people that dont believe in God because it can't be proven. Well many of these theories can't be proven either. That's my point. I find it very hard to believe that on a planet of many organisms, only one species evolved into a supremely intelligent creature.

I understand where you're coming from. But it's a scientific fact that some dinosaurs had feathers and that it takes star light from the andromeda Galaxy 2.5 million years to reach earth. Scientist form theories based on facts and observations, not to anger Christians, but to explain to the best of their knowledge why the univers works the way it does.

 

[InVOLuntary]

I understand where you're coming from. But it's a scientific fact that some dinosaurs had feathers and that it takes star light from the andromeda Galaxy 2.5 million years to reach earth. Scientist form theories based on facts and observations, not to anger Christians, but to explain to the best of their knowledge why the univers works the way it does.

I don't see that some dinosaurs with feathers proves or disproves evolution. I personally don't believe the earth is 7,000 years old either.

 

[jbr82]

And Genesis also said the earth was created in 7 days, but that's not true

Where you there?

 

[Grey_pilgrim]

I don't see that some dinosaurs with feathers proves or disproves evolution. I personally don't believe the earth is 7,000 years old either.

How old do you believe the earth to be and why do you believe so?

 

[InVOLuntary]

How old do you believe the earth to be and why do you believe so?

I'm not sure how old I believe the earth to be. Millions of years. I don't think the biblical time line fits. I do think God created it all, I just think the authors did the best they could with their views of things of their time.

 

[jbr82]

You just said that god created an angel. That angel became satan. Therefore, god created satan. You just said it yourself.

Isn't god omniscient? Doesn't everything happen according to his divine plan? If the answer is yes to both of those questions, then he not only knew that Lucifer would fall from grace, but he also planned to make it happen?

If he knows everything and he created everything, then he knew what would happen with his creation and therefore, is ultimately responsible for everything. I made this argument like a week ago.

Ppl who choose to obey satan rather than God is responsible for their own.

We have the freedom to choose who we obey.

 

[Grey_pilgrim]

Where you there?

Where you?

 

[nagle]

Where you?

cant believe without seeing?

 

[JDisThereThere]

Some claim that evolution is unbiblical and unscientific. Others claim that science proves evolution. Which view is right? Four clear observations show why evolution—which asserts that fish became fishermen by nature’s provision of new biological information—is utterly unscientific.

1. Fossils do not show evolution.

Many undisputed fossil lineups should show transitions between the unrelated creatures that evolutionists insist share common ancestry. But the few fossil forms claimed by some evolutionists to represent transitions between basic kinds are disputed by other evolutionists on scientific grounds.1

2. Living creatures do not evolve between kinds.

Experiments designed to detect evolution should have caught a glimpse by now, but they have not. When researchers simulated fruit fly evolution by systematically altering each portion of fruit fly DNA, they found only three resulting fruit fly categories, published in 1980: normal, mutant, or dead.2 A 2010 study found no net fruit fly evolution after 600 generations.3 Similarly, microbiologists watched 40,000 generations of E. coli bacteria become normal, mutant, or dead.4 None truly evolved.5

Big-picture evolution did not happen in the past, and it is not happening now. Other evidence excludes evolution from real science.

3. Genetic entropy rules out evolution.

Population geneticists count and describe genetic mutations over many generations in creatures like plants and people. Mutations are copying errors in the coded information carried by cells. The overwhelming majority of mutations have almost no effect on the body. Also, far more of these nearly neutral mutations slightly garble genetic information than any others that might construct new and useful information.6 Therefore, many more slightly harmful mutations accumulate than any other kind of mutation—a process called “genetic entropy.” Each individual carries his own mutations, plus those inherited from all prior generations.

Cells are left to interpret the damaged information like scholars who try to reconstruct text from tattered ancient scrolls. Ultimately, too little information remains, resulting in cell death and eventually extinction. Genetic entropy refutes evolution by ensuring that information is constantly garbled and by limiting the total generations to far fewer than evolutionary history requires.

4. All-or-nothing vital features refute evolution.

Finally, transitioning between basic kinds is not possible because it would disable vital creature features. For example, the reptile two-way lung could not morph into a bird’s unique one-way lung. The reptile lung would have to stop breathing while it waited for evolution to either construct or transfer function to the new bones, air sacs, and parabronchi required by the new bird system.7 Such a creature would suffocate in minutes, ending its evolution.

Similarly, to transition from an amphibian’s three-chambered heart to a mammal’s four-chambered heart would require either a new internal heart wall that would block vital blood flow, or new heart vessels that would fatally disrupt the amphibian’s vital blood flow.

You do realize that if you could prove all this, world fame and a nobel prize would await you?

 

[Grey_pilgrim]

I'm not sure how old I believe the earth to be. Millions of years. I don't think the biblical time line fits. I do think God created it all, I just think the authors did the best they could with their views of things of their time.

So you believe the authors (men) explanation of creation from thousands of years ago with no way of observing the universe but don't believe scientist (men) explanation formed by using the best available information and technology that they have to observe the universe?

 

[JDisThereThere]

Ppl who choose to obey satan rather than God is responsible for their own.

We have the freedom to choose who we obey.

Not the point I was trying to make at all. My point is that if god is omniscient and he created everything, then he is responsible for everything, including satan.

And god is omnipotent meaning he could destroy satan at any time, but why hasn't he?

You said this earlier, "God has a purpose why he allows satan to rule the world." What possible purpose could allowing the worst person imaginable rule the world? I mean literally let a dude who is pure evil screw up your creation? This I why I say that god is even more evil than satan because he allows him to do what he wants when he could stop him at any moment. That is, if either of them actually existed.

 

[JDisThereThere]

So you believe the authors (men) explanation of creation from thousands of years ago with no way of observing the universe but don't believe scientist (men) explanation formed by using the best available information and technology that they have to observe the universe?

 

[InVOLuntary]

So you believe the authors (men) explanation of creation from thousands of years ago with no way of observing the universe but don't believe scientist (men) explanation formed by using the best available information and technology that they have to observe the universe?

I believe God created the heavens and the earth and I believe he sent his son, Jesus Christ to live amongst men, teach them, and die for them and me, (and you). I believe when I die, that there is an after life where you can go. I have hope and faith. I'm sorry that you can't believe it, I truly am. I can't imagine the feeling of having zero hope of an after life.

Another way to look at is God is unbelievable to you. It doesn't make scientific sense. But, if you told people 200 years ago how we'd be living today, all the technology that we have and use, they'd probably burn you at the stake. There is so much we don't know and understand. There is so much we have to learn. I truly believe that in 200 years that more and more evidence will surface that there is a master creator.

 

[Grey_pilgrim]

cant believe without seeing?

Can't believe without evidence.

 

[jbr82]

Yes. Having an eyewitness does help, but as I said, it is the weakest form of scientific evidence. People don't always tell the truth.

And if your last sentence is how you think evolution works.... (sigh) This is all I've got for you.

It's a new opinion apparently

 

[StoVol]

Yes, atheism, the complete LACK of a belief in a god, is somehow a belief. Seems legit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eHfhbP1K_4

 

[Grey_pilgrim]

I believe God created the heavens and the earth and I believe he sent his son, Jesus Christ to live amongst men, teach them, and die for them and me, (and you). I believe when I die, that there is an after life where you can go. I have hope and faith. I'm sorry that you can't believe it, I truly am. I can't imagine the feeling of having zero hope of an after life.

Another way to look at is God is unbelievable to you. It doesn't make scientific sense. But, if you told people 200 years ago how we'd be living today, all the technology that we have and use, they'd probably burn you at the stake. There is so much we don't know and understand. There is so much we have to learn. I truly believe that in 200 years that more and more evidence will surface that there is a master creator.

Yes there's is a lot we don't know or understand. But we should strive to use the best information we have, the best technology we have to explore and explain the world around us. Which is what science does. If science did reveal evidence of God is whole heartedly believe. In all honesty I'm close to believing again anyways. But I have my qualms with Christianity and hate almost all forms of religion.

 

[Big Sun]

Genesis 1:28 King James Version 1789(?)

"...and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth".

So, what is meant by replenish? What/who was here before?

 

[Big Sun]

How 'bout Genesis 1:26?

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth".

Who is us?

 

[InVOLuntary]

Yes there's is a lot we don't know or understand. But we should strive to use the best information we have, the best technology we have to explore and explain the world around us. Which is what science does. If science did reveal evidence of God is whole heartedly believe. In all honesty I'm close to believing again anyways. But I have my qualms with Christianity and hate almost all forms of religion.

I can understand your qualms with religion, I have qualms with religion too. What's your qualms with Christianity?

 

[Vols4us]

Notice that the logician approach of atheists rarely utilizes accurate scientific data that can support their conclusions. They cherry pick and distort. Happens all the time. They set up straw men and contrarian arguments without substance to cast doubt. For what reason or purpose only they can answer.

As an example, if the earth is billions of years old you need to give your observations, calculations, reasoning - something from which you draw that conclusion. You would know that evolutionists generally claim that the sun's core has helium that would have taken 4.5 B years to produce by (what process?). That claim alone is an inference from amounts of an element - it assumes/guesses/presupposes that the sun started with nearly pure (what element?). There is no way to prove it did, but the theory exists due to their supposed scientific observation.

So let's go chemical and fill in the blanks. A helium particle (called what?) takes (more or less?) room than (how many?) hydrogen nuclei (which are what?). Which is how the sun has exceptional stability, unlike (what percentage?) of known stars (scientists say "all") in the universe per these same scientists.

But now we have a problem. Evolutionists generally believe that life appeared on earth 3.8 B years ago. But if that were true and current scientific "truths" are used in the calculations the sun would be about 25% brighter today than it was then. So to get to the temperature of the earth today that we know sustains life, the earth would have needed to be frozen at -3 degrees Celsius. Yet, most involved in paleontology believe that the earth was actually warmer, not colder, in the past than it is today. If you can get past all this then you have to deal with the greenhouse effect and resulting differences in what appears to be the answer and what is the answer. Even the most devout scientists to the evolutionary long age theory admit the issue is unresolved. In other words, they don't know. But the public is sold the 4 B years crap like a loaf of bread in every store.

This is not even a small ripple in the ocean of all the thing unknown by evolutionists, long agers, atheists, skeptics, etc. The pursuit of knowledge is great, when it is tempered with wisdom and discernment - but not when it is littered with idol worship and pride.

Again - gravitational waves from black holes. Time changing as a result. Space changing shapes from their collision. Evolutionists - think about what that one small observation made by noted scientists recently means to life. The theory of relativity was solidified - with variations on time. Mass bends space and time. Gravitational waves pass through the earth constantly - now proven - that distort distances. They assume the energy released from that black hole event was 50 times greater than the energy of all the stars in the universe combined, but in the same informational releases talk about how the discovery will enable them to investigate potentially other areas of the universe, which may or may not exist. Then they say these black hole collisions occur ever 15 minutes in the universe, yet this is the only one they have been able to track the gravitational waves which was 1.3 B light years away and occurred exactly 1.3 B years ago, while also saying there could be more to the universe than they were previously aware. Ya think?! So let's take the logician approach one step farther. What happens if a nearly infinite number of spatial events happened at the same time in the universe that produced an incalculable amount of gravitational waves? If at least one is happening every 15 minutes it would surely be possible. What would happen to time if that occurred?

It really is quite humorous. They don't know. However, the Creator knows. How can you believe no God or creator exists and still believe in a Godless science? Science is a direct reflection of the Creator's work. All scientists are doing is chasing God.