- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDon't you believe that evolutionistst should muster the courage to come clean... reserving the term mutation for any change in genetic coding... and use some other term -- perhaps "novation" (novelty-producing mutation) -- to describe the kind of mutation they say is potentially useful? ...Can we estimate the rate of "novation" as opposed to the rate of mutation? Yes, we can. The rate of novation is a number that is vanishingly small (if not actually zero). It is a number so small that in order to account for synthetic evolution by random mutation, one has to have an almost religious faith...
Biochemists have discovered natural phenomena in which the length of genes is increased; in which genes get replicated; by which genes get changed from one to another; by which DNA is inserted into genomes; in which chromosomes get doubled; etc. These phenomena easily explain how the genome could slowly change and increase in complexity by natural means.[/b]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI think it is imporatant to realise that there is one final observation that can be made about all the sediments of the geological column in relation to present-day processes, and it is the greatest anomaly of all. Today there are no known fossiliferous rocks forming anywhere in the world.
Djbecker -
One major source of evidence for the TOE is that it made predictions about what sort of fossils would be found in the future. It predicted that fossils of animals similar to existing animals but not identical would be found. These fossils could be arranged in such a way as to show a definite progression of changes from one fossi ...[text shortened]... h the Theory of Evolution. Likewise, there are bats which do not chew anything but have molars.
You should also realise that the problems that have bedeviled horse paleontology also beset every other branch of the science. Indeed, the gaps in the fossil record are reflected in the living world where many major animal and plant groups are high and dry with no discernible predecessors. The development of the entire order of mammals is missing from the fossil record, from its supposed shrewlike ancestor of the late Cretaceous until modern times. ...In fact, more than 100 years of further intense collecting by well-funded professional expeditions has not yet yielded any of the remains that Darwin envisaged...
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe natural limit on the amount of variation that can be induced in a species is merely the expression of the fact that nowhere in the animal or plant kingdom is there a species that is capable of the infinite biological plasticity demanded by evolution theory, capable of unlimited adaptation to different environments and different modes of life. Living organisms are systems with limited potential for change in which variation of one characteristic reacts on other characters, usually with unfavorable results. This finding is of central importance because it is one that Darwinists will usually accept, having considered the evidence, but will later on simply forget all about when they are speaking of the Darwinian concept of variation and natural selection. It seems to bring out the Jekyll and Hyde in evolutionists from Darwin down to the present.
After much of the other evidence was examined and it was found to support the TOE, comparisons of genomes supported it again. For example, chimpanzees are found to be extremely close to humans genetically (relative to the differences between the human genome and other animal genomes).
Artificial selection, both in the lab and with animals like dogs ...[text shortened]... a pteranodon's wing bones, you can see that they use their "pinky" as the frame for the wing.[/b]
03 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusLet's see how, according to biblical myth, people "choose" to go to hell.
You're absolutely right. They choose to go there and He sends them.
Matt. 7:21-23
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
In other words, people (like you!) who were doing their damndest to be good christians are repudiated by their 'savior' and called 'workers of iniquity'.
You have no assurance of salvation.
03 Mar 05
3 edits
From a computer perspective, every processor has an initial instruction set that tell parts of the computer what to do. In the biological world, you see the same thing. Life is full of IF THEN ELSE STATEMENTS.
Example: If dirt gets in you eye, flood the eye with tears to get the dirt out.
Where did the original instruction set come from. Darwinism is impossible to believe because you must assume that the initial instruction set came from no where. Nothing from nothing = nothing.
It is soooo obvious that we have a creator. The rules that govern the operation of the human eye let alone the entire body is beyond complex. By default you know there must be a creator. To believe in randomess of creation is an impossible task for me. If I went to Mars and saw a big machine that managed the climate, would I think this machine appeared from random trial and error? No I would know that this machine has a creator.
Not to believe in God requires the following:
1) You must believe that the cycles that govern the world and seasons was an accident.
2) You must believe that the rules that govern how people and animals operate in this world was an accident
3) You must believe that the rules that govern how the human body processes light, food, water etc. was by chance
4) You must believe that the current state of life is at its most efficient.
Ppersonally I think an amoeba is more efficient to produce life than the requirement of a a male female . Assuming that mother nature is just the result of a random process of course.
3) You must assume that if I mix a bunch of compund together,then over time something new and efficient would arise from this mixture. Maybe after 100 billion years.
The reality is that organic matter dies and will not create life over billions or trillions of years.
The fact is that only a creator could have made what you see before you today.
Look at the human eye alone. We copied the functionality of the eye when we created the camera. We did not even come up with this on our own. You can believe that someone created a camera but cannot believe that the human eye had an intelligent creator?
It is more logical for me to believe in a God than not to and his name is Jesus.
03 Mar 05
3 edits
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemBigDoggProblem. You have a problem. You do not understand the mind and goal of God. This understanding comes from him.
Let's see how, according to biblical myth, people "choose" to go to hell.
Matt. 7:21-23
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is ...[text shortened]... rkers of iniquity'.
[b]You have no assurance of salvation.[/b]
Being religious does not get you into heaven. That is what that passage says. God wants his children to know him intimately and love him of their own free will. So, just because you did a good deed for God does not mean you ever knew him personally. Can any offspring call a parent Daddy or Mommy just because they contributed to your birth?
No. Only those that have gotten to know the parent intimately can call that parent Daddy or Mommy. I may be you father but I will never be your Daddy unless you have gotten to know me.
Same with God. He want an intimate relationship with those who want to be his children. Through this intimacy, he give us the right to call him ABBA(Daddy)
I have assurance of my salvation because my Daddy knows me.
Would my biological Daddy leave me to be destroyed? No! Why? because he knows me intimately and would now die for me that I might be saved.
Hummm?
Die for me?
Wow. That is what my heavenly father did for me also!
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemActually, O expert of Biblical theology, that verse is refering to the lukewarm Christians in all of the churches. You know, the ones who haven't really accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior and just go to church to show off their best clothes. It's also referring to the false prophets like Benny Hinn who are corrupt to the core.
Let's see how, according to biblical myth, people "choose" to go to hell.
Matt. 7:21-23
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast ...[text shortened]... eir 'savior' and called 'workers of iniquity'.
[b]You have no assurance of salvation.[/b]
Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerScientists don't know what will be potentially useful. Or, put another way, any mutation that doesn't keep an organism from reproducing is potentially useful. Look at the sickle cell gene; it really hurts people, but it also provides resistance to malaria. So the rate of your "novation" is the equal to the number of mutations that don't kill an organism before it can possibly reproduce.
Don't you believe that evolutionistst should muster the courage to come clean... reserving the term mutation for any change in genetic coding... and use some other term -- perhaps "novation" (novelty-producing mutation) -- to describe the kind of mutation they say is potentially useful? ...Can we estimate the rate of "novation" as opposed to the rate ...[text shortened]... ccount for synthetic evolution by random mutation, one has to have an almost religious faith...
03 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerThat is not true that
I think it is imporatant to realise that there is one final observation that can be made about all the sediments of the geological column in relation to present-day processes, and it is the greatest anomaly of all. Today there are no know ...[text shortened]... s has not yet yielded any of the remains that Darwin envisaged...
more than 100 years of further intense collecting by well-funded professional expeditions has not yet yielded any of the remains that Darwin envisaged
For example, a lot of fossils that look awfully like dinosaurs or some other reptile evolving into birds have been found. No, not everything has been found; but no matter how many fossils are found, there will always be "gaps". To avoid gaps, we'd have to have the skeleton of every organism that ever existed.
To say
Today there are no known fossiliferous rocks forming anywhere in the world
shows ignorance, unless I am mistaken. Now it might be my own ignorance showing, but from what I understand, such rocks are proposed to be ocean or river sediment that slowly accumulate over time. Then the sediment gets buried under ground and slowly gets pressed by the weight of further sediment layers above it into rock. So yes, fossil bearing sedimentary rocks are observed to be forming by this mechanism today.
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerGiven long periods of time of gradual change, pretty much any organism has that plasticity that you claim they do not. I do not agree with this statement of yours.
The natural limit on the amount of variation that can be induced in a species is merely the expression of the fact that nowhere in the animal or plant kingdom is there a species that is capable of the infinite biological plasticity demanded by evolution theory, capable of unlimited adaptation to different environments and different modes of life. Living or ...[text shortened]... ion. It seems to bring out the Jekyll and Hyde in evolutionists from Darwin down to the present.
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by BattleAceYou are correct. I do have a problem understanding the braggadocio and swagger that many of the christians in this room are exhibiting, when the book they allegedly follow is filled with warnings about those who think they know where they stand. This means you!
BigDoggProblem. You have a problem. You do not understand the mind and goal of God. This understanding comes from him.
Being religious does not get you into heaven. That is what that passage says. God wants his children to know him intimately and love him of their own free will. So, just because you did a good deed for God does not mean you ever knew hi ...[text shortened]... I might be saved.
Hummm?
Die for me?
Wow. That is what my heavenly father did for me also!
It is not mere religious behavior that causes jesus to reject those in the passage I quoted. They were casting out demons! Tell me, sir, do you think a demon would dispossess a body if a non-christian ordered it to do so? How would a non-christian perform miracles without the power of god? I bet you will claim that satan lets them perform miracles just to deceive them into thinking they are saved.
Many claim to know the mind of god. It's almost trendy these days. It gives your opinion extra weight among the spiritually inclined. Think about it in cold blood though. If there really was a being as powerful as God, how on earth would you know if anything he said was true? He/she/it could easily deceive you, being much smarter and more powerful than you.
What's terribly lacking in modern christians is humility.
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusLukewarm Christians! Yeah, I know them. They shop at all the trendy stores in the mall. Oh, and they cast out a demon or two on the way back to their car. Just to show off! The nerve of these people! Who do they think they're fooling?
Actually, O expert of Biblical theology, that verse is refering to the lukewarm Christians in all of the churches. You know, the ones who haven't really accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior and just go to church to show off their best clothes. It's also referring to the false prophets like Benny Hinn who are corrupt to the core.
Romans 10:9 That if t ...[text shortened]... shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, [b]thou shalt be saved.[/b]
Note that jesus does not dispute that these people did miracles or cast out demons.
03 Mar 05
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemYou ever watch Benny Hinn? He likes to "throw the Holy Spirit" at people. And most of the time they all fall over. Now it's very clear Hinn is a false prophet because he's made many predictions that just didn't come true and he treats the Lord Jesus like a commodity rather than a Savior. Now are all these people having psychotic breakdowns simultaneously? No, Satan's demons are pushing them over to make Hinn appear to be telling the truth. Satan loves it when false prophets can sway people from the truth of Jesus Christ. Same with the apparitions of Mary.
Lukewarm Christians! Yeah, I know them. They shop at all the trendy stores in the mall. Oh, and they cast out a demon or two on the way back to their car. Just to show off! The nerve of these people! Who do they think they're fooling?
Note that jesus does not dispute that these people did miracles or cast out demons.