Did God use evolution to create life

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

There, see? Even [LUCID] coadie posts the link. The other "coadie" (a.k.a. ["Crack Pipe"] coadie won't).

The site linked above has some good information, though it is slanted with a somewhat cranky sense of irony. That's okay too, I feel the same way sometimes. However, this discussion of "Darwin's illness" particularly lacks a lot of factual details. The writer focuses ONLY upon Darwin's moods. There is a rather glaring avoidance of the physical pathologies involved that were described in detail by both Darwin and his contemporaries.

One major reason he avoided public appearances more and more after his return from the Beagle voyage was because of his constant need for the loo. This embarrassing debility kept him at home for years. It no doubt contributed to his "depression" - however it should also give us a clue that "darwin-legend.org" ignores entirely.

Just go into your doctor's office and inform your physician that you've returned from an around the world sailing adventure. Add details of how you camped out at night (discovering many new species of insects and parasites) and how that all of the water you drank was from untreated sources from dozens of tropical locales. Then add the fact that you've been feeling rather "down" and that you simply can't live without a chamber pot always handy a few feet away.

Will your doctor diagnose "Depression" and send you to a shrink? Or, will your doctor ask to see your chamber pot so the lab can analyze your stool?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles...gas_hypothesis

Since no one conducted a lab analysis of the suffering patient's stool and blood, nor was a careful postmortem performed, we are left to guess at the clues. Ignoring the disease and infectious elements of the problem as "darwin-legend.org" has done reveals more of an agenda at work and less of an objective inquiry.

Psychosis diagnosis doesn't show up in stool specimens.

In fact most mental illness are outside the realm of you materialists that insist everything has a material explanation.

The other ignorant notion is that Psychiatrists do not read charts and notes as in this case even written by Darwin.

You are the one that works blindly. Making up a story of a creature and having only a few bone chips. sorcerers use chrystals.

We know you have never observed exoskeletals morph into vertibrates. You are so angry because I know far too many of the darwinist bogus and never verified claims.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Gary you haven't "found" any good information yet. And, you are supposed to include a link back to the original material. I Googled this article and found several sources - most of them kooks like:

http://prophetlady.wordpress.com/201...nst-evolution/

"The Prophet Lady" ... "A Mystic of God."

We're all still waiting for you to respond to the questions YOU raised about the "horse/donkey/mule" issue and how this could possibly be explained by Genesis 1 and 2.

Since then all you've done is post a bunch of wacko stuff from a Jihadist in a mental hospital and now "The Prophet Lady - A Mystic of God."

Originally Posted by BroGary

Sorry, but that is just your opinon it is not good info, and you are entitled to your opinion :-)

No need to apologize. Just don't quote "The Prophet Lady - A Mystic of God" and a Jihadist who did most of his "study" in a Mental Hospital.



Adnan Oktar

Those sources shouldn't even be "good enough" for you! Treat yourself better, Gary. You certainly deserve better.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

No need to apologize. Just don't quote "The Prophet Lady - A Mystic of God" and a Jihadist who did most of his "study" in a Mental Hospital.



Adnan Oktar

Those sources shouldn't even be "good enough" for you! Treat yourself better, Gary. You certainly deserve better.

Gary has better, he has Truth.
No darwinistic jibber jabber!!

strawman!!


Modern synthesis evolutionism says Moses account of creation is a lie.



.Luke 20:37
Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
728.Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

729.Luke 24:44


mark 12:26
And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?


For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me

2And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.


Pelathais, you have never had a burning bush experience. All you do is hammer awaay and tell us the writing by Moses is false. Jesus Christ tells me you and many others don't believe Moses.
It is clear your motives are to create unbelief and then you like Hugh ross deny the same.

The Mormons claim a special revelation by the angel Moroni.
The evolutionists claim a special revelation by reading signs and darwin.

Fundamentalist materialists seem bent on grabing superiority over the Holy scriptures.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BroGary

Some very good info very well put I found:

A Short Summary Of Fundamental
Scientific Arguments Against Evolution

(1) When the mathematical laws of probability are applied to the known facts of biology, the odds against the incredible, organized complexity of our biological world evolving through blind chance, plus time, are so astronomical in size that, for all practical purposes, evolution is mathematically impossible. In fact, the more we discover about the incredibly intricate, organized complexity of the biological world which exists at the molecular level, the more amazing it is that the evolutionist can actually believe it is all a product of pure blind chance over time. The "intelligent design" model, based upon a Divine Creator, makes much more sense.

(2) There is a complete and systematic lack of transitional life-forms (i.e., "missing links") between the various kinds of life in the fossil record. This would not be the case if the theory of evolution was a valid hypothesis. Sometimes evolutionists have tried to make a case that this or that newly-discovered fossil was a "missing link," but all such attempts have ended in failure. No missing links have ever been discovered among the voluminous number of fossils found so far.

(3) The fossil record also shows a sudden, inexplicable appearance of a wide variety of both simple and complex life-forms. However, if evolution were true, there would only be a very gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of such organisms.

Although it is true that we have not uncovered 100% of the fossil record, a voluminous amount of fossils have been discovered — certainly enough for basic trends or patterns to be ascertained. Therefore, certain, fundamental conclusions can be drawn, based upon the available known evidence. And so far, at least, the theory of evolution is not supported by the known facts.

Unfortunately, evolutionary scientists sometimes will try to support their opinions with erroneous assumptions and outright misrepresentations of the actual fossil record. For instance, sometimes fossils have not been found in the order or progression that was anticipated, so the “record” was conveniently changed to conform with their evolutionary presuppositions. Nevertheless, it is a scientific fact that the fossil record does not show a gradual increase in both the numbers and complexity of organisms, thereby disproving the theory of evolution.

Sometimes it is said that the fossil record shows a sudden generation of species at random points in time throughout the fossil record, and that such data poses a challenge to the theory of creation just as much as it does to the theory of evolution.

However, there can be various explanations for such questions that may arise during the course of any detailed investigation. For instance, many scientists believe that the evidence of the fossil record is simply the result of Noah’s Flood because their empirical demonstrations and flood models can explain all of the data sufficiently.

Furthermore, it is possible that the fossil record is actually a reflection of two catastrophic floods, i.e., the destruction of Satan’s pre-Adamite kingdom on earth before the creation of Adam and Eve, and then later in time, the destruction of Adam and Eve’s descendants except for Noah and his family.

Moreover, the genetic code will allow a limited amount of change and variation and mutation to occur in organisms before inducing sterility and/or death. Therefore, we should expect to see a certain amount of variation in life-forms, perhaps even new species; the Bible only limits changes in life-forms to basic “types” or “kinds.” That is why, for example, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant, or a cat mutate into a horse, no matter how much time you allow in the evolutionary equation.

(4) The genetic code in any given living cell provides extremely detailed instructions to that cell concerning its inherited characteristics and attributes, so it will allow only a limited amount of change and variation to occur without inducing sterilization or death. Accordingly, the genetic code will not allow, under any circumstances, the drastic changes and continuous mutations demanded by the theory of evolution.

Moreover, there is no evidence of gradually-changing DNA codes in nature that would allow periodic mutations to occur which would gradually transform a given type of organism, over long periods of time, into a completely different type of organism. Instead, organisms can mutate only so much before insurmountable DNA limits are reached. That is what the evidence demonstrates. Therefore, as noted previously, you will never see a mouse mutate into an elephant no matter how much time you allow for the alleged evolutionary process to occur. So, even though limited mutations occur in organisms, it is impossible for drastic or unlimited mutations, i.e., evolution, to occur.

(5) Evolutionists frequently take the biological evidence proving that living organisms do experience a limited amount of change and variation, and then fallaciously expand such evidence to prove something entirely different and unsupportable by the evidence, namely, the alleged existence of unlimited change and mutation in life-forms. Obviously such an argument violates logic because it goes way beyond the evidence at hand.

Likewise, when evolutionists argue that similarity in structure or function among various organisms proves evolution, they are mistaken. In actuality, similarity of structure or function proves nothing more than similarity of structure or function because it is very reasonable to assume that a Divine Creator would utilize a single master plan for creation that would consistently adhere to a limited number of basic variations.

(6) Evolutionists can not even begin to explain how the alleged evolutionary mechanism in living cells operates. Although modern biochemistry can explain complex chemical changes and mutations in living organisms, there is no explanation about how or why an inexorable drive for ever-greater organized complexity would exist in living organisms if evolution were true. This problem is further compounded when the laws of mathematical probability are applied to the evolutionary equation.

Furthermore, you would have to develop rational explanations for various animals and insects which possess delicately-balanced attibutes that would have destroyed them if they had tried to develop such attributes through the slow, gradual process of evolutionary change. Instead, it required a Creator to bring such life-forms into existence in a mere moment of time.

(7) Evolutionists can not explain how life could spontaneously generate from non-life, nor can they duplicate such a feat despite their impressive scientific knowledge and sophisticated laboratory equipment.

(8) Evolutionists can not explain how and why there is something in the universe rather than absolute nothingness, and not even they really believe that something could spontaneously generate from nothing. By “absolute nothingness,” I mean the complete absence of both energy and matter; a completely pure vacuum that is totally devoid of anything. Obviously the evolutionist faces an insurmountable challenge to his theory in this regard.

Now, as just another poster the issue I have with this is the convenience you have of cutting and pasting and expecting that to argue for you...as though Pelathius or others have to respond to each point. Are you able to back up each point in a debate?

BTW posts like this, if they are from a source need to give credit and a link

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Now, as just another poster the issue I have with this is the convenience you have of cutting and pasting and expecting that to argue for you...as though Pelathius or others have to respond to each point. Are you able to back up each point in a debate?

BTW posts like this, if they are from a source need to give credit and a link

I don't keep all the links I search and find, (and I usually try not to post entire articles) and the info I share speaks for itself, it is obvious you do not seem to want to accept the Bible account of God creating Adam as is without ancestors, so you are going to try to come up invalid rebuttals that I do not think negate the original info, no offense intended, just stating what seems to be.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BroGary

I don't keep all the links I search and find, (and I usually try not to post entire articles) and the info I share speaks for itself, it is obvious you do not seem to want to accept the Bible account of God creatging Adam as is without ancestors, so you are going to try to come up invalid rebuttals that I do not think negate the original info, no offense intended, just stating what seems to be.

What? I didn't even make an argument or a rebuttle lol.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BroGary

I don't keep all the links I search and find, (and I usually try not to post entire articles) and the info I share speaks for itself, it is obvious you do not seem to want to accept the Bible account of God creating Adam as is without ancestors, so you are going to try to come up invalid rebuttals that I do not think negate the original info, no offense intended, just stating what seems to be.

WHILE you are doing the cut-and-paste, highlight the URL in the Address Bar of your browse. Then, either RIGHT CLICK and select COPY or hold down the CTRL button and press " C " to copy the link.

Then add the link to your post of to the document that you are saving.

Have that link is sometimes a legal requirement for sites (like AFF) posting content from another site. At all times, it's just a good habit and promotes courtesy between web sites. It also helps the person doing the "cut-and-paste" contribution to NOT appear as though they're just rattling off a bunch of nonsense.