|
Post by SonWorshiper on Jan 13, 2004 23:22:04 GMT -5
TD,
I've decided to evolve from these discussions and realize the fact that you have your beliefs and I have mine.
I am confident that I am following The Holy Spirit's guidance in this matter, and that's good enough for me.
You say you are following The Holy Spirit, and that should be good enough for you as well.
Like you said, however, one of us is wrong. And like I said, I am confident it isn't me.
Sincerely, SonWorshiper
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Jan 13, 2004 23:40:24 GMT -5
Quote by Himmel:At least my church teaches non- violence and the only one who will speak out against war! My Response:My old pastor would probably disagree with you on the non-violence part. He once made a visit to South America and witnessed the torture chambers (that have been turned into museums) that were underneath some of the catholic monasteries. History also disagrees with you on the non-violence part as the catholic church murdered and tortured thousands of people who wouldn't acknowledge her authority. I think she meant her specific church.
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jan 13, 2004 23:50:47 GMT -5
hounddawg - "Prove to me that it is not literal"Easy enough. Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution. Enough evidence of the evolution of our species from an ape-like ancestor to convince anyone interested in honestly examining it. Your turn, where's the evidence to support the young Earth creationist model? "and then we can talk about man evolving from monkeys."Funny thing is, man evolving from monkeys isn't a statement that has ever been endorsed by the scientific community Evolutionary theory states that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, not that humans are descended from monkeys. If you would discuss the topic, it might be a good idea to find out what the theory actually says. "The God that I serve is big enough to do anything..including forming man from the dust."Same here. The thing is, when one examines the evidence, it becomes clear that our species was not formed in this way. But I don't believe that your ancestors or mine swung from trees."Why not? "How do you explain the fact that no two human beings on earth are the same?"Rather easily, given that the number of genes and mechanisms which re-combine our genetic material make such an occurrence a virtual impossibility. Why do you believe that evolutionary theory would mandate that identical beings be produced? "It would seem to me if we evolved that after millions of years that nature would run out of 'randomness' and genetic characteristics would start to be repeated in nature."Why? SonWorshiper - "Like you said, however, one of us is wrong. And like I said, I am confident it isn't me."Likewise, I am confident that it is not me. Happily, my interpretation is consistent with both Scripture and the physical evidence, while yours mandates that one disregard, or be otherwise ignorant of the physical evidence. If one would determine how God created, one certainly cannot hope to do so without examining His creation. --War Traf
|
|
|
Post by Cohdra on Jan 14, 2004 12:46:30 GMT -5
Quote by Himmel:At least my church teaches non- violence and the only one who will speak out against war! My Response:My old pastor would probably disagree with you on the non-violence part. He once made a visit to South America and witnessed the torture chambers (that have been turned into museums) that were underneath some of the catholic monasteries. History also disagrees with you on the non-violence part as the catholic church murdered and tortured thousands of people who wouldn't acknowledge her authority. I can give you many instances of Protestant denominations doing the same things...even worse I wouldn't go there God bless
|
|
|
Post by SonWorshiper on Jan 14, 2004 17:47:08 GMT -5
Cohdra,
I agree, as there are many protestant denominations that are built on man made traditions and are apostate as well.
But, despite the hypocrisy and apostacy in catholocism and some protestant denominations, God will always have a remnant, His True Bride, who love Him and love not their lives even unto death.
I believe this remnant, The One True Church, will be mainly comprised of evangelical, born again Christians, but I also believe it will be made up all who are truly born again, regardless of their denomination. Shoot, there might even be a few catholics in it too. ;D
Sincerely, SonWorshiper
|
|
|
Post by WatingforHim on Jan 14, 2004 18:10:32 GMT -5
TD, be a dear and point me in the direction of the nearest cross over species? That is the one thing that every evolutionary scientist has failed to do. Because they do not exist. Evolution is not even an actual working theory. Its more like a fraud perpetrated by people who hate God and are desperate to prove that He doesn't exist.
Lets examine this idea. The Eskimo people live on a diet consisting mainly of fat. That would kill you or I. But they thrive on it. Now according to Darwin’s Fantasy, that would make them a new species. But they aren't now are they? No they are still Homo Erectus. Are you sure that what you want to call evolution is not just ADAPTATION that God built into all of us so that we may fulfill His charge of "Subdue the world..."?
Since you feel it is necessary to defend the fraud of evolution, find the answers to the following issues:
Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!
Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig. This fossil was part of the evidence entered to substantiate evolution in the famous "Scopes Monkey Trial" (source: Henry M. Morris & Gary E. Parker, What Is Creation Science?, [Master Books 1987], pp.155-156)
Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)
Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)
Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)
The most recent and perhaps the most infamous evolution frauds was committed in China and published in 1999 in the journal National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pkmtyolp it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate.
One of the most popular and familiar pieces of evidence used to bolster the theory of evolution – reproduced for decades in most high school and college biology textbooks – is fraudulent, and has been known to be fraudulent for nearly 100 years.
Most people have seen those drawings of developing human embryos next to developing animal embryos, and they look virtually indistinguishable. (The Haeckel embryo sequence shown purported to show – left to right – a hog, calf, rabbit and human). This has long been said to demonstrate that humans share a common ancestry with these animals and thus prove the theory of evolution.
These pictures were designed by German zoologist Ernst Haeckel. What few people know – and one of many surprises in the evolution debate reported in the current edition of WorldNet magazine – is that they were fakes. At Jena, the university where he taught, Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court. His deceit was exposed in "Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries," a 1915 book by J. Assmuth and Ernest R. Hull, who quoted 19 leading authorities of the day.
Ernst Haeckel
"It clearly appears that Haeckel has in many cases freely invented embryos, or reproduced the illustrations given by others in a substantially changed form," said anatomist F. Keibel of Freiburg University. Zoologist L. Rütimeyer of Basle University called his distorted drawings "a sin against scientific truthfulness."
Yet, despite Haeckel’s fraud conviction and early exposure, Western educators continued using the pictures for decades as proof of the theory of evolution.
Young Man this is just a very short list of KNOWN frauds that "scientists" have commited. They are grasping at straws and will do anything to keep the fantasy of evolution afloat.
Oh, have you seen those human footprints along with dinosaurs in Glenn Rose Texas? I have they are absolutely fascinating!
|
|
|
Post by heathen76 on Jan 14, 2004 18:31:19 GMT -5
It's like.... you want TD to make you look like an idiot?
|
|
|
Post by WatingforHim on Jan 14, 2004 19:37:13 GMT -5
Make me look like an idiot how? Im not the one who has to re-hash the Genisis account time and again. Who is he, and you for that matter trying to fool?
So you two have blind faith in mans idiocy! Fine as frog hair with me! The Bible says "Professing themselves to be wise they became fools." Science has been wrong in the past so many times its a wonder anyone really takes the scientific community seriously.
So heathen, since the Bible is wrong and science is right, where are those crossover species? Where are the "missing links"? After 150 years of nonesense and BS and outright frauds, the scientific community still has yet to produce one.
Exscuse me, your ancestors may have been some ape like thing, but mine wasn't. ;D
|
|
|
Post by WatingforHim on Jan 14, 2004 19:51:15 GMT -5
Another example of the stupidity of the "theory" of evolution is the horse. This scenario was formulated by means of the deceitful charts devised by the sequential arrangement of fossils of distinct species that lived at vastly different periods in India, South Africa, North America, and Europe, solely in accordance with the rich power of evolutionists' imaginations. More than 20 charts of the evolution of the horse, which by the way are totally different from each other, have been proposed by various researchers. Thus, it is obvious that evolutionists have reached no common agreement on these family trees. The only common feature in these arrangements is the belief that a dog-sized creature called Eohippus (Hyracotherium), which lived in the Eocene period 55 million years ago, was the ancestor of the horse. However, the fact is that Eohippus, which became extinct millions of years ago, is nearly identical to the hyrax, a small rabbit-like animal which still lives in Africa and has nothing whatsoever to do with the horse. The inconsistency of the theory of the evolution of the horse becomes increasingly apparent as more fossil findings are gathered. Fossils of modern horse species (Equus nevadensis and Equus occidentalis) have been discovered in the same layer as Eohippus. This is an indication that the modern horse and its so-called ancestor lived at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jan 14, 2004 22:14:21 GMT -5
WaitingforHim - "TD, be a dear and point me in the direction of the nearest cross over species?"Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution has plenty of examples of transitional species. Enjoy. "That is the one thing that every evolutionary scientist has failed to do. Because they [transitional fossils] do not exist."Hmm, let's take a look... in addition to the above link, there's plenty of examples at the following: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQFossil Horses FAQsArchaeopteryx FAQsThe Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent EvidenceI'm sorry, were you saying something about there being no "cross over" species? Because to make a statement would be to demonstrate ignorance of the worst kind, and I know that wasn't what you were trying to do, right? "Evolution is not even an actual working theory."Wow, somebody better alert the scientific community to that one! For the last century, the ones who actually understand science were somehow blind to this simple truth that you've managed to reveal! Problem for you is, evolutionary theory is just as viable, and just as valid, as general relativity, gravitational theory, or the theory of a heliocentric solar system. But it's a fine job of denying reality you've done for yourself. Congrats. "Its more like a fraud perpetrated by people who hate God and are desperate to prove that He doesn't exist."Except that there's that whole bit about God's existence being wholly outside the capability of science to determine, the bit where numerous Christian denominations, as well as many other religious faiths, have acknowledged that evolutionary theory is fully consistent with the existence of God, a god, or gods. "The Eskimo people live on a diet consisting mainly of fat. That would kill you or I. But they thrive on it. Now according to Darwin’s Fantasy, that would make them a new species."No, here in the real world, where we work with the real definitions of terminology, a population is only considered to be a new species when it is no longer capable of producing viable offspring with the original population. Adapting to a new diet does not make a new species. Thank you, come again. "But they aren't now are they? No they are still Homo Erectus."Wow! How can you possibly consider yourself qualified to determine the validity of evolutionary theory when you don't even know the name of your own species? You, me, and even our Eskimo friends are all Homo sapiens, thank you very much. "Piltdown man"Yada yada yada, yes, Piltdown Man was a fraud, but was subsequently found out (by supporters of evolutionary theory, no less), and never had any significant impact on models of human origins. "Nebraska man"Yes, "Nebraska" Man was a misidentification, but was again quickly found out (by the one who originally claimed it as a human ancestor!), and like Piltdown Man, had no significant impact on any model of human origins. As for your claim that Nebraska Man was used as evidence in the Scopes trial, would you care to cite exactly where this appears in the transcript? The thing is, you can't, because it never was entered into evidence. Even the Institute for Creation Research, a young Earth creationist organization, recognizes this, stating "Not entered into the trial, but aired in the press, was Nebraska man" in the final paragraph of their article DID THE EVOLUTIONISTS PRESENT A GOOD CASE AT THE SCOPES TRIAL? But it's nice to see that you're excelling at blindly parroting the claims of young Earth creationists, no matter how invalid, without checking them for yourself. Kudos. Regarding Java Man, what exactly do you find wrong with the specimens? Regarding "Orce Man," saying that the specimen "probably came from a 4 month old donkey" is hardly giving the full story, as the small fragment is still being disputed, as a number of plausible explanations of the specimen exist. Regardless of its validity, "Orce Man" is only truly significant because if genuine, it would be the earliest known occurrence of hominids in Europe; the validity of the human evolutionary sequence hardly hangs in the balance. "Neanderthal"The fact that our image of Neanderthals has changed greatly in the last century should hardly come as a surprise, as models are continually revised as new data arises. Now, if a century worth of new evidence did not result in a different picture of Neanderthals, that would be significant. "The most recent and perhaps the most infamous evolution frauds was committed in China and published in 1999 in the journal National Geographic 196:98-107, November 1999. Dinosaur bones were put together with the bones of a newer species of bird and they tried to pkmtyolp it off as a very important new evolutionary intermediate."Archaeoraptor was hardly a scientific fraud. On the contrary, it was the creation of a Chinese worker who pieced it together to sell as a novelty. Furthermore, that article you cite in National Geographic was written by their art editor, not by a scientist. But at least you got your facts straight. "One of the most popular and familiar pieces of evidence used to bolster the theory of evolution [Haeckel's sketches]– reproduced for decades in most high school and college biology textbooks – is fraudulent, and has been known to be fraudulent for nearly 100 years."Really? Would you care to cite any textbooks still using Haeckel's sketches? Of course you wouldn't, because there aren't any. "Oh, have you seen those human footprints along with dinosaurs in Glenn Rose Texas? I have they are absolutely fascinating!"Yes, I have, and there's nothing human about them, except for the ones that are carvings made by humans to look (badly) like human feet. The alleged "man-tracks" at Paluxy are (except for the aforementioned carvings) simply eroded dinosaur tracks, and are even recognized as such by the young Earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis in their Arguments we think creationists should NOT use. But at least the young Earth creationists are backing you up here. Oh wait. Never mind, I forgot. They aren't. "Who is he, and you for that matter trying to fool?"Trying to fool, nobody. I'm just here to show those who support the young Earth creationist model that their entire argument holds no validity of any kind. Nice of you to help my case with that lovely list of young Earth creationist falsehoods. I'm willing to bet that you haven't even bothered to do any independent research on the topic, that you're just randomly spouting off the same arguments you heard from a young Earth creationist once. It's amazing how rarely one finds a young Earth creationist who bothers to think for themselves. "So you two have blind faith in mans idiocy!"Not blind, and not faith either. "Science has been wrong in the past so many times its a wonder anyone really takes the scientific community seriously."People take the scientific community seriously because despite the relatively few times that science has been outright wrong on the topic, science is right with such frequency that we are able to take it for granted every day. "Where are the 'missing links'? After 150 years of nonesense and BS and outright frauds, the scientific community still has yet to produce one."Given the evidence presented at the above links, to repeat your claim would require that one not even look at that evidence. Ignorance is never a position of strength in an argument. "Exscuse me, your ancestors may have been some ape like thing, but mine wasn't."Denying reality doesn't make it go away. "Another example of the stupidity of the 'theory' of evolution is the horse."Ooh, given the above links, this ought to be good! "More than 20 charts of the evolution of the horse, which by the way are totally different from each other, have been proposed by various researchers."Over the course of the last century, yes, numerous models of horse evolution have been proposed. These models continue to be modified as new evidence arises, because this is how science works! "Thus, it is obvious that evolutionists have reached no common agreement on these family trees."While there is disagreement on the correct model, what you will find no disagreement on is the fact that horses have evolved. Wow, that was more fun than I thought it would be! Thanks for that, and thanks for utterly failing to present a single piece of evidence that might support the young Earth creationist model, as every other young Earth creationist has on this board. Now, with all that out of the way, your line is "Thank you sir, may I have another!" --Big Daddy Traf
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jan 14, 2004 22:15:48 GMT -5
heathen76 - Glad to see you're still having fun with these threads as well --DX TD
|
|
|
Post by heathen76 on Jan 14, 2004 22:30:07 GMT -5
Make me look like an idiot how? Im not the one who has to re-hash the Genisis account time and again. Who is he, and you for that matter trying to fool? So you two have blind faith in mans idiocy! Fine as frog hair with me! The Bible says "Professing themselves to be wise they became fools." Science has been wrong in the past so many times its a wonder anyone really takes the scientific community seriously. So heathen, since the Bible is wrong and science is right, where are those crossover species? Where are the "missing links"? After 150 years of nonesense and BS and outright frauds, the scientific community still has yet to produce one. Exscuse me, your ancestors may have been some ape like thing, but mine wasn't. ;D I find it somewhat humorous that you can ask about whatever shortcomings have come from science, and yet fully stand behind something that not even all people in your religion can agree on. That nobody can "prove" happened. I'll tell you what - when you respond to this message on your science-created computer powered by science-created electricity in your science-created home, explain to me how you are not the one that has been deluded. For the record, I am not an expert on evolution. I am not even that particularly interested in it. However, I do know the value of science. People like you have somehow deluded yourselves into thinking that science is somehow out to disprove the existence of God. It is actually the opposite. Science is the search for truth. The people that have trouble with this concept (such as yourself) are the ones that place so much unwavering fear into even questioning what they read in this ancient and probably flawed text. Look around you. Science has done a pretty good job at many, many things. Explain this to me, if you and your ilk are so "right". Why is it that after dozens and dozens of posts that TD has written on the matter, that you folks keep saying that evolution is all about "man evolving from apes"? TD has mentioned it plenty of times that man shares a common ancestor with apes (and all other life), and you "smart" folks keep erroneously saying otherwise. Let me tell you how it looks to someone that generally only reads these posts: it looks like a one-sided debate, and that one side is TD. The rest of you look like people that are unable to 1.) read, 2.) understand basic scientific terminology, and 3.) do your homework. Is this the way that you wish to present yourselves? I know that if I truly wanted to point out the "flaws" in evolutionary theory, I would certainly do my homework. And, I'd send in my biggest guns, because frankly, I haven't seen you guys do anything of the sort. I kind of feel sorry for TD in a way. I think that he really wants to get into a healthy debate on this. I think that he even wants to learn a thing or two. The problem is that so far, you anti-evolution guys keep bringing knives to a gun fight. Why don't you all get your heads together and make this a two-sided debate?
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Jan 14, 2004 22:35:06 GMT -5
heathen76 - "it looks like a one-sided debate, and that one side is TD"
That has got to be one of the greatest compliments I've ever received. Thank you, deeply.
--TD
|
|
|
Post by heathen76 on Jan 14, 2004 22:36:59 GMT -5
heathen76 - "it looks like a one-sided debate, and that one side is TD"That has got to be one of the greatest compliments I've ever received. Thank you, deeply. --TD Not a problem at all! I've enjoyed it immensely thus far.
|
|
|
Post by SonWorshiper on Jan 15, 2004 0:11:34 GMT -5
You know, I finally actually looked at some of the links offered by TD, and all I've got to say is:
That's it? That's your vaunted evidence? That's why you've accepted evolution and changed your interpretation of Genesis into a parable? Excuse me for just a few seconds...
...BWAA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!
Boy do I feel like a fool. I mean, I've always hesitated to look at TD's links because there was a tiny part of me that feared that there was something in them that might come across as convincing.
And then I look, and this vaunted evidence is flemsier than what I had pictured. I feel like Dorothy, The Scarecrow, The Tin Man and The Cowardly Lion when they found out The Wizard of Oz was a complete sham.
The evolutionists' dissertations are filled with "the evidence suggests," "are thought to have had," "scientists claim," "may have beens," "it is widely thought," "studies indicate," and the list could literally go on and on and on about what scientists suppose and think the evidence suggests.
And then "the facts" that they purport are not in any way substantiated, but are accepted as fact and not questioned because these "experts" have simply claimed their truthfulness.
Oh boy, the deception of Darwinism and the flemsiness of their argument is sillier than I could have ever imagined.
I've come to realize that just because someone offers an answer doesn't mean they have successfully refuted a creationist's claim, nor does it mean they've successfully defended their scientific theories.
Slick words, sarcastic retorts and "impressive" links filled with a bunch of theories based on probabilities, possibilities, suppositons, coulda's, woulda's, and shoulda's will never change the truth of God's Word.
|
|