SwordMaster

Quote

I would be happy to have a conversation if there is something specific you'd like to discuss.

Sure.

How about the many "unseen biological programs" that evolution can not account for...

13 and 17 year cicadas, for example...how did the timing mechanism evolve?

There is also the common asparagus plant, which crops for seventeen years and then will never crop again...the timing mechanism...

Other examples of internal timing mechanisms are found in certain kinds of cactus that only bloom every twelve years (how does the plant know that twelve years has gone by?).

There is a specie of bamboo tree that only blooms every one hundred and seventeen years (again, how does it know when 117 years has gone by?)…

There are many more, but we can start with these...

23 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Sorry, that's wrong.   Evolution only has to account for the way allele frequencies change in a population. 

Theories are accountable only for their predictions.    Which of Darwin's four points do you think has been refuted?  Be specific.

 

Sorry, but your sad rebuttal is wrong. Since alleles account for every part of a living organism, then if evolution is true it is what created every single aspect of every living organism in the world. 

And, point of fact, TOE cannot predict anything because it is not a valid scientific theory. All of the so-called "predictions" of TOE are either adaptational changes (which is not molecules to man evolution, and which does not lead to such), or they are just-so scenario stories that cannot be demonstrated in any way, shape, or form.

Dawkins is a master (idiot) in this area...constantly giving so-called predictions that have been met when in fact all he does is give layer upon layer of "thought experiments" that do not prove a single thing.

23 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Remember when I told you that not knowing what evolution is, was a problem for you?  It just bit you again.

Even Darwin just assumed that God created life at the beginning:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species

Evolution is not about the origin of life.   Maybe you should go and learn what evolutionary theory actually says?

 

Sorry, pal...more nonsense on your part. Evolution did encompass origin of life until it became painfully obvious that naturalism can't produce life from non-living chemicals. Go back and read origin of life papers in the 50's and 60's...they all claim that what they were doing would demonstrate evolution.

I also recall that Darwin later lamented that he ever printed the Origin of Species, I can't remember why, but you probably wouldn't agree with it anyway.

23 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Example?

 

 

Medical records are replete with examples of miracles. For one example, A coworker of mine a number of years ago came to be in the last stage of breast cancer, where the cancer had metastasized into her bones and was literally breaking and cracking them into splinters. She was in so much pain that she just wanted to die.

I prayed for her, and she was instantly healed on the spot. When she went to her oncologist later that week he took full x-rays and could find no cancer in her body anywhere, where all of the x-rays that had been taken beforehand shown cancer in every part of her body.

The facts are there, you just have to dig for them. Do the doctors always claim it as a miracle? No, because they were trained in evolutionary biology where miracles don't occur because naturalism states that there is no God.

Quote

Well, let's just recognize that Christians differ on the meaning of some of the verses and that it's not a salvation issue, anyway. 

First...Scripture is NOT up for personal interpretation. Every verse has one meaning, just like every sentence you speak has but one meaning. Claiming that there are different meanings based upon how you want to read them is an illegitimate argument to begin with.

Secondly, as I stated clearly earlier, while this is not a "salvation issue," it IS an "eternal life" issue. 

1 minute ago, Philologos said:

So if God hates what is false, why does His Word say He created the world as He did? Does he hate His own story? Is He trying to see if we're so easily deceived by Him that were not worthy if we belief He's the ONE who created this world just as He said He did. I don't think you truly understand, (I hope you don't), that you are undermining, not just peoples' beliefs, but the Bible that contains those beliefs. 

 

Of course God hates what is false, because what is false keeps people from Him and eternity with Him.

Where do you get that God is false because of what Genesis says? God created the universe just as it says...the only deception comes in when people choose to believe the lies of evolutionary science over the facts of nature and Scripture...or are you too deceived in that?

I am not undermining either Scripture or people's faith in Scripture and God, I uphold what Scripture clearly teaches. If your beliefs are not in line with Scripture, then I do hope that I am undermining it...but for those who hold Scripture above what lying scientists claim, there's no issues.

4 minutes ago, Philologos said:

Wow... So, lets just solve the whole issue and rip Genesis chapters one thru five out of the bible, since, according to science, is not true and should not be believed by Christians.... How far will you be willing to take this? Miracles not real? Angels not real? None of this can be confirmed by science, in fact, the same science you use to discredit creation is the same science that says God is a fairy tale. 

 

Actually, science can confirm miracles and other supernatural things...it is only the evolutionist stance on naturalism that prevents them from doing so. Others have, and we can!

Blessings!

1 minute ago, teddyv said:

Well, I am one. And I work with others in my field.

Your telling of your story of your biology class suggests an ungracious and prideful attitude. I am unsurprised that you were thrown out of a class. Hint: you are in a class to learn. Maybe you should have stuck it out so you would be able to argue more effectively for your position.

 

Well...I am also one.

No, my story doesn't tell of any such things, what it does suggest is that I am all about the facts, not assumptions taught as facts when the evidence does NOT support what they are teaching.

And, BTW, I can argue my position very effectively, because the facts of nature are on my side, not TOE's side. That's why evolutionists have now been promoting the Panspermia nonsense...because those who are honest about the facts have come out and confessed that life could not have started upon the earth by random chance happenings naturalistically. 

There are too many variables that naturalism cannot handle, and for nature to be able to do what man has been unable to do now with millions of dollars and fantastic equipment is proof positive that it didn't happen because it can't happen.

And for God to start the whole process with a single cell and then wait billions of years instead of simply speaking it all into existence, is an exercise of a deceived mind. We have many of those today.

Quote

When people post angry responses, it's because they feel hurt by someone they should be able to trust. 

Not always...

Psalm 119:104

Because of Your instruction I understand truth; therefore, I am established in uprightness and I hate anything that is false.

And, just in case you were referring to me, I am not angry...but I do hate anything that is false, simply because what is false has the power to send a person who has Life into eternal fire. That will be any true Christian's heart felt response to what is deceptive.

1 minute ago, teddyv said:

Do you personally know any scientists?

Yes...do you? Or should I re-phrase that...do you know any scientists that question the obvious problems with TOE? There is a difference.

As I stated before, when taking a human physiology college class, I asked about the issues to evolution covered in the text book because the teacher was a die-hard evolutionist and taught constantly referring to how wonderful the processes of evolution were to be able to create such awesome creatures as ourselves.

He finally got me kicked out of the class because I constantly embarrassed him in front of the other students by asking the questions that neither he nor evolution can answer.

Remember the old adage? Evolution must be able to account for everything in the biological world, or it can't account for anything. It has been demonstrated now since the 1960's to be a false science that only the deceived believe in.

2 minutes ago, teddyv said:

Modern YEC is just that, modern. 

It is wrong-headed to make use our 20th-21st century modernist lens to view Scripture from the bronze and iron ages with very different cosmologies.

The label is modern, but the truth of the concept goes back to Genesis 1. This is the problem here, evidently...far too many people who call themselves Christians think that Scripture changes with the ages, it does not. Neither does how one is to read Scripture change...God is eternal and unchanging, homosexuality is still a sin, one that God calls abomination, that will never change.

Neither will any other sin or doctrine that God gives to us in His Word. What you claim above is what apostate churches teach today (if I understood you correctly). Neither does the literal facts written in Genesis.

5 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I’ve seen far too many people leave the faith when peeking out from under the constraints of a young earth creationist upbringing and seeing a world full of evidence that God left for us. When one is brought up believing that young earth creation is the only way for a faithful Christian to view Genesis 1-3, then it sets that person up for a crisis of faith.

I am thankful that despite my upbringing, I was able to avoid such a crisis when “fact” after “fact” supporting young earth creation was shown to be false.

The sad truth here is that "fact after fact" of nature does not support the reported lies of evolutionists. Just like in CSI work, the details of what actually took place minus the assumptions people read into those facts is where TOE deceives people...because they purposely assume away pieces of those facts, or assume additional things to the facts that the evidence does not support outside of ASSUMING and reading evolution into the mix.

That is not true science, that is deception, and it took over after evolution was officially killed by genetics and was repackaged as the Synthetic theory in the 60's. Again, scientists are human beings, and they - like the average joe on the street - don't want to be held accountable for their sins to God. The difference is, instead of doing what the average joe on the street does, the evolutionists tries his best to kick God out of the history of the universe.

When evolution is not assumed and read into the facts of nature, then no one sees evidence for it. Plain and simple.

There is no crisis of faith if a person is grounded in relationship with God and rejects the lies pushed upon them in the name of a false science.

13 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

When people try to separate others from God, they only distance themselves from God.   It never turns out well.

You may not agree with most Christians on these things, but it's not a threat to your salvation until you make an idol of your new beliefs.   Don't do that.

 

 

People who try to separate others from God have no relationship with God, so there's nothing for them to distance themselves from because they are already there. 

Most Christians don't believe what you are selling, and those who do are deceived. Again, TOE isn't a threat to one having received salvation, it is a threat to maintaining their relationship with God...

Romans 1:25
because they rejected the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is worthy of praise forever. Amen. 

Read Romans 1:21-32 again...Paul speaks of those who were at one time believers who started off down the wrong path into more and more darkness, to the point where God "gave them up" to ever increasing debauchery. It starts with a small lie...it always does. And I don't have any "new" beliefs, I believe what Scripture says, not the false misinterpretations of men.

On 8/12/2022 at 4:38 PM, missmuffet said:

If they follow after Satan then they are not a believer. 

It appears that you are laboring under false ideologies. I know many people who believe in God, yet they follow after satan...many of them who honestly believe (or will tell you that they do) that they are Christians.

What one believes alone does NOT make a person a Christian...what they believe and walking in obedience to God makes a person a Christian.

Blessings!

Quote

I have reported many of your posts. I disagree with barbarians doctrinal stance in this thread but he has not violated the terms of service the way you have. You should debate the topic, not sling accusations around.

Accusations are unfounded...what I said is not. Jesus Himself said that you will know them by what they do and say, and anyone who directly opposes the truth of Scripture, while claiming to be a Christian, is exactly what Jesus said they were.

I will not say that to him again, yet the truth stands.

2 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

Please explain this:

In case you don't understand this Biblical differentiation, salvation and eternal life are not the same thing.

It sounds like you are saying that if you believe in evolution (which I dont) then you do not get eternal life with the Lord. I do not understand how salvation and eternal life are different when Jesus Himself states believing in Him gives one eternal life. And believing in Him gets one salvation. 

Romans 10

9 Because if you confess the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses unto salvation.
 

John 10

27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
28 And I give to them eternal life, and they shall never ever perish, and not anyone shall pluck them out of My hand.

 

 

If you do a full study on the two terms, "salvation" and "eternal life," they are not the same thing. Paul in particular uses these two terms as metonyms for one another in different verses. For example:

Philippians 2:12
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,
 

No one can "work" their own salvation; here the word salvation is used as a metonym for eternal life. A metonym is a word used in place of another word that is related but not the same. In the example here: "Your desires are subordinate to those of the crown." the crown stands for either the kingdom of the king; it is used as a metonym for either, but the crown is NOT the king or the kingdom.

As another example:

Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,
 

Salvation is not eternal, it only pertains to the here and now. Taking the way it is used here, one could be deceived into believing that once they got saved, they keep their salvation for the rest of eternity (once saved always saved false doctrine). The term salvation here is used instead of eternal life as a metonym, how do we know? Because salvation does not depend upon obedience to Christ - but keeping your standing in Christ as having eternal life IS dependent upon walking in obedience to God.

Two examples of these two terms used metonymically for one another. When we come to understand how to study Scripture, and not just read it, we come to see that Scriptural truth is found in the details, not in general statements.

No, I am not saying that if one believes in the false doctrine of evolution that God will not save them. What I said was that believing in such a false doctrine has the potential to destroy a person's faith in God. Do you have any idea how many polls have demonstrated that children raised in church, and then went off into secular college and universities, LOST their faith because of being brain washed with evolutionary doctrine? Do the research...it is horrible and sad.

In answer to your question about Jesus saying that all one must do to have eternal life is to believe in Him...this is a false doctrine. When we learn that we must take Scripture as progressive revelation, the entire doctrine of salvation is that one must choose to believe in Him, one must then choose to repent from his previous lifestyle of sinful behavior, and then he must receive water baptism into Christ, God's living new covenant. No one gets saved just because they believe...and that false doctrine from calvinism has caused a huge number of people to believe they are saved when they actually are not.

As for Romans 10:9-10, allow me to give you a more accurate rendering of the Greek with its grammar fully intact (which most English Bibles do not do for various reasons)...

Romans 10:9-10

9 because if you profess with your mouth that you have made Jesus Christ your Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, then you will be saved. 10 Because with the heart one believes into righteousness, and with the mouth he makes a covenant promise taking him into salvation. 

In the way that homologeo (see note above) is utilized here by Paul, he implies the same as Peter does in I Pet. 3:21 - a covenant oath or promise to walk in obedience to God. No one gets saved just because they believe and confess, that is not what Scripture teaches when we take all of the over 300 passages that address the topic.

Taking two or three passages out of over 300, and claiming that that is the whole truth, makes about as much sense as taking a 300 piece jig-saw puzzle, taking two or three pieces of it, laying them on the table, and exclaiming what a beautiful picture the puzzle makes. That is not how Bible study is to be accomplished.

Again...John 10:27-28 with all of its grammar intact:

John 10:27-28

27 My sheep continuously listen to and obey My voice, and I know and approve of them, and they follow Me in trusting obedience; 28 and I give them eternal life, and they will not perish in the next age and no one can take them out of My hand by force.

Hope that helps.

On 8/12/2022 at 8:24 PM, The Barbarian said:

 

Maybe you're concerned that if you see the evidence, you'll realize that you were the one believing lies.

No, not anything like that. I studied the topic for over 7 years, asked questions in college that the evolutionary professors didn't like and kicked me out of their classes because they didn't like being made fools of in front of the other students.

I know the facts, I am not deceived into believing the nonsense you cling to.

Quote

Nothing in the Bible shows Christ declaring that the 6 days were literal days.   You know that. 

Um...ok?

Exodus 20:11
For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
 

Who is Jesus? He is Yahweh God in the flesh...who wrote the Scriptures by His Spirit through the hands of chosen men. When God affirms that He created the heavens and the earth in six (literal) days...it is the same as Christ affirming that fact.

See what I mean about those little non-essential false beliefs slowly destroying one's faith in God's Word?

Quote

You're demonstrating a basic creationist misunderstanding; individuals don't evolve; populations do.  Remember what evolution is; a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

You are demonstrating the basic evolutionist deception: populations adapt, they do not evolve. Squirrels will never give way to another organism, only other squirrels. The same goes for elephants, lions, tigers, dogs, cats, etc........

Change in allele frequencies in a population over time does NOT cause one organism to evolve into a completely different organism. Again...ungulates did NOT give way to whales, that is fantasy schizophrenia...people need to come back to reality. Such change has never been documented (what you call macroevolution), neither on paper or found in the fossil record when all of the facts of the accounts have been accurately codified.

Quote

Um, in the 60s, when I was an undergraduate, they knew it was evolved from ungulates. 

Wrong again...they postulated that it evolved from ungulates with absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that could stand up against thorough scrutiny.

Quote

 

Perhaps you don't know what an ungulate is.   What do you think it is?   Yes, I'm hinting that you might want to look it up.

As YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise writes, there is a very good series of transitional fossils from land ungulates to whales.   Anatomy, genetics, fossil data and other evidence shows that whales are descended from land animals.   Occasionally whales still develop rudimentary legs; the genes are still there, only suppressed.

 

I know what an ungulate is...and no ungulate (or any other land mammal, hoofed or otherwise) waded out into the ocean and began evolving into sea mammals...but you go ahead and keep believing that nonsense if you want to. Its your eternity...

Here is a classic example of diagrams drawn depicting this nonsense:

http://thewhalesevolution.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/9/4/14949788/3368457_orig.png?1

So...what do we have here? Different species of animal fossils found in different strata deposited during Noah's flood, of animals that all lived at the same time (which I might add, are NEVER found exclusively to only one strata of deposition, but have been found in different strata and TOEist geologists ignore those examples and explain them away through various means), lined up together in an assumed older to younger format.

We can do the exact same thing today and make it look like "evolution," and we can use, for example:

https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/skeleton-of-musk-deer-litz-collection.jpg

https://interspectral.com/wp-content/uploads/dog-chihuahua-08-1200x679.jpg

https://asset.library.wisc.edu/1711.dl/QYCFIMC4K2VZ59B/M/h1380-68245.jpg

https://pixy.org/download/5871526/

https://st.depositphotos.com/1900179/2069/v/950/depositphotos_20692667-stock-illustration-cat-skeleton.jpg

There are small anatomical differences in the skeletons, and if we line them up just right there is an appearance of "evolutionary change" leading from the smaller animal at the end of the line up from the larger at the beginning. This is the same exact thing evolutionists do with the supposed whale evolution, which is pure nonsense that no one in their sane mind would believe. 

It has been documented in the past where the skulls and skeletons found in certain diagrams were NOT to scale, but were purposely depicted beginning from smaller animals to larger, when that depiction was not evidenced factually...just another card in the house of cards that TOE is built upon.

Quote

 

All of this is very good evidence, but even more compelling is that we never find transitional forms where evolutionary theory predicted they would not be.   We don't see mammals with feathers, or arthropods with bones.    No whales with gills.

Darwin's confidence was well-placed.   And the fossil record shows this.

 

In actuality, none of it is evidence for anything but vivid imaginations. 

"Neither of the two fundamental axioms of Darwin's macroevolutionary theory - the concept of the continuity of nature, that is the idea of a functional continuum of all life forms linking all species together and ultimately leading back to a primeval cell, and the belief that all the adaptive design of life has resulted from a blind random process - have been validated by one single empirical discovery or scientific advance since 1859." Micheal Denton; Evolution: a Theory in Crisis

I don't say that because Denton said it, I say that because that is what the facts of nature demonstrate. When we remove ALL of the illegitimate assumptions from the story-telling, the facts demonstrate that there is no such thing as one organism changing over time into a completely different organism through its progeny.

There is no evidence whatsoever that a single celled organism gave way over billions of years to human beings, elephants, birds, reptiles, etc. Not one valid piece of evidence that can stand up against scrutiny. 

Quote

 

The springs, from which the snails came, were fed by carbonate aquifers. As this water percolated through the enclosing carbonates, it dissolved limestone and dolomite hundreds of millions of years old. The dissolution of limestone and dolomite introduced considerable quantities of "dead carbon" into the groundwater. As a result, the groundwater which fed the spring and in which the snails lived was significantly deficient in carbon-14 relative to what is found in the atmosphere. When the snails made their shells, they incorporated an excess amount of "dead carbon," relative to modern atmosphere, into their shells, which resulted in the excessively old apparent date.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html

I'm surprised anyone still makes that error.   AIG and ICR have both removed that from their sites, last time I checked.

 

I am surprised that anyone with a working knowledge of scientific facts would quote anything from talkorigins...as the entire web site has been put in the trash can so many times over the last 30 years that its really quite pathetic.

Quote

The source of the 2,300-year-old radiocarbon date (Keith and Anderson 1963, discussed by Strahler 1987, 156-157), has been abused and misused to discredit radiocarbon dating. 

Yeah, that might work if the faulty explanation of TOEists on their paper was what I was referring to. But what I refer to is the purposeful and deceptive practice of assuming things in the past as if they are the same as today.

Why don't you hit that one, because I am sure you know about it...

10 hours ago, missmuffet said:

A Christian can have faith in God and have respect for science, as long as we remember which is perfect and which is not. A Christian can embrace science that seeks the truth, but rejects the "priests of science" who put human knowledge above God. 

Absolutely true, but we as Christians must study to show ourselves approved and practice righteousness so that we have the spiritual senses to be able to differentiate between "what is falsely called science (knowledge)" and the facts of nature. 

The facts of nature are irrefutable - but some scientists purposely twist those facts with assumptions and make up man-made "science" that is not science.

Blessings!