1 Timothy / Genesis 1

Humble_Servant

Inactive
This is absolutely not true, as is evidenced by the many creation scientists of today, and the many scientists of years gone by who saw science as "thinking God's thoughts after Him."
Just as Ginger has argued previously in this thread... just because you call yourself a christian doesn't mean you are one. Just as true: just because you say you are a scientist doesn't mean you are one. There is absolutely no scientific research done that points towards a miraculous creation account of any kind, nor has there been scientific work done that points to the existence of God. Science isn't supposed to answer questions about spirituality... If we could prove the existence of God through naturalistic science, what would that say about God?
If it comes to a choice of throwing out God's Word because it disagrees with science, or throwing out "science" that has been pursued from an atheistic standpoint, then I will stick with God's Word every time.
You see, that is the problem I was talking about in the post you are quoting. The problem isn't having to throw out God's Word or science, the problem is our interpretation of God's Word. Why can't we ever question ourselves without it being labeled as questioning God?
 
There is absolutely no scientific research done that points towards a miraculous creation account of any kind, nor has there been scientific work done that points to the existence of God.
But there has been plenty of totally valid science that points to the theory of evolution being wrong.

Look at it another way: Tchaikovsky wrote the "1812 Overture." Suppose we didn't know that, and started on a search to find out how the 1812 Overture came to be. If we start out with a belief that Tchaikovsky did not exist, therefore he could not have written it, are we ever going to find the true explanation of the beginnings of that wonderful piece of music? Of course not, because we have begun by ruling out the truth.

Likewise, evolutionary "scientists" who have begun with the premise that God does not exist and therefore could not have created the universe can never come to a true understanding of its beginnings, because they have ruled out the truth.

blessings,

Lynn
 

Humble_Servant

Inactive
There has been no science falsifying evolution. I would like to know these sources you are talking about.

Science has not ruled out that God exists, again, science does not ask the God question. The personal opinion of whether or not a particular scientist believes in a God or not has nothing to do with the specific experiments done that yield naturalistic results.
 
There has been no science falsifying evolution. I would like to know these sources you are talking about.

You could start with Creation Ministries (http://creation.com). Note that those behind this ministry are not just Christians saying "You must believe the Bible not science" but scientists, with as much training and experience as those who promote evolution. Yes, they start from a Christian perspective - but that does not make them any less scientific than those who start from an atheistic perspective.

whether or not a particular scientist believes in a God or not has nothing to do with the specific experiments done that yield naturalistic results.
But "naturalistic results" will never lead to the truth when the truth is not naturalistic!

blessings,

Lynn
 
There has been no science falsifying evolution. I would like to know these sources you are talking about.

Science has not ruled out that God exists, again, science does not ask the God question. The personal opinion of whether or not a particular scientist believes in a God or not has nothing to do with the specific experiments done that yield naturalistic results.

Maybe I can help. I've done a lot of research into this topic.

Here are some things I've found around the place:-

http://creation.com/that-quoteabout-the-missing-transitional-fossils
That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils
Embarrassed evolutionists try to ‘muddy the waters’
by Gary Bates
Anyone reading creationist literature for a few years soon becomes aware that we often use quotes by evolutionists which discredit their own belief system. This raises the ire of many in the evolutionary establishment, and often they will accuse creationists of ‘taking their remarks out of context’. This is rarely the case. However, one can imagine that the spectre of condemnation from fellow evolutionists would these days tend to limit any careless remarks from the pro-evolutionary camp.

One of the most famous and widely circulated quotes was made a couple of decades ago by the late Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History.

So damning was the quote—about the scarcity of transitional forms (the ‘in-between kinds’ anticipated by evolution) in the fossil record—that one anticreationist took it upon himself to ‘right the creationists’ wrongs’. He wrote what was intended to be a major essay showing how we had ‘misquoted’ Dr Patterson.1 This accusation still appears occasionally in anticreationist circles, so it is worth revisiting in some detail.

Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution.2 Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’

He went on to say:
‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’3 [Emphasis added].

Gould even said in another place that ‘The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”’5

Being a world-renowned fossil expert, Patterson’s frank admissions were embarrassing to adherents of the ‘religion of evolution’—including himself, it would appear. But there were even more devastating revelations to come from Dr Patterson.

During a public lecture presented at New York City’s American Museum of Natural History on 5 November 1981, he dropped a bombshell among his peers that evening, who became very angry and emotional. Here are some extracts from what he said:

‘ … I’m speaking on two subjects, evolutionism and creationism, and I believe it’s true to say that I know nothing whatever about either … One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, well, let’s call it non-evolutionary, was last year I had a sudden realisation.
‘… One morning I woke up … and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it.’ He added:

‘That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long … I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago … and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.”.’6

Dr Patterson’s penchant for openness did not do him any service with the pro-evolutionary scientific establishment, who often expressed anger and dismay at his comments when they could not make excuses for them. His experience and expertise as holder of one of the most prestigious scientific posts in the world did not grant him immunity from pressure for having dared to express doubts about the evolutionary worldview. It is a sad reminder that political and ideological correctness can be more important than any so-called ‘objective facts’ in determining scientific acceptance of an idea.
References and notes
1.Theunissen, L., Patterson misquoted, 13 July 2005. Return to text.
2.Patterson, C., Evolution, The British Museum of Master Books, Natural History, London, 1978. Return to text.
3.Sunderland, L., Darwin’s Enigma, Master Books, Arkansas, USA, pp. 101–102, 1998. Patterson’s letter was written in 1979. Return to text.
4.Called punctuated equilibrium—the idea that evolutionary changes do not tend to take place gradually and continually in the main population over long time periods, but in (relatively) short bursts in small isolated populations which will therefore be less likely to be fossilized. This notion would not have been invented if not for the fact that the fossil record does not fit the predictions of Darwin and subsequent evolutionists. Their evolutionary opponents unkindly referred to it as ‘evolution by jerks’. See also Batten, D. J., Punctuated equilibrium: come of age? Journal of Creation 8(2): 131–137, 1994. Return to text.
5.Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977. Return to text.
6.Can you tell me anything … about evolution?, 14 July 2005. Emphasis in transcript, not necessarily reflecting oral emphasis. Return to text.
----------------------------------------------------
"New species might arise as a result of single rare events, rather than through the gradual
accumulation of many small changes over time, according to a study of thousands of species and
their evolutionary family trees.
This contradicts a widely accepted theory of how speciation occurs: that species are continually
changing to keep pace with their environment, and that new species emerge as these changes
accrue. Known as the 'Red Queen' hypothesis,
...
The team's findings might stir things up in the world of evolutionary biology. "It really goes against the grain because most of us have this Darwinian view of speciation," says Pagel [Mark Pagel, University of Reading UK]. "What we're saying is that to think about natural selection as the cause of speciation is perhaps
wrong."
(From a recent article in NatureNews - 9 December 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.1134)
-------------------------------------------------------

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution, because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory." *Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism, " in Compass, May 1968, p. 218.
-------------------------------------------------------
"The record of the rocks is decidedly against evolutionists." —*Sir William Dawson, Geologist.
-------------------------------------------------------
"Evolution . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among Paleontologist, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent from the prevailing view of Darwinism." —*James Gorman, "The Tortoise or the Hare?" Discover, October 1980, p. 88
-------------------------------------------------------
"Substantive uniformitarianism as a descriptive theory has not withstood the test of new data and can no longer be maintained in any strict manner." —*S J. Gould, "Is Uniformitarianism Necessary?" in Journal of Paleontology, March, 1956, p.
--------------------------------------------------------
"There are many other reasons why we should not blandly accept the doctrine of uniformitarianism." —*E. Haylmun, "Should We Teach Uniformitarianism?" in Journal of Geological Education, 19 (1971) p. 36.
--------------------------------------------------------
"The hurricane, the flood, or the tsunami may do more in an hour or a day than the ordinary processes of nature have achieved in a thousand years." —*Derek V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record, p. 49.
---------------------------------------------------------
"Conventional uniformitarianism, or 'gradualism,' i.e., the doctrine of unchanging change, is verily contradicted by all post-Cambrian sedimentary data and the geotectonic histories of which these sediments are the record." —*P. Krynine, "Uniformitarianism is a dangerous Doctrine, " in Paleontology, 30 (1956) p. 1004.
---------------------------------------------------------
"The very foundation of our science is only an inference: for the whole of it rests on the unprovable assumption that all through the inferred lapse of time which the inferred performance of inferred geological processes involves, they have been going on in a manner consistent with the laws of nature as we now know them. We seldom realize the magnitude of that assumption." —*W. Davis, The Value of Outrageous Geological Hypothesis, " Science 83; May 7, 1926; pp. 485-468.
---------------------------------------------------------
"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning . . because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales." —*J. E. O'Rourke, "Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976.
---------------------------------------------------------
"It cannot be denied that, from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organs has been determined by a study of their remains buried in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain." —*R.H. Rastal, article "Geology," Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 10, (14th ad.; 1958), p. 168.
---------------------------------------------------------
"Are the authorities maintaining, on the other hand, that evolution is documented by geology and on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn't this a circular argument?" —*Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" BioScience, November 1978, p. 714.
---------------------------------------------------------
Article on Big Pond's News service ("Qld research questions evolution theories" April 26, 2007 - 9:05AM Source: ABC ) that the Mighty Theory of Evolution has suffered a serious blow at the hands of the humble Coral Polyp.
From the Article:-

"Scientists at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies believe discoveries about the genetic complexity of coral could rewrite theories about evolution.
After identifying about 10,000 genes, they believe coral could contain more genes than humans who posses about 20,000.
Coral is considered to be a simple animal.
However, Professor David Miller says its genetic complexity challenges the notion that life started out simple then evolved to become more sophisticated."
"There's this intrinsic tendency to think about a slow accumulation of complexity and a slow accumulation of genes which have allowed an increased morphological complexity in higher animals and what the coral genomes tell us is that that's completely wrong and that most genes were invented very early in animal evolution," he said."
 
There has been no science falsifying evolution. I would like to know these sources you are talking about.

Science has not ruled out that God exists, again, science does not ask the God question. The personal opinion of whether or not a particular scientist believes in a God or not has nothing to do with the specific experiments done that yield naturalistic results.

You might also want to view my Reality Bender Video 08 - "A Land Not Before Time" (It's in the "Christian Video" forum). This explores some of the vast amount of EXISTANT authentic ancient artefacts which are compelling evidence AGAINST the accuracy of the evolutionists dating of the Geological Column by which they are adamant Dinosaurs became extinct nearly 65 MILLION years before man evolved.

My Reality Bender videos "A Flood of Evidence" also contains a lot of leads to the mountain of evidence AGAINST evolution. (They are in the Christian Video section also)

Another interesting site is s8int.com where there is a huge collection of what they call OOPARTS (Out Of Place ARTefactS) which throw into serious question just about everything we have been told to believe about the history of the world by evolutionists and atheistic science.

There is such a mountain of such evidence out there that one has to wonder how ANYBODY can still take the Theory of Evolution seriously. I've read Darwin's Origin of the Species and I seriously believe even he would abandon his own theory if he were alive today to see the vast amount of newly discovered evidence against it and no sign of the supporting evidence he thought they MIGHT eventually find one day. (eg. the transitional fossils which even he admitted were essential to his theory being true and if not found his theory should be scrapped - they still haven't found any)

Regards Misty
 
Wow, okay. I'll try to keep up with you guys as much as possible, however school is in session.

Before I go any farther.... The quest must be love. In all things, may we love Christ and each other (including this online forum thread :) ).

Ginger,

The thing about science is that it is malleable. The concept of evolution has changed over the years. We no longer believe that we are descendants of monkeys, we know about genetics, etc etc. The big bang has been nothing but confirmed, I don't know of any study that has falsified the big bang theory. I'd like to hear about it though.



Of course women shouldn't be doormats, that doesn't mean that they are leaders in the church. They can be prophetesses of course, but in the church (New Testament) leadership, there is no example of a woman being in leadership.

Every passage of the bible is speaking about a specific situation in which we don't know all the specifics. That's no excuse for him saying I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority.

Major,

What I was alluding to, is that creationism is a religious belief, and evolution is a scientific theory. I don't believe that creationism/intelligent design should be taught in science classes, if for no other reason, because it is not science. I'm okay with it being discussed in a religion class.


Evolution is true not because creationism is false, but because the data support the theory.

The way the word theory is used in science isn't as it is commonly used. A theory is the application of multiple falsifiable scientific facts. It's not just an idea that could be true. It's actually more solid than any one fact.

All you need to be accepted in the scientific community is science, of which has never been produced by creationists (besides irreducible complexity which has been thoroughly debunked).


k, time for class. I'll come back to see if there is anything I haven't responded to.

In their desire to be in harmony with science, many church denominations including the RCC are backing Evolution. The truth howeer is that Christianty is not an isolated development of the New Test. but is linked inextricably with all of the Old Test. and thereby stands or falls upon its accuracy or its inaccuracy.

Paul declared that the gospel he preached was "THE GOSPEL OF GOD, and it had been foretold by the Hebrew prophets in the Old Test (Romans 1:1-3) and was in fact the fulfillment thereof. The Bible is ONE Book. If any part contradicts any other part then the whole of Scripture is in question. If the Bible is wrong in its account of where we came from, then why should we believe its explination of mans redemption???

To support evolution to any degree and in any form is in fact to work in destroying Christianity. That is not my opinion but a clear factual statement. In fact, in the "SATANIC BIBLE" it declares .......................

Satan represents man as nothing more than another animal, sometimes better sometimes worse, but more
often worse than those who walk on four paws because by the prtext of his "divine intellectual and
spiritual development', he (man) has become the most vicious animal of all". (Anton La Vey, Santanic
Bible.......Avon 1969).

The atheists know what is at stake here:
"Destroy Adam and Eve and original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of
God and take away the meaning of his death". (The American Atheist, 1978, page 19.)

The numbers of scientists who are leaving the evolutional theory is growing overwhelmingly. The overwhelming impossibility of evolution reveals the theory for the fruad that it is.

It is a mathmatical impossibily as well as a medical impossiblity.
 

Humble_Servant

Inactive
You say that evolution is destroying Christianity, I say fundamentalism is destroying Christianity.

oops, didn't mean to post so quick... i'll put the rest in a new post
 

Humble_Servant

Inactive
In their desire to be in harmony with science, many church denominations including the RCC are backing Evolution. The truth howeer is that Christianty is not an isolated development of the New Test. but is linked inextricably with all of the Old Test. and thereby stands or falls upon its accuracy or its inaccuracy.

Paul declared that the gospel he preached was "THE GOSPEL OF GOD, and it had been foretold by the Hebrew prophets in the Old Test (Romans 1:1-3) and was in fact the fulfillment thereof. The Bible is ONE Book. If any part contradicts any other part then the whole of Scripture is in question. If the Bible is wrong in its account of where we came from, then why should we believe its explination of mans redemption???
here's the issue: not whether the bible is correct or incorrect, but whether we are understanding the bible correctly or incorrectly. I'm saying that if you read a poem literally, like Genesis 1, you are understanding it incorrectly.
To support evolution to any degree and in any form is in fact to work in destroying Christianity. That is not my opinion but a clear factual statement. In fact, in the "SATANIC BIBLE" it declares .......................
this is ridiculous. Who cares what the satanic bible declares? It wasn't written by satan, it was written by some pseudo-educated, power-tripping, drug-addicted atheists. They don't believe in a literal satan, or literal god, or literal spiritual reality. They're just atheists with a bent for literary device.
The atheists know what is at stake here:
"Destroy Adam and Eve and original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of
God and take away the meaning of his death". (The American Atheist, 1978, page 19.)
This is another false argument. If literalism fails, the atheists win? Why is it "us vs them"? Where is any mention of what is actually true. I encourage you to look at the articles that I have linked to earlier in this thread in regards to ancient Hebrew writing style.
The numbers of scientists who are leaving the evolutional theory is growing overwhelmingly. The overwhelming impossibility of evolution reveals the theory for the fruad that it is.
The number of scientists that have been leaving evolution has been "growing overwhelmingly" since the 1980's. This simply isn't true. Even if it were, that does not prove the Genesis 1 account is a literal story. In fact, there is still no proof of a literal Genesis 1 account. which has had thousands of years to be confirmed, while evolution has amassed enormous amounts of confirming data in only 150 some.

Mathematically impossible? Do you mean the argument that states the probability of a universe to be created at random in the exact way it is at current is so minute that this universe is impossible via random means? I've heard this argument before, and again, it is false. The assumption you make in this argument is that this universe must have been created how it was created, which is erroneous if you are looking at a random creation idea. If the universe is developed at random, then yes, the probability of this exact universe being created is extremely small, but so is every other possible universe! One universe or another amongst all of the quadrillions upon quadrillions of possible universes, the fact that this one was picked and not one of the others isn't a mathematical impossibility, it's just how this particular, complex, role of the dice fell.
 
here's the issue: not whether the bible is correct or incorrect, but whether we are understanding the bible correctly or incorrectly. I'm saying that if you read a poem literally, like Genesis 1, you are understanding it incorrectly.

this is ridiculous. Who cares what the satanic bible declares? It wasn't written by satan, it was written by some pseudo-educated, power-tripping, drug-addicted atheists. They don't believe in a literal satan, or literal god, or literal spiritual reality. They're just atheists with a bent for literary device.

This is another false argument. If literalism fails, the atheists win? Why is it "us vs them"? Where is any mention of what is actually true. I encourage you to look at the articles that I have linked to earlier in this thread in regards to ancient Hebrew writing style.

The number of scientists that have been leaving evolution has been "growing overwhelmingly" since the 1980's. This simply isn't true. Even if it were, that does not prove the Genesis 1 account is a literal story. In fact, there is still no proof of a literal Genesis 1 account. which has had thousands of years to be confirmed, while evolution has amassed enormous amounts of confirming data in only 150 some.

Mathematically impossible? Do you mean the argument that states the probability of a universe to be created at random in the exact way it is at current is so minute that this universe is impossible via random means? I've heard this argument before, and again, it is false. The assumption you make in this argument is that this universe must have been created how it was created, which is erroneous if you are looking at a random creation idea. If the universe is developed at random, then yes, the probability of this exact universe being created is extremely small, but so is every other possible universe! One universe or another amongst all of the quadrillions upon quadrillions of possible universes, the fact that this one was picked and not one of the others isn't a mathematical impossibility, it's just how this particular, complex, role of the dice fell.

No my friend. The Satanic Bible was written Antone LaVey.
By the end of 1969, LaVey had taken monographs he had written to explain the philosophy and ritual practices of the Church of Satan and melded them with all of his philosophical influences from Ayn Rand, Nietzsche, Mencken, and London along with the base wisdom of the carnival folk. He prefaced these essays and rites with reworked excerpts from Ragnar Redbeard’s Might is Right and concluded it with “Satanized” versions of John Dee’s Enochian Keys to create The Satanic Bible. It has never gone out of print and remains the main source for the contemporary Satanic movement.

Just to give you an idea of how deep the deception is, if you will recall the signging group "The Eagles". They were one of the most popular groups and one one of the most sold album was named "Hotel California". On the album cover is show a lot of people gathering in what looks like a lobby. They are kind of looking upwards and guess who is standing on the balchony looking down at them........Antoine Lavey!!!!

I am saying that a single cell according to Nobelist lynus Pauling is "more complicated than New York City".

The simplest self sufficient cell has the capacity to produce thousands of different proteins and othe molecules at different times and under varible conditions. Synthesis, degradation, energy generation, replication, maintence, of cell architecture, mobility, regulation, repair, communication and all of these functions take place in veirtually every cell. If any part of this incredibly complex biochemical machinery is not working correctly, the cell dies.

Dawkins admits that evey single cell either planf or animal contains in its nucelus, "A digitally coded database larger in information content than all 30 volumes of the Encylopedia Btitannica put together. Thats just ONE cel and in the human body there are trillions of cells each working in unbelievably complex relationships with the others.(Dawkins..."The Blind Watchmaker" 1996 pg 18).

Now, the mathmatical odds against life beginning and developing by chance are so astronomical as to render it logically impossible.

Example:
The combinations of just the 26 letters of the alphabet in blocks of 26 is expressed mathmetically as 26! which simply means 26 times 25 times 24 times 23 times 22 times 21 times 20........on doen to 2. Thus there are 400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 combinations of 26 letters taken together. Yet instead of a mere 26 there could be as many as 3000 protiens strung together in a particular sequence within ONE cell. CHANCE could never put them all together in the right sequence!!! Then if each protein is itself a long chain of up to 3000 chemically joined amino acid residues folded into exactly presise structures. Try to imagine the odds of having these meticulous sequences happen by CHANCE. BUT that is exactly what evolution says my friend.

If everthing is not in perfect order it will not work. Thus it would be impossible to "EVOLVE" toward the right combination. The perfect structure must be there to start with which could only happen by design. Forget superficial similarities and fossils....evolution can not even get started at the biochemical and cellular leval.

Sir Fred Hoyle calculated that the mathmetical odds of producing just the basic enzymes of life by chance are 1 in 40 with 49,000 zeros after it.(Behe, "Black Box, page 46-47)

Compare that to the odds of randomly plucking a particular electron out of the universe and the odds are 1 in 1 with 80 zeros behind it.

Make another universe out of every electron and the odds of plucking a particular electron out of all those universe by chance are 1 in 1 with 160 zeros behind it.

It is not like this is some kind of unknown stuff. This mathmatical impossibility is well know to geneticists and yet no-one is blosing the whistle of the evolutionary theory...why??? Because scientisits still cling to Darwinism because it has a grip on the educational system.

These obvious impossibilities revel the evolution theory for the fraud that it is. Chance could not even produce even the basic enzymes. Consider blood clotting for a second. The clotting of blood is extremely complex and enzymes play a vital role in it. Think of the uncountable number of billions and billions of animals that would have died BEFORE this incredible process was perfected by chance and time.

There is a lot more to evolution than simply believeing we came from a lower form of life. A lot more and un-fortunity the evolutions do not dig in deep enough to it.
 

Humble_Servant

Inactive
No my friend. The Satanic Bible was written Antone LaVey.
By the end of 1969, LaVey had taken monographs he had written to explain the philosophy and ritual practices of the Church of Satan and melded them with all of his philosophical influences from Ayn Rand, Nietzsche, Mencken, and London along with the base wisdom of the carnival folk. He prefaced these essays and rites with reworked excerpts from Ragnar Redbeard’s Might is Right and concluded it with “Satanized” versions of John Dee’s Enochian Keys to create The Satanic Bible. It has never gone out of print and remains the main source for the contemporary Satanic movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_LaVey#Church_of_Satan
Read the first paragraph. He was a materialist.

Just to give you an idea of how deep the deception is, if you will recall the signging group "The Eagles". They were one of the most popular groups and one one of the most sold album was named "Hotel California". On the album cover is show a lot of people gathering in what looks like a lobby. They are kind of looking upwards and guess who is standing on the balchony looking down at them........Antoine Lavey!!!!
what does any of this have to do with what we are talking about?

I am saying that a single cell according to Nobelist lynus Pauling is "more complicated than New York City".

The simplest self sufficient cell has the capacity to produce thousands of different proteins and othe molecules at different times and under varible conditions. Synthesis, degradation, energy generation, replication, maintence, of cell architecture, mobility, regulation, repair, communication and all of these functions take place in veirtually every cell. If any part of this incredibly complex biochemical machinery is not working correctly, the cell dies.

Dawkins admits that evey single cell either planf or animal contains in its nucelus, "A digitally coded database larger in information content than all 30 volumes of the Encylopedia Btitannica put together. Thats just ONE cel and in the human body there are trillions of cells each working in unbelievably complex relationships with the others.(Dawkins..."The Blind Watchmaker" 1996 pg 18).

Now, the mathmatical odds against life beginning and developing by chance are so astronomical as to render it logically impossible.

Example:
The combinations of just the 26 letters of the alphabet in blocks of 26 is expressed mathmetically as 26! which simply means 26 times 25 times 24 times 23 times 22 times 21 times 20........on doen to 2. Thus there are 400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 combinations of 26 letters taken together. Yet instead of a mere 26 there could be as many as 3000 protiens strung together in a particular sequence within ONE cell. CHANCE could never put them all together in the right sequence!!! Then if each protein is itself a long chain of up to 3000 chemically joined amino acid residues folded into exactly presise structures. Try to imagine the odds of having these meticulous sequences happen by CHANCE. BUT that is exactly what evolution says my friend.

If everthing is not in perfect order it will not work. Thus it would be impossible to "EVOLVE" toward the right combination. The perfect structure must be there to start with which could only happen by design. Forget superficial similarities and fossils....evolution can not even get started at the biochemical and cellular leval.

Sir Fred Hoyle calculated that the mathmetical odds of producing just the basic enzymes of life by chance are 1 in 40 with 49,000 zeros after it.(Behe, "Black Box, page 46-47)

Compare that to the odds of randomly plucking a particular electron out of the universe and the odds are 1 in 1 with 80 zeros behind it.

Make another universe out of every electron and the odds of plucking a particular electron out of all those universe by chance are 1 in 1 with 160 zeros behind it.

It is not like this is some kind of unknown stuff. This mathmatical impossibility is well know to geneticists and yet no-one is blosing the whistle of the evolutionary theory...why??? Because scientisits still cling to Darwinism because it has a grip on the educational system.

These obvious impossibilities revel the evolution theory for the fraud that it is. Chance could not even produce even the basic enzymes. Consider blood clotting for a second. The clotting of blood is extremely complex and enzymes play a vital role in it. Think of the uncountable number of billions and billions of animals that would have died BEFORE this incredible process was perfected by chance and time.

There is a lot more to evolution than simply believeing we came from a lower form of life. A lot more and un-fortunity the evolutions do not dig in deep enough to it.

It's almost like you didn't read my last post. I don't have anything to say to this that I haven't already explained.
The fact that the way that the universe works is highly unlikely is a tricky way of using statistical thinking to prove your point. Again, your assumption is that there is a "right" way for things to go... when in reality, things could have gone in any number of infinite directions. The complexity of the universe doesn't prove anything other than that it is complex.
Furthermore, Behe is not a credible source of information. Not until he answers the proofs against his work, which he has not.

I don't expect the universe to seem like it makes sense. I don't assume that we must be smart enough to understand it with ease and heuristics.
 

Ginger

Inactive
Thanks for that link. I enjoyed reading it. Hotel California was and is one of my favorite songs.

I always assumed it was about insanity.

I once used the line "Welcome to the Hotel California, You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave"

I asked to be removed as a member from a certain forum or at least hide my profile and they refused.
 
OT but sounds a bit odd not hiding the profile. Deleting memberships can be tricky. With many designs, you would either wind up with "orphan posts" or conversations in threads that no longer make any sense...

Anyway, back to the thread topic... I'm happily (well not really, I'd love one day to have it all explained to me in the tiniest detail and it all to make perfect sense to me but I don't think that will happen in this life) sitting on the fence. ..
 
Thanks for that link. I enjoyed reading it. Hotel California was and is one of my favorite songs.

I always assumed it was about insanity.

I once used the line "Welcome to the Hotel California, You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave"

I asked to be removed as a member from a certain forum or at least hide my profile and they refused.

They probably liked using your picture!
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_LaVey#Church_of_Satan
Read the first paragraph. He was a materialist.


what does any of this have to do with what we are talking about?



It's almost like you didn't read my last post. I don't have anything to say to this that I haven't already explained.
The fact that the way that the universe works is highly unlikely is a tricky way of using statistical thinking to prove your point. Again, your assumption is that there is a "right" way for things to go... when in reality, things could have gone in any number of infinite directions. The complexity of the universe doesn't prove anything other than that it is complex.
Furthermore, Behe is not a credible source of information. Not until he answers the proofs against his work, which he has not.

I don't expect the universe to seem like it makes sense. I don't assume that we must be smart enough to understand it with ease and heuristics.

It was done to show the mathmatical inpossiblity of evolution and its total incompatibility with Christianity my friend. Yes I read your post, I just do not agree.

Why does LaVey being a materialist come to the game. It does not change the fact that he worshipped Satan does it?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_LaVey#Church_of_Satan
Read the first paragraph. He was a materialist.


what does any of this have to do with what we are talking about?



It's almost like you didn't read my last post. I don't have anything to say to this that I haven't already explained.
The fact that the way that the universe works is highly unlikely is a tricky way of using statistical thinking to prove your point. Again, your assumption is that there is a "right" way for things to go... when in reality, things could have gone in any number of infinite directions. The complexity of the universe doesn't prove anything other than that it is complex.
Furthermore, Behe is not a credible source of information. Not until he answers the proofs against his work, which he has not.

I don't expect the universe to seem like it makes sense. I don't assume that we must be smart enough to understand it with ease and heuristics.

Of course then the question must be why those in the field of evolution can make theoretic claims without the proofs against their work.
 
here's the issue: not whether the bible is correct or incorrect, but whether we are understanding the bible correctly or incorrectly. I'm saying that if you read a poem literally, like Genesis 1, you are understanding it incorrectly.

this is ridiculous. Who cares what the satanic bible declares? It wasn't written by satan, it was written by some pseudo-educated, power-tripping, drug-addicted atheists. They don't believe in a literal satan, or literal god, or literal spiritual reality. They're just atheists with a bent for literary device.

This is another false argument. If literalism fails, the atheists win? Why is it "us vs them"? Where is any mention of what is actually true. I encourage you to look at the articles that I have linked to earlier in this thread in regards to ancient Hebrew writing style.

The number of scientists that have been leaving evolution has been "growing overwhelmingly" since the 1980's. This simply isn't true. Even if it were, that does not prove the Genesis 1 account is a literal story. In fact, there is still no proof of a literal Genesis 1 account. which has had thousands of years to be confirmed, while evolution has amassed enormous amounts of confirming data in only 150 some.

Mathematically impossible? Do you mean the argument that states the probability of a universe to be created at random in the exact way it is at current is so minute that this universe is impossible via random means? I've heard this argument before, and again, it is false. The assumption you make in this argument is that this universe must have been created how it was created, which is erroneous if you are looking at a random creation idea. If the universe is developed at random, then yes, the probability of this exact universe being created is extremely small, but so is every other possible universe! One universe or another amongst all of the quadrillions upon quadrillions of possible universes, the fact that this one was picked and not one of the others isn't a mathematical impossibility, it's just how this particular, complex, role of the dice fell.

And I must ask where you how do you come to the conclusion that Genesis 1 is a POEM?

I hope you are not suggesting that it is like a POEM in that it is made up out of our internal thinking processes.

When we read Genesis chapter one we usually see only one story there, but there are actually many stories, not POEMS. Why don't we see these multiple stories? Because we read the Hebrew Bible from a Modern Western thinkers point of view and not from an Ancient Eastern thinkers such as the Hebrews who wrote it. The Hebrews style of writing is prolific with a style of writing unfamiliar to most readers of the Bible. This style is nothing like the writing that we are used to reading today and therefore it is invisible to us.
I would therefore agree that the "style" of writing is POETIC in its structure but not that it is a POEM in the classic sense that most of us think when we here the word POEM.
You misunderstood I think. I am saying that the creation we now know is in fact a mathmatical impossiblity to have taken place by random chance, which is exactly what the theory of evolution claims to have happened. BY CHANCE!!!

Notice your own words from your post........."it's just how this particular, complex, role of the dice fell". That is CHANCE!.

I am saying that can not happen simply becaused it is mathmatically impossible to happen.

The compleity of life could not have been arrived at by LUCK, or CHANCE or and ACCIDENT but that is exactly what evolutuion says. A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by an (unguided) series of small changes, caused by mutations, which are "selected" for, keeping the "better" changes" over a very long period of time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can you even imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? Asexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and efficient!

The biologist Edwin Conklin said about 50 years ago of evolution that the probability of life originating by accident or chance is comparible to the probability of the unabridged dictionary originating from an explosion in a print shop. Sounds about right to me.
 

qtld

Inactive
Just need to (be) break the "lodgement" which has been formed through the centuries/ages, ie all those spiritual wrongs that have been imposed until now. I mean that many women and men has been oppressed/imprisoned spiritually subsequently and socially through various heaviest spiritual and social anarchies which have shaken the ground/earth through the centuries/ages. Women also can believe(-s) so Perfectly/Successfully as the men, but just need to do it. After all, any believer need to be careful with the "religion", becasue the satan may catch (the) humans namely by the wrong "religion", else the female believers may prove more vulnerable, solely because of the secondary nature of the woman, because right is Created to be "help meet" of the man, else restrictions in the faith, for the women there, has not. But as St. Paul says in Romans 7:1-25, if (the) female believer, Believes in the true Lord God, then this exempt her from the power of secondary sinful dependence, which can makes her more vulnerable in the faith. The same goes and for the male believers, if they Believes in the real Lord God, then this frees them from the power of any sinful dependence.
 
Top