Did God use evolution to create life

[coadie]

Originally Posted by BroGary

Stages of growth is no proof of evolution, that is an invalid arguement. The odds of such complex things happening by chance are so astronomical as to make the idea of evolution downright silly.

You sure have fell for the Luciferian deceptions, and how they contradict the Bible show just how Satanic these deceptions are, but we know how subtle the Devil is.

The Bible is clear the Adam was the first human and he had no ancestors but was a direct creation of God.

How any christian can be made to believe that God is so weak that He had to rely on evolution instead of creating man fully developed and complete is very sad indeed.

Amen. These are sketches and not actual pictures of progression. Art work doesn't prove evolution. The moment the "cupped" eye closes, we have blindness. The next step is the Assumption that the epithelium cells are clear. If they are not, blindness. Kinds fall for this and no one can find it.

Pelthais' god isn't big enough to create complete species. These small god followers do not believe the small god can create and get writings to match the creation.

It is very easy to write simulation software to create animation to show evolution. This is lazy work. No microscopes but just a keyboard and making graphics.

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Gary you haven't "found" any good information yet. And, you are supposed to include a link back to the original material. I Googled this article and found several sources - most of them kooks like:

http://prophetlady.wordpress.com/201...nst-evolution/

"The Prophet Lady" ... "A Mystic of God."

We're all still waiting for you to respond to the questions YOU raised about the "horse/donkey/mule" issue and how this could possibly be explained by Genesis 1 and 2.

Since then all you've done is post a bunch of wacko stuff from a Jihadist in a mental hospital and now "The Prophet Lady - A Mystic of God."

Sorry, but that is just your opinon it is not good info, and you are entitled to your opinion :-)

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BroGary

Here is some interesting info I found:

No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation.

Christian evolutionists would never say "chance"

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Now, as just another poster the issue I have with this is the convenience you have of cutting and pasting and expecting that to argue for you...as though Pelathius or others have to respond to each point. Are you able to back up each point in a debate?

BTW posts like this, if they are from a source need to give credit and a link

I don't keep all the links I search and find, (and I usually try not to post entire articles) and the info I share speaks for itself, it is obvious you do not seem to want to accept the Bible account of God creating Adam as is without ancestors, so you are going to try to come up invalid rebuttals that I do not think negate the original info, no offense intended, just stating what seems to be.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by BroGary

Sorry, but that is just your opinon it is not good info, and you are entitled to your opinion :-)

If we want to claim people are off base (dysphoric) and therfore reject their notions, it is a two way street. When the leader of a religious movement goes off the deep end, look out.

Since then all you've done is post a bunch of wacko stuff from a Jihadist in a mental hospital and now "The Prophet Lady - A Mystic of God."

I almost thought we were talking about Charles darwin who was living out his days in nearly a psychotic trance.

Age 56-57. - For twenty-five years extreme spasmodic daily & nightly flatulence: occasional vomiting, on two occasions prolonged during months. Vomiting preceded by shivering, hysterical crying[,] dying sensations or half-faint. & copious and very palid urine. Now vomiting & every passage of flatulence preceded by ringing of ears, treading on air & vision. focus & black dots[,] Air fatigues, specially risky, brings on the Head symptoms[,] nervousness when E[mma]. leaves me...'. From late 1863 to April 1864 he was ‘spreadeagled every day on a sofa, steadily going downhill, wishing he were dead one day, wanting to live and do a little more work on the next.'

http://darwin-legend.org/html/darwins-illness.htm

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BroGary

I don't keep all the links I search and find, (and I usually try not to post entire articles) and the info I share speaks for itself, it is obvious you do not seem to want to accept the Bible account of God creatging Adam as is without ancestors, so you are going to try to come up invalid rebuttals that I do not think negate the original info, no offense intended, just stating what seems to be.

What? I didn't even make an argument or a rebuttle lol.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Christian evolutionists would never say "chance"

If they use maths for reality checks they will use that word a lot. Monte Carlo methods can be thought of as statistical simulation methods. When i was taught math models, changes were games of chance.

Genetic drift comes from the role that chance plays in whether a trait will move on to a future generation.

The modern evolutionary synthesis defines evolution as the change over time in this genetic variation.

The modern evolutionary synthesis defines evolution as the change over time in this genetic variation.

I group beliefs of evolution into 7 churches. Many are into the modern synthesis now and many have moved on several years ago.

If you go get an MBA in a strong school, all the "quants" on wall street use risk theory and do simulation. A good quants person can do prediction in genetics.

Most biology people are crippled in maths. They really can't understand how quantative analysis tells us even evolution up to eukaruyotes is impossible.

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by coadie

Amen. These are sketches and not actual pictures of progression. Art work doesn't prove evolution. The moment the "cupped" eye closes, we have blindness. The next step is the Assumption that the epithelium cells are clear. If they are not, blindness. Kinds fall for this and no one can find it.

Pelthais' god isn't big enough to create complete species. These small god followers do not believe the small god can create and get writings to match the creation.

It is very easy to write simulation software to create animation to show evolution. This is lazy work. No microscopes but just a keyboard and making graphics.

Here is some more interesting info (with links :-)

.....However, it was once used to prove the age of the earth and all other things in it. But only in the past few decades has it been shown to be totally unreliable in determining the earth to be 14 plus billion years old.

Here is a link to a very long and technical article, but it is well worth the reading and concentration. It gives unmistakable proof that the earth falls within the biblical account record. (end of excerpt)

http://www.examiner.com/biblical-in-...nfirm-creation

.....The Epicureans were the evolutionists of the day! They typically held to a belief derived from Epicurus that there were no gods that intervened in the world. They believed that these gods, like men, were made of matter and that over long ages atoms, the basic component of all matter, gave rise to life and that life gave rise to higher life such as mankind. (end of excerpt)
(the apostle Paul would argue against evolutionists)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...-evolutionists

.....All the discoveries from excavations and studies over the last hundred years or so show that, contrary to evolutionists' expectations, living things came into existence suddenly, in perfect and flawless form, in other words that they were "created." (end of excerpt)

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions02.html

Also read "five questions evolutionists would rather dodge":

http://www.designinference.com/docum...estions_Ev.pdf

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by coadie

If they use maths for reality checks they will use that word a lot. Monte Carlo methods can be thought of as statistical simulation methods. When i was taught math models, changes were games of chance.

Genetic drift comes from the role that chance plays in whether a trait will move on to a future generation.

The modern evolutionary synthesis defines evolution as the change over time in this genetic variation.



I group beliefs of evolution into 7 churches. Many are into the modern synthesis now and many have moved on several years ago.

If you go get an MBA in a strong school, all the "quants" on wall street use risk theory and do simulation. A good quants person can do prediction in genetics.

Most biology people are crippled in maths. They really can't understand how quantative analysis tells us even evolution up to eukaruyotes is impossible.

Christian evolutionists believe God evolved life on the planet, thus a Christian evolutionist would not say it was by chance

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Christian evolutionists believe God evolved life on the planet, thus a Christian evolutionist would not say it was by chance

My irony meter is vibrating. How do you get genetic drift and variation?