You (Grant Jeffrey) have the TubbyTubby award for the most incredible way to manipulate figures to arrive at the exact number you originally intended so to arrive at a conclusion that backs up your faith. Incredible. Congratulations.
Learning Genesis
- Thread starter TubbyTubby
- Start date
- Status
You (Grant Jeffrey) have the TubbyTubby award for the most incredible way to manipulate figures to arrive at the exact number you originally intended so to arrive at a conclusion that backs up your faith. Incredible. Congratulations.
You're clearly better educated in Evolution sciences than I am. It's all the same thing to me though, evolution is evolution.
Well we all know changes take place over time Tubby...I was once a zygote that became an embryo that became a fetus who became and infant and so on...the point here was a further offshoot of my Darwin comment...people believe him blindly because they are told by drill and repetition that he is correct not because they experienced or observed what he claimed. But that is clearly not the case with God...people have experienced and observed what He claimed.
That is not evolution in any sense of the word.
Well Tubby, if Christianity were true, would you believe it?
Christianity is only one doctrine of a belief in a God(s) so I would say no. If I were to change my belief (from not believing in God) then I wouldn't be sure which God to believe in.
Why would I choose the Christian version over other versions?
It isn't? Wow! Then what is? And do you have proof of some kind?
You said you wouldn't believe something if it were true, I will wipe the dust from my sandals and present the gospel of Jesus Christ to another. I'm confident you've heard/read it here. Have a nice life.
The development of an embryo/fetus into a baby is as seperate from evolution as the birth of a star is from the origin of the Universe.
Do you really need proof that the growth of a fetus after a sperm/egg cell fusion which already has its DNA structure in place, along with mutations, is still subject to genetic variation?
I never said I wouldn't believe something if it weren't true. I always believe what is proven as truth. My only aim in life is to find the truth.
The question was would you believe Christianity if it were true. Your response was a long winded no. That's all I need. Simple enough.
I've still not seen anything to convince me otherwise. If it was indeed to be proven true then I would accept it.
I've never not believed in God, even as a child i would say i believed in Him although had no understanding apart from being in a church school. It was a plain and simple belief that did nothing for me or my life. It wasn't a faith. I only came to have faith when i put my plain and simple beluef in God into action. The most important revelation for me was when i surrendered my life to Jesus. To use one's faith us to act upon it. This would include among other things to pray, read, study and meditate on the bible. An intelligent faith is required. True christianity isn't a religion. Jesus wasn't religious, He wasn't methodist , catholic or anything, He was just Christ. And us christians are simply followers of Christ. We believe in Him, that He was real, is real, and died on the cross for us. But He is alive today. He resurrected from the dead and then went to His Father. He is alive! He didn't die in vain.
All of us constantly have thoughts running through our mind. It's hard for me to understand an atheists way of thinking but if we could move our thoughts up a notch to the power of God, or even the possibility of God in our lives who is just waiting for us to invite Him into our lives , then we will see the wonder and majesty of Him. God is a gentleman, He won't force Himself upon us but He is there waiting and eager for us to open the door to Him and invite Him in. It is such an awesome privilege we have to talk to God in prayer, which is what prayer is, just talking to Him. He knows everything but loves for us to take time and spend time with Him talking. It's like giving God a chance to work in our lives. We want signs and so on but uf we really want Him and want to know Him we have to seek Him with all our hearts, with all our minds, with all our love. We have to seek , to seek His Holy presence.
All of us constantly have thoughts running through our mind. It's hard for me to understand an atheists way of thinking but if we could move our thoughts up a notch to the power of God, or even the possibility of God in our lives who is just waiting for us to invite Him into our lives , then we will see the wonder and majesty of Him. God is a gentleman, He won't force Himself upon us but He is there waiting and eager for us to open the door to Him and invite Him in. It is such an awesome privilege we have to talk to God in prayer, which is what prayer is, just talking to Him. He knows everything but loves for us to take time and spend time with Him talking. It's like giving God a chance to work in our lives. We want signs and so on but uf we really want Him and want to know Him we have to seek Him with all our hearts, with all our minds, with all our love. We have to seek , to seek His Holy presence.
Our understanding is limited, our minds will never be able to grasp the entirety of God. Isaiah 40:12,18 says:
"Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, measured heaven with a span and calculated the dust of the earth in a measure? Weighed the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance? Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord, or as Hus counsellor and taught Him? With whom did He take counsel, and who instructed Him, and taught Him in the path of justice? Who taught Him knowledge, and showed Him the way of understanding? Behold, the nations are as a drop in a bucket, and are counted as the small dust on the scales; look, He lifts up the isles as a very little thing. And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor its beasts sufficient for a burnt offering. All nations before Him are as nothing, and they are counted by Him less than nothing and worthless. To whom then will you liken God? Or what likeness will you compare to Him?".
"Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, measured heaven with a span and calculated the dust of the earth in a measure? Weighed the mountains in scales and the hills in a balance? Who has directed the Spirit of the Lord, or as Hus counsellor and taught Him? With whom did He take counsel, and who instructed Him, and taught Him in the path of justice? Who taught Him knowledge, and showed Him the way of understanding? Behold, the nations are as a drop in a bucket, and are counted as the small dust on the scales; look, He lifts up the isles as a very little thing. And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, nor its beasts sufficient for a burnt offering. All nations before Him are as nothing, and they are counted by Him less than nothing and worthless. To whom then will you liken God? Or what likeness will you compare to Him?".
Ohh really???
Read on Tubby Tubby.
Jos 3:10 And Joshua said, "Here is how you shall know that the living God is among you and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Hivites, the Perizzites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, and the Jebusites.
OK, note well that it is the Lord God of Israel that will drive these people out, not the Israelites themselves.
Jos 15:63 But the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the people of Judah could not drive out, so the Jebusites dwell with the people of Judah at Jerusalem to this day.
And just exactly when was this bit written? And don't say after the latter chapters......no one will believe you if you do.
But please take very careful note; who couldn't drive who out??
Jos 17:12 Yet the people of Manasseh could not take possession of those cities, but the Canaanites persisted in dwelling in that land.
Jos 17:13 Now when the people of Israel grew strong, they put the Canaanites to forced labor, but did not utterly drive them out.
Who didn't drive who out??
But wait for it.......the narrative doesn't stop where you left off. No indeed for the sake of intellectual honesty, let us consider also:
Jos 24:9 Then Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, arose and fought against Israel. And he sent and invited Balaam the son of Beor to curse you,
Jos 24:10 but I would not listen to Balaam. Indeed, he blessed you. So I delivered you out of his hand.
Jos 24:11 And you went over the Jordan and came to Jericho, and the leaders of Jericho fought against you, and also the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. And I gave them into your hand.
Jos 24:12 And I sent the hornet before you, which drove them out before you, the two kings of the Amorites; it was not by your sword or by your bow.
Jos 24:13 I gave you a land on which you had not labored and cities that you had not built, and you dwell in them. You eat the fruit of vineyards and olive orchards that you did not plant.'
Jos 24:14 "Now therefore fear the LORD and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD.
Jos 24:15 And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."
It should be clear that the words spoken in this matter did come to pass, not the failed way you have tried to imply, but just as it was written.
No...I was describing "change over time"....
One definition of evolution is a "change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations". Again who would not believe this? As our chromosomes interact (mom's and dad's) we inherit from each...so let's say lighter skinned variations of a population intermarry (those with less melanin), then of course this characteristic becomes reinforced and the more generations that pass reinforcing this the more common it becomes...and this makes total sense in speciation within the same phyla (all witihn "canines" for example), but one phyletic genome eventually becoming another distinct phyletic genome is unfounded and without a shred of evidence...so is this what you mean by evolution?
Maybe we should take this to another thread...one more thing and then I will stop discussing it here, but please read it...
Thanks, Paul
World famous evolutionist and biological researcher, Dr. G. A. Kerkut, in his book, The Implications of Evolution( part of “The International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology”, Vol. 4, Zoology, Pergamon Press), writing on the theory of Organic Evolution (that life is the product of non-living materiality by random selection) concludes in his preface the following facts:
1) That “The supporting evidence still remains to be discovered.”
2) That “we can believe, in theory, that such a process has taken place, but it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”
3) “The truth is, there are many discrete groups of animal and plant life, and we do not even know how they evolved, nor how they are related,”
4) and finally that “the most basic information is frequently overlooked or ignored, and opinions become repeated so often, and so loudly, that they take on the tone of laws.”
In his article Dr. Kerkut carefully outlines “seven things the evolutionist must assume“, in order to consider the Darwinian evolutionary model!
Assumption #1: Non-living things did give rise to living things. (never been observed, never been demonstrated, and all tests done only negate this possibility)
Assumption #2: Even though spontaneous generation has never been observed, or even implied by the observable, and the scientific method has only refuted its possibility, it is still insisted that it had to have happened at least once, a long time ago. (again this is “believed” void of any actual evidence other than by consensus)
Assumption #3: Viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are all related, although we have no real evidence that they are related as Darwin would have postulated, and so far we cannot even guess at how they would be in many cases.
Assumption #4: Protozoa must have given rise to Metazoa (yet Metazoa appears suddenly in the geological column fully formed)
Assumption #5: The multi-various invertebrate phyla are all interrelated (but they are often genetically very different)
Assumption #6: The invertebrate gave rise to the vertebrate (again the actual geological column reveals a sudden appearance of the invertebrate fully formed)
Assumption #7: Within the vertebrate the fish gave rise to the amphibian, which gave rise to the reptiles, which gave rise to the birds, which of course, gave rise to mammals! (again never observed, never demonstrated, no tests to show this to be the case)
But “science” is defined as “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”
So by definition, the “stuff” of these 7 assumptions are not science…and have not be shown to be true or established by science. Yet in public schools and Universities (for generations) they have been taught as “facts established beyond a reasonable doubt!” Really? Non-observed, never demonstrated, test failing assumptions are to be swallowed whole as if they are the truth?
I was so brainwashed…finally I looked to see what was really true…
Take the Peppered Moth example Textbooks always use to push the Darwinian version of natural selection (I believe in natural selection only not the Darwinian foolishness)…here is the truth. I call it
Paul’s Corrected Peppered Moth Hypothesis
“In the rare probability of the absence of normal foods for particular birds, and if these moths in the natural white phase of their consistently unchanged DNA are unnaturally glued or pinned to a darker tree bark by an outside intelligent force, and their darker counterparts are left free to fly and escape at will, the lighter colored, intentionally glued, or securely attached moths, will have a lesser chance of survival, and may be eaten by certain types of hungry birds, thus proving the necessity for intelligent deceit, and willful outside intelligent intervention to enhance an already unnatural selection, or at least, in order to produce the illusion of a natural selection, to the gullible minds of innocent trusting school children without their or their parent’s consent“!
1) That “The supporting evidence still remains to be discovered.”
2) That “we can believe, in theory, that such a process has taken place, but it has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”
3) “The truth is, there are many discrete groups of animal and plant life, and we do not even know how they evolved, nor how they are related,”
4) and finally that “the most basic information is frequently overlooked or ignored, and opinions become repeated so often, and so loudly, that they take on the tone of laws.”
In his article Dr. Kerkut carefully outlines “seven things the evolutionist must assume“, in order to consider the Darwinian evolutionary model!
Assumption #1: Non-living things did give rise to living things. (never been observed, never been demonstrated, and all tests done only negate this possibility)
Assumption #2: Even though spontaneous generation has never been observed, or even implied by the observable, and the scientific method has only refuted its possibility, it is still insisted that it had to have happened at least once, a long time ago. (again this is “believed” void of any actual evidence other than by consensus)
Assumption #3: Viruses, bacteria, plants, and animals are all related, although we have no real evidence that they are related as Darwin would have postulated, and so far we cannot even guess at how they would be in many cases.
Assumption #4: Protozoa must have given rise to Metazoa (yet Metazoa appears suddenly in the geological column fully formed)
Assumption #5: The multi-various invertebrate phyla are all interrelated (but they are often genetically very different)
Assumption #6: The invertebrate gave rise to the vertebrate (again the actual geological column reveals a sudden appearance of the invertebrate fully formed)
Assumption #7: Within the vertebrate the fish gave rise to the amphibian, which gave rise to the reptiles, which gave rise to the birds, which of course, gave rise to mammals! (again never observed, never demonstrated, no tests to show this to be the case)
But “science” is defined as “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”
So by definition, the “stuff” of these 7 assumptions are not science…and have not be shown to be true or established by science. Yet in public schools and Universities (for generations) they have been taught as “facts established beyond a reasonable doubt!” Really? Non-observed, never demonstrated, test failing assumptions are to be swallowed whole as if they are the truth?
I was so brainwashed…finally I looked to see what was really true…
Take the Peppered Moth example Textbooks always use to push the Darwinian version of natural selection (I believe in natural selection only not the Darwinian foolishness)…here is the truth. I call it
Paul’s Corrected Peppered Moth Hypothesis
“In the rare probability of the absence of normal foods for particular birds, and if these moths in the natural white phase of their consistently unchanged DNA are unnaturally glued or pinned to a darker tree bark by an outside intelligent force, and their darker counterparts are left free to fly and escape at will, the lighter colored, intentionally glued, or securely attached moths, will have a lesser chance of survival, and may be eaten by certain types of hungry birds, thus proving the necessity for intelligent deceit, and willful outside intelligent intervention to enhance an already unnatural selection, or at least, in order to produce the illusion of a natural selection, to the gullible minds of innocent trusting school children without their or their parent’s consent“!
Well actually no, Tubby Tubby if you read the matter in context you will see that (the new)Jerusalem is clearly referred to:
It is a progressive revealing
Isa 66:7 "Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she delivered a son.......(guess who the son is!)
Isa 66:8 Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Shall a land be born in one day? Shall a nation be brought forth in one moment? For as soon as Zion was in labor she brought forth her children.
Isa 66:9 Shall I bring to the point of birth and not cause to bring forth?" says the LORD; "shall I, who cause to bring forth, shut the womb?" says your God.
Isa 66:10 "Rejoice with Jerusalem, and be glad for her, all you who love her; rejoice with her in joy, all you who mourn over her;
Isa 66:11 that you may nurse and be satisfied from her consoling breast; that you may drink deeply with delight from her glorious abundance."
Isa 66:12 For thus says the LORD: "Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the nations like an overflowing stream; and you shall nurse, you shall be carried upon her hip, and bounced upon her knees.
Isa 66:13 As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.
Isa 66:14 You shall see, and your heart shall rejoice; your bones shall flourish like the grass; and the hand of the LORD shall be known to his servants, and he shall show his indignation against his enemies.
Isa 66:15 "For behold, the LORD will come in fire, and his chariots like the whirlwind, to render his anger in fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire.
Isa 66:16 For by fire will the LORD enter into judgment, and by his sword, with all flesh; and those slain by the LORD shall be many.
Isa 66:17 "Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating pig's flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, declares the LORD.
This is actually a prophesy being fulfilled in our time. It looks to the events of this current generation and on to the end of days.
I can't say if all will be fulfilled in my life time or yours or not, but it is happening as we speak. You really need to be 101% sure of truth while there is still some time left on your clock.
Amen brother Cal, Amen...we need to all start praying for Tubby..he says he is seeking truth and what a great place to be (an exciting journey).
I'd never heard of Kerkut before you mentioned him. I tried to find some objective information about this work but apart from wiki, the only references I could find were Christian sites. In fact, hundreds of them - he appears to be well liked by creationists.
I would need to read this book to understand the full context of what he has written before commenting.
- Status