Evolution versus Creationism

Poor obvious child. You want so much to believe you know what you're talking about, but you don't. You think that calling ones self a christian makes them a believer? If you were a real believer in Christ and His bible, doesn't it stand to reason that we would at least agree on some things in these religious debates?

And yet in every debate you have ever participated in with me, barring NONE, you were a rabid opponents regarding the things of God and His bible. And the same can be said for the self proclaimed so called rational christian, shadow pikachu.

Why would two so called pro christian advocates be so adamantly against the believers in the same belief system at every turn? It makes no sense at all unless you are once again deluding yourself and lying to yourself and everyone else here regarding what you really believe. I mean, it isn't like the rest of the atheists here care that you call yourself a christian to me because they know that what you actually represent is the same atheistic anti christian sentiments that they spew too.

And what does it mean that you were a christian until several years ago? And how does that negate my statement that you responded to with that statement? Don't you understand that if you were a true believer several years ago, and had a personal and real relationship with the living God through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, and if His Holy Spirit truly indwelled you as a result of that personal experience, then you wouldn't have forsaken God in favor of atheism. So my statement above applies to you as well as to every other atheist around here who was born into a Lutheran, Episcopal or Catholic family and therefore considers themselves a christian as a result.

To God, a christian is a way of life, not a label we wear on sundays or when it's convenient. That is why I don't even attempt to compromise my beliefs in order to be accepted, liked or respected by a bunch of spiritually dead corpses who think they know it all when in fact they know nothing at all that will last longer than the flesh and blood bodies they currently reside in.

But being the big softy that I am I constantly attempt to reach you smug thugs as you gang up en-masse on any one who dares defend what is good and righteous in this World. You just can't stand what is right, and especially what is holy and good seems to upset your gang. So please don't use the "I was a christian several years ago" line because it really doesn't carry much weight coming from you.
 
Not at all. You can confidently bet your soul on His reality as the God of all of time and space, the beginning and the end.



I am more than just an animal and in that I do have evidence. My God said let us make man in our image, in Our image We will make him. We describe God as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The trinity which makes up the Godhead.

We too are a trinity as human beings as we have a body, a soul, and a spirit through which our God can indwell us. Because we are made in his image we reflect His character traits of love, compassion, joy, sorrow, generosity and all of the other attributes we possess that animals don't. We reason, plan, design and have hopes as well as desires that go beyond what we can see and feel at any given moment. We have an imagination that has allowed us to create the capabilities through machines that replace those natural abilities I believe Adam and Eve possessed through the spoken word before their Fall from Grace in the Garden of Eden.

The great flaw in evolution that is an inconsistency of monumental proportions is the fact that although you evo's claim that only man evolved to the degree that we did because only we saw the need to, it's ridiculous to claim or believe that after the alleged hundreRAB of millions of years of all animal life evolving side by side, and competing for the same vegetation or prey, struggling against the same social and environmental pressures, that only in MAN were our creative juices of imagination, creativity and Social cooperation that led to sharing responsibilities, trading gooRAB and writing laws to protect each other awakened while every other animal on Earth is still just an animal.

And don't you dare tell me I don't understand evolution or I wouldn't say this because evo has no answer for this dilemma no matter how deeply you look. There is absolutely no excuse that NO other animal from any other branch or species of life has evolved in at least a similar way that man has in regarRAB to actual creativity and the ability to reason through planning and by using their imaginations that allowed them to live by other than pure instinct, which after the so called hundreRAB of millions of years that we have been evolving, they are still living by.

Why ? because they were created that way, and not hundreRAB of millions of years ago at all.
 
Do ALL animals have tails? NO. Do ALL animals have fur? NO. Do ALL animals have ears? NO. How are dogs and cats animals? :xbanghead :xbanghead :xbanghead :xbanghead

Now that we got that out of the way, no, not ALL animals have those, however some do. Dolphins, parrots, monkeys and apes, even octopuses have the ability to think and reason, and it is believed that many have consciences. Just because humans can read, that does not make them above animals. Humans are apes - we just had different pressures that led us to evolve in a different way than the rest of our ape cousins.

Explain to me the ignorance of the fact that we evolved!
 
Here are some passages that define what being a believer is all about. It explains better than I can what it means to know God. And a little of what it means not to.

Rom 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,[fn1] for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.
Rom 1:17
For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "The just shall live by faith."[fn2]
Rom 1:18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

Isa 43:10 "You [are] My witnesses," says the LORD, "And My servant whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, And understand that I [am] He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me.

Rom 4:24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead,
Rom 6:8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
Rom 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.


1Pe 1:14
as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance;
1Pe 1:15
but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct,
1Pe 1:16
because it is written, "Be holy, for I am holy."[fn3]
1Pe 1:17
And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear;
1Pe 1:18
knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers,
1Pe 1:19
but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.
1Pe 1:20
He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you
1Pe 1:21
who through Him believe in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
1Pe 1:22
Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit[fn4] in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart,
1Pe 1:23
having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,[fn5]
1Pe 1:24
because

"All flesh is as grass,
And all the glory of man[fn6] as the flower of the grass.
The grass withers,
And its flower falls away,
1Pe 1:25
But the word of the LORD endures forever."[fn7]

Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.

Let this passage be a stern warning of what awaits the rebellious soul who embrace the flesh and what this World offers, which is death, plain and simple.

2Pe 2:9
then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment,
2Pe 2:10
and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries,
2Pe 2:11
whereas angels, who are greater in power and might, do not bring a reviling accusation against them before the Lord.
2Pe 2:12
But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption,
2Pe 2:13
and will receive the wages of unrighteousness, as those who count it pleasure to carouse in the daytime. They are spots and blemishes, carousing in their own deceptions while they feast with you,
2Pe 2:14
having eyes full of adultery and that cannot cease from sin, enticing unstable souls. They have a heart trained in covetous practices, and are accursed children.
2Pe 2:15
They have forsaken the right way and gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
2Pe 2:16
but he was rebuked for his iniquity: a dumb donkey speaking with a man's voice restrained the madness of the prophet.
2Pe 2:17
These are wells without water, clouRAB[fn2] carried by a tempest, for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever.[fn3]
2Pe 2:18
For when they speak great swelling worRAB of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through lewdness, the ones who have actually escaped[fn4] from those who live in error.
2Pe 2:19
While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage.​
 
More Tiktaaliks:

talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

Copy and paste, I suppose. Apparently one must have ten posts to hyperlink. Such responsibility.
 
I didn't change the subject, I posted a link that showed that walking fish exist today and even supplied a video of one. How is that changing the subject?

Here is a picture of your Tiktaalik, and from this you infer that it had lungs, a neck and wrists. But in no way can you prove any of it. You can only make assumptions based on your need to believe this flimsy evidence. Here it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik#Images:_casts_of_Tiktaalik_fossils

And here's the link of the walking fish for your viewing pleasure. But tell me electrolyte, why did you ignore my questions and evidence regarding the fact that the walking fish still exists and we're well past the Devonian Period. Any takers on that one?

http://www.csiro.au/promos/ozadvances/Series6FishWalkMov.html



First of all, I never put you on ignore as you have always been a non issue for me as you have shown tonight with your debating style and lack of knowledge. So don't flatter yourself as if you have ever challenged me at all.
 
Well, what do you expect, I'm not even old enough to go to college, especially arguing with a proffesional as yourself. I guess I'm not ready for debating, I'll wait until I get older to do this. But still, I'd like to point out what it says about the "seperation of church and state" @ usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1 . I'm sorry for wasting your time, and for arguing with an older person in these forums. But I'd like to make sure that you know I am saved and I'm trying to make it work, but it's so hard doing that because of the media, peer pressure, and the other outlets of evil of today's world. They're always portraying Christians as too religious, but we're not. I want you to know that I know religion is a way to please God, but in fact, Christianity is not a religion, we're not in a religion because we have Jesus Christ! And He's all we need! I have no right to call you a heretic and I am very sorry for doing that. Even if you call me a heretic or a fool, I can't call you that. From here on, I won't rely on anyone, but God and my authorities to tell me what to believe in, if I have questions, I'll just read His word and be at peace. Again, I'm sorry that I argued and wasted your time, will you forgive me? May God bless you!
 
I understand that Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species Ripskar. But creatures and organisms also ADAPT to their new pressures and challenges so adaptation is another function of biology that evolutionists either ignore outright or misplace in how they apply it. Or a third possibility is their definition of Micro-evolution is in fact wrong and adaptation should be the term used to describe the function that takes place.

Either way, let me make it clear that macro-evolution is the absolute fraud of the scientific community. What ever it's called, micro/adaptation can and does happen in the real World. But never leading to a new species from an old one.
 
Bonner signed a petition called "Is Biological Evolution a Principle of Nature that has been well established by Science?", authored by numerous Nobel Prize winners, expressing support for Biological Evolution.

And take a few moments to read some more work by Donald Johanson, if you're speaking of the finder of "Lucy". He's anything but a sympathizer. Read the transcript of his speech to Princeton after his PBS special "Search for Human Origins" was both co-opted and shouted down by Creationists.

If you're going to pull quotes from the enemy camp to forward a position, present the body of their argument, not a snippet of a greater position.
 
But it takes no faith to accept that something was happening 4 billion years ago. The literalist creation myth requires you to believe there was no 4 billion years ago. How could I have faith enough to deny reality? The Earth's antiquity is reality.
 
I didn't strawman anything shaun, I am demanding that the evolutionary process which resulted in us becoming the apex species of life on Earth also be found at work in every other form of life which allegedly evolves. If evolution is true then we are the best evidence of what it will result in, and in our case in short order since we came along late as compared to other life forms which are still simple and unevolved in the complexity of their ability to reason or control the world around them.



This is what I marvel at when debating you deluded hypocrites. You love to define the parameters of what evolution means when you can't answer the most basic questions regarding why after billions of years of life allegedly evolving, only one species has evolved higher reasoning, and one of the most recent species to arrive on the scene at that.

Why isn't there any consistency to this process which seeks to move toward perfection? Aren't we the evidence of what evolution can produce in a species since we have evolved reason, critical thinking, creativity and the ability to manipulate the raw materials of the world we inhabit to serve our neeRAB. No other species of animal has evolved this higher reasoning which we, the late comers have evolved to.

Yet I must constantly get this pompous arrogance from you pseudo intellectuals who make your massive assumptions as you interpret the available observations as if your definitions of the processes which have led to the world looking as it does are absolutely proven and undeniable at every level of consideration. But nothing about the assumptions you make regarding the process of evolution are proven or absolute at all.



Actually, I said this; and I quote: Because bacteria mutates based on exposure to different germs. Are you actually going to tell me that this isn't an absolutely true statement? I THINK NOT!!! Not if you want to maintain an ounce of credibility. This is a perfect example of how you wannabe scientists speak down to us as if you have some actual understanding or insight into the things you say. When in fact you haven't a clue in reality. Here's just one link which makes my point in explaining how my use of the word "germ" is interchangeable with bacteria, viruses and fungi.

What is a germ?

The term 'germ' actually refers to any microorganism, especially those microorganisms that cause disease. Included in this category are certain viruses, bacteria, and fungi. What is the difference between these three types of microbes? Which ones cause which diseases, and should they be treated differently? Because viruses, bacteria, and fungi cause many well-known diseases, it is common to confuse them, but they are as different as a mouse and an elephant. A look at the size, structure, reproduction, hosts, and diseases caused by each will shed some light on the important differences between these germs.​
Germs: Viruses, Bacteria, and Fungi
 
There are now many more specimens but at the time that the first partial arm bone was discovered, the whole neanderthal myth was born and built upon that alone. It was years before another was found. And it was just a partial arm bone for crying out loud and you're insulting my intelligence ?

And I love your respectful terminology of H neanderthalensis which my spell checker implies doesn't exist, and when i highlite it for a corrected spelling, it replied no guesses found. :xgood: So your not even close to correctly spelling a non existent species. But far be it from me to destroy the gospel you base your existence on, so go ahead and believe what ever floats your boat. I'm enough of a Neanderthal to believe in the living God of creation. Oh, and how about some living fossils that your prestigious evolutionists have claimed were extinct for millions of years ?

Living Fossils

Since 1822 thousanRAB of previously unknown animals have been found, many of which are known as "living fossils" - animals that once known only by its fossilized bones and presumed to have been extinct for millions of years and used as "proof" of evolution. But then, to the embarrassment of scientists, these animals were later found to be alive in remote parts of the world.

Charles Darwin, himself, coined this term. In the Origin of Species he called lungfish and other species whose form remained unchanged since its inception "anomalous forms" that "may almost be called living fossils."

Living fossils are living proof of the accuracy with which plants and animals reproduce themselves and the fact that many are not changing at all.

The Okapi was once thought to have been extinct until they were found still living. These animals were once used as evidence that the horse had evolved.

Living Coelacanths

The Australian and African lungfish are . . . living fossils. They all look "primitive" and have lobed fins. Obviously lungfish can't be our ancestors because they have remain unchanged, again for 400 million years [ET*]. Another animal, the horseshoe crab, would be a great candidate for our ancestor. It looks "primitive" and leaves the ocean to spawn on dry land. However, it, too, is a living fossil, appearing about 425 million years ago [ET*] in the Silurian period, and remaining unchanged.

Similarly, gars, sturgeons, bowfins, and paddlefish all look "primitive" but are living fossils. Yet they are doing nicely in today's environment.

IN 1994. in Wollemi National Park (in the Blue Mountains) the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Services found a pine tree once thought to be extinct. They are close relations to plants only found in the so called "Jurassic and Cretaceous" perioRAB. (65-200 million years ago [ET*]). There are very few of these trees left in an isolated area.

The following aquatic animals alive today are also examples of creatures that have not evolved since their fossil ancestors:- lobsters, crayfish and rays (fossils found in Jurassic rock), lampshells, mussels oysters, thumb nail shells (fossils found in Carboniferous rock), sharks (fossilized teeth found in Devonian rock), mackerel, perch, herring, jelly fish, fogs, the nautilus etc.

Of the 12,000 fossilized insects the majority are similar to living types of insect found today.

The fossils of bees, ants, cicadas, beetles, termites or cockroaches, and other insects are always practically identical with (though often larger than) their modern descendants. The same applies to the arachniRAB and myriapoRAB.

Other famous living fossils include the tuatara (supposedly extinct since the Cretaceous Period until found still living in New Zealand), the Lepidocaris crustacean (only found as fossils in Devonian rocks), the lingula brachiopod ("extinct" since the Ordovician), and even the trilobite (chief index fossil of the even more ancient Cambrian Period).

If all of these species have not evolved in 50 million [ET*], 100 million [ET*] or even 200 million [ET*] years, then why should we believe that they (or anything) have evolved? Some changes due to speciation have occurred, but not the large scale changes that evolution supposes.

The list goes on; example after example of no change from one type of animal to another in the fossil record. Darwin tried to cover over this embarrassment by saying the fossil record is incomplete, but it wasn't then and it's not now. What we know about living fossils, then and now, is a representative sample of the fossil record.
 
I voted for evolution, and agree completely with Ripskar - creationism contradicts reality and requires a suspension of reality to believe in it.


Oh, really? I thought for sure you were a big Bible literalist, but apparently you really aren't. :xangel:
 
I challenged you to tell us about Tiktaalik. You have still not done so. You've posted a single link to some pictures and proceeded to pretend that you knew exactly what I think and why I think it. You didn't tell us a single thing about Tiktaalik.

You have completely and utterly failed to meet my challenge. Why, Archie, why? Why can't you step up to the plate?



Because the issue would be addressed sufficiently if you'd just do what I challenged you to do first. You claimed that there were no transitional fossils, so I want you to address Tiktaalik. I didn't claim that walking fish don't exist.



I apologize. I had you confused with a different person who makes a lot of noise but can't support his arguments.
 
Back
Top