The Lie of Evolution from a Credible Scientist

page: 18
26
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Keep stating your incredulity against me, but notice that you insert no science into the mix. You strike against my character incorrectly, then call that your proof. Please proved some science and context as I have done in this thread.



You wouldn't know science if it hit you in the face, you think evolution describes the origins of life remember? Thats biology 101, your band students learnt this a long time ago. You..........invent your own version of science and then attempt to tear that version down. You then claim to be an educator, of children no less. I consider people like you to be a menace, a retardant of knowledge. You twist and distort the knowledge given to us by giants in the scientific world, all because its too heartbreaking for you to even consider that your imaginary friend is just that......imaginary.

I know this is completely pointless....but here is some information on evolution and abiogenesis



It's a myth that Abiogenesis and Evolution are the same




Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Where's your evidence? I will stand firm on mine. It's contained within this thread from top to bottom.



Well you've certainly filled this thread and indeed all all your threads with something.....

Bible verses mean nothing unless you can prove that they should be taken as truth (good luck with that)

Creationist youtube videos containing someone else's opinion is only evidence of your own personal gullibility.




posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Simply saying it doesn't make it so. Where is you context, evidence or proof? I gave you an example from Richard Dawkins where he says that evolution is the answer to our origin. Are you arguing with Richard? Of course, he offers no origin and just says "We don't know." This is not a rational answer to say that we don't know and then exclude the best choice. The evidence points to design. I have demonstrated by context and evidence. Where's yours? You said that I should pick up a text. Been there and done that many times. Quote me something and I'll give a reply. Again, where is your context?

Have you read the evolution wiki yet, like I suggested? You want proof that evolution is not the origin of life? I'm not even sure what you are asking evidence for? Human origins and the origin of life are 2 different things.

en.wikipedia.org...


Evolution is any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organization, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins.[1]

Life on Earth originated and then evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.7 billion years ago. Repeated speciation and the divergence of life can be inferred from shared sets of biochemical and morphological traits, or by shared DNA sequences. These homologous traits and sequences are more similar among species that share a more recent common ancestor, and can be used to reconstruct evolutionary histories, using both existing species and the fossil record. Existing patterns of biodiversity have been shaped both by speciation and by extinction.[2]


Note the bold. It originated THEN evolved. It is change in biological organisms, it has nothing to do with life coming from non life. That theory is abiogenesis. Understand?

If I have to provide evidence of the most very basic concept in evolution, then you need to seek the knowledge for yourself, first. Google is your friend.
edit on 8-4-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 




You wouldn't know science if it hit you in the face, you think evolution describes the origins of life remember? Thats biology 101, your band students learnt this a long time ago. You..........invent your own version of science and then attempt to tear that version down. You then claim to be an educator, of children no less. I consider people like you to be a menace, a retardant of knowledge. You twist and distort the knowledge given to us by giants in the scientific world, all because its too heartbreaking for you to even consider that your imaginary friend is just that......imaginary.


Again, the foundation of your argument is to knock me down and sling mud around. This type of bias becomes your platform and not the science you claim to use as your support structure. If you want to be credible, then show how and provide context. You make claims about me apart from simple incredulity.

Abiogenesis:

As I have continued to say, evolution is a result and not a cause. Here is a quote from a site that outlines your view.


The important thing to remember is that evolutionary theory is a scientific theory about how life has developed — this means that it begins with the premise that life already exists. It makes no claims as to how that life got here. It could have developed naturally through abiogenesis. It could have been started by a divine power. It could have been started by aliens. Whatever the explanation, evolutionary explanations begin to apply once life appears and begins to reproduce.


LINK

I know your view and a well aware of it. Evolution claims to define the first forms of simple cells transition to what we see today. Evolution is the origin of life from this simple form. The origin of the simplest forms of life have no good explanation. There are theories such as abiogenesis and others. All the theories are weak compared to the obviousness of design. Observation in biological systems as well as physics demonstrates that the probable explanation is design. Like I said before, abiogenesis is a new natural law, devoid of solid evidence, that is used as a foundation for what comes after. Apart from the new natural law based on a weak foundation, the rest falls apart. It amounts to Voodoo Science.

RULE 7) New laws of nature are proposed to explain an incredible observation. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. They also demand some explanation of how they can be reconciled with the same natural laws that govern everything else. If existing laws of nature must be changed, or new laws must be proposed, the observation is almost certainly wrong.

Consciousness is the enigma that comprises the foundation for physics, collapsing wave function, entropy in information theory and many others. If you subtract preexisting consciousness, you are left with natural law unexplained, collapsing wave function as related to information entropy unexplained and the connection between the observer and what is observed as totally devoid of an answer. When consciousness is plugged into the equation, we now have a unifying factor to know who the observed duality of light is then sent into motion for purpose and benefit to the whole. Take consciousness away and we are left with an unexplained enigma that requires unverified theory as a foundation. Any number of theories will work. Why cling to the least likely explanations? We are not lacking documents to explain the origin. The documents align with what is observed.

Genesis 1:1

In the Beginning (Time), God created the heavens (Space) and the earth (Matter). Let there be light (Energy).

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word (Information / Wave / Law), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning (Son of God). 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Now see how information is in a projected reality of time, space, matter and energy.

1:27 So God created mankind in (INSIDE) his own image, in the image of God (Projected from Light) he created them; male and female he created them.

But, before He created man, he created the perfected pattern in an image of the same and calls Him the Son and Creator of the reality we occupy in image. It's a hologram of energy.

1 Colossians 1:

15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

All of it created from what is not seen (Quantum).

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Does this agree with science, physics and biology? Yes. Can you do better apart from what is outlined before you know the truth? NO. The theory is a poor attempt to grasp at what has been lost by the very science that pointed us back in the right direction.



edit on 8-4-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 




Note the bold. It originated THEN evolved. It is change in biological organisms, it has nothing to do with life coming from non life. That theory is abiogenesis. Understand? If I have to provide evidence of the most very basic concept in evolution, then you need to seek the knowledge for yourself, first. Google is your friend.


I have read Dawkins and have taken Biology several times. The evidence for adaptation is a function of programming. We are quantum processors within nature. DNA is a cipher. It stores information in the most efficient way possible. There are 22 amino acids. There are 22 letters of the Hebrew language. The amino acids form proteins in sets of threes, like the roots of the Hebrew language. They then use a type of linguistic morphology to form the body in chains that are linked like sentences of information, just like the Hebrew language forms sentences from the roots in chains of letters and sequences of words. Why do we have 22 pairs of somatic chromosomes? Add them up and you get 44+2 sex chromosomes. There are 26 letters in the Greek alphabet. Add them together with the Hebrew and you get 46. The Hebrew language explains the creation of mankind by the meaning of the letters and their relationship to agriculture and nomadic life (Agra-bio Linguistics). The Greek explains the mathematics and ratios of creation.

Photons form chains in parent and daughter roots. Hebrew forms sentences (chains of information) with parent and child roots. Accident?

Explanation? Accident? The odds of what I said above being wrong are far less than the odds of evolution explaining any part of the world around us as stated by science. Evolution is a result of programming and nothing more. It is a design feature as outlined by God in the Bible and within our very DNA structure.

edit on 8-4-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
I believe that my last two posts end the discussion. My OP is confirmed with evidence that cannot be denied. Further, this evidence then relates to the odds of probability on either side of the argument. The probability of Creation has the greater chances of being the correct answer over evolution. Additionally, since we do observe micro-evolution over time, it can safely be confirmed that DNA and programming logic from within the information of life demands this to be so. In addition to the relation life has to quantum physics, the latest theory demands a designer. Adding all of this to the enigma of the Bible's ability to accurately describe the processes, laws and origin of the above confirms the veracity of this ancient text.

God is Amazing!!

I would further add that this bit of evidence below is enough to give us pause at the infinity of knowledge and wisdom it takes to connect DNA and Linguistics together as a mirror, which seems to confirm that a designer was there on both accounts of DNA and WORD. God truly is a living Word.




DNA is a cipher. It stores information in the most efficient way possible. There are 22 amino acids. There are 22 letters of the Hebrew language. The amino acids form proteins in sets of threes, like the roots of the Hebrew language. They then use a type of linguistic morphology to form the body in chains that are linked like sentences of information, just like the Hebrew language forms sentences from the roots in chains of letters and sequences of words. Why do we have 22 pairs of somatic chromosomes? Add them up and you get 44+2 sex chromosomes. There are 26 letters in the Greek alphabet. Add them together with the Hebrew and you get 46. The Hebrew language explains the creation of mankind by the meaning of the letters and their relationship to agriculture and nomadic life (Agra-bio Linguistics). The Greek explains the mathematics and ratios of creation.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight


I believe that my last two posts end the discussion.



Well how can anyone stand up to the colossal argument

'All the theories are weak compared to the obviousness of design.'

That right there is your entire argument, you have no evidence of a creator, no evidence for design, just like every other creationist in the history of the world.

And your premise that your God acts like the villain from a murder mystery, leaving clues to his existence in the most cryptic, vague and ridiculous manner is beyond silly.

If he did leave clues behind, as you claim, and wanted us to have a reason to believe in him other than faith, doesn't that go against many biblical passages? doesn't it kill the very meaning of faith?

And why would he do it in such an incompetent way, so that only incomprehensible man such as yourself uncovers it? or is it all down to you wanting to be special and unique in your lords eyes?

Its nonsense of the highest order, this is why it hasn't been picked up by any scientific institution or any scientists and why no scientific papers have been published.

But throw in a few scientific buzz words, tell us again how amazing your imaginary friend is than copy and paste a few more paragraphs from The Sheep Herders Guide to the Galaxy and BOOM debate over......

You're embarrassing, not only to yourself, but your fellow believers and the rest of humanity.



P.S I see you now admit that the theory of evolution does not describe the origins of life. Such a shame you do not have the integrity to admit you were wrong, and instead slide it into another meaningless paragraph asthough it was what you were saying all along.........confirming what I said earlier about the dishonesty of creationists......very christian







edit on 10-4-2012 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-4-2012 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 





The probability of Creation has the greater chances of being the correct answer over evolution.


Or you could spend some time researching what the theory of evolution really is...because you don't seem to have a clue


Again: The theory of evolution doesn't make any statements regarding how life started, it only explains how biodiversity came to be once life started.

The sad part is, you still pretend the bible is objective evidence when it is DEMONSTRABLY wrong in hundreds of cases



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by EnochWasRight


I believe that my last two posts end the discussion.



Well how can anyone stand up to the colossal argument

'All the theories are weak compared to the obviousness of design.'

That right there is your entire argument, you have no evidence of a creator, no evidence for design, just like every other creationist in the history of the world.

And your premise that your God acts like the villain from a murder mystery, leaving clues to his existence in the most cryptic, vague and ridiculous manner is beyond silly.

If he did leave clues behind, as you claim, and wanted us to have a reason to believe in him other than faith, doesn't that go against many biblical passages? doesn't it kill the very meaning of faith?

And why would he do it in such an incompetent way, so that only incomprehensible man such as yourself uncovers it? or is it all down to you wanting to be special and unique in your lords eyes?

Its nonsense of the highest order, this is why it hasn't been picked up by any scientific institution or any scientists and why no scientific papers have been published.

But throw in a few scientific buzz words, tell us again how amazing your imaginary friend is than copy and paste a few more paragraphs from The Sheep Herders Guide to the Galaxy and BOOM debate over......

You're embarrassing, not only to yourself, but your fellow believers and the rest of humanity.

P.S I see you now admit that the theory of evolution does not describe the origins of life. Such a shame you do not have the integrity to admit you were wrong, and instead slide it into another meaningless paragraph asthough it was what you were saying all along.........confirming what I said earlier about the dishonesty of creationists......very christian

edit on 10-4-2012 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)
edit on 10-4-2012 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)


I have held through the course of this thread that evolution is a result and not a cause. This has been my foundation statement, repeated throughout. The sure sign that you cannot provide any evidence for evolution as a foundation for describing how life came to be in its present form is shown by your tactic above. Your foundation continues to be bias against me and my character, paired with incredulity. This is no foundation. If you had one to stand on, it would shine forth from its own merits. The fact that you need to rely on the negative attack against me shows the foolishness of the theory. If its so obvious, you should handily be able to show its merits and discredit me.

Where is your context for evolution? So far, negative bias instead of positive positioning only builds more credibility into my position.

I will keep saying it. If macro-evolution rather than micro-evolution is your platform, then bring the evidence forward.

edit on 10-4-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 





The probability of Creation has the greater chances of being the correct answer over evolution.


Or you could spend some time researching what the theory of evolution really is...because you don't seem to have a clue


Again: The theory of evolution doesn't make any statements regarding how life started, it only explains how biodiversity came to be once life started.

The sad part is, you still pretend the bible is objective evidence when it is DEMONSTRABLY wrong in hundreds of cases


Four sentences above. One is an insult.

Two is built on a foundation that any theory is good as long as it doesn't include a designer. Rationality demands objectiveness and you are discounting the most obvious cause from incredulity and pure bias. As well, you don't offer your case on a foundation of context from examples.

Three is a statement of bias. Hundreds of cases? Which ones? I have listed many statements that unify perfectly with the science we observe. The Bible describes our own science in a symbolic representation that cannot be disputed. Give some examples of your own that deny what I have given. Quote me, then use your own evidence.

I can only keep asking for context to be provided. Incredulity and bias are not foundational statements in support of your position. They are negative statements that only serve to elevate my position by comparison.

For you to get one inch past the simple cell, you will need to show the process that built the ATP motor and then show how the factory of chemiosmosis was programmed into the cell by accident. If you can't get past this, your theory is dead in the water.

Start with ATP and Chemiosmosis. My answer is the simple one that has evidence. ATP is a fuel cell and the most efficient one possible. It uses a motor. The parts are included in the cell and show a degree of nano-engineering that we cannot duplicate today. A simple cell is anything but simple.



edit on 10-4-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 





Four sentences above. One is an insult.


I never insulted you


I said you don't have a clue about the theory of evolution if you compare it to creationism...because as I said, they have nothing to do with eachother.




Two is built on a foundation that any theory is good as long as it doesn't include a designer. Rationality demands objectiveness and your are discounting the most obvious cause from incredulity and pure bias. As well, you don't your case on a foundation of context from examples.


I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. I said the theory of evolution makes no statements regarding how life started, and neither does it need to in order to be a valid scientific theory...and your answer above makes zero sense. The theory of evolution's goal isn't to "disprove a creator", it draws logical/rational conclusions from OBJECTIVE evidence.




Three is a statement of bias. Hundreds of cases? Which ones? I have listed many statements that unify perfectly with the science we observe. The Bible describes our own science in a symbolic representation that cannot be disputed. Give some examples of your own that deny what I have given. Quote me, then use your own evidence.


No, stating the bible is DEMONSTRABLY wrong isn't being "biased"...it's stating a FACT!

Over 400 case where the bible is historically and scientifically wrong.

Your request to show the step from single to multicelled life in the detail you want is silly, up until the end of last year we didn't even have a good sample to study. Do you have any idea how specific the circumstances have to be for single celled organisms to fossilize??? Either way, it doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution as we have CONCRETE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for thousands of species, including humans.

You're using the old god of the gaps and argument from complexity again



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 




I said you don't have a clue about the theory of evolution if you compare it to creationism...because as I said, they have nothing to do with eachother.



The latest theory states that early life originates with replicating molecules, then DNA forms, then unicellular life evolves until the evolutionary tree branches out to form a human with a quantum brain capable of sentience. DNA, along the way, gets it all right until it forms a body from information and matter.

I get this from Berkeley.edu. The pages that come before this one tell the story we have all heard from the evolutionary theory. LINK Hold your cursor over the image to read the sequence that evolution states took place to form a human. It is a theory that does not hold up with our current knowledge of the universe.

Are you saying that Berkeley has it wrong when it comes to the claim that the first replicating molecules moved to a human form? Can anything rise above its source? What is our source if we are higher in the chain than the sun and moon?



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 



No, stating the bible is DEMONSTRABLY wrong isn't being "biased"...it's stating a FACT! Over 400 case where the bible is historically and scientifically wrong.


The Skeptic's Bible does what it can to twist verses apart from their historical context, linguistic meaning and symbolic significance. Click on that link and see what it does with Genesis 1:1. Anything that we examine can be moved to an incorrect perspective if bias against that thing is the motivation. Reason and rationality would never leave out any possibility or perspective. I embrace the notion that micro-evolution is what we are seeing as God allows change in systems. A dynamic universe will require that life is designed to adapt as the universe expands and changes. Again, this is a given conclusion that takes no mental gymnastics or new natural laws to explain. It's what we observe. Start with the obvious. We are created. The evidence is written in all languages, including the language of DNA as I stated earlier. You didn't touch this one below. Why? Does it not seem improbable that our language and DNA would mirror each other if we were accidents of inert matter? Does it not seem more likely that a programmer of life would leave a signature for us to notice when we were sufficiently evolved mentally. See there how I used the word evolve? Yes, we evolve in many ways by design. This would be an obvious feature of a loving God who wishes a relationship with us. A careless creator would program us with too much too soon, dooming us to pride and failure.

There is no paradox. We evolve by design as a result and not a cause. The only paradox is when we fail to see the excluded middle that brings both sides to light.



DNA is a cipher. It stores information in the most efficient way possible. There are 22 amino acids. There are 22 letters of the Hebrew language. The amino acids form proteins in sets of threes, like the roots of the Hebrew language. They then use a type of linguistic morphology to form the body in chains that are linked like sentences of information, just like the Hebrew language forms sentences from the roots in chains of letters and sequences of words. Why do we have 22 pairs of somatic chromosomes? Add them up and you get 44+2 sex chromosomes. There are 26 letters in the Greek alphabet. Add them together with the Hebrew and you get 46. The Hebrew language explains the creation of mankind by the meaning of the letters and their relationship to agriculture and nomadic life (Agra-bio Linguistics). The Greek explains the mathematics and ratios of creation.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 





I get this from Berkeley.edu. The pages that come before this one tell the story we have all heard from the evolutionary theory. LINK Hold your cursor over the image to read the sequence that evolution states took place to form a human. It is a theory that does not hold up with our current knowledge of the universe.


Why are you misquoting the site on purpose (assuming you read it)?

The link you posted is titled "Important events in the history of life" and then shows a graphic of what we know so far...as in, when single celled life first appeared as we KNOW.

Here's the graphic from the site:



Nowhere on the page you linked do they claim abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution...but they do have to mention that life started, which this graphic does





Are you saying that Berkeley has it wrong when it comes to the claim that the first replicating molecules moved to a human form? Can anything rise above its source? What is our source if we are higher in the chain than the sun and moon?


I'm saying you aren't reading that website correctly...all you do is scan titles


And what do you mean when you say "higher in the chain than the sun and moon"? What chain are you talking about???




The Skeptic's Bible does what it can to twist verses apart from their historical context, linguistic meaning and symbolic significance.


So in other words, whenever a literal interpretation of the bible doesn't work because it's scientific nonsense (global flood is a great example), you simply pretend it's a metaphor


People have done that for hundreds of years, they have to move the goalpost further and further every single year as science forces then to abandon literal interpretations step by step...




Start with the obvious. We are created.


No, it's NOT obvious unless you present objective evidence...which so far you haven't





The evidence is written in all languages, including the language of DNA as I stated earlier.


Linguistics are part of evolution, and scripture is obviously not objective proof of anything but what people believed back then...after all, they also claim nonsense like people being able to live inside whales


DNA doesn't prove there is a creator, nothing we know suggests this hasn't arisen fron natural causes...just like everything we can rationally explain today



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Your entire reply, again, simply says, "No it didn't." The link I provided states the evolutionary claim in sequence. Early life originates with replicating molecules. This is what the site says. Then DNA forms. Then unicellular life evolves until the evolutionary tree branches out to form a human. Did you hold your mouse over the picture? This is what is stated. The pages before the one I linked took us through the standard nonsense. All of what is observed is a direct link to the programming in DNA.

I can see that you will stick to your notion that evolution has distanced itself from the first replicating molecules. You are fixed in your mindset on this. The problem with this fixed mindset is that many paradoxes are created. We know that paradox can be resolved when the excluded middle unifies perspective. We have the excluded middle. Information and logic are present in life. Design is the conclusion. All paradox is unified when we view life as programmed.

Here is another evidence for you from a symbolic and biblical perspective.

"There are five geometric shapes in nature that determine energy flow and the ability of information to flow from state to state.

The Tetrahedron
The Cube
The Octahedron
The Polyhedron, and
The Dodecahedron

Crystals can only materialize into these five forms. The photorefractive effect in crystals can store and transmit information and energy." (Quote from Superiored) This is what we see with neurons in the brain.

Where do we find this structure in the human body? Everywhere is a good answer. Specifically, we see it in the brain. How does this relate to programming and information? If you need to ask the question, you have missed the point. Life is purpose and design down to the very geometry and neuro-crystalline structure of our quantum mind. This is not an accidental replication of molecules. This level of sophistication only comes by design and engineering to function with purpose. Which seems more logical? Accident or purpose? Then, consider the implications that we draw from the Bible on the matter.

Think like God on this: Why is the crystalline structure of our mind important? It's the difference between clear glass that can be remade (Evolve) and ceramic with its facade that cannot be remade. Ceramic is a crystalline solid characterized by a topological order of its atomic structure and cannot be remade apart from extreme fire. Glass has a viscosity that is able to flow at lower temperatures. Compare the two to the heart. Fire is required for both glass and the heart. The hardness of the heart can be related by comparison. Fire represents the trials of life. In Genesis 3, the flaming sword protects the tree of life. This is called his consuming fire or refiner's fire. The fire is the trials we endure for our evolution (proper usage) to be complete. Do you see the connection? Symbolism is the key to seeing with clarity.

Ignore the evidence if you like. I will not ignore it. A rational mind must be open to the obvious possibilities.

A quote from the Gospel of Philip:

"Glass and ceramic vessels are made with fire. If glass vessels break, they are redone, since they have been made through breath. But if ceramic vessels break, they are destroyed, since they have been made without breath."

My signature contains the article from which I draw this idea.

Isaiah 64

8 Yet you, LORD, are our Father.
We are the clay, you are the potter;
we are all the work of your hand.
edit on 10-4-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

I have held through the course of this thread that evolution is a result and not a cause.



I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.


Originally posted by EnochWasRight

The sure sign that you cannot provide any evidence for evolution as a foundation for describing how life came to be in its present form is shown by your tactic above.



.......you're either so lost in an ocean of delusion you've begun to argue an imaginary poster.....or you're a dishonest coward worthy of ridicule...


Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Where is your context for evolution? So far, negative bias instead of positive positioning only builds more credibility into my position. I will keep saying it. If macro-evolution rather than micro-evolution is your platform, then bring the evidence forward.



Again, how can you be this dishonest? have I been arguing for the validity of evolution, or have I been correcting you on your claim that the theory of evolution describes the origin of life?



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369

Originally posted by EnochWasRight

I have held through the course of this thread that evolution is a result and not a cause.



I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.


Originally posted by EnochWasRight

The sure sign that you cannot provide any evidence for evolution as a foundation for describing how life came to be in its present form is shown by your tactic above.



.......you're either so lost in an ocean of delusion you've begun to argue an imaginary poster.....or you're a dishonest coward worthy of ridicule...


Originally posted by EnochWasRight

Where is your context for evolution? So far, negative bias instead of positive positioning only builds more credibility into my position. I will keep saying it. If macro-evolution rather than micro-evolution is your platform, then bring the evidence forward.



Again, how can you be this dishonest? have I been arguing for the validity of evolution, or have I been correcting you on your claim that the theory of evolution describes the origin of life?


Examine your post here. You have questioned my character and yet again made statements apart from providing any context to your platform in favor of evolution. Is this about me or is this about evidence supporting evolution that you wish to share? As I have said, if your platform is insult against me in the form of bias and a persistence to simply step on what I believe at the expense of what you believe, then you are only building ground for me to stand firm on my own foundation.

There is a good book that can help you on this. It's called Verbal Judo by George Thompson. His main thesis in the book is this statement: Think for the other person in the manner in which they should be thinking for themselves. This removes bias and builds a mutual context for discussion to take place by reasonable means. Providing your own context is a better approach. Simply share your view by the evidence you have. If there is none, then attacking my position and character only serves to weaken your own case.

edit on 11-4-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to [url= by EnochWasRight[/url]
 


I fear that giving you and your delusions the time of day has left me with irreversible brain herpes....



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Prezbo369
reply to [url= by EnochWasRight[/url]
 


I fear that giving you and your delusions the time of day has left me with irreversible brain herpes....


Taking reward always leads to suffering. Suffering first always leads to reward. Truth sets you free, but requires you to suffer the veil of the temple. The sacrifice is the work we do for others. Truth is not going to be found among those who are stealing God's truth found in nature as their own misguided theory. Taking creates a debt to be paid. Smoke and you get cancer. Transmute nature and destroy the earth. Misuse God's law, as science demonstrates, and this verse reveals the truth.

Matthew 24

22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.

Your signs are all around you. Rational theory will not connect to truth until you have faith in what is hidden.

Hebrews 11

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

edit on 12-4-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   


More babble...more quotes from the goat herders guide to the galaxy, more copy+pasting, more repeating yourself, more brain herpes......



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
This is the last day we each have to repent of our sins. You and I are alike in this understanding. We each have a fallen nature to overcome each day we live. The first step to accomplishing this is to see God as the source above the flow. Once we realize this, the work is to make our way back up the stream with Christ.
What if we don't repent for our sins? What happens then?





new topics
top topics
 
26
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join