The Lie of Evolution......

[Nehemiah6]

Actually, every evolutionist is able to answer this.

Death comes after your body is unable to keep your needed life systems. By injury, by some disease or by being too old.

So are with with the evolutionists or against them? That explanation you have given is only partially true. It does not provide the reason for the existence of death.

 

[Zmouth]

(Evolution) it is not a theory about the origin of life. evolution is concerned with trying to understand how variation among biological creatures came to be, not about how biological creatures came to exist in the first place.

Say what? Evolution deals with the changes in living matter once it evolved from non-living matter, so to say it doesn't concern itself with how the species came into existence must be a mistake , it has everything to do the origin of the species.

While Evolution would only be plausable if living matter evolved from non-living matter, at this time Abiogenesis does not even found a a plausible hypothesis for peer review, which is not due to a lack of effort but rather the inability of any hypothesis proposed so far to achieve the stated objectives.

 

[Zmouth]

What is the relevance of the portion in bold?

Means a person's hypothesis (prophesy of scripture) does automatically affirm its validity as a fact, but rather defines it as a personal belief, or opinion (private interpretation).

 

[posthuman]

evolved from non-living matter,

this bit is applesauce.
it's called spontaneous generation, not evolution, and it's not properly part of evolutionary theory. totally different dish.

Darwins book was called origin of species not origin of life.

 

[Dino246]

Means a person's hypothesis (prophesy of scripture) does automatically affirm its validity as a fact, but rather defines it as a personal belief, or opinion (private interpretation).

Hilarious... not only have you completely misinterpreted that verse, but your statement violates your own misinterpretation.

“Prophecy of Scripture” means “a prophecy that has been recorded in Scripture”. Its origin is the Holy Spirit, not the imagination of the human who penned it. That’s it, that’s all. Really simple.

 

[Zmouth]

this bit is applesauce.
it's called spontaneous generation, not evolution, and it's not properly part of evolutionary theory. totally different dish.

I said evolved, not evolution.

evolved from non-living matter,

Since living matter is composed of atoms, living matter would not happened immediately from the presence of atoms but would have had to required two or more elements to somehow come together in order for non-living matter to possibly become living matter. If could require those two elements to bond to then connect with a third element living matter to be formed. In either case the formation of living matter from inert elements didn't occur spontaneously.

And example of spontaneous generation is cell fusion, where the male gamete fuses with the inert female gamate to produce a new cell of living matter. But wait that's not spontaneous generation that's evolution.

BS is BS regardless if it is fried or baked, or if in a glass or a bowl.

Darwins book was called origin of species not origin of life.

Again, never said that it was, but I do notice that you like to misrepresent people responses with or do you have some difficulty in comprehending written material?

evolution is concerned with trying to understand how variation among biological creatures came to be, not about how biological creatures came to exist in the first place.

Now wouldn't the variations be called genetics? So if not genetics, then it wold be trying to understand how the different biological creatures came to exist.

 

[Zmouth]

Hilarious... not only have you completely misinterpreted that verse, but your statement violates your own misinterpretation.

“Prophecy of Scripture” means “a prophecy that has been recorded in Scripture”. Its origin is the Holy Spirit, not the imagination of the human who penned it. That’s it, that’s all. Really simple.

Do you think it is funny? What part? the part where you say I have completely misinterpeted that verse when I said that just because a person believes something written in scripture means something is doesn't make it fact, like your opinion regarding the meaning of prophesy of scripture. I like the verse in Deuteronomy 18:20, " But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die."

Holy Spirit huh?

For example, it is written in the scriptures that with God all things are possible, Which in case you are wondering, it is written in
Matt 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Do you believe it is possible for God to lie? So if you believe all things are possible with God but don't believe it is possible for God to lie then are you familiar with the phrase doubled-minded?
So what is your opinion of Hebrews 6:18 "That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, ...."

That is why I said that just because a person reads something in the scriptures doesn't makes it the truth, but I believe those with the Holy Spirit reap what they sow. And by the way I never said God lied but I never said it wasn't possible either because I believe that with the LORD all things are possible.

 

[Endoscopy]

The word theory, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is “a hypothesis that has been
confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as
accounting for the known facts.”

To be considered a theory, something must be “confirmed” and account for the “known facts.”
Evolution has been neither. At best, evolution is a hypothesis. Unproven and without “correspondence
with fact,” it stands as an idea scientists seem desperate to substantiate, but remain unable to do so.

Evolution is the belief that life spontaneously erupted from non-living chemicals—all life today coming
from that eruption. It includes the idea that all creatures alive today have, after many varied steps,
come into existence from some previously existing creatures.

For example, it is claimed that a fish in the past began changing, then, over millions of years and many
intermediate steps, became a mammal of today. Evolution supporters suggest that fish somehow became
amphibians and amphibians somehow became mammals. This process is supposed to have taken many
millions of years, involving millions of intermediate steps to achieve.


Do not confuse the theory of evolution with adaptation of a species or genetic variation.
Adaptation simply means that something changes to fit its environment, not that it changes
into some other species.

Genetic variation occurs when there are limiting factors in the available gene pool. But again,
it does not produce some new species—only changes within the same species.
-

“No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon Earth,
we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the various major
groups or phyla.”

In addition the Cambrian explosion layer has thousands of species created at once with no evidence

Darwin’s natural selection.
And this “natural selection” has become the “answer to everything.”

Ever wonder why humans are the only “hairless” creatures of our “furry primate family”?
What we do know is that it must have happened through natural selection. But then there is
the scientific problem of why we retain such concentration of hair on our scalp, face, armpits,
pubic area (and Uncle Joe’s flowering chest). If our furry selves were naturally selected out,
why did hair in these areas remain, especially so ornately around the head?

We are left to speculate.

Ever wonder why men are nearly always taller, heavier, stronger than women?
That’s natural selection they say. Ever wonder why men don’t have a baculum?

Ever wonder why humans are the only “primates” that walk solely upright,
on two legs? Natural selection.

Why are human females the only mammals, aside from orca whales and pilot whales,
to go through menopause—living far beyond childbearing age?

Here’s one you may not have considered—what about blushing?
So how did this somewhat embarrassing trait come to be prevalent in humans?

Evolution, the fact. Natural selection, the theory—yet the answer to everything.
Is there no other way? These theories of natural selection go on and on.
-

What if man isn’t, in fact, part of the primate family, and thus could never have been
naturally selected from within it? What if he isn’t even a part of the animal kingdom,
and thus never could have been naturally selected from it?

Perhaps man was created after a different “species” (Genesis 1:24-26).
Perhaps he has hair around his head because it was designed as an ornament
(Proverbs 20:29; 1 Corinthians 11:15).

Perhaps men were designed to be taller, heavier and stronger in order to protect
and serve women and children (Proverbs 20:29; 1 Peter 3:7).

Maybe men don’t have a baculum because God intended sex among humans to be
more than just for success in occasional brute offspring reproduction (Genesis 2:24;
1 Corinthians 7:3-5).

Maybe mankind is the most upright appearing of any bipedal creatures on Earth
because that is the way his Creator looks (Genesis 1:26; Revelation 1:13-16)—
because it allows man to build and create things like his Maker.

Perhaps women continue to live after childbearing age because there are other roles
ordained for them in their later years (Titus 2:3-5). Maybe man exhibits physical
reactions, like blushing, to moral dilemmas because there was created in him the
ability to perceive morality (Titus 1:15; 1 Timothy 4:2).

Maybe man is the way he is because he was designed by a Creator.

Actually, not maybe. “Maybe,” “could be,” “possibly,” “perhaps,” ad nauseam,
are all for the realm of the evolutionary journals. The Bible states unequivocally
that this is the way it is.

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings. DNA studies have proven macro (Darwinian) evolution to be false. Absolutely no evidence of DNA creating a new species. In fact the opposite is true. DNA is resistant to this kind of change. In cases where the DNA has been modified somehow the offspring is normally stillborn or has physical defects that cripple it. No evidence exists where the modified DNA improves the young exists. Just a pipe dream of atheists who hate the concept of God!! God created everything in 6 days. The Cambrian explosion is evidence of this.

 

[Endoscopy]

The word theory, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is “a hypothesis that has been
confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as
accounting for the known facts.”

To be considered a theory, something must be “confirmed” and account for the “known facts.”
Evolution has been neither. At best, evolution is a hypothesis. Unproven and without “correspondence
with fact,” it stands as an idea scientists seem desperate to substantiate, but remain unable to do so.

Evolution is the belief that life spontaneously erupted from non-living chemicals—all life today coming
from that eruption. It includes the idea that all creatures alive today have, after many varied steps,
come into existence from some previously existing creatures.

For example, it is claimed that a fish in the past began changing, then, over millions of years and many
intermediate steps, became a mammal of today. Evolution supporters suggest that fish somehow became
amphibians and amphibians somehow became mammals. This process is supposed to have taken many
millions of years, involving millions of intermediate steps to achieve.


Do not confuse the theory of evolution with adaptation of a species or genetic variation.
Adaptation simply means that something changes to fit its environment, not that it changes
into some other species.

Genetic variation occurs when there are limiting factors in the available gene pool. But again,
it does not produce some new species—only changes within the same species.
-

“No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon Earth,
we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the various major
groups or phyla.”

In addition the Cambrian explosion layer has thousands of species created at once with no evidence of any intermediate species.

 

[Endoscopy]

To me it sounds symbolic not because of the words used but the setting. A few points i have been wondering:

1. The garden of Eden and therefore the tree of life was on earth somewhere. When Adam and Eve were banished, an angel with a flaming sword was placed to prevent them from accessing this tree.
The question is- what happened to this tree? did it die like other physical trees? if it dies then it can not be the tree of life anymore can it?

2. The bible starts with story of this tree of life and also ends with this tree in Revelation again:

Rev 22:1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. 4They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

In between Genesis and Revelation, there has been heavy symbolism of 'a tree that doesn't bear fruit being cut down'.
Could we be the tree? and being a tree that doesn't bear fruit is the heart that doesn't know God?
I'm not sure but in Revelation, we see symbolism of this tree come out clearly.

ROFL
Delving into eschatology are you. The problem is Daniel states twice the book is closed until the end times. Revelation is written the same way. Both are written in symbolic language. Theologians have studied these scriptures for centuries and have created 4 seperate possible Biblical views. So which symbolic view do you support.

End times (eschatology)
Here are 4 different links to the 4 theological Biblical views of eschatology.

This is because Daniel and Revelation are written in symbolic language. Daniel plainly states it is closed until the end times. Revelation is written the same way so it too is closed.

https://www.exploregod.com/biblical-prophecy-four-views-of-the-end-times

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/mill.cfm

http://www.christianciv.com/eschatology_bs_Sect1.htm

http://executableoutlines.com/end/end_01.htm

 

[Dino246]

Do you think it is funny? What part? the part where you say I have completely misinterpeted that verse when I said that just because a person believes something written in scripture means something is doesn't make it fact, like your opinion regarding the meaning of prophesy of scripture. I like the verse in Deuteronomy 18:20, " But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die."

Holy Spirit huh?

For example, it is written in the scriptures that with God all things are possible, Which in case you are wondering, it is written in
Matt 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Do you believe it is possible for God to lie? So if you believe all things are possible with God but don't believe it is possible for God to lie then are you familiar with the phrase doubled-minded?
So what is your opinion of Hebrews 6:18 "That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, ...."

That is why I said that just because a person reads something in the scriptures doesn't makes it the truth, but I believe those with the Holy Spirit reap what they sow. And by the way I never said God lied but I never said it wasn't possible either because I believe that with the LORD all things are possible.

A hypothesis is not a prophecy of Scripture. 2 Peter 1:20 is not about interpreting Scripture; it is about the origin of genuine prophecy. I see that particular verse misinterpreted far too often around here... usually by people claiming that private interpretation is forbidden. If I have misread your comments, I offer my apology.

 

[Endoscopy]

Do you think it is funny? What part? the part where you say I have completely misinterpeted that verse when I said that just because a person believes something written in scripture means something is doesn't make it fact, like your opinion regarding the meaning of prophesy of scripture. I like the verse in Deuteronomy 18:20, " But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die."

Holy Spirit huh?

For example, it is written in the scriptures that with God all things are possible, Which in case you are wondering, it is written in
Matt 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Do you believe it is possible for God to lie? So if you believe all things are possible with God but don't believe it is possible for God to lie then are you familiar with the phrase doubled-minded?
So what is your opinion of Hebrews 6:18 "That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, ...."

That is why I said that just because a person reads something in the scriptures doesn't makes it the truth, but I believe those with the Holy Spirit reap what they sow. And by the way I never said God lied but I never said it wasn't possible either because I believe that with the LORD all things are possible.

You go too far with your trying to make God into a possible liar. That absolutely ignores the attributes of God as given in the Bible. Lying is a sin and therefore an abomination to God. Why do you post like this. Are you a wolf in sheep's clothing?

 

[trofimus]

Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg, a Messianic Jew and scholar of Biblical languages and times, debunks that concept. He states the language used in early Genesis is a historical narrative. Nothing is using the symbolic terminology. I take his word over whoever came up with this concept. Most likely those who are uncomfortable with the literal meanings stated.

Thats totally irrelevant.

 

[trofimus]

So are with with the evolutionists or against them? That explanation you have given is only partially true. It does not provide the reason for the existence of death.

Why do you try to make it "with them or agains them"? Just follow where the reality leads, if its evolution, then its evolution. If its something else, then its something else.

Still, there are many possible interpretations of Genesis (and many interpretations of evolution, BTW) and nobody needs to hold to YEC to be a Christian.

 

[LPT]

Dirt to man God's evolution. evo is just a name the ones who think God doesn't have a design a plan in creation.

 

[trofimus]

Dirt to man God's evolution. evo is just a name the ones who think God doesn't have a design a plan in creation.

Evolution is a name for the process that makes living organisms to change in time. Like gravity is a name for you falling down. Everything what moves is changing all the time, both living and non-living things.

God designed all processes and nature laws, because He created the universe.

You can have a problem with neo-darwinism, blind random evolution propagated by some people, but thats not the only view of evolution.

 

[trofimus]

In addition the Cambrian explosion layer has thousands of species created at once with no evidence of any intermediate species.

This "at once" means millions of years. And its not about "big" animals, its about first forms of animals, long time dead ones. There is no horse or cow in that.

Also, what about non-cambrian strata?

 

[Nehemiah6]

Still, there are many possible interpretations of Genesis...

Not really. And none of them suggest that Adam came from the great apes.

 

[LPT]

Evolution is a name for the process that makes living organisms to change in time. Like gravity is a name for you falling down. Everything what moves is changing all the time, both living and non-living things.

God designed all processes and nature laws, because He created the universe.

You can have a problem with neo-darwinism, blind random evolution propagated by some people, but thats not the only view of evolution.

That's one way at looking at it, I look at what is the dirt on earth made of what are its property's and what these property's are, Are exactly what God created man from, water, rocks, sand, trees, wood, leaves, grass, animals, and sorts of things, your process might be short mine might be a long process.

 

[trofimus]

Not really. And none of them suggest that Adam came from the great apes.

Google a little ;-)