Did God use evolution to create life

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

The Eugenie Scott Darwinist wants to placate religious believers by assuring them that they can be good followers of their faith as well as good Darwinists.
...

Before we move on to Eugenie Scott, how about if you utilize your "Ivy League" "education" in genetics and respond to:

Originally Posted by pelathais

...

I ask AGAIN! Why wasn't this notion of "Ussher's Chronology" advanced in the previous 1,618 years of Christian Theology?

Why did this novelty arise at this period of time? Why do some still cling to it as though it were some how some "ancient" doctrine? It's a comparative novelty.

Originally Posted by pelathais

...
With regard to the Miller-Urey experiment - it was hardly a failure. It was never intended to "create life." Rather, it was intended to find ways that complex organic molecules (the "building blocks of life") might arise naturally.

In this regard it was a complete success.

...

Originally Posted by pelathais

...

1) Answer the "creation of horses, donkeys and mules" question. This must fit within a framework of the rigid "interpretation" of "after their kind" in Genesis 1.

2) Answer the "three/four chambered heart" conundrum that you brought up yourself. Respond to the information concerning vertebrate heart evolution that I provided.

...

Originally Posted by coadie

Neo darwinism is survival of the fittest. The hedonists dream.

No, that is not what "Neo Darwinism" ever says. And, just how could a life long battle and struggle be "the hedonists dream?" I thought "hedonists" like Hefner just wanted to take it easy and "par-tay."

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

More from the bible.

Sorcery tells a half man half fish became a man.

In theory first there were fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and then mammals

Fish have scales and gills. Of course we can't work out how a 2 chambered fish heart can become a 4 chambered mammal heart.
There are no transitional fossils. It is expected we take it on faith.

SIGH!

I have responded with:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2747104/ - "Xenopus" is an order of frogs.

http://www.biologynews.net/archives/...le_hearts.html

Now, coadie, you must respond to that.

[pelathais]

I realize that "coadie" has now shifted into that gear that ultimately gets him banned from Christian and Apostolic forums. Sad.

But he is following the same pattern of deception that folks like Arlo Moehlenpah, Steve and Dana Grohman, Ken Ham, the currently incarcerated fraud "Dr Dino" Kent Hovind, Duane Gish and the now anonymous leaders of the "Institute for Creation Research." (Why the current anonymity, dudes?)

They just attempt to fill up the public discourse with unsupportable and ridiculous assertions. They will never respond to honest questions. If you try to "hold their feet to the fire" and insist upon a dialog - they act just like coadie and bust a vein.

Again, why do otherwise intelligent Oneness people even give any credence to this fraud?

Arlo? Steve? Why do you perpetrate such a fraud on Apostolic people?

I never get an answer. It's all just like Lee Stoneking's fraudulent claims to have earned a "Doctorate." You call them on it - you even call them on the phone and send email. No response at all to the charges of "fraud." What do these guys really know that they aren't telling?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

More from the bible.

Sorcery tells a half man half fish became a man.

In theory first there were fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and then mammals

Fish have scales and gills. Of course we can't work out how a 2 chambered fish heart can become a 4 chambered mammal heart.
There are no transitional fossils. It is expected we take it on faith.

I counted 173 examples of "transitional fossils" discovered since the publication of "Origin of Species" given on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils

coadie, or anyone - select just 10% of this list - 17 fossils "that don't exist" and demonstrate to us all just why they do not represent "transitional fossils" as Charles Darwin had predicted would be discovered.

You don't even have to have "studied" genetics at the post graduate level at an "Ivy League" university as coadie claims he has done.


(Still waiting for proof on that, too, coadie).

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You should be able to rattle quite a few right off the top off your head then... gimme, say 5 or 10 names.



hmm... no link for that article. BroGary, folks usually will include a link back to an article they cut-and-paste from so that others can evaluate the whole thing in context for themselves as well as identify the author and look at his/her motives in writing the piece.

In this case you have chosen a particular article that has been "cut-and-pasted" all over the Internet - AND the author is someone with well known motives of Jihad both in America and around the world.

How do you personally feel about Jihad, BroGary? Are you a big supporter? Here's your author after even the Turkish authorities found him to be too dangerous and unstable:



The man in the center is your author, Adnan Oktar, during his "stay" at the Bakirkoy Mental Hospital in Istanbul.

Erasmus Darwin did not "invent evolution" through his ties to Scottish Free Masonry. During his life time the dream of an independent Scotland was already forever lost in the "Act of Union" with the "kingdoms" of Great Britain, Wales and Ireland. Masonry, then as now, was more of a drinking club where "gentlemen of leisure" could ruminate. As Scots, most of their ruminations no doubt centered around the fact that they were unable to successfully preserve their liberties. So much for Erasmus' supposed Machiavellian prowess.

Erasmus Darwin was a highly successful physician and surgeon (the field his grandson Charles was going to enter until he fainted at the first sight of a human dissection). Erasmus "learned his evolution" through the careful study of human anatomy, pathology and his medical practice.

Your buddy, Adnan Oktar (whom you purposefully hid from us), "learned his evolution" while studying Jihad in a Turkish mental hospital.

Let everyone draw their own conclusions from this.

I did not purposefully hide him, I did not even give him any specific thought, besides even if we don't agree with all the beliefs or actions of a writer does not negate everything they write.

The fact remains is that high level freemasonry is Luciferian and therefore want evolution promoted to help cause people to doubt the God of the Bible.

[BroGary]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Science has an answer for your confusion - AND it fits the Bible's testimony quite well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

I know it sounds presumptuous to you right now, but I think that you really should drop these notions of yours and adopt a more Biblical world view. One that recognizes reality and embraces the truth of the Bible's teachings. Science AND the Bible. The problem really only exists in your head.

The earth, the fossils, history, the human body - everything testifies that God made this world - and that He made it all happened over the course of billions of years. God Himself left His "fingerprints" in the very atoms and their decay rates that tell us just how old the earth is.



No. Sadly, the deception is in the human tradition and the all too human condition of being Reactionary. When the Enlightenment arrived in Europe (a movement born of Christian thought and theology that also spawned the Reformation) there was a strong reaction against "the Light" and Bible Fundamentalism was reborn - after having been disproved in earlier centuries by Christians and all but abandoned.

Anglican Bishop James Ussher introduced the notion that the earth was just "6,000 years old" in 1648. (Anglican Bishops today propose the acceptation and even the ordination of homosexuals - where did they "get this idea?" Using your methodology, I suppose we can trace it back to the idea of a "6,000 year old earth! LOL).

I ask AGAIN! Why wasn't this notion of "Ussher's Chronology" advanced in the previous 1,618 years of Christian Theology?

Why did this novelty arise at this period of time? Why do some still cling to it as though it were some how some "ancient" doctrine? It's a comparative novelty.

I genuinely feel sorry for all of you who have been so easily deceived by the Luciferian globalists and are being used as pawns to help further their anti-Bible agenda.

I don't know if anyone has asked any of you evolutionists this direct question, but do any of you really believe that man was not created as man but evolved from lesser non-human creatures ?

[OnTheFritz]

Pel, I don't have time to go through any of this at the moment, but am enjoying your posts. Coadie: keep up the half-fish, half-man posts. I'm enjoying your loony tunes take on the situation

[coadie]

Originally Posted by OnTheFritz

Pel, I don't have time to go through any of this at the moment, but am enjoying your posts. Coadie: keep up the half-fish, half-man posts. I'm enjoying your loony tunes take on the situation

Isn't it hilarious how superstitious people think animals have spirits and change?

Cat-fish, bull-frogs and a few others are "transitional" species.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by BroGary

I genuinely feel sorry for all of you who have been so easily deceived by the Luciferian globalists and are being used as pawns to help further their anti-Bible agenda.

I don't know if anyone has asked any of you evolutionists this direct question, but do any of you really believe that man was not created as man but evolved from lesser non-human creatures ?

Furthermore, natural selection functions not only between races, but also among individuals within races. Here, oddly enough, Darwin maintained that savage man has an advantage over civilized man. In savage man, the intellectual and moral qualities are not as developed, but such lack actually works to weed out the unfit: "With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health." Unfortunately, the very development of human compassion which serves to mark the Europeans as more civilized also works against the principle of survival of the fittest.

Darwin laid the ground work for Hitler. Hitler wanted to accelerate the superior races.

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world.
Charles Darwin

[OnTheFritz]

Originally Posted by coadie

Isn't it hilarious how superstitious people think animals have spirits and change?

Cat-fish, bull-frogs and a few others are "transitional" species.

Umm hmm. Yep. Hilarious.