Evolution Vs. God

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by tachyonmind

 

The Bible as written in the original Hebrew and Greek languages are not the words of men... they are the true, perfect, complete and infallible words of God. The Authorized version of the KJV 1611 is the only Bible translated into the English language directly from the original Hebrew and Greek. All others.. the NIV, NLT, ESV, et al... are biased, agenda based "translations" that destroy the original meaning and context of the KJV. I could literally give you thousands of examples, but for now I will give you two.

Here's one of the NIV taking away from the deity of Christ...

Luke 2:33 (KJV)

"And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him."

Luke 2:33 (NIV)

"The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him."

The difference is obvious... God is the Father of Jesus, not Joseph. The KJV respects this fact, the NIV clearly does not. Joseph was chosen by God for the simple fact that he was a descendant of King David (42 generations removed, Matthew 1:1) which is how he can be the King of the Jews. Speaking of Jews... the NIV, along with virtually every other modern version,has been altered in several places to give credit to the false doctrine that the Jews are God's chosen people. Here is one of the most blatant examples...

Galatians 3:16(KJV)

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."

in other words, Paul is making it VERY clear that he means Seed in it's singular form, and further more makes it clear that the seed of Abraham is Jesus Christ. He is referring back to what is written in Genesis 22: 17-18 which says in the KJV...

Genesis 22:17-18
"that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice."

See the consistency? Seed(singular) This passage is one of many examples prophesying Jesus Christ.


Now for the NIV...

Galatians 3:16

"The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ."

Actually very consistent with the KJV, but wait a second...


Genesis 22:17-18

"I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.”

So the NIV takes a singular use of the word Seed, and turns it into a plural use of the word Descendants and Offspring. The NIV pushes the false doctrine that the Jews as they exist today are God's chosen people, when in fact it is clear that they are not because they have NOT obeyed God. God said that if you do not have the Son then you do not have the Father, and the Jews do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah. By not believing that they are disobeying God (for more info on that see Exodus 19).

So you see, not all Bibles are created equal. Most people think that the new version removed the "thees and thous" and left everything else alone, but that couldn't be further from the truth. Think about all of the foreign policy that America is involved in solely based on the false doctrine that the Jews are God's chosen people.... Syria is a great example of that. Syria has threatened to attack Israel if we attack them. Why? Because they know that we as a Nation believe that they are God's chosen people and that we will go to the ends of the Earth to defend them all based on a biased, false doctrine.

can you explain to me why the jesus story was around 12,000 years before your bible was even written ?? and by many many different religions

Your bible is almost a direct copy and paste of the story of Horus in Egypt ... which was around long before the bible was written

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


Pretty much every translation done on the Bible from that time period was done from Greek and Latin. In fact the instructions given by King James to the translators made sure that their translation conformed with the ecclesiology of the Church of England. Then there's the fact that even after the initial translation in 1611 a standardized version of the KJV didn't come about until 1769. To say the KJV is anymore accurate or less agenda driven than any other translation is a delusion.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by lostgirl

 

Originally posted by lostgirl

[

But...what if it's not "Evolution vs God"....what if it's Evolution AND God?

What if there's a God who used everything science is discovering about the universe 'to' create it all, so that the scientists could experience the joy of making their discoveries?

Just something to ponder...

Something to ponder indeed. When sufficient evidence is compiled to change that from a mere whimsical notion to an actual possibility, I'm willing to listen. That time has not yet arrived, nor do we have reason to believe it will.

But if it does...we will see.

(Please take this kindly, with a bit of a wink - and remember the term 'God' is in no way the 'religionist' version)

I can't help feeling a bit sorry for a person who has no time for 'whimsical notions'...The alchemists, who are widely credited as the originators of modern chemistry, were chock full of whimsical/fanciful notions...

It seems to me that a whimsical mind might be one of the very cornerstones of the sort of imagination it takes to 'truly' ponder such scientific ideas as - that a flying machine could actually be a viable possibility; that particle entanglement might be more than just "spooky action at a distance"; or that Shroedinger's (sp?) cat would seem, theoretically speaking, to be in a quantum state of both alive and dead...

Where would we be if history's scientists refused to consider the whimsical notions which led the way to their discoveries, until 'after' sufficient evidence of such a notion's actual possibility had been shown?

So, I put it to you if the precursor (at the earliest, most basic level) of a scientific discovery involves a bit of whimsy, and 'God' is a "whimsical notion", is the idea of pondering His existence 'without' having evidence, so unworthy a pursuit?

Originally posted by Vasa Croe
Creation is rubbish....

Your opinion, of course! But i'd like to understand why you believe creation is rubbish? And what do you really mean when you say "creation"? Are we talking "God" created us in 6 days or are we talking about some sort of intelligent design to the universe and it's contents? I'll take the latter as i presume that's the case. If not, please correct me.

But look at it this way and i want you to imagine something.... The Universe, just think about it. Try and understand it. Try and picture it's size, it's contents and it's purpose.

Could you picture it's size?
Could you comprehend it's entire contents?
Could you understand it's purpose?

Now, if you're being honest.. i think you'll say that you can't understand any of the things i mentioned. Now... why? Is it beyond our capabilities as a race? I'd say so. I personally believe as a race, we are very limited.... So what does that mean in in relation to your "Creation is rubbish" statement? I'll tell you.

Your statement, other than it being an opinion is misguided. We can't say that creation or intelligent design is "rubbish" or false because we simply don't have the capacity to truly understand or comprehend anything of the sort. Religion is just an interpretation of people's faith. It's our choice to choose which one we have faith in.. or not. I personally was raised a Catholic. Do i go to church ever week? No. Do i believe in everything Christianity says? No. I'd say i believe in a Higher power. But i don't know what that really means.

However, does your or my inability to comprehend or understand something so complex and, mind the pun, out of this world, mean it's not true? That it's Rubbish? No.

I can't sit here and tell you creation is the truth. I doubt anyone will ever truly know in this life. But i can tell you that, through my eyes, i see so much more than just a lucky accident.

All the best.

Originally posted by King Loki

Originally posted by peter vlar

Originally posted by guitarplayer
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

The one thing that has bothered me about evolution is the fact that in nature the majority of animals and plants have a male or female aspect to them. This male and female aspect is dependent on each other to procreate. Why an organism that possible began as a self replication life form would devolve into one that was dependant on another life form of the same kind to procreate? It would seem to me to be a step backward that would increase the chances of that organism not to survive.

Genetic diversity increases when you have more potential mates to choose from instead of just mating
With yourself. With that said amphibians are capable of asexual reproduction particularly when in a situation where there aren't any traditional options for mating so on some level that ability is still there if somewhat dormant.

Peter is right pretty much

you have no genetic mutation when you clone yourself ... you need genetic mutation for evolution

if you breed with another you get genetic mutations and that fuels natural selection as the animal that has a unique genetic mutation will maybe survive better then the perfect copy due to another appendage/sharper teeth/more hair .... anything really that helps the species survive easier ... and because he survives longer he breeds more spreading that mutation through the gene pool making a better adapted species


thats why sex is better then cloning yourself ...

edit on 29/8/13 by King Loki because: (no reason given)

Please show me any mutation that is beneficial. Studies of fruit flies and mutations show that mutations do not produce a better fly but ones that are sterile or severely handicapped. Cancer is a mutation is it beneficial? As far as my other question on the Cambrian exploision you never did explain how the lack of such as eyes, heads, mouths, guts, and spinal cords. Where not present in the precambrain age yet they apear in the post cambraian age so where did the eyes heads mouths and soforth came from? What came first yur mouth or your ass?

nice, OP.

Also see former professor of evolution, Walter Veith on DNA complexity... he shows how complexity has been here since the beginning of creation and even msm scientists are admitting this, they just leave out God.

www.youtube.com...

his excellent series:

walterveith.com...

Please show me any mutation that is beneficial. Studies of fruit flies and mutations show that mutations do not produce a better fly but ones that are sterile or severely handicapped. Cancer is a mutation is it beneficial? As far as my other question on the Cambrian exploision you never did explain how the lack of such as eyes, heads, mouths, guts, and spinal cords. Where not present in the precambrain age yet they apear in the post cambraian age so where did the eyes heads mouths and soforth came from? What came first yur mouth or your ass?

well, not all mutations are beneficial, but those that are are successful, and so do not die..

humans are "mutated" apes, i think its a pretty beneficial mutation, personally..

my mouth and arse came to be because they are required for the efficient conversion of the energy my lifeform survives on..

the "explosion" of adaptation you refer to is just a natural consequence of the evolution of life.. you might as well ask where your soul came from, as ask where all the heads and eyes and mouths and such came from..

What if there's a God who used everything science is discovering about the universe 'to' create it all, so that the scientists could experience the joy of making their discoveries?

Just something to ponder...


Something to ponder indeed. When sufficient evidence is compiled to change that from a mere whimsical notion to an actual possibility, I'm willing to listen. That time has not yet arrived, nor do we have reason to believe it will.

But if it does...we will see.


I dont understand why people who believe in god walk the street but someone who believes in an imaginary friend can be put into an institution ... so we are at the point where some imaginary friends are accepted and some arnt .... seems logical since there is the same amount of evidence for one persons imaginary friend as the next guys


@King Loki
-------------------------------Don't know what I did wrong - the 'box' thing didn't do right---------------------------

Well, first of all, I believe that all imaginary 'beings' are created equal, so unless a person's imaginary friend is causing them to harm themselves or others, they deserve to walk the street as much as any other self-delusional soul
As to God equating to an imaginary friend, it's not a bad analogy when you consider the psychological findings that:

A. Having imaginary friends is very healthy in terms of child development, and B. In adults the subconscious mind does have an 'inner child' component which can inform a person's psyche, thus making 'God' a psychologically healthy belief, regardless whether or not an imaginary one...
(I will qualify that with: God 'as' spiritually loving Deity - rather than cruel, judgmental, biblical dogma 'God')

reply to post by Vasa Croe


You are full of it. Is anyone forcing you to click on this thread? No.

Case closed.

By the way, thanks OP for the video. But like most of these videos, they are most likely heavily edited to reinforce whoever posted it. Though, the video was pretty funny though. It seems like atheists have more blind faith then Christians. I couldn't believe it, not one person in that entire video could give an example of observable evidence of evolution.

Not one.

And to Croe again. Instead of making this completely meaning less comment of "I have a different opinion then you, so stop posting of stuff I dont like" why not refute the video? Why not give an example of Darwin evolution by showing us a change of kinds?

Again you didn't even have to click on the thread. No one is forcing you to read it.

reply to post by guitarplayer


To answer both your question Hox genes. They are genes that date back to right around the time of the Cambrian explosion that help control the body plan of the developing embryo. Without these genes it is doubtful more complex forms of life would have evolved. That makes these genes a beneficial mutation.

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Please show me any mutation that is beneficial. Studies of fruit flies and mutations show that mutations do not produce a better fly but ones that are sterile or severely handicapped. Cancer is a mutation is it beneficial? As far as my other question on the Cambrian exploision you never did explain how the lack of such as eyes, heads, mouths, guts, and spinal cords. Where not present in the precambrain age yet they apear in the post cambraian age so where did the eyes heads mouths and soforth came from? What came first yur mouth or your ass?

well, not all mutations are beneficial, but those that are are successful, and so do not die..

humans are "mutated" apes, i think its a pretty beneficial mutation, personally..

my mouth and arse came to be because they are required for the efficient conversion of the energy my lifeform survives on..

the "explosion" of adaptation you refer to is just a natural consequence of the evolution of life.. you might as well ask where your soul came from, as ask where all the heads and eyes and mouths and such came from..

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

I am glad that you admit that you came from the apes since there is no proof that man came from apes or apes came from fish or what have you. Yes a mouth and an ass are needed. As stated before eyes, heads, and guts and spines, were not in the fossil record prior to the Cambrian explosion so where did the new DNA new cellular information come from? I can give you a brand new PC with a blank hard drive and let that thing set unused for a million years and it will not create any new information on that hard drive. The new biological information of the Cambrian explosion was not in the prior life forms so how can it mutate?

reply to post by guitarplayer


There are a number of mutations that can "add information." The two most common are duplication and insertion. Duplication is where a sequence of DNA is duplicated adding a new gene to an individuals DNA makeup. Insertion occurs when any one or more base pairs are added to an individuals DNA.

It should also be pointed out that the Cambrian explosion occurred over millions of years. Not to mention we have Precambrian examples of complex life. There's also the fact that the Cambrian explosion isn't exactly unique. There are a number of other examples where many new species emerged.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


are you aware of Dr. Bruce Lipton's work w genes.

He found that they express based on environment and beliefs.

youtube: "Biology of Belief"

mutations are always destructive. this is because the dna is so complex and because it can be read backwards and forwards for different applications and any change alters the entire chain.

I think if you look deeper into your ideas, you will find them to be false. the only mutation I have heard about is sickle cell, which allows you to be immune from malaria, but still, you have sickle cell!

and the idea that the universe is millions of years old has MANY flaws...

you find them if you don't LOOK.

Originally posted by guitarplayer

Originally posted by tachyonmind

Please show me any mutation that is beneficial. Studies of fruit flies and mutations show that mutations do not produce a better fly but ones that are sterile or severely handicapped. Cancer is a mutation is it beneficial? As far as my other question on the Cambrian exploision you never did explain how the lack of such as eyes, heads, mouths, guts, and spinal cords. Where not present in the precambrain age yet they apear in the post cambraian age so where did the eyes heads mouths and soforth came from? What came first yur mouth or your ass?

well, not all mutations are beneficial, but those that are are successful, and so do not die..

humans are "mutated" apes, i think its a pretty beneficial mutation, personally..

my mouth and arse came to be because they are required for the efficient conversion of the energy my lifeform survives on..

the "explosion" of adaptation you refer to is just a natural consequence of the evolution of life.. you might as well ask where your soul came from, as ask where all the heads and eyes and mouths and such came from..

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

I am glad that you admit that you came from the apes since there is no proof that man came from apes or apes came from fish or what have you. Yes a mouth and an ass are needed. As stated before eyes, heads, and guts and spines, were not in the fossil record prior to the Cambrian explosion so where did the new DNA new cellular information come from? I can give you a brand new PC with a blank hard drive and let that thing set unused for a million years and it will not create any new information on that hard drive. The new biological information of the Cambrian explosion was not in the prior life forms so how can it mutate?

you do realize that the "Cambrian Explosion" lasted over 100 million years right? when it began some of the first "new" forms were comparable to earth worms. Eyes and spines and mouths did not occur overnight. and what was the mechanism for this lovely diversity? I'm glad you asked...

. www.sciencedaily.com...


Regarding man being one of the great apes, what would constitute proof to you? the morphological and genetic data are pretty spot on at this point. there really is no question except by those who want to be gods special chosen pen pals and ignore all the actual data and evidence.

from what i have found, the fake science of evolution is intended to create a Godless society...

this will serve many purposes. Consider Adlus Huxley's grandfather was a force behind darwinism--Darwin was NOT an atheist, btw. Nor was Marx. Marx was a satanist.

this is all setting the stage for something.... hmmm. what could it be?

"Serge Monast's 1994 Warning About NASA's Project Blue Beam (tech able to fake an alien invasion), Not Only Corroborates What Dr. Wernher Von Braun Told Dr. Carol Rosen In The 1970's About This Government Black Operation, To Furtively Implement A Global Communist Government Under The Guise Of A Mass UFO Invasion - Monast's Blue Beam Allegations Are Also Coming True Nearly Two Decades Later - Especially When One Reads Exo Vaticana Petrus Romanus: Project L.U.C.I.F.E.R., and the Vatican's Astonishing Plan for the Arrival of an Alien Savior, And Wonders If This 2013 Book By Authors Tom Horn & Cris Putnam, Is Yet Another Exposition Of The Blue Beam Deception, Or Part Of The Blue Beam Disinformation Campaign?"

The full Serge Monast /Project Blue Beam article:

www.educate-yourself.org...

Originally posted by Verum1quaere
and the idea that the universe is millions of years old has MANY flaws...

you find them if you don't LOOK.

you're absolutely correct. it is in fact BILLIONS of years old. ( ats needs a sound byte that plays Carl Sagan anytime someone types in BILLIONS)

and we do have a choice in the matter: choose Godlessness and you choose immoral technocratic enslavement.

Or you could do what many have done around the world and defeat evil by choosing to love your Creator: Transformations 1

youtu.be...

it is just human pride in the way of happiness here.

reply to post by peter vlar


Sagan was NOT an atheist, he was agnostic.

and there is no proof of billions either.