Sparks

Atheist Evolution believers murdered millions.

You mean evolutionist atheists. You don't seem to want to reason this out. Your evolutionist pals who happen to be atheist consider everyone to be nothing more than chance, or a fluke. Killing is literally the hero of evolution theory, so haven't you noticed that leaders like Mao Zadong do an awful lot of it? Well, there was one Catholic among the top 10, but not a YE Creationist Christian in the bunch.

Single man's opinion. As for Reginald Punnett, he obviously was clueless if he claims Hitler was not a racist who was inspired to be by evolution theory who killed millions because he thought they were 'weaker races.' I guess you didn't read Mein Kampf either.

You are showing me the opinion of one man. Not the racist foundations of the Young Earth Creationists. Meanwhile, you have to deal with all the racists that ended up killing millions over evolutionary beliefs, like Hitler.

Yes, if you can show me the opinion of YEC that ever lived, and then the shift change to what you claim, that would be sufficient.

You showed me the opinion of one man, just like your own opinion.

I don't think you have ever refuted my claims. You are an expert at cut-and-pasting other people's claims, though.

I appreciate the reply. YEC scientists observe the exact same things any scientist might, but the YEC tend to accurately point out the flaws in the observations of biology, geology, and astronomy if they are based on assumptions rather than observations. There is a huge amount of assumptions with evolution theory. You might say, all but one type are. As I said, science is just a tool of observation and testing, and so with electronics someone figured out electrical resistance and soon built the resistor, and over time and several hundred other observations it became possible to build an iPhone. That is the reward of the scientific method, but science can be incorrectly applied to things like geological time, and astronomical distance, and biology. We see it all the time with evolution theory because they conflate real observations with the unobserved.

Where do you get this stuff? In the Bible it is said we are of one blood (Adam), so we are one of humans DNA. It didn't take trillions of years for us to appear to be of one blood, or one 'race' and we where never made from primordial soup. Your belief there is is where you are confused.

I don't expect you have a genuine answer to my question, which is coincidental to your not wanting to provide one, but I do appreciate that you responded. Overall, I acknowledge that you say you are a God believing Christian, but that normally comes along with the notion that you would believe what God said He did. Science itself it just a tool of observation and testing, and so I am not even sure how the Bible could be a concern over the application of science. I think many confuse technology and acquired knowledge, with science. People who point at an iPhone and call it science, are confused. A the risk of being snubbed again, I will still ask: Is it impossible that the Creationists are correct?

Nothing above changes what I said. There is no 'race gene' and no subspecies of humans. If you found a decomposing human hand in the woods and the skin had rotted away, you would not be able to tell what 'race' it was based on genetics, and DNA. You could tell if it was male or female, but maybe not in this woke world. A crack team of geneticist could not determine race in my scenario above. You can tell perhaps where a persons great, great, great (x 10) grandmother was standing on the planet based Mitochondrial DNA and Y haplogroups though it is mostly a big guess, but never race.

You have the habit of redefining things to fit your needs. I sense that you don't want Darwin to be revealed as a racist, but he existed in some of the most racist times and chose his title. He should have known better being trained as a pastor that there is no such thing as race. Darwin was no scientist either, so he has not got any 'technical papers.' He was trained as a pastor, only. Very few of the pioneers of evolution theory were actual scientists, and the entire theory lacks scientific observation.

Nope. You obviously never read Darwin's book.

I am definitely not a Calvinist, nor a Catholic. The Bible is meant to be easily read. You don't need to do trapeze work to 'translate it' into something it is not. You seem unaware that evolution theory, and specifically Darwin's book, was the reason for so much genocide in the world. Hundreds of millions of people were killed in the name of 'favored races' under 10 leaders. And, oh yes it was due to evolution theory and atheism that these leaders slaughtered so many. They thought they were helping out evolution to get rid of various races. That is why evolution theory is so dangerous; it literally kills.

It's not. When you make up things to make the literal look figurative, it is silly. You have to realize Catholics like yourself, and Protestants like me don't agree on scripture because of silliness like this.

Why don't you use the full title of his book? On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life People decided to shorten the title, like you did. Go ahead, and use the full title in the future.

You are the one revising things.

Remember that in the ancient Hebrew imagination, the uncreated state was not nothing. It was a vast, chaotic sea. First, God made light. Then, he separated the sea vertically by means of the raquia so that some of the water was suspended above it and some was left down below. Stepbible.com (a wonderful tool for exploring the nooks and crannies of the Bible) defines the word raquia as an “extended surface (solid)” and “the vault of heaven.” It lists two related words: to beat (raqa - רָקַע) “to beat, stamp, beat out, spread out, stretch” hammered out (riqqua - רִקּוּעַ) “expansion (of plates)” So the raquia is a solid plane above the sky and the word is related to the words for hammering out metal. https://patternbible.substack.com/p/why-does-the-bible-say-the-sky-is I see, so you are not quoting scripture, you are misinterpreting it. Thanks. I understand why you misunderstand now. The dictionary might help: Creationism - Belief in the supernatural origin of the universe or of humans and other living things, especially as based on the literal interpretation of the account of the creation related in the Bible.

You should probably quote the scripture you reference if you plan to make a point about it.

You have the final misinterpretation of what God said, it seems. I wonder if you understand that Creationism is the belief in what God said about his creation?

I mean no offense when I ask this. I am genuinely interested in knowing how you stumbled into the Christian Camp if you believe what the Bible says is bogus, or suggest that God didn't know what He was talking about when He told you what He did. How did you arrive at God, at all, if you don't believe what He said in Genesis about what He did? You speak of hermeneutics, but you cannot possibly understand how hermeneutics works if you arrive at evolution theory when applying those rules, and saying the people who actually do understand them are fundamentally flawed. Are you sure you are not applying Eisegesis to your interpretation of the Bible, to try to squeeze in evolution because that's what you prefer? Is there any reason that an all powerful God could not create Earth and the entire universe in literal days? To be clear, why do you believe in God Almighty if you literally don't believe in the what the Bible has to say about Him, or what He did in creation?

You have to get in the last word, so OK.

If you completed your research, you would have the facts. Enough of what you won't research.

Only the fake transitional fossils could be considered evidence, if they were not fakes. So, Darwin would be disappointed that people had fabricated the fakes. You showed me nothing and didn't look fully into the matter. That's coincidentally how the 'drive-by media' works. They get a small portion of the facts, draw the wrong conclusion, and then run with them as if they have revealed the truth. For you to have debated Kirsch, you would have had to put up your own 1 million dollars, and been willing to lose it when you could not make your point. Here, it's a little safer for poorly drawn conclusions. But enough on something you refuse to properly research.

If Darwin were alive today, he would admit fossils are not evidence of evolution because he did so when he was alive. Notice, he didn't leap to conclusions about fossils waiting for the 'fossil record' to show evidence. It never did. If he had lived through the fake transitional fossils created by man, I bet he would have called for people to stop fabricating them.