The evolution theory is a huge misinterpretation of the Bible.

a reply to: andy06shake

Yeah if you have any left after donating alms - whilst the Priests grow fat off the mindslaves donations.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Oh you know your British history well then!

hahaha

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

And that right there is organized religious practice perfectly illustrated for all to see.

You nailed the crux of the problem right on the napper. LoL

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Not sure what your problem is. You seem like to be biting your own neck.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

For a religious person you certainly are full of hatred and bile, not just for others but yourself too. Is that what your religion teaches? I’ve read the opening salvos of most of your threads and I pity you. You are constantly wishing for the death that takes you away from this world, and I for one wish it for you too, if only to see you at peace.

And after raising these topics, some of which pose questions as well as comment, it’s always a one-liner that directly insults the questioner. You are wretched, but I guess you know that.

a reply to: TerraLiga

I reckon its a defense mechanism.

And conditioning of sorts.

a reply to: TerraLiga

Same thing over and over again. You people make me laugh. You have no foot to stand on and you bash the believer. Same old same old.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Laughter is good.

The world needs more of that stuff.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: TerraLiga

Same thing over and over again. You people make me laugh. You have no foot to stand on and you bash the believer. Same old same old.

Says the guy that fights evolution vehemently, yet can't make a single valid argument supporting his position. LMFAO!!!

a reply to: Barcs

My God, Barcs. Really.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

a reply to: andy06shake

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

"They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."

You missed a bit.

But who does that remind you of these days?

a reply to: andy06shake

The fools.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

I would say that belief in anthropomorphized, omnipotent, infallible sky Gods, without even a shred of tangible evidence to support such, amounts to foolishness in spades.

a reply to: andy06shake

Sure. But why would there be no evidence?

Do you believe there's no evidence?

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Can you show me this evidence?

Let me guess, its of a personal nature?

Just like your choice to make a leap of faith perchance?
Personal that is.

You do realize, if there is a creator, he probably expects better from his creations, and for us to question existence?

Hence his silence i image.

Maybe you are simply not saying anything he cares to address?

Just a thought, all the same, pay no mind to my gibberish, i know i don't, and neither does he. x

a reply to: andy06shake

Being born of water and spirit is a personal transformation. It's a leap from being enslaved to elemental spirits to submission to God.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

But Jesus was born from Mary.

And without her consent I may add which is paramount to what?

How much water does it take ta wash off rape, asleep, or otherwise?

See what happens when ideology changes over time?

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Can you show me this evidence?

Let me guess, its of a personal nature?

Just like your choice to make a leap of faith perchance?
Personal that is.

You do realize, if there is a creator, he probably expects better from his creations, and for us to question existence?

Some people say they believe only what they can see. I would reply most emphatically:
Believe it! Yes, believe what you can see! The apostle Paul said the visible creation shows God’s power: “For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are understood by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship.” (Rom. 1:20, NW) Most people do believe that the things they see are proof of God’s existence. A Gallup Poll survey in the mid-20th century showed that even in presumably “materialistic” America 96 percent of the people interviewed said they believe in God. They have looked at the order and majesty of the world around them, at the existence of man and at the Bible itself and have seen convincing arguments that God does exist.

One writer put it this way: “If we start with an open mind, ready to believe or not believe according to the evidence, it is quite probable that we shall discover that it is easier to believe in God than to decide that plants, animals and man himself, body and mind, had their origin as the product of blind, purposeless chance. It is perhaps fitting to add that many persons do not wish to believe in God. They realize that it would rebuke their past and change their future to an unpleasant degree if they did.” (Modern Discovery and the Bible, A. Rendle Short, page 79.)

What do you think about the origin of the universe itself? Was it pure chance, just an accident, a combination of many fortuitous events? Or does it bear witness to the existence of another mind that is higher, more intelligent, and that existed long before man did?

Are the orderly laws that extend from the light-year expanse of the starry heavens to the tiny atoms that compose all matter just an accident? Are the exact motions of the heavenly bodies that form the standard for our timepieces an accident? Did accidents produce earth and man and all living creation—not just one such accidental occurrence, but a whole series of thousands of millions of them that marvelously combined, without other accidental happenings occurring that would destroy it all?

Is a power greater than chance involved in the universe’s origin? Scientist Arthur H. Compton said of the parts of the tiny atom: “If the simple yet prolific set of pushes and pulls to which the electrons are subject result from pure chance, then chance is more ingenious than the most clever of our scientists.” (Man’s Destiny in Eternity, page 9.)

Not only do the origin of matter and the order in the universe present problems for those who deny the existence of a Creator, but there is the far greater problem of the origin of life itself. There was a time when spontaneous generation (called abiogenesis, meaning origin from nonlife) was believed to produce life. Worms developed out of putrid flesh, lice from dirt, frogs from the mud of pools, etc. But Pasteur’s experiments 150 years ago demolished that theory. If it is argued that abiogenesis does not occur now but did occur in bygone ages, that is merely speculation. It is not a scientific argument, since it would not be based upon observation and experiment, but rather upon blind assertions that can neither be observed nor proved. Dr. J. Gray, a leading experimental zoologist, explained: “The spontaneous origin of living from inanimate matter must be regarded as a highly improbable event, and as such can be assumed not to have occurred.” (Modern Discovery and the Bible, page 43.)

The question is simple: Did matter, order, the marvelous universe and the unexplainable miracle of life occur purely through the outworkings of chance, or were they produced through the design of a great Creator? The former is so implausible that it takes more faith to believe in the materialistic theory of evolution than it does to believe in God. It remains true that “the heavens are declaring the glory of God; the skies above proclaim the work of his hands.”—Ps. 19:1; Job 9:8; Isa. 40:26; Jer. 10:12.

The term “materialistic theory of evolution” as used above includes evolutionary philosophies as described, proposed or promoted by those using the term “the chemical evolution theory of life” as that term is used and explained on the wikipedia page for abiogenesis. It also includes some of the stories told concerning cosmic evolution. So anyone who feels inclined to make the argument that the theory of evolution does not address the origin of life, please don't bother. It would just be a red herring that encourages a debate about that red herring, which the one who makes such arguments will never concede or admit to (that it's perfectly fine to include the so-called “chemical evolution theory of life” as part of the materialistic theory of evolution, if one wants to use such terminologies even though they have little to do with actual scientific theories).

"Show me your God!" the doubter cries.
I point him to the smiling skies;
I show him all the woodland greens;
I show him peaceful sylvan scenes;
I show him winter snows and frost;
I show him waters tempest-tossed;
I show him hills rock-ribbed and strong;
I bid him hear the thrush's song;
I show him flowers in the close
The lily, violet and rose;
I show him rivers, babbling streams;
I show him youthful hopes and dreams;
I show him maids with eager hearts;
I show him toilers in the marts;
I show him stars, the moon, the sun;
I show him deeds of kindness done;
I show him joy; I show him care,
And still he holds his doubting air,
And faithless goes his way, for he
Is blind of soul, and cannot see. (Blind, a poem by John Kendrick Bangs, 1862-1922)

The Molecular Machinery of Life

The playlist above takes a more detailed look at the evidence for God's existence as well as the evidence that the Bible is God's word, God's message to mankind. But as indicated in the poem by John Kendrick Bangs, for some people the obvious is hard to see because they do not want to see it (the evidence, the obvious, that which is right in front of them). They do not want to admit that it's valid evidence. Nevertheless, that won't make it go away or doesn't negate or invalidate the evidence discussed in that playlist (including the logic behind it why it is evidence, which again is explained in more detail in that playlist for those who genuinely want to see the evidence, and don't just ask for it so they can dismiss it with a variety of quick dismissive arguments and short phrases that have almost become mantras*).

*: