SwordMaster

Quote

That's a consistent and honest approach.    I don't read Genesis the same way you do, but it's not a salvation issue, nor is there anything to criticize in taking your understanding of scripture over that of others.  

Bold italic mine (obviously)...ah, but it does affect one's standing with God as having eternal life. In case you don't understand this Biblical differentiation, salvation and eternal life are not the same thing. Sure, you can get saved believing in evolution, but it affects one's understanding of other essential doctrines and can destroy one's walk with God even when that person fails to understand that fact.

Contrary to calvinism, salvtion is not the beginning and end, it is only the beginning; maintaining one's eternal life (covenant relationship with God) is our part. This is where satan comes into the picture...it only takes one false belief to prevent a person from getting saved or destroying his stand with God in Christ as having eternal life...or numerous little, some "non-essential" doctrines.

Like little termites, those false beliefs slowly eat away at the foundation of relationship with God until that person is spiritually dead even while believing he is on his way to heaven. The false theory of evolution is one of those false doctrines - not of the church or Scripture, but a false doctrine of the world (just like "homosexuals are born that way" is a worldly false doctrine) - because neither are true.

Quote

Science can neither affirm nor deny the existence or function of the supernatural.  It is outside of that which science can study.

Dead wrong, homie. Science is NOT just about the physical, first off; it is about the facts, whatever those facts are.

Second, the supernatural can be studied by science, and has been. You have fallen for the lie philosophy of humanism mixing with science - naturalism. This false philosophy is evolutionists first weapon in their arsenal of deceptions to convince the naïve and uneducated that TOE is a valid scientific exercise.

It fails...slain by "an ugly fact," as Huxley put it.

The problem, is that sinful men continue trying to make it so that they don't feel accountable to God...and they fail in that effort, too.

On 8/13/2022 at 7:54 AM, The Barbarian said:

Science is merely a process invented by men to understand the physical universe.  While nothing else we can do works better for that purpose, it's still a man-made process, subject to error like all other things men do.

The Bible does not affirm science at all.   It affirms God and His relationship with us.  You might as well claim that the Bible affirms plumbing.

 

LOL...plumbing isn't science. As to the process of science, when men look at the facts of nature, and decide to purposely add their own assumptions to the mix and teach those assumptions as facts when they are not facts, that goes beyond human error.

And that is what evolutionists do. On purpose.

On 8/10/2022 at 6:15 PM, missmuffet said:

As for your Christian attitude I think you lost it. 

I didn't lose anything...read the NT again. When a person needs to be corrected, those who have been called by God into ministry have the responsibility to do so. Also...

Quote

A believer follows God and unbeliever follows Satan. There is no inbetween. 

This is not accurate, unless you have a different definition of believer than Scripture does. Millions of people believe...yet they follow after satan. Where do you get these ideas...and then come to another and claim that he has lost his Christian attitude? How can you judge someone else when you don't even understand what Scripture says on things?

Blessings

On 8/10/2022 at 6:31 PM, The Barbarian said:

In fact, I'm an orthodox Trinitarian Christian.   I just don't buy your modern revision of Genesis.

 

LOL! exactly what do you mean by "orthodox?"

Despite what you claim here, a true Christian (NOT a person who belongs to, or upholds, apostate church groups false beliefs) does not claim that Genesis (or any part of the Bible, for that matter) is wrong. 

Again, for the last time, while Scripture is not a science book per say, aside from faulty translations there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that is wrong or false. Christ upholds the 6 day creation week, as does God in many passages throughout the OT.

You pride yourself in thinking that you have truth, when you don't know or have any truth...based upon your own words.

Quote

This is one reason why creationism is so destructive to Christian belief.   I've had a good number of young Christians come to me over a crisis of faith when they realize that the stories creationists told them were essential Christian doctrines could not be true.  Some of them recover and some of them don't.

Really? Creationism is taught exclusively in the first three chapters of Genesis, you don't have a clue as to what you speak, and Scripture speaks about people like you...

1 Timothy 1:7
desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.
 

Contrary to what you say above, the essential Christian doctrines are essential and true. 

On 8/11/2022 at 5:06 AM, The Barbarian said:

Anyone who has read Mayr's What Evolution Is, would not make such a claim.   He clearly and decisively lays out the scientific theory of evolution and then points out that the observed fact of evolution (which we see going on daily) is what evolutionary theory explains:

Evolution as such is no longer a theory for a modern author. It is as much a fact as that the earth revolves around the sun.

Yah...again...there is no "observed fact of evolution" anywhere ever pointed out that has not been succinctly demonstrated to be a false claim. The claim in red is as bogus as santa claus...but you will choose to ignore the actual facts and cling to the lies that you are trying to destroy other people's salvation with.

Whether you choose to believe it or not, Scripture says whoa to those who cause believers to lose their faith. Where you are headed at this moment will not be pleasant, which Mayr, Gould, Goldshmidt and others have discovered first hand, and which people like yourself and Richard Dawkins will discover personally when you'all pass over to the other side.

Quote

 

This is quite a claim, considering the fact that Mayr was one of the leading evolutionary biologists of the 20th century. Could you share the context for this particular claim?

Regardless, quotes do not make solid evidence for scientific claims.

 

Sure...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/darwins-influence-on-modern-thought1/

Focus on the following paragraph:

Another aspect of the new philosophy of biology concerns the role of laws. Laws give way to concepts in Darwinism. In the physical sciences, as a rule, theories are based on laws; for example, the laws of motion led to the theory of gravitation. In evolutionary biology, however, theories are largely based on concepts such as competition, female choice, selection, succession and dominance. These biological concepts, and the theories based on them, cannot be reduced to the laws and theories of the physical sciences. Darwin himself never stated this idea plainly. My assertion of Darwin’s importance to modern thought is the result of an analysis of Darwinian theory over the past century. During this period, a pronounced change in the methodology of biology took place. This transformation was not caused exclusively by Darwin, but it was greatly strengthened by developments in evolutionary biology. Observation, comparison and classification, as well as the testing of competing historical narratives, became the methods of evolutionary biology, outweighing experimentation.

What Mayr is saying is plain and clear to anyone not allowing their biased mind to interfere...evolutionary theory is NOT scientific, it is completely based upon concepts, not experimentation or anything having to do with "the physical sciences." All science is "physical," not esoteric in nature. The last line is truly revealing...competing evolutionary narratives are the methods of evolutionary biology, not the facts of nature.

While I am sure that Mayr didn't realize what he was opening up by these statements, yet he nevertheless gives a great deal of death knell to the theory...much like the arguments of gradualism and PE - they level true facts against one another that when taken together, completely destroys TOE all together.

Of course...true believers will still defend the theory even when the facts stare them in the face. So, my question to you is this...are you a blind true believer? Or are you a truth seeker? You cannot be both.

Quote

I'd be happy to discuss any of these supposed lies with you.

I would only say one thing first...what good would that do when you seem to believe those lies?

I would suggest reading them, because God does not cause people to be born homosexual and then condemn homosexuality in His Word. If He did that, then He would not be holy and righteous.

Quote

The beauty of the peer review process is that lying about scientific results is extremely difficult to get away with for long. It keeps a great deal of integrity in the scientific process.

For the most part, yes...which is how the "scientists" who claimed they found a gay gene were caught in their lies...because other scientists around the world followed their notes and never came to the same results.

However, evolutionary theory is pushed by the same kind of "scientists" who claim the COVID vax was a good thing...that Ivermectin doesn't help with the virus...that the globe is heating up...etc., etc., etc. Things that are not conclusive by any sensible standards. 

The evolutionary community has been black-balling genuine scientists who raise their voices (justifiably so) against the nonsense theory. If you knew anything about what has been going on in this area since the 1960's then you might understand what I am saying. Read ReMin's "The Biotic Message" and he demonstrates, explains, and destroys the entire evolutionary house of cards from the bottom up.

The plain truth of the matter is...evolutionary theory is nothing more than lies upon assumptions upon presuppositions upon conjecture with no valid facts of nature that support any of it...at all. I demonstrate these facts also in my book.

21 hours ago, Joulre2abba said:

No., you didn't set out to give your knowledge verses my knowledge about speaking in tongues. That would have at least been civil. But what you addressed was how wrong you thought I was in what I said. Using ad hominem to do it. No matter how much you might disagree with what I've said there's no reason to be bad tempered about it. It distorts and minimizes whatever 'speaking the truth in love' you might have been attempting to do. Resulting in your words only being a noisy gong.

Youi think very highly of yourself, hence the on-going diatribe. I corrected you, and if you cannot accept correction, then according to Scripture you will never come to have wisdom or understanding in God's Word.

You can keep arguing nonsense points out of your own imagination all you like, but I will no longer address them.

Have a nice day.

Quote

 

Your fellow YE creationists say you are wrong:

Before the time of Charles Darwin, a false idea had crept into the church—the belief in the “fixity” or “immutability” of species. According to this view, each species was created in precisely the same form that we find it today. The Bible nowhere teaches that species are fixed and unchanging.

As creationists, we must frequently remind detractors that we do not deny that species vary, change, and even appear over time.

https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/speciation/

 

Wow...apparently, after going through Ken Ham's web site for a little over 30 minutes, it appears that the guy has gone under. He claims to be a young earth creationist yet speaks about 200,000 years and other nonsense, like speciation. This is still the definition of speciation, is it not...

Quote

Speciation is how a new kind of plant or animal species is created. Speciation occurs when a group within a species separates from other members of its species and develops its own unique characteristics. The demands of a different environment or the characteristics of the members of the new group will differentiate the new species from their ancestors.

Seeing as it is...then there is no such thing as speciation; only the unlearned and deceived think there are...like Ken Ham. There is adaptation, but that is NOT evolution OR speciation. A dog is still a dog...whether you point to a wolf, husky, or bulldog, they are all the same animal and can all interbreed (although TOEists are satisfied in their nonsense by claiming evolution when one doesn't mate with the other even though they can produce viable offspring, it is enough to them and their nonsense theory that they don't for whatever reason).

As far as your starfisth "example," you don't have to quote anything from Answers in Genesis to me, because seeing how Ham has been compromised, it doesn't do you any good.

Quote

 

EII has evolved by gene duplication followed by base substitution of another protein EII'. Both enzymes have 345 identical aminoacids out of 392 aminoacids (88% homology). The enzymes are similar to beta-lactamase.^[12]

The EII' (NylB', P07062) protein is about 100x times less efficient compared to EII. A 2007 research by the Seiji Negoro team shows that just two amino-acid alterations to EII', i.e. G181D and H266N, raises its activity to 85% of EII.^[9]

The structure of EIII was resolved in 2018. Instead of being a completely novel enzyme, it appears to be a member of the N-terminal nucleophile (N-tn) hydrolase family.^[13] Specifically, computational approaches classify it as a MEROPS S58 (now renamed P1) hydrolase.^[14][15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

As you see, it was the mutation of an existing gene to produce a new function by making the enzyme functional for degrading nylon.   It wasn't "turning on", it was a change in the gene.

 

Yes, in this case...just like with SCA. And in both cases, the damaged gene is still damaged, just because it might give a certain bacteria the ability to digest a previously non-digestible item doesn't give any evidence for speciation or evolution. This kind of DNA damage does not lead a worm into an elephant, yet that is what you are claiming with out of context examples.

Simply put, nice try, but you failed again.

Quote

No.  It was actually an ungulate.   That is, for example why whales have an ungulate digestive system.

Oh...so it has changed since I last studied whale evolution. However, the nonsense does not cease...an "ungulate" did not crawl back into the ocean and give rise to whales and other mammals. The whale and dolphin, etc., were created by God as sea dwelling mammals. The fact that TOEists cannot get over that clear fact is stupendous.

An ungulate digestive system is...what? A system that feeds upon vegetation...so...what exactly did you hope to prove by giving such a statement?

This is yet another classic example of evolutionist word game-playing. The fact that a whale and cow have similar digestive systems does not mean diddly squat...it does not demonstrate evolution unless you are already reading evolution into the facts (which is what ALL evolutionists do), which means all you have is tautological nonsense. I know TOEists like yourself fail to understand that, but that is also because you allow your TOEist bias to run your brain.

As far as Wise goes, he admitted no such thing, not directly, that is. When I read this from his paper...

Quote

Because creationist palaeontology is not in the state necessary to properly address the traditional transitional forms issue, the traditional transitional forms issue is not of the highest priority in creationist palaeontology.

then I know that despite his academics, he evidently doesn't understand the whole story, and reading up on him demonstrates that as such. Many creationists now use the terms "transitional" and "speciation" and the like who are not factually based in their thinking, just like there are those "theological creationists" who don't understand that God tells the truth, while men tell lies and are deceived.

There are no transitional fossils that have EVER been conclusively demonstrated to be transitional from one organism into another, but if you wish to try to give some examples, by all means do so...and I will thoroughly embarrass you by demonstrating that they are not.

Quote

Even honest creationists admit that they exist.

All creationists are honest, it is the TOEists who are not. And those who do claim transitional fossils exist, are not fully mature in the field enough to know what they are talking about.

LOL!!! As far as the thyroid gland goes, showing us pictures of the different forms of the thyroid in different animals does NOT demonstrate any kind of "evolution" of the thyroid. More TOEist nonsense where YOU assume evolution into the story of lined up drawings, with NO actual demonstrable evidence of any kind. In other words, just more evolutionist "just-so" story telling, with no evidential support whatsoever. Not in what you gave, and not in the articles that you claim you researched and found "well researched" papers on.

Try again...

6 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No.  It gets energy in the form of light, gravity and other things from the rest of the universe.   You were misled about that.

Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in a population over time.   This is directly observed, and as long as the Earth continues to receive energy from the Sun, the process can continue.

 

Evidently you know little to nothing about stars. They burn the elements within them until they burn out...you know, just like a piece of wood burns up. The laws of thermodynamics clearly stipulate that at one point in future time all stars will be dead, and when they all die (particularly our sun), so does all life. If you believe otherwise, then you believe in new age lies.

As far as the change in allele frequencies, no, that is not evolution. Quite playing word games (unless you really believe what you are saying, and in that case there's no help for you). Which definition of "evolution" are you using here? I know, but I want to see if you actually think you know what you are talking about. There are four of them, which TOEists like yourself regularly use in debates in speed-shift fashion in effort to make your nonsense arguments seem realistic.

A change in allele frequencies is change within the population due to natural, everyday causes of gene expression...and that everyday gene expression does not lead to amoeba to elephant change. If you think it does, then you have some issues.

4 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

If your faith is overthrown by  someone else accepting evolution, then your faith is not very strong, and you probably have larger concerns.

I agree...but I wasn't talking about myself. There are weak, new-born Christians who come to sites like this and have their faith overthrown because they don't yet know enough about what scientists say to know any better.

Scientists are human beings...they lie, cheat, steal, etc., just like anyone else. Take the two homosexual "scientists" who claimed to find a gay gene...who lied and when caught in that lie, confessed that they thought if people thought homosexuals were "born that way," then people would be more accepting of them.

Evolutionists do the same...lies, just-so story telling, etc., in order to get the weak in the facts to believe their nonsense. Ernst Mayr came out in 2010 I believe and confessed that evolution is NOT a science, because it is not amendable to scientific inquiry and experimentation, precisely because it is just stories that evolutionary biologists make up as "competing scenarios" to how they assume things happened. There are no facts supporting the evolutionary scenario...just assumptions given to the public as facts when they are not facts.

Blessings.

19 minutes ago, Starise said:

No I don't like a know it all who didn't even read all of my post casting judgement on it.

The only "know it all" would be the guy who thinks he knows that another is a "know it all" and judges him for it. Nice talking to you. You don't have to reply again, because I won't answer.

7 minutes ago, Not me said:

What difference do you see between the two…?

 I do believe they are one and the same, one is just a continuation of the other…

My thinks, Not me 

Like all words, even in the Greek, one word can have numerous different possible definitions. For example, charis (which is usually translated as 'grace' in error), which has 17 different possible meanings in Greek, which only correlate to five in English.

The phrase "in the spirit" is found (in the ESV) 17 times, out of those 17, some mean in one's personal spirit, not the Holy Spirit (which many versions capitalize "Spirit" erroneously for one reason or another). Other meanings, such as in I Cor. 12:3, means that the person is speaking by the Spirit (in other words, the Spirit is the one speaking through that person); and in passages like Rev. 1:10 it means that the person was having a vision, or that the person was actually translated into the spiritual world.

Walking in the Spirit has a definitive meaning: that one has renewed his mind with God's thoughts so that he can meditate upon them throughout his day (having them in the forefront of his mind so that anything and everything that he sees or hears brings to mind what Scripture has to say about those things).

There is a clear Scriptural difference!

Blessings!

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Birds are dinosaurs.   And understanding how new infomation appears, that would require you to learn about information theory.  The formula for information is:

Where p is the frequency of a given allele of a gene in the population.    Let's take a simple case.  Suppose that there are two alleles (version of the gene) in a population, each with a frequency of 0.5.    The information for that gene is then about 0.3.   Then suppose mutation produces a new allele and eventually each allele has a frequency of about 0.333 in the population.    The information is then about 0.48.   And so it has increased.

It's not controversial.   Even many creationist organizations admit that speciation is an observed fact.

Would you like me to show you?

 

First...you can't even see clearly. I did not say the quote that you quoted me as saying. Try again...

Secondly, birds are not dinosaurs.

thirdly, "new information" does NOT appear in genetic systems, only genes that were previously unexpressed...as numerous papers have demonstrated. 

You believe in lies by liars seeking to live outside of God's plan. Guess what, they deceive themselves...and apparently you along with them.

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It's billions of years old.   The evidence is quite plain.   And the Bible does not say that it isn't that old.

No, that's wrong too.   It even still exists in several places in the world where every age is preserved in the geological column.   Would you like me to show you that?

As you might know, we observe it happening all around us.  Perhaps you don't know what the definition of "evolution" is.   What do you think it is?   With even most creationist organizatons admitting the evolution of new species, genera, and so on, there's really no longer any point in denying the fact.    If you doubt this, tell us which of Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory are not confirmed.    You'll find that each one is verified to be true.

 

Again...when it comes to age dating, not one of those methods used by evolutionists are accurate to any degree...and they refuse to acknowledge the more factual age dating methods like gravity and so forth because they demonstrate how geologists play fast and loose with the actual data and its outcomes.

Living mollusk shells have been dated at being millions of years old...and any brain child that thinks a living creature can be millions of years old has some serious intellectual issues.

And again, whether you accept it or not because you allow your bias to run your brain and thinking processes, there is not one "quite plain" piece of evidence for billions of years of age for anything...but you go ahead and keep believing that nonsense and see where it gets you.

3 minutes ago, Starise said:

Yeah that's what I thought and why I probably won't read any more of your posts.

So...in other words...you don't like to be contradicted. Very mature, indeed! 

Blessings

2 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

Were they truly saved to begin with? That decision is for God. They would need to repent and genuinely give their heart to God and then be obedient to Him. As far as judgment goes I can not judge the heart. Only God can do that. 

Sure...but you seem to be laboring under the false teachings of calvinism. Contradictory to what calvinism teaches, Scripture teaches that a saved person can fall away from God.

Blessings

12 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

There's only one.   Here it is:

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time.

No, that's wrong, too.   For example, the Milano mutation in humans, which provides protection from hardening of arteries) occurred to a known individual in Italy, and is now spreading through the population.   There are many other such mutations known.   You were simply misled about that.

I showed you the math on this in another thread, showing how a new mutation increases information in the population genome.   No point in denying the fact.  

I would think that protection against arteriosclerosis is anything but nonsense.   We'll just have to disagree there.  The problem here, is you do not know what "information" is.

But you can't think of even one?   I know why.

Learn about these things and find out why even honest creationists admit that there is very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory.

 

I thought you were the same ... person that I have debated before on other threads. You are the brain washed guy who believes the lies and perversions that evolutionary "scientists" give to those who don't know any better, and who comes to Christian forums with the goal to overthrow people's faith by the lies and deceptions that you post.

Not one of the claims you have made in this exchange is true, but since you are a true believer in these deceptive lies, you will not ever be able to see truth.

I will just post the actual facts that your nonsense directly contradicts, but I will not engage your nonsense since you are unable to see truth.

2 minutes ago, Starise said:

I just said as much in my last post, although with a lot more detail. You just repeated what I posted and said I misunderstood it.

I think YOU need to re read my post. 

LOL! To be honest, I only read the first paragraph!

Blessings!

18 hours ago, Not me said:

Hi, and thanks for the blessings…

In Galatians it reads, ‘having begun in the Spirit’,

Yes...indeed...but there is a Biblical difference between having begun "in the Spirit" and "walking in the Spirit." May you seek His guidance into understanding His Word.

Blessings!