The evolution theory is a huge misinterpretation of the Bible.

The recent comments on this thread are typical of the creationist argument; forever attempting to disprove another theory, rather than prove their own. Their logic is that if you can pour enough doubt on the opposing theory then it makes theirs all the more plausible. That’s dishonest and diversionary and flies in the face of their own belief system. The irony is always lost on them, however.

Apart from the argument of incredulity and personal faith of your belief, what else do you have?

originally posted by: TerraLiga
That is an incorrect assumption on your part.

There is no assumption in the last comment you were responding to. It's a fact that you were talking past the evidence for creation discussed in the 2 videos about purposeful design, and you are still doing so with generic comments that could be made in 'response' to just about any comment. A chatbot could do the same almost as proficiently by drawing from a database of prepared arguments in response to key words or phrases. It reminds me of a program following a standard routine.

I have looked at many videos and read many books - including the Old Testament, Quoran, Tanakh and Torah.

So? That doesn't change the fact I just mentioned nor the vibe your commentary gives to me on a regular basis (another fact). Nor does it demonstrate you have an open mind towards the evidence for creation presented in the 2 videos I mentioned.

If your whole argument is based on disbelief (that this random beginning of life couldn’t happen on its own)...

No it's not. Fighting straw men versions of arguments may have your desired effect on those who want to see the arguments for creation countered, but has no bearing on the subject at hand. Well, other than further demonstrating that you are not open to discussing the actual evidence or responding to it in detail without reading a straw men version of the argument into it first (to match it with one of the arguments in the figurative database of prepared arguments against creation constantly promoted by a particular type of people, most of which is based on responding to straw men versions of the arguments for creation).

So please, what else do you have?

Another demonstration of my description: "talking past the evidence for creation". You remind me of Baldrick from the Blackadder TV-show (another fact, not an assumption):

Chapter 13 Instinct​—Wisdom Programmed Before Birth (Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?)

...
Yet many who believe in evolution automatically reject as irrelevant all such evidence for creation, saying it is not a matter for scientific consideration. However, do not let this narrow approach keep you from weighing the evidence. There is more in the following chapter.

Chapter 14 The Human Miracle

...
“What distinguishes the human brain,” a scientist said, “is the variety of more specialized activities it is capable of learning.”⁠(10) Computer science uses the term “hardwired” to refer to built-in characteristics based on fixed circuitry, in contrast to functions put into a computer by a programmer. “Applied to human beings,” one authority writes, “hard wiring refers to innate abilities or, at least, predispositions.”⁠(11) In people there are many built-in capacities for learning, but not the learning itself. Animals, by contrast, have hardwired instinctive wisdom, but limited capacities to learn new things.
...
The Universe Within notes that the most intelligent animal “never develops a mind like that of a human being. For it lacks what we have: preprogramming of our neural equipment that enables us to form concepts out of what we see, language out of what we hear, and thoughts out of our experiences.” But we must, by input from our surroundings, program the brain, otherwise, as the book states, “nothing resembling the human mind would develop . . . Without that immense infusion of experience, scarcely a trace of intellect would appear.”⁠(12) So the capability that is built into the human brain enables us to construct the human intellect. And, unlike animals, we have the free will to program our intellects as we choose, based on our own knowledge, values, opportunities and goals.

Language Unique to Humans

... In view of such innate abilities it is no surprise that a linguist said that chimpanzee experiments with sign language “actually prove that chimps are incapable of even the most rudimentary forms of human language.”(⁠15)
...
Could such an amazing ability have evolved from the grunts and growls of animals? Studies of the most ancient languages rule out any such evolution of language. One specialist said that “there are no primitive languages.”⁠(16) Anthropologist Ashley Montagu agreed that so-called primitive languages “are often a great deal more complex and more efficient than the languages of the so-called higher civilizations.”(⁠17)
...
One neurologist concludes: “The more we attempt to investigate the mechanism of language, the more mysterious the process becomes.”(⁠18) Another researcher says: “At present the origin of syntactic speech remains a mystery.”(⁠19) And a third states: “The power of speech, moving men and nations as no other force, uniquely sets humans apart from animals. Yet, the origins of language remain one of the brain’s most baffling mysteries.”(⁠20) It is no mystery, however, to those who see in it the hand of a Creator who “hardwired” areas in the brain for language capabilities.

Things Only Creation Can Explain

...

References Listed by Chapter

a reply to: TerraLiga

Any proof?

a reply to: whereislogic

No, your videos present no evidence at all. They simply say, in summary, that life is too complicated so it couldn’t have happened by chance. That is not evidence, it is anecdote or incredulity. I wasn’t talking passed evidence as you presented none. Where is your proof?

Present one piece of evidence and let’s discuss that, at least?

a reply to: TerraLiga

What's your proof?

a reply to: TerraLiga

Present one piece of evidence and let’s discuss that, at least?

The irony is that science itself is providing the evidence. Only intelligence can
supply data for a program, write a book or place a language in the genome.
Besides when you look at this topic in the most simplistic way? The odds are
absolutely in favor of a supreme being.

Real science wouldn't scoff at the idea because the first thing real science
would surmise is that science doesn't know much about anything and guesses at
the rest. And NO ONE can say God doesn't exist with out looking very
unscientific.

OK, then show me one piece of evidence.

I see you are using DNA chemical bonding agents to represent a designed code, but this is chemistry, not design.

a reply to: TerraLiga

What I think is funny is knowing that scientists who deny creation.
With their petri dishes and controlled laboratory environments all
sanitized try desperately to be God but can't create even the
most simple life form.

But they want to convince people it happened on it's own against
odds that go to infinity in a hostile environment? How many magic
shows have you seen that didn't need a magician? You want proof?

You are the proof!

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: TerraLiga

What I think is funny is knowing that scientists who deny creation.
With their petri dishes and controlled laboratory environments all
sanitized try desperately to be God but can't create even the
most simple life form.

But they want to convince people it happened on it's own against
odds that go to infinity in a hostile environment? How many magic
shows have you seen that didn't need a magician? You want proof?

You are the proof!

Sorry, but scientists claim they have created another form of life...it's alive!

Scientists have created a living organism whose DNA is entirely human-made — perhaps a new form of life, experts said, and a milestone in the field of synthetic biology by researchers at the Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology, who reported on Wednesday that they had rewritten the DNA of the bacteria Escherichia coli, producing a synthetic genome four times larger and far more complex than any previously created.“The achievement one day may lead to organisms that produce novel medicines or other valuable molecules, as living factories,” writes Carl Zimmer in Matter for the New York Times. “These synthetic bacteria also may offer clues as to how the genetic code arose in the early history of life.”

dailygalaxy.com...

So, it appears they (we) have what it takes to be God.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: TerraLiga

... but can't create even the most simple life form.

Thank you. You’re saying that life can’t be created. I agree.

Or show me some evidence!

a reply to: InTheLight


Dude why did you even bother with that? Rewriting the DNA in a life form
has nothing to do with creating life. Far from it.

a reply to: TerraLiga

Ya I'm not here to play word games.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: InTheLight


Dude why did you even bother with that? Rewriting the DNA in a life form
has nothing to do with creating life. Far from it.

They created a new form of life using the building blocks, that is creating life.

26 Then God said, “And now we will make human beings;..

And now...WE (together)... not I (alone)... the forces and building of blocks of nature and if you want to believe in a God is creation.

a reply to: InTheLight

They created the same life form using a life form and used words
to your advantage. They didn't breathe life into anything and you
know that's what we are referring to so stop.

a reply to: carsforkids

What are you here for? I asked for evidence of creation and you joined in with nothing. Show me what you have or go troll the next forum.

a reply to: TerraLiga

What are you here for?

For a while

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: InTheLight

They created the same life form using a life form and used words
to your advantage. They didn't breathe life into anything and you
know that's what we are referring to so stop.

I am referring to another way to create life via manipulating the building blocks...isn't that what evolution does with DNA? The scientists actually did create a lifeform that never existed before and isn't that similar to God saying that now 'we' will create man...to manipulate what building blocks already exist?

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: InTheLight

They created the same life form using a life form and used words
to your advantage. They didn't breathe life into anything and you
know that's what we are referring to so stop.

I am referring to another way to create life via manipulating the building blocks...isn't that what evolution does with DNA?

Fair enough!

originally posted by: carsforkids

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: InTheLight

They created the same life form using a life form and used words
to your advantage. They didn't breathe life into anything and you
know that's what we are referring to so stop.

I am referring to another way to create life via manipulating the building blocks...isn't that what evolution does with DNA?

Fair enough!

I added a question for you above, if you please.

a reply to: TerraLiga

So how did they think to have found proof of evolution? By chance?