Jump to content


Advanced Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

213 Good

1 Follower

About Hawkins

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

2,257 profile views
  1. An easier way to understand is that ToE doesn't have any mechanism in distinguishing breeding from evolution. ToE is more like a theory assuming the absence of interbreeding. This will inevitably lead to the liger scenario I illustrated, and thus will falsify the theory itself logically (as the theory doesn't have the ability to take interbreeding into account). In a nutshell, the change from tiger to liger is a change subject to interbreeding. It's not a change caused by natural selection which the ToE can only come up with!
  2. This is not even an argument. It's a known fact that humans contain genes of Neanderthal. Liger is used just to trigger a thought experiment.
  3. https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html https://phys.org/news/2018-05-special-humanity-tiny-dna-differences.html Evolution is a strong implication on how species today can be evolved from simple or single cell organisms, by a long time process of natural selection. Today's DNA analysis doesn't seem to support this advocate, in a general sense anyway. Evolution can actually be falsified logically applying a scientific sense. We humans contain Neanderthal genes, we interbred at some point of history. Let's take another example for the sake of argument. Lion and tiger gives liger. After a billion years and tons of micro-evolution in order to survive the changing environment plus many times of back and forth interbreeding with other possible species, now a billion years after when applying our evolution theory what conclusion can we get to. The only conclusion our ToE can get to is "it's evolved from a single cell" (it's at least a strong implication by the theory). This is however a wrong conclusion, the liger itself never evolves, it's just a ton of interbreeding and micro-scale changes in order to adapt the changing environment. So if a scientific theory can be demonstrated consistently to get to a wrong conclusion, it is thus falsified!
  4. It's never about luck. It's all about resistance. The gospel shall have reached every corner of this world if not because of human/satan resistance. You need to take side sometimes. A truth can stand out of a million falsehood, as someone named satan can have the freewill to create millions of religions. However if you are willing to follow logic, you can see the truth. I can present you logically about what it is and how Christianity can be differentiated from any other religions.
  5. In Christianity, that's reasonable. Because by a covenant between God and men, humans will have to rely on faith (thus no evidence) to be saved. That is, if you already know his existence, it could simultaneously mean that you are no longer savable. He will have to hide Himself across the timeline of humanity (as mentioned in the Book of Revelation).
  6. Religion is more about an advocate stating what could possibly happen after our physical death. No humans can present evidence beyond that point, as evidence is all about how humans capable of physically entering the area to gather it. So your question here is literally a paradox.
  7. If God is evil while he's God, it all relies on whether he would give you the chance to find out. More likely he won't give you the truth, as this is part of why he's evil. In front of a god who is evil, you can't even confirm what you got is a "find out" or not!
  8. Covenant and Law (I wrote these a while ago somewhere else) Christians are saints when measured against a covenant we are subject to. Christians can be sinners when measured against the law in an older covenant. In an absolute sense when measured against God's absolute set of law, no humans can stand righteous. They are all sinners in this case. The concepts here are, Covenants only apply to humans but not angels. A covenant serves the purpose of identifying the righteous from the wicked. So under each and every covenant, there will be the righteous and wicked. A new covenant is needed at the point that the older covenant can no longer serve its purpose of identifying the righteous as we all sin, righteous and wicked alike, under the older covenant. Christians are new persons under the New Covenant. We are the saints being purified by the blood of Jesus Christ. We are however sinners under the older covenant of which we subjected to after our birth but before we chose the New Covenant. God's absolute set of Law applies to both humans and angels. Total depravity is not necessarily a Calvinist concept. It is a truth in terms of God's absolute set of Law. No humans not even one can be deemed righteous under this set of Law. That's actually why Jesus is a must for the salvation of humans. Whenever you talk about covenants, they are all about humans. However whenever you talk about Law, it may be something confusing if you failed to grasp the big picture. =============== Righteousness of a human is always measured against a covenant in effect. Covenants on the other hand never obsolete legally speaking (it obsoletes only from a judgment perspective). They "overlap" instead. Covenants are only applicable to humans but not angels. When measured by the New Covenant, Christians can be saints. When measured by an older covenant before we chose the New Covenant, that is the covenant still applies to the unsaved, we are thus sinners. God also has a set of Law applicable to both angels and humans (the one both Satan and Adam broke in Eden). Speaking from this set of Law, then no humans can stand righteous, not even one. That's actually why humans need Jesus in the first place. That said. God is holy. We thus need to be holy. Holiness is how much we can be like God. It's speaking in a rather absolute sense, without being measured against any Law or covenant. To humans, it's an on-going process to be like God as much as possible. It's not about human effort to achieve, it's all about faith and how much you can rely on God to be like God. This process never ends till the end of our life.
  9. If God is evil, there's not much humans can do. We do only what we can, under our capabilities. So you don't even need to consider that God is evil.
  10. Defending the gospel is a way of fighting the wolves. Taking care of His sheep is a command from Jesus Christ. Introducing false doctrines is the way how Satan tries to lead God's sheep astray.
  11. We don't know that. It's an assumption instead! In secular terms, this assumption makes sense until it's refutable. However, this is not a proof but an assumption.
  12. Can science demonstrate that our universe was stable all the times from the very beginning till now? We don't even know what gravity is in its nature. What we can speculate is universe is stable NOW, and gravity follows law NOW. Projecting this to the long past or to the long future is outside the scope of science! Science is almost exclusively about how things repeat themselves RIGHT NOW!
  13. New earth can exist in another location of this universe. Our universe is a vast one that you can create as many earths as you wish, with each isolated by a space that any civilization won't be able to reach another within the life-span of our universe. This shouldn't be difficult for an almighty God. However, in the book of Revelation the future Heaven is called "new earth and new heaven". It is thus possible that the next earth we are going to live may exist in another space or another universe.
  14. It boils down to the question that can the almighty God not using evolution at all in creating humans? If not then He's not almighty. If He can then why bother evolution, as the most important part of creation is about a soul, instead of a body! That being said. God created an environment facilitating adaptation such that species can continue by adapting into changing environments. There's no evidence (if you like it this way) or whatsoever showing that organic materials were (past tense, which supposed to happen billions of years ago) formed from inorganic materials. No evidence showing that critical organs such as human brain, human heart and etc. were (past tense, which is supposed to happen long ago). To make more clearly; If you said that inorganic materials were turned to organic materials 10 billion years ago, please submit your evidence that it was so. You evidence thus should be present all the times from 10 billion years ago till now. You discovered a piece of evidence lasting for 10 billion years. The same, if you claim that a human brain was formed 20 million years ago, just present your evidence which should have present 20 million years ago till now. You discovered a piece of evidence which last for 20 million years.
  15. It's almost apples and oranges. Crime scene evidence almost can't stand alone without depending on witnessing. That's why whenever there's a reliable witness testifying that you are absent from the scene, whatever so-called evidence can't be used against you. Court cases are usually attempts of logical deductions but inviting a majority vote from the juries. It only means that the same "logical deduction" may lead to different conclusions by different humans. A science shouldn't behave this way, alternatively speaking something behaves this way is not a science.
  • Create New...