Did God use evolution to create life

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BroGary

The Luciferian globalists promote the deception of evolution, Satan has been trying to get people to doubt God's Word since the garden of Eden. High level freemasonry acknowledges Lucifer as the one they serve, and it is interesting how many high level freemasons have been involved in promoting evolution.

You should be able to rattle quite a few right off the top off your head then... gimme, say 5 or 10 names.

Originally Posted by BroGary

Here is an excerpt from an article I found:

Years later, Charles Darwin would inherit his grandfather's ideas and the basic outlines for the proposal of his theory of evolution. Charles Darwin's theory elaborated upon the structure established by his grandfather, while the Philosophical Society became one of the greatest and most passionate supporters of his theory. ...

hmm... no link for that article. BroGary, folks usually will include a link back to an article they cut-and-paste from so that others can evaluate the whole thing in context for themselves as well as identify the author and look at his/her motives in writing the piece.

In this case you have chosen a particular article that has been "cut-and-pasted" all over the Internet - AND the author is someone with well known motives of Jihad both in America and around the world.

How do you personally feel about Jihad, BroGary? Are you a big supporter? Here's your author after even the Turkish authorities found him to be too dangerous and unstable:



The man in the center is your author, Adnan Oktar, during his "stay" at the Bakirkoy Mental Hospital in Istanbul.

Erasmus Darwin did not "invent evolution" through his ties to Scottish Free Masonry. During his life time the dream of an independent Scotland was already forever lost in the "Act of Union" with the "kingdoms" of Great Britain, Wales and Ireland. Masonry, then as now, was more of a drinking club where "gentlemen of leisure" could ruminate. As Scots, most of their ruminations no doubt centered around the fact that they were unable to successfully preserve their liberties. So much for Erasmus' supposed Machiavellian prowess.

Erasmus Darwin was a highly successful physician and surgeon (the field his grandson Charles was going to enter until he fainted at the first sight of a human dissection). Erasmus "learned his evolution" through the careful study of human anatomy, pathology and his medical practice.

Your buddy, Adnan Oktar (whom you purposefully hid from us), "learned his evolution" while studying Jihad in a Turkish mental hospital.

Let everyone draw their own conclusions from this.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BroGary

Evolution and the Bible do not agree.

If humans evolved from non-human creatures, then they are no more than intelligent animals.

Psalm 8:4-9

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;

The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.

O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!

Ecclesiastes 3:18-21

I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

Romans 9:20

"Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?"

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BroGary

Also, if humans evolved from lesser developed creatures, instead of simply starting with God making Adam & Eve, then mankind would not have just one set of parents as those lesser creatures would have evolved from groups of non-humans. That would mean that not everyone originated from Adam & Eve and would not have inherited their sin nature and not be in need of salvation, but the Bible says all have sinned.

Science has an answer for your confusion - AND it fits the Bible's testimony quite well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

I know it sounds presumptuous to you right now, but I think that you really should drop these notions of yours and adopt a more Biblical world view. One that recognizes reality and embraces the truth of the Bible's teachings. Science AND the Bible. The problem really only exists in your head.

The earth, the fossils, history, the human body - everything testifies that God made this world - and that He made it all happened over the course of billions of years. God Himself left His "fingerprints" in the very atoms and their decay rates that tell us just how old the earth is.

Originally Posted by BroGary

Evolution is so faulty both on a scientific as well as Biblical level that Christians would really have to be deceived to fall for it.

No. Sadly, the deception is in the human tradition and the all too human condition of being Reactionary. When the Enlightenment arrived in Europe (a movement born of Christian thought and theology that also spawned the Reformation) there was a strong reaction against "the Light" and Bible Fundamentalism was reborn - after having been disproved in earlier centuries by Christians and all but abandoned.

Anglican Bishop James Ussher introduced the notion that the earth was just "6,000 years old" in 1648. (Anglican Bishops today propose the acceptation and even the ordination of homosexuals - where did they "get this idea?" Using your methodology, I suppose we can trace it back to the idea of a "6,000 year old earth! LOL).

I ask AGAIN! Why wasn't this notion of "Ussher's Chronology" advanced in the previous 1,618 years of Christian Theology?

Why did this novelty arise at this period of time? Why do some still cling to it as though it were some how some "ancient" doctrine? It's a comparative novelty.

[coadie]

The Eugenie Scott Darwinist wants to placate religious believers by assuring them that they can be good followers of their faith as well as good Darwinists.

http://ncse.com/about
NCSE provides information and advice as the premier institution dedicated to keeping evolution in the science classroom and creationism out. Eugenie is not only afraid, she is wicked. She is scared of classrooms allowing questions that embarass the Darwinists and expose dishonesty.


\
This means inclusive. You can have a golden calf.
Eugenie is America's leading atheist.

Kate Wilcox of Scientific American writes of Scott:

Thomas Henry Huxley was the 19th century biologist known as "Darwin's bulldog" for his defense of the great scientist's ideas. The 21st century has a counterpart in the woman who describes herself as "Darwin's golden retriever." Eugenie Scott has emerged as one of the most prominent advocates for keeping evolution an integral part of the curriculum in public schools.

http://www.icr.org/article/4749/

Dr. Scott has won numerous awards and many honorary degrees, mostly for her "public service" in defending evolutionism and disdaining creationism. One of her awards in 1999, oddly enough, was given by the Hugh Hefner Foundation (named for the founder of Playboy) for her efforts in defending the First Amendment! (She later sat as one of the judges on the 2006 Hefner Foundation committee.)

Neo darwinism is survival of the fittest. The hedonists dream.
Eugenie is just another culture warrior and evangelizes using converts that say this is not true:

John 1:3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Good old Jezebel spirit. She will attack when she sees a school allows questioning of Darwinism.

[coadie]

More from the bible.

Dagon was the god of the Philistines. This image shows that the idol was represented in the combination of both man and fish. The name "Dagon" is derived from "dag" which means "fish."

Sorcery tells a half man half fish became a man.

In theory first there were fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and then mammals

Fish have scales and gills. Of course we can't work out how a 2 chambered fish heart can become a 4 chambered mammal heart.
There are no transitional fossils. It is expected we take it on faith.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument

It is fun to see Darwinists make a mandate and then contradict themselves.

It's amazing that you have the presumption to "lay it on the line" when you haven't even responded to anything I've said here.

Remember? This is what caused you to bust a vein and be forced to take a "vacation" last time: I simply repeated my questions and asked you to address them before moving on.

BEFORE we address fossils, let's deal with the items you have ALREADY "laid on the line!"

YOU have repeatedly said:

Originally Posted by coadie

...
I take it you do not understand evolution. You do seem to understand speciation. But that creates no new structures. Evolution has said that it is by reason of mutations that we have change over time. Of course out of 800,000 mutations, 1 is beneficial. The rest are detrimental and out of those most are fatal.
No one can show a way in which a 3 chamber heart can in a single step scoot the pulmonary artery to the aorta without killing the animal. But they say 4 chambered hearts came from 3 chambered hearts ...

I have responded with:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2747104/ - "Xenopus" is an order of frogs.
http://www.biologynews.net/archives/...le_hearts.html

The expression or repression of a single enzyme during fetal development determines the development of either a three or a four chambered heart.

Amphibians preserve the "three chambered heart" in modern times. Mammals typically have a "four chambered heart." Reptiles exist as a "middle ground" between the two. Sounds like "evolution" to me.

Sometimes humans are born with a "three chambered heart" because either environmental or genetic factors interfere with the expression of the gene that produces this enzyme during fetal development. To understand this and other aspects of human heart disease, doctors and other researchers are focusing on the way that reptilian hearts develop to find ways to prevent and better treat human heart disease. (PUH-LEEZ! BroGary - DO NOT bring up your buddy David Icke on this point! ).

C'mon coadie... answer the question. Why was my nephew born with an "amphibian" style three chamber heart which is fixable by a single "one step" surgical process. You said that there wasn't any "one step" between the three and the four chambered hearts.

* You don't need to move aortas around or anything like that. You just need to graft in heart tissue to form another septum in the right place and thus form the "missing chamber. It's not a "chamber" that is "missing." It's a septum that has either grown or failed to grow during fetal development.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

You are also wrong. It is true the fossil records do not show the transitional species that Darwin said we would find in 150 years. Darwin said if we didn't find the transitionals, his theory was wrong.

Everyone but coadie - take a look at this "list." ... and it's only a partial list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils

There is a good discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Here is a fuller explanation focusing upon only "vertebrate fossils."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Darwinism: Sorcery in the Classroom. In this well-researched work, Schroeder applies the same principle that works so successfully in his Creation Science Seminars.
I have taken 3 graduate classes in genetics from an Ivy League school. This book breaks it down for parents to discuss claims with students at their level.

...

No you haven't.

Of course, it would be easy for you to prove me wrong; and, quite frankly I'd be fascinated to see how someone with your distemper would get along in a real academic environment.

But still, the level of ignorance toward complex issues like genetics and the deception you have practiced in the past clearly indicates that you have almost certainly never successfully navigated the corridors of any reputable post secondary institution. But, I could be wrong... prove it.

Or better yet, why don't you just address my questions concerning your assertions about the "three chambered heart." This is right in your field of post graduate study. You should have been able to rattle something off last winter or spring (how long was your "vacation?") when we first discussed this.

[pelathais]

Folks, can someone explain to me why coadie's type and style of presenting his side of this debate holds sway with so many OPs?

It really makes no sense at all. ... or did I just answer my own question?

Seriously, from others, why do you reject the prevalent view of biological evolution (if you do so)?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument

It is fun to see Darwinists make a mandate and then contradict themselves.

coadie attempts to "represent" the views of a genuine "Ivy League" professor. Here's what that "Ivy Leaguer" had to say for himself on this issue:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know — as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups."

—Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb