Evolution Vs. God

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

More interesting stories about long neck dinosaurs seen. Obviously, a video would be nice, but I am not going to say these people are lying and there are stories like this going back generations

I suppose you believe in Bigfoot, Nessie, and the Mothman as well? Plenty of witness accounts for all of those. I'm still not convinced that you don't have an ulterior motive for your last three threads. I'm a little insulted at how little effort you've put into discrediting the evolutionary theory. And you still seem to think it's more than enough.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

More interesting stories about long neck dinosaurs seen. Obviously, a video would be nice, but I am not going to say these people are lying and there are stories like this going back generations

I suppose you believe in Bigfoot, Nessie, and the Mothman as well? Plenty of witness accounts for all of those.

edit on 29-8-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

And stories going back generations as well....

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Em2013

 

I think I have read more than enough. I spent years in school learning all about evolution. You continue to show adaptation as if that proves changing from one kind of animal into another kind. They are still birds, lizards, fish, bacteria.

I wish you would realize this and simply admit there is zero proof of macro evolution. You won't so the debate goes on and on.

Man talk about cognitive dissonance, you display it with every post.

You just choose to deny/ignore the evidence. There is no convincing someone who basically ignores the mountain of evidence that is being discovered on a daily basis.

Honestly, I don't know why I even bother to read your threads.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Originally posted by Vasa Croe
Are we really going to have to put up with a Soapbox thread on creation from you EVERY week? The fact that the creationists are constantly pushing this on ATS tells me that they are just itching to push their belief system on everyone, just as good Christians are supposed to do....push and push and push. While it may be your god's will, I have my own will. I have a mind and logic of my own. Creation is rubbish....please quit starting a thread on the same dead horse every week when you need more S&F's or just feel that you need to spew the word of your god.

OR you can just ignore them

reply to post by Vasa Croe


You know, I am open to PROOF. Stories are stories, and should be listened to. I shared some of what has been both story and interesting facts. I haven't seen proof of bigfoot or Nessie, but the stories are interesting. It's too bad people try to hoax them with cgi crap.

I don't pretend to have a PROOF like evolutionists do and yet offer nothing scientific. I offer things to concider and you all stick your fingers in your ears, yell "Lalalalalaaa" and ridicule because you have managed to take over education and the journals.

I am interested in discovery and would gladly look at some evidence, but you offer NONE.

Originally posted by tachyonmind


if God is real, then there is no way he is exclusively described in one book written by one population during one period of history.. there is truth in the bible, but also a lot of artistic license.. as for the rapture, if you just look around the world it shouldn't be too hard to figure out where it's starting to happen, and the peoples whom are being "lifted up"..

Ezekiel 38 might not kick off until 2014 based on some other prophecies. I have seen God work just as most other Christians, and this is more than enough proof to me that he created the universe, and quit honestly it doesnt matter how he did it and whether we agree on it

while i agree that God, as defined theistically, is the creator of the universe, i do not agree that the bible is the only book of His work and prophecy.. you can relate almost any story or vision in the bible to an actual historical event, true, but it does not conclusively prove that all events described did in fact occur, or will occur, literally as described..

the book of ezekiel is a record a man's visions of God, what he took from those visions is not necessarily what God was intending, after all, the book is frequently at odds with the five books of moses from the torah..

edit on 29-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)

It is apparent that you have never studied prophecy in depth. If you think the rapture is metaphorical I am sorry, but you are wrong, and you can connect them to the events because they happened my friend I dont see where your argument is there, and the majority of prophecy is to specific to be talking about more than one specific event. I can point them out, but if you want to choose to reject the Bible even when it shows you these things thats up to you my friend.

gracethrufaith.com...
gracethrufaith.com...


As for Isaiah 17, gracethrufaith.com...

If you think the destruction of Damascus isn't literal, you are unintelligent
If you think the Battle of Magog, and the players involved aren't the exact players that would be at war if something were to happen in Syria then you are just not up to date with current events.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Are you pre-trib, post trib or day of rapture believer?

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Em2013

 

I think I have read more than enough. I spent years in school learning all about evolution. You continue to show adaptation as if that proves changing from one kind of animal into another kind. They are still birds, lizards, fish, bacteria.

I wish you would realize this and simply admit there is zero proof of macro evolution. You won't so the debate goes on and on.

Man talk about cognitive dissonance, you display it with every post.

You just choose to deny/ignore the evidence. There is no convincing someone who basically ignores the mountain of evidence that is being discovered on a daily basis.

Honestly, I don't know why I even bother to read your threads.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Lol nice google fingers. Here let me help you out

atheiststooges.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb

 

Are you pre-trib, post trib or day of rapture believer?

Pre-trib, this is by far the strongest Biblical view if you interpret Scripture literally in my opinion.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Vasa Croe

 

You know, I am open to PROOF. Stories are stories, and should be listened to. I shared some of what has been both story and interesting facts. I haven't seen proof of bigfoot or Nessie, but the stories are interesting. It's too bad people try to hoax them with cgi crap.

I don't pretend to have a PROOF like evolutionists do and yet offer nothing scientific. I offer things to concider and you all stick your fingers in your ears, yell "Lalalalalaaa" and ridicule because you have managed to take over education and the journals.

I am interested in discovery and would gladly look at some evidence, but you offer NONE.

I'm still waiting for an alternate theory to evolution that has more proof than evolution. It certainly isn't creationism. So if evolution is wrong, what is correct? I mean as a man of proof, you should have this same sentiment correct? As an agnostic, I believe that anything is possible, but I'm going to lean more towards the ones that have the most proof and right now that is evolution.

Originally posted by ServantOfTheLamb

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Em2013

 

I think I have read more than enough. I spent years in school learning all about evolution. You continue to show adaptation as if that proves changing from one kind of animal into another kind. They are still birds, lizards, fish, bacteria.

I wish you would realize this and simply admit there is zero proof of macro evolution. You won't so the debate goes on and on.

Man talk about cognitive dissonance, you display it with every post.

You just choose to deny/ignore the evidence. There is no convincing someone who basically ignores the mountain of evidence that is being discovered on a daily basis.

Honestly, I don't know why I even bother to read your threads.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Lol nice google fingers. Here let me help you out

atheiststooges.wordpress.com...

Jump to conclusions much?

Did you bother to read the article? Of course you didn't.. otherwise you would see clearly that UnifiedSerenity's arguments have no merit. His claims that there is no evidence of Macroevolution is an outright falshood.

Unfortunately that link is blocked here at the office... So whatever it is you're trying to say is lost on me... even if the link worked it would be lost on me....

BTW - I'm not atheist. Surprised? You shouldn't be... not all Christians check their brain at the door of the church.

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Really? I didn't know that the United States was mentioned in the bible. I guess those silly bible writers didn't let some small detail like the US not existing for another 1600+ years stand in their way.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

I don't pretend to have a PROOF like evolutionists do and yet offer nothing scientific.

You must be ignoring half the posts in this thread.

I offer things to concider and you all stick your fingers in your ears, yell "Lalalalalaaa" and ridicule because you have managed to take over education and the journals.

"Things to consider" is not the same as "proof". You have offered a perspective, nothing more.

I am interested in discovery and would gladly look at some evidence, but you offer NONE.

Are you incapable of utilizing Google? Or maybe you have to be spoon fed.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Provide an operational definition of kind. You and others keep using this vague term without providing a definition. As a result it allows you to keep moving the goal posts. So go ahead and tell us what a kind is. If I remember correctly the Bible says birds and bats are the same kind and yet these are drastically different species.

If you would have studied the Bible at all you would know the hebrew world translated as fowl in English version is literally translated to me "one with wings," and birds and bats both do have wings nice try though

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Well that is how I see it. Evolution has quite a bit of evidence supporting it which makes it the best explanation so far. If there is another explanation I would like to see the evidence but it needs to be something more than a collection of retold then later rewritten stories dating back thousands of years.

Ok...I am guessing that even creationists consider plants to be life correct? So, if you are looking for a different kind that was produced how about this. Two completely different genera cross pollinated to produce yet a third....

The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.

Wiki

So voila....a brand new plant created from 2 different "kinds".

Ignorant

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


Tell you what... since I'm such a nice guy... I'm going to help YOU out...

Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable.

Do you understand what that means? Independent empirical testability.... not speculation, not a feeling, not "because the Bible said it's so".

What you don't seem to understand is that a belief in God and belief in evolutionary theory are not necessarily mutually exclusive.... but that may be more than someone like you can handle....

reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb


That wasn't an attack on your character. Unless you wrote the Bible? Because s/he was talking about the people who wrote the Bible. Read a post before you reply to it.

Originally posted by Vasa Croe
Ok...I am guessing that even creationists consider plants to be life correct? So, if you are looking for a different kind that was produced how about this. Two completely different genera cross pollinated to produce yet a third....

The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.

Wiki

So voila....a brand new plant created from 2 different "kinds".

Thanks for proving intelligent design. a cytologist crossed the radish with a cabbage and guess what? IT"S FRIGGIN STERILE! Get it? STERILE as in not reproduce.

wait for it wait for it... it's interfertile with the other parent plant and that was all done by a designer and the plant wants to go back to it's former state. wow some evolution