Animals appearing whole - ie anti-evolution

a reply to: Phantom423

Historical documents (which the Bible actually is, and has been proven to be) cannot be compared with fossil evidence dug out of rocks. Nor are historical documents the same as scientific theories. Apples and oranges.

No, evolution is NOT proven, not even close.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Thankfully you are far more erudite than I and far more eloquent in your response which show's an intellect that is formidable, good stuff I love your reply's they are excellant.
Remember all the polonium deep granite radiation ring's which are far too small given the estimated decay rate of the isotope, the scientific communty's response was predictable, they decided that since they did not agree with agreed (by the majority of sheep) scientific estimates that there must be a mistake in the analysis and the projection so they litterally claimes the interpretation was wrong, but only after thinking on it for some time as it meant a concensue had to be reached before they could wreck the carreer of the scientist's whom analyzed it in the first place.
Look at the way this is writen, the article starts by associating the scientist with creationists and so in one stone hits two psychological bird's, they get the knee jerk indoctrinated reaction of the masses whom are taught that creationists are imbeciles and they discredit the man even before they explain why they believe the halo's are refuted, this guy was a top scientist which credentials beyond most of his critics and had it not been for the nature of his find they would have accepted it without questions, now there is the problem they accept there own evidence seemingly without the same rigor they subject creationism too as if they are being force fed a sprout.
www.talkorigins.org...
But of course the radio halos are dependant upon rate of isotopic decay and assuming that it is a consant radio active decay curve with a given half life but as it is believed by the scientific fraternity en mass from cosmology the speed of light is not a constant due to gravity and also at various points in time since the creation of the universe and especlially just after the supposed big bang (a theory which is growing dispute and even some of it's adherant's have abandoned it now due to new observations casting doubt on earlier result's) when it supposedly moved very much faster than e or the speed of light as measured in einstein's equation and during a hypothesised (Imagined as they do not know) super rapid expansion of the early universe, indeed if that is the case then all findings on the age of the universe based on the time light took to reach us from distant stars are therefore in error and the universe would have to be much much younger due to the faster speed of light in the earlier universe, but of course to get out of that they worked a fast one and claimed it was only for a fraction of a second and it has been constant ever since, now if the universe expanded it would not have been constant but would be slowing as it lost overall energy with the universe expansion not only of space but the underlying structure including light itself so there theory is wrong and the universe not just the earth must be younger.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I don't recall reading about that one before, but the response is certainly typical of what we see any time the data doesn't fit the religion of evolution. Interesting case; will have to study that one more when more awake.

Now and then, a scientist will step up and admit they really don't know in many cases, but that's a rare thing. Even when they do, most people never hear about it.

I make every effort to get actual data. I really did grow up learning all the same evolutionary stuff some here defend. The more I learned, though, the more clear it became that it was all bunk. Truly examining all the data makes that obvious. Noted evolutionists admitting they know the theory is full of holes doesn't hurt any, either. For me, I do believe God made everything, but how He did it isn't something that will affect my faith. For pro-evolutionists, however, everything they believe, or choose not to believe, hinges on the theory. I can understand the strength of the protests.

Appreciate the kind words.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If evolution isn't true, then that must mean that God creates animal species whole and just deposits them onto the planet, correct?

Not correct.
Assuming you are referring to the Bible, then God used matter from the earth to create life. Not create them whole and place them on to this planet as you said.

And life emerging from the planet is also what most evolutionists accept, the only difference is that they believe there was no God involved.

#35

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Phantom423

Historical documents (which the Bible actually is, and has been proven to be) cannot be compared with fossil evidence dug out of rocks. Nor are historical documents the same as scientific theories. Apples and oranges.

No, evolution is NOT proven, not even close.

Ok - I'm ready. Do you want to debate the evidence? Statements like "evolution is NOT proven" are not enough.
We'll debate the hard evidence, point by point. Agreed?

Regarding the Bible and rocks, you were quite impressed with the human footprint and dinosaur footprint found together (or so you think anyway). An historical document can be a fraud too. No one witnessed the event so anything is possible.

a reply to: Phantom423

I wish you luck, mate, but you're on a hiding to nothing, believe me.

From my perspective all forms of Creation exist as vaild. Infinity means infinite possibilities, infinite forms of creation, etc. In this specific case my hunch is that there has been natural evolution, 'creationalism' perhaps, and consider the possibility of an advanced ET race population or de-populating a planet with life.

In regard to natural evolution there is a section in the Law Of One that I find highly interesting:

(preface: second density is animal awareness, there are many sub densities..)

"19.8 Questioner: Well, did this second density to third density transition take place then 75,000 years ago? Approximate?
Ra: I am Ra. This is correct.

19.9 Questioner: Where did the second-density beings get physical vehicles of third-density type to incarnate into?
Ra: I am Ra. There were among those upon this second-density plane those forms which when exposed to third-density vibrations became the third-density, as you would call sound vibration “human,” entities.

That is, there was loss of the body hair, as you call it, the clothing of the body to protect it, the changing of the structure of the neck, jaw, and forehead in order to allow the easier vocalization, and the larger cranial development characteristic of third-density needs. This was a normal transfiguration.

19.10 Questioner: Over approximately how long a period of time does— was this transfiguration? It must have been very short.
Ra: I am Ra. The assumption is correct, in our terms at least — within a generation and one-half, as you know these things. Those who had been harvested of this planet were able to use the newly created physical complex of chemical elements suitable for third-density lessons.

19.11 Questioner: Can you tell me how this new bodily complex was suited to third-density lessons and what those lessons were?
Ra: I am Ra. There is one necessity for third density. That necessity is self-awareness, or self-consciousness. In order to be capable of such, this chemical complex of body must be capable of the abstract thought. Thus, the fundamental necessity is the combination of rational and intuitive thinking. This was transitory in the second-density forms operating largely upon intuition which proved through practice to yield results.

The third-density mind was capable of processing information in such a way as to think abstractly and in what could be termed “useless” ways, in the sense of survival. This is the primary requisite.

There are other important ingredients: the necessity for a weaker physical vehicle to encourage the use of the mind, the development of the already present awareness of the social complex. These also being necessary: the further development of physical dexterity in the sense of the hand, as you call this portion of your body complex.

19.12 Questioner: This seems to be a carefully planned or engineered stage of development. Can you tell me anything of the origin of this plan for the development?
Ra: I am Ra. We go back to previous information. Consider and remember the discussion of the Logos. With the primal distortion of free will, each galaxy developed its own Logos. This Logos has complete free will in determining the paths of intelligent energy which promote the lessons of each of the densities given the conditions of the planetary spheres and the sun bodies.

19.13 Questioner: I will make a statement with respect to my understanding, then, [and] ask if I am correct. There is a, what I would call"

originally posted by: Shadow Herder
Evolution and creation are one and the same! Cant have one without the other.

I disagree, one tries to explain the How (evolution) and the other tries to explain the Why (Creation).....no need to try and put them in the same bucket unless a person likes apples and oranges together.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Phantom423

Historical documents (which the Bible actually is, and has been proven to be) cannot be compared with fossil evidence dug out of rocks. Nor are historical documents the same as scientific theories. Apples and oranges.

No, evolution is NOT proven, not even close.

Ok - I'm ready. Do you want to debate the evidence? Statements like "evolution is NOT proven" are not enough.
We'll debate the hard evidence, point by point. Agreed?

Regarding the Bible and rocks, you were quite impressed with the human footprint and dinosaur footprint found together (or so you think anyway). An historical document can be a fraud too. No one witnessed the event so anything is possible.

The bible is only a historical document if you consider the maharaja, the Iliad, and Greek mythology historical documents.

The only "proven" parts of the bible are that Jesus probubally did exist (without the miricales). And the locations of a few anchient towns. NONE of the miracles have been proven at all and all of the big supernatural events (global flood, creation) have been debunked.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Phantom423

I wish you luck, mate, but you're on a hiding to nothing, believe me.

Well I'm not too worried that it will take up a lot of my time
I made the same challenge to several Creationists, including a few of their "scientists". To date, no one has taken me up on the challenge. I think that's all we need to know to come to a conclusion!

originally posted by: ArtemisE

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: Phantom423

Historical documents (which the Bible actually is, and has been proven to be) cannot be compared with fossil evidence dug out of rocks. Nor are historical documents the same as scientific theories. Apples and oranges.

No, evolution is NOT proven, not even close.

Ok - I'm ready. Do you want to debate the evidence? Statements like "evolution is NOT proven" are not enough.
We'll debate the hard evidence, point by point. Agreed?

Regarding the Bible and rocks, you were quite impressed with the human footprint and dinosaur footprint found together (or so you think anyway). An historical document can be a fraud too. No one witnessed the event so anything is possible.

The bible is only a historical document if you consider the maharaja, the Iliad, and Greek mythology historical documents.

The only "proven" parts of the bible are that Jesus probubally did exist (without the miricales). And the locations of a few anchient towns. NONE of the miracles have been proven at all and all of the big supernatural events (global flood, creation) have been debunked.

True, but people of faith believe in the Bible. But Creationists are not people of faith nor are they Christians. The crap science that Ken Ham and his crowd have come up with is nothing less than a fraud. The Creationism movement is a cult attracting the lame, lazy and the crazy who need a crutch to make them feel relevant.

The challenge is open. I am happy to take on any Creationist on this board or elsewhere.

Are we talking a new type of animal. Or a completely new life form?

New species of animals are found all the time. New animals in general - are not. They are usually linked to some existing species. I think we agree here.

But really.. what are you expecting? A new island with new pokemon?

It's like saying a certain gemstone no longer exists. Or a species died out. Why can't God bring it back? Or make a new one in it's place... Could you imagine if it was all that simple? We're running low on food, magic us some more, God.

If you're asking us why God (of what/whoever) no longer creates new animals... maybe it's because around 85% of the species on land and in sea still have yet to be identified. Maybe we don't need any more to pop up out of nowhere just yet.

Still gotta catch 'em all before getting the new game.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I have to admit that I tend to go by my somewhat leaky memory but one thing I remember and always have is the tenet around which all theory is supposed to be based, that a theory can never be proven but only supported and of course any contrary evidence therefore according to the rule or Tenet there in stated invalidates the theory in it's current state meaning a theory is only viable as long as there is absolutley no unexpected result's or parameters.
Of course some theorem are so long winded and took so long to arrive at that they are still used widely today even though they are known to be wrong and sadly new theorem tend to be based on current models which therefore inherit the legacy of there flaw's.
A workaround is to add Chaos theory to explain unexpected and random result's but in fact it is litterally a cop out as they do not currently have a better theory than there flawed one that return's these unexpected/unpredicted result's.
There is no chaos only a system that is beyond our ability to model and therefore whose parameters we truly do not know, it may even be that our current reality is in a constant state of change and in periods of the past the world may have inhabited a quite different reality, the very foundation law's of the universe may be in flux and a constant state of change making reality fluid or chaotic rather than set and fixed which further would have implications on current working model's held so dearly by many, quantum physicists are aware of this conundrum and it tend's to give some of them a headache.
Imagin a reality shift caused by interactions in the membrane interactions of superspace and the corresponding effect upon our percieved law's and state of reality, it may even be possible that entire technologys could suddenly stop working or may have in the past or future as the science they are based upon was no longer valid due to a dimensional law change to the structure of reality itself, this is even more possible if the idea of the holographic universe is used as a basis.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

I have to admit that I tend to go by my somewhat leaky memory but one thing I remember and always have is the tenet around which all theory is supposed to be based, that a theory can never be proven but only supported and of course any contrary evidence therefore according to the rule or Tenet there in stated invalidates the theory in it's current state meaning a theory is only viable as long as there is absolutley no unexpected result's or parameters.
Of course some theorem are so long winded and took so long to arrive at that they are still used widely today even though they are known to be wrong and sadly new theorem tend to be based on current models which therefore inherit the legacy of there flaw's.
A workaround is to add Chaos theory to explain unexpected and random result's but in fact it is litterally a cop out as they do not currently have a better theory than there flawed one that return's these unexpected/unpredicted result's.
There is no chaos only a system that is beyond our ability to model and therefore whose parameters we truly do not know, it may even be that our current reality is in a constant state of change and in periods of the past the world may have inhabited a quite different reality, the very foundation law's of the universe may be in flux and a constant state of change making reality fluid or chaotic rather than set and fixed which further would have implications on current working model's held so dearly by many, quantum physicists are aware of this conundrum and it tend's to give some of them a headache.
Imagin a reality shift caused by interactions in the membrane interactions of superspace and the corresponding effect upon our percieved law's and state of reality, it may even be possible that entire technologys could suddenly stop working or may have in the past or future as the science they are based upon was no longer valid due to a dimensional law change to the structure of reality itself, this is even more possible if the idea of the holographic universe is used as a basis.

The challenge is open to you too.

Creationists are not people of faith nor are they Christians. The crap science that Ken Ham and his crowd have come up with is nothing less than a fraud. The Creationism movement is a cult attracting the lame, lazy and the crazy who need a crutch to make them feel relevant.

The challenge is open. I am happy to take on any Creationist on this board or

a reply to: Phantom423

Hmm so you have a grudge agains people seeking god in there own way, well so be it, please define for me what faith is and why you would deny a crutch to a lame man, people have a right to seek what they believe and creationists are only doing harm on the occasion that they are knowing fraudsters which is by the way then not creationism but something that is litterally against our religion otherwise they should be treated as providing an opinion and theory like any theory if you wish to live in an ultra mechanical world that is.
Oh and by the way you can not concieve of god let alone define him in your circular small consciousness that is doomed to only see what it can see, hear what it can hear, believe it know's what it think's it knows and to try to construct hypothesis to explain or predict what it can not explain or predict.

You wish a challenge, then here is one, do you exist, what is existance, how did it come to be, is everything from nothing or is there a cause to the effect and how does this paradox make any sense given the parameter's of your own perception of reality.

When moses asked the being at the burning bush who it was it replied "I AM THAT I AM" now many especially atheists philosophers relate that statement erronously to a french philosopher.

I am that I am, I am whom I am.

How does something exist if there was nothing extant and if there was something extant what was it, if it was independant of the universe could it be god.

There is your challenge, not symentecs but by your own measure a calculated and precise answer please as this nebulous subject has no answer and you too are wrong.

Or is the world only right if you explain it.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Phantom423

Hmm so you have a grudge agains people seeking god in there own way, well so be it, please define for me what faith is and why you would deny a crutch to a lame man, people have a right to seek what they believe and creationists are only doing harm on the occasion that they are knowing fraudsters which is by the way then not creationism but something that is litterally against our religion otherwise they should be treated as providing an opinion and theory like any theory if you wish to live in an ultra mechanical world that is.
Oh and by the way you can not concieve of god let alone define him in your circular small consciousness that is doomed to only see what it can see, hear what it can hear, believe it know's what it think's it knows and to try to construct hypothesis to explain or predict what it can not explain or predict.

You wish a challenge, then here is one, do you exist, what is existance, how did it come to be, is everything from nothing or is there a cause to the effect and how does this paradox make any sense given the parameter's of your own perception of reality.

When moses asked the being at the burning bush who it was it replied "I AM THAT I AM" now many especially atheists philosophers relate that statement erronously to a french philosopher.

I am that I am, I am whom I am.

How does something exist if there was nothing extant and if there was something extant what was it, if it was independant of the universe could it be god.

There is your challenge, not symentecs but by your own measure a calculated and precise answer please as this nebulous subject has no answer and you too are wrong.

Or is the world only right if you expla

This is a challenge to Creationists, of which I think you are one. That's the challenge. A Creationist is not a Christian. So if you are a Christian, the challenge is not for you.

edit on 28-6-2014 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Phantom423

OK do you accept that christ walked in the flesh, that is a valid question for you because I absolutely do and here is another for you, who the hell do you think you are to judge other's and I put it to you that you think that by trying to work a dark atheist agenda and try to play christians against one another that you are being clever, your are not.
You judged so you have been judged go any further and I will leave it to the lord to deal with you for as it is I have given you a cop out by passing my own judgement on your post and all he would do is maybe metaphorically bang our head's together but I know your game, it is to create discension and try to drive a reverse psychological wedge into the christian argument and to deny that creationists are christian is the most ridiculous and obviously atheist or even satanic argument I have ever heard.
You know the devil lost dont you, he is waiting only for his demise but is allowed to torment as some are actually his spawn or should I say the turs among the wheat to use the biblical metaphor and sadly it is not cut and dry because we are all contaminated in that respect but through christ we as purified, they are not and will burn with there master or be cast into the outer darkness (Which is not what you think but a universe devoid of god's love so it is a hell and they shall hunger for love which currently nourishes them as it does all god's children, at that time though they are condemned as abominations that they are).
Do you even know what you are talking about.
I will leave the balance here as it is but the like's of you that want to deny chrisitans any sign of god's truth are harming the most vulnerable and easily swayed by your false argument, by the way I have seen things you would not believe and fought them so I know they are there and I know god is too as without him I would not be today.
SO I PUT IT TO YOU THAT IT IS PATENTLY OBVIOUS THAT a. YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN and b. YOU ARE TRYING TO ATTACK CHRISTIAN FAITH IN A WAY EVEN AN ATHEIST WOULD NOT, but a troll might.

If we evolved from a monkey, why is a monkey still a monkey?
On the other hand, religion is a joke

a reply to: algag1129

We didn't evolve from monkeys. Even if we did, that's like saying "If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?",

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Phantom423

OK do you accept that christ walked in the flesh, that is a valid question for you because I absolutely do and here is another for you, who the hell do you think you are to judge other's and I put it to you that you think that by trying to work a dark atheist agenda and try to play christians against one another that you are being clever, your are not.
You judged so you have been judged go any further and I will leave it to the lord to deal with you for as it is I have given you a cop out by passing my own judgement on your post and all he would do is maybe metaphorically bang our head's together but I know your game, it is to create discension and try to drive a reverse psychological wedge into the christian argument and to deny that creationists are christian is the most ridiculous and obviously atheist or even satanic argument I have ever heard.
You know the devil lost dont you, he is waiting only for his demise but is allowed to torment as some are actually his spawn or should I say the turs among the wheat to use the biblical metaphor and sadly it is not cut and dry because we are all contaminated in that respect but through christ we as purified, they are not and will burn with there master or be cast into the outer darkness (Which is not what you think but a universe devoid of god's love so it is a hell and they shall hunger for love which currently nourishes them as it does all god's children, at that time though they are condemned as abominations that they are).
Do you even know what you are talking about.
I will leave the balance here as it is but the like's of you that want to deny chrisitans any sign of god's truth are harming the most vulnerable and easily swayed by your false argument, by the way I have seen things you would not believe and fought them so I know they are there and I know god is too as without him I would not be today.
SO I PUT IT TO YOU THAT IT IS PATENTLY OBVIOUS THAT a. YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN and b. YOU ARE TRYING TO ATTACK CHRISTIAN FAITH IN A WAY EVEN AN ATHEIST WOULD NOT, but a troll might.

I'm not a Christian. I'm a Jew.

The challenge is to debate Creationist's disembowelment of science - topics like polonium halo rings, dating methodologies, humans living with dinosaurs.

Your personal philosophy on devils, angels, Jesus, or anything else, doesn't interest me.

The offer is still open.