Did God use evolution to create life

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by BroGary

The Word of God is a sure foundation, and it does indeed support creation and not evolution.

Here is a very good video (in parts 1-6) that is called "Ultimate Proof of Creation"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-21H...ayer_embedded#

!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rCU3...ayer_embedded#

!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEYnG...ayer_embedded#

!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jR9xB...ayer_embedded#

!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpUmK...ayer_embedded#

!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXdbh...ayer_embedded#

!

Here is another interesting video -

KIRK CAMERON MAKES ATHEIST DOUBT DARWINISM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Qv1...ayer_embedded#

!

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

There, see? Even [LUCID] coadie posts the link. The other "coadie" (a.k.a. ["Crack Pipe"] coadie won't).

The site linked above has some good information, though it is slanted with a somewhat cranky sense of irony. That's okay too, I feel the same way sometimes. However, this discussion of "Darwin's illness" particularly lacks a lot of factual details. The writer focuses ONLY upon Darwin's moods. There is a rather glaring avoidance of the physical pathologies involved that were described in detail by both Darwin and his contemporaries.

One major reason he avoided public appearances more and more after his return from the Beagle voyage was because of his constant need for the loo. This embarrassing debility kept him at home for years. It no doubt contributed to his "depression" - however it should also give us a clue that "darwin-legend.org" ignores entirely.

Just go into your doctor's office and inform your physician that you've returned from an around the world sailing adventure. Add details of how you camped out at night (discovering many new species of insects and parasites) and how that all of the water you drank was from untreated sources from dozens of tropical locales. Then add the fact that you've been feeling rather "down" and that you simply can't live without a chamber pot always handy a few feet away.

Will your doctor diagnose "Depression" and send you to a shrink? Or, will your doctor ask to see your chamber pot so the lab can analyze your stool?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles...gas_hypothesis

Since no one conducted a lab analysis of the suffering patient's stool and blood, nor was a careful postmortem performed, we are left to guess at the clues. Ignoring the disease and infectious elements of the problem as "darwin-legend.org" has done reveals more of an agenda at work and less of an objective inquiry.

Psychosis diagnosis doesn't show up in stool specimens.

In fact most mental illness are outside the realm of you materialists that insist everything has a material explanation.

The other ignorant notion is that Psychiatrists do not read charts and notes as in this case even written by Darwin.

You are the one that works blindly. Making up a story of a creature and having only a few bone chips. sorcerers use chrystals.

We know you have never observed exoskeletals morph into vertibrates. You are so angry because I know far too many of the darwinist bogus and never verified claims.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

No need to apologize. Just don't quote "The Prophet Lady - A Mystic of God" and a Jihadist who did most of his "study" in a Mental Hospital.



Adnan Oktar

Those sources shouldn't even be "good enough" for you! Treat yourself better, Gary. You certainly deserve better.

Gary has better, he has Truth.
No darwinistic jibber jabber!!

strawman!!


Modern synthesis evolutionism says Moses account of creation is a lie.



.Luke 20:37
Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.
728.Luke 24:27
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

729.Luke 24:44


mark 12:26
And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?


For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me

2And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.


Pelathais, you have never had a burning bush experience. All you do is hammer awaay and tell us the writing by Moses is false. Jesus Christ tells me you and many others don't believe Moses.
It is clear your motives are to create unbelief and then you like Hugh ross deny the same.

The Mormons claim a special revelation by the angel Moroni.
The evolutionists claim a special revelation by reading signs and darwin.

Fundamentalist materialists seem bent on grabing superiority over the Holy scriptures.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

We know EXACTLY what the original "values" of these elements are because we (at least scientists) can see the actual element and know EXACTLY how it behaves. And where were these elements created? The hearts of stars. Our own sun is a 2nd generation star.

We know exactly how they behave?

Yikes.

Jenkins and Fischbach guessed that the culprits in this bit of decay-rate mischief were probably solar neutrinos, the almost weightless particles famous for flying at almost the speed of light through the physical world – humans, rocks, oceans or planets – with virtually no interaction with anything.

Like i said earlier, how do we know the velocity of decay rates and the initial starting values.

Then, in a series of papers published in Astroparticle Physics, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research and Space Science Reviews, Jenkins, Fischbach and their colleagues showed that the observed variations in decay rates were highly unlikely to have come from environmental influences on the detection systems.

Reason for suspicion

If the mystery particle is not a neutrino, “It would have to be something we don’t know about, an unknown particle that is also emitted by the sun and has this effect, and that would be even more remarkable,” Sturrock said.

I posed this question in this thread.

As the researchers pored through published data on specific isotopes, they found

– odd for supposed physical constants.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Atomic "skid marks":

Half Lives for Radioactive Elements

Radioactive Parent

Stable Daughter

Half life
Radioactive Parent - Stable Daughter - Half life
Potassium 40 -- Argon 40 -- 1.25 billion yrs

Rubidium 87 -- Strontium 87 -- 48.8 billion yrs

Thorium 232 -- Lead 208 -- 14 billion years

Uranium 235 --- Lead 207 -- 704 million years

Uranium 238 -- Lead 206 -- 4.47 billion years

Carbon 14 -- Nitrogen 14 -- 5730 years

The findings attracted immediate attention because they seemed to violate two known basic facts of physics:

1. Radioactive decay is a constant

2. Neutrinos very rarely interact with matter and are hard to detect when they do.
For example: trillions of the neutrinos are zipping through your body right now. So why would they interact with radioactive elements in a more detectable way?

Here are the abstracts.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010NIMPA.620..332J

This includes many wavelengths your eyes do not respond to.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

One of the first things I do is a little consideration of the assumptions people make that are behind their claims.
I need to snag my sons graduate school math text books tonight Brush up on some equations.

If Hugh Ross could understand this, he would have a cow.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

All the Greek schools patterned after the Platonic and Aristotelean philosophies included at least some observations of the natural world. Some of the observations (like the subsequent Ptolemaic system of astronomy) might have had "good math" behind them, but they lacked important information - like the fact that Jupiter had moons - that was simply technologically unavailable at the time.

How did this new knowledge become available? Through "creation evangelism?" No. "Creation evangelism" like that practiced at AIG subtracts good information and causes monstrous "mutations" to occur within the realm of discussion.

It's odd that both you and Mr. Bodie at AIG would claim that Paul was "arguing against evolution..." That issue wasn't even under discussion. Instead, what did Paul really "argue" on Mars Hill?

First, Paul appeals to the work and legacy of the pagan philosopher Epimenides of Crete. It was Epimenides who went around the Eastern Mediterranean world erecting altars to "The Unknown God" (Acts 17:23).



We'll have to wait until we're all in glory together to ask St. Paul why he would extol the virtues of a guy who wouldn't even wear pants. Paul then goes on to quote Epimenides without attribution in Acts 17:27-28 (a). I doubt seriously that Paul was claiming this idea for his own because they would have been immediately recognizable to his audience. Instead, Paul is incorporating the ideas of the Greek philosophers.

"For in Him we move and live and have our being."

Epimenides' original words were:

They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one—
The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
For in thee we live and move and have our being.

The "tomb" in question was located near Knossos on the island of Crete. An elaborate ceremonial tomb of great antiquity existed there and in Greek times it was "rededicated" to the Greek god Zeus. The idea that the "All Father" Zeus would ever require a tomb was repugnant to Athenians and other Greeks. Paul skirts these squabbles and simply says, "Zeus the All Father is ... er, I mean The Unknown God is the God of us all... Let me prove it by quoting a hymn dedicated to Zeus!"

In the second part of Acts 17:28 ("as certain also of your own poets have said...") Paul proceeds to quote a Hellenistic work called Phenomena by the popular poet Aratus. The phrase "his offspring" again refers to Zeus.

Let us begin with Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken.
For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus.
Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity.
Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus.
For we are indeed his offspring... (Phaenomena 1-5).

So, "how do you argue with an evolutionist?" By making appeals to pagan deities? I guess. According to these guys. But why argue at all. Just accept reality.
(The real truth behind what Paul said is a bit more complicated and involves the development of Hellenistic monotheism and Neo-Platonism - but that too would require a whole thread of its own).

Are you still unwilling to accept some reality?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/2...ry/#more-23984

How many times have they claimed to find "the missing link"?

Your pagan dieties include Dagon. The half man half fish "transitional species".

[coadie]

Russian work published in 1989 describes experiments including decay of Pu239 over long periods of time, Schnoll et al.

Forgot to add this reference. we have known a long time radioactive decay is not constant.


Variation on Murphy’s Law: “Variables won’t and Constants aren’t”.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by coadie

The findings attracted immediate attention because they seemed to violate two known basic facts of physics:

1. Radioactive decay is a constant

2. Neutrinos very rarely interact with matter and are hard to detect when they do.
For example: trillions of the neutrinos are zipping through your body right now. So why would they interact with radioactive elements in a more detectable way?

Here are the abstracts.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010NIMPA.620..332J

This includes many wavelengths your eyes do not respond to.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

One of the first things I do is a little consideration of the assumptions people make that are behind their claims.
I need to snag my sons graduate school math text books tonight Brush up on some equations.

If Hugh Ross could understand this, he would have a cow.

Just how big of variations were they finding? 1% or less?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Just how big of variations were they finding? 1% or less?

1% is a massive amount short period of time.

You wouldn't mind flying an airplane with 1% water in the fuel?

A batch of brownies with 1% dog poop.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Psychosis diagnosis doesn't show up in stool specimens.

In fact most mental illness are outside the realm of you materialists that insist everything has a material explanation.

The other ignorant notion is that Psychiatrists do not read charts and notes as in this case even written by Darwin.

You are the one that works blindly. Making up a story of a creature and having only a few bone chips. sorcerers use chrystals.

We know you have never observed exoskeletals morph into vertibrates. You are so angry because I know far too many of the darwinist bogus and never verified claims.

You are absolutely wrong about "mental illnesses" "Not showing up in the stool" or blood tests.

Long term sufferers of Chagas have high levels of brain toxicity which leads to all types of impairment.

As I pointed out before (and as you ignored) most researchers have settled upon Chagas as the disease Darwin suffered from after his return from the Beagle voyage and throughout the rest of his life.