There is so much math in the creation, yet the atheists cannot provide where math equations ever just do themselves using a non-intelligent mechanism. Yet they have enough faith that regardless, it will do it anyway and get it right every time.

For if it happens by chance, then why do intelligent beings like us have to go learn it in order to do it? You all did go to school to learn math, right? And teachers have to get certified and tested to teach it right? So what school did random chance go to? ~ Issac

Source: https://www.facebook.com/EvolutionIsALie/

dalaman:
You are a liar. The only God whose signature appears in nature is Allah. The one and only true God.

dalaman:
You are a liar. The only God whose signature appears in nature is Allah. The one and only true God.

dalaman:
You are a liar. The only God whose signature appears in nature is Allah. The one and only true God.

dalaman:
You are a liar. The only God whose signature appears in nature is Allah. The one and only true God.

KingEbukasBlog:
Random chance does not disprove God or intelligent design in anyway. You can a radical view that God knows the possible outcomes from any random event and that He designed the universe in a way that every random event can produce a desired outcome.

Even computer programs can be designed like this . So random chance claimants ain't really making any serious argument .

Secondly, an event can appear to an observer as random or chaotic but it is not perceived that same way to the person who initiated it. You might think we got everything by chance , but does God or every other observer see it that way ? So the issue of chaos and randomness producing intelligent design is subjective not objective.

dalaman:
You are a liar. The only God whose signature appears in nature is Allah. The one and only true God.

KingEbukasBlog:


The joke's on you sir but I'll give you time to make this discovery

vaxx:
Are you thinking islam?

4kings:
Brilliant!!!

4kings:

Brilliant!!!

hopefulLandlord:


why is that brilliant? while its well said, it veers off the topic at hand; OP is not arguing for just a creator but for a specific creator who created things in a particular way, a literal Adam and Eve Creation, OP is a young earth creationist who is certain the world is 6000 years old

when Christians argue against evolution and "random chance" they're not arguing because such things show there's no "creator" but because those things go against the way they think the creator "created" the "creations"; evolution being true screws the entire tenets of Christianity from bottom to top cuz a literal Adam and Eve is very necessary as its the foundation on which Christianity is actually built

Evolution demolishes the idea of an "Adam and Eve," who are depicted as being created by "God" in the last part of Biblical Creation in the Book of Genesis. They are unrelated to any life form that came before them, per the Bible.

Without Adam and Eve . . . you have no disobedience based on them eating the fruit from the wrong tree.

Without this disobedience -- called "Original Sin" -- you have NO reason for "God" to later send a "Redeemer" for the human race (each of whose members somehow "inherited" that "Original Sin" LOL) . . . and that Redeemer = Jesus. Without Jesus, you have no basis for Christianity. . . . hence, the panic that Christians feel about Evolution, "Random chance" and their goal to discredit it and – instead – to pretend that a folk tale version of “Biblical Creation” accurately describes what actually “happened”

so when OP is arguing against random chance, he's not arguing just against it but also indirectly arguing FOR literal biblical creation

dalaman:



Be quiet pls. The only true God whose signature appears in nature is Allah. No other God has his name appear in nature but Allah the one and only true God.

hopefulLandlord:


why is that brilliant? while its well said, it veers off the topic at hand; OP is not arguing for just a creator but for a specific creator who created things in a particular way, a literal Adam and Eve Creation, OP is a young earth creationist who is certain the world is 6000 years old

when Christians argue against evolution and "random chance" they're not arguing because such things show there's no "creator" but because those things go against the way they think the creator "created" the "creations"; evolution being true screws the entire tenets of Christianity from bottom to top cuz a literal Adam and Eve is very necessary as its the foundation on which Christianity is actually built

Evolution demolishes the idea of an "Adam and Eve," who are depicted as being created by "God" in the last part of Biblical Creation in the Book of Genesis. They are unrelated to any life form that came before them, per the Bible.

Without Adam and Eve . . . you have no disobedience based on them eating the fruit from the wrong tree.

Without this disobedience -- called "Original Sin" -- you have NO reason for "God" to later send a "Redeemer" for the human race (each of whose members somehow "inherited" that "Original Sin" LOL) . . . and that Redeemer = Jesus. Without Jesus, you have no basis for Christianity. . . . hence, the panic that Christians feel about Evolution, "Random chance" and their goal to discredit it and – instead – to pretend that a folk tale version of “Biblical Creation” accurately describes what actually “happened”

so when OP is arguing against random chance, he's not arguing just against it but also indirectly arguing FOR literal biblical creation

OLAADEGBU:


I heard that you dropped the theory of evolution like hot potatoes.

Do you believe in an old earth? Tell us whether you believe the earth is millions of years old and tell us why?

dalaman:


End of discussion.

OLAADEGBU:


I heard that you dropped the theory of evolution like hot potatoes. Do you believe in an old earth? Tell us whether you believe the earth is millions of years old and tell us why?

KingEbukasBlog:


Lol . This is what happens when someone has a limited perspective of the issue . His argument is way off the point I was trying to make but I'm gona address it anyway . Allegorical interpretation of the bible is till congruent with tenets in Christianity . Evolution can be viewed as a process within creation - that God allowed the development of everything through the process of evolution . The literal interpretation of the bible is one of many numerous interpretations of the bible and the argument he is making is normally one which literal interpreters of the bible have against allegorical interpretation of the bible and is normally borrowed by atheists just the way they borrowed the theistic term 'God of the gaps' . Some Christians even interpret the bible literally but still do not agree to the 6000 year earth old claim by the YECs.

So yes my brother , evolution does not disrupt the harmony of the orthodox tenets of Christianity as he claimed . Allegorical interpretation of the bible has been with our early papas in church over 1500 years or so before Darwinian evolution .

But don't forget a non-Christian theist can still acknowledge evolution as process orchestrated by God .

KingEbukasBlog:


You still have time sir but tick tock tick tock ...

hopefulLandlord:


how is that brilliant?

while its well said

it veers off the topic at hand;

OP is not arguing for just a creator but for a specific creator who created things in a particular way, a literal Adam and Eve Creation, OP is a young earth creationist who is certain the world is 6000 years old.

when Christians argue against evolution and "random chance" they're not arguing because such things show there's no "creator" but because those things go against the way they think the creator "created" the "creations"; evolution being true screws the entire tenets of Christianity from bottom to top cuz a literal Adam and Eve is very necessary as its the foundation on which Christianity is actually built

Evolution demolishes the idea of an "Adam and Eve," who are depicted as being created by "God" in the last part of Biblical Creation in the Book of Genesis. They are unrelated to any life form that came before them, per the Bible.

Without Adam and Eve . . . you have no disobedience based on them eating the fruit from the wrong tree.

Without this disobedience -- called "Original Sin" -- you have NO reason for "God" to later send a "Redeemer" for the human race (each of whose members somehow "inherited" that "Original Sin" LOL) . . . and that Redeemer = Jesus. Without Jesus, you have no basis for Christianity. . . . hence, the panic that Christians feel about Evolution, "Random chance" and their goal to discredit it and – instead – to pretend that a folk tale version of “Biblical Creation” accurately describes what actually “happened”

so when OP is arguing against random chance, he's not arguing just against it but also indirectly arguing FOR literal biblical creation

hopefulLandlord:


how does one drop something he's never picked up? its like claiming I dropped my Chinese citizenship when I'd never been one

I haven't read much about evolution to either accept or reject it
this is absolutely non sequitur cuz its you that asserts the earth is of a particular age, onus probandi is yours to give evidence that the earth isn't older or younger

OLAADEGBU:


Where do you stand? Is the earth millions of years old or just a few thousands (6000)?

hopefulLandlord:


where I stand doesn't matter
he who asserts should prove, its you that's claiming an age of earth, prove it!

OLAADEGBU:


Why are you shy in revealing where you stand? Take a stand and be a man don't be a sissy, there is no sitting on the fence here. It is only when you take a stand that I can either prove or disprove it.

hopefulLandlord:


this makes absolutely no sense but you're not in the business of making sense anyways

OLAADEGBU:


Copped out again.

dalaman:


It is very clear you do not know the implications of what you are saying. Biblical christianity is NOT compatible with the theory of evolution. You can deny it all you want but the reality is that it is not. I've seen many christians here clearly state that , I've seen others try to tell you that as well.

So which of the hominid apes did Adam evolve from? Where did the bible even suggest that? Where in the evolutionary trend does it state that women evolved from the ribs of a man?

Evolution does away with the first man and the first man, and if there is no first man as evolution suggest then there can be an Adam and if there can't be an Adam then there can't be an original sin and if there isn't an original sin then there can't be a Jesus who was sent to redeem people for their sins.

Some of the earliest church fathers didn't believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis because of the many problems associated with it, but they didn't subscribe to evolution either. To them the creation narratives were just symbolic events and stories that shows that God created the universe and that's all. Many christains do not agree with the literal interpretation of the biblical creation account but they will clearly tell you that you can not harmonize it with evolution.

OLAADEGBU:


Copped out again.

OLAADEGBU:


I must say that I partly agree with your summation here, it is pretty obvious. Saying that sin, sickness, suffering and death came before Adam is not congruous with the gospel truth.