Evolution Or Creation: Which Do You Believe?

Mr owl  needs to read my post again.  I think you got the wrong end of the stick.  Totally.  What I was saying was that many people who deny evolution take the flu vaccine every year.  In fact never once did I mention or even allude to the scientific method.

Science as I said has its own limitations and is in a transitional investigative stage.  There are changes in the knowledge that atoms are the smallest particles, the X & Y chromosomes as male and female, they have now discovered that the earliest form of life had DNA (which is a language), new methods in of measuring the age of the earth which proves that the earth is young, changes in anthropology and biology etc.  The fact is that scientists are sincere and objective enough to admit that they are still investigating.

Science and Scriptures are both committed to the truth.  Scientists starts with a big leap of faith by producing hypothesis or theories and then moves to test their compliance with the facts.    In fact, “science” is not so much a set of ideas, but rather a method to obtain knowledge—a method that rests on certain foundational principles, such as universal logic, reliability of our senses, uniformity of nature, and so forth.  Facts fits The book of Genesis perfectly.  The Bible explains a universe where those principles are valid; without the Bible (and, more importantly, the God of the Bible), there is no basis for science.  Furthermore, there is no indisputable “evidence” that speaks for itself and needs no interpretation; rather, we interpret the raw facts of science through a worldview.

Evolutionists on the contrary have not been able to back up their conjectures, myths or beliefs with facts, instead they try to interprete the facts that the scientists have arrived at through their own fanciful ideologies and philosophies which none of them had observed.  What they propagate as proof of biological evolution is the downward evolution or should I say de-evolution of mutation and selection where organisms change and adapt to new environments.  They try to convince the gullibles that living organisms came from non-living organisms and evolved to the complex organisms we have today, hiding under the thin finger of billions of years.  We all know that things depreciate, information in the DNA reduces, (the fact that information in the DNA in the earliest form of life proves that the language must have a person behind it) and living things eventually die out.  The non-existent missing links has been fraudulently made up by the use of the jaws of animals, bones of diseased humans and rearranging of fossils.

Their main purpose of propagating this lie is to be independent of God and hoping to get ahead by using their axiom "the survival of the fittest" which is used in the business world of capitalism, facism, nazism (Hitler hated christianity because "it kept weak people going"), colonialism, communism, secularism etc.

If you have any questions and sincerely need answers to them then visit the weblink below   

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/05/09/dinosaurs-man-bible

http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html

@Pastor AIO,

Do you call yourself a pastor?  I am not surprised that you deny the creation in the book of Genesis even the pope has compromised and now believes that God used evolution to create the world.  http://www.cuttingedge.org/n1034.html 

The book of Genesis which is the foundation of the whole Bible gives us the highlight of events in creation and the purpose of our redemption.  No wonder the devil has attacked this book and the book of Revelation more than anything because the former introduces his entry into this world while the latter predicts his undignified exit.  The devil has sold a lie that says that Genesis is a myth and Revelation is a mystery and so called christians have been buying into it ignorantly.  For these reasons these books are his greatest nightmare. 

If you have been deceived that the book of Genesis is allegorical then check out the decalogue in Exodus 20:11 and the fact that Jesus Christ frequently referred to this book in matters relating to marriage, the global flood of Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham etc.

The bible says my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge Hos.4:6, therefore do yourself a favour and click on the weblink below and discover the truth that will make you free.  http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/compromise.asp

http://www.anointed-one.net/quotes.html

@KAG,

How are you doing? I hope you are being commended by your masters as you have been committed in doing the work of the devil's advocate as the image on your signature depicts.

The worldview that you have been propagating is a desperate effort of your master to put smokescreen on the eyes of people to make them believe that the book of Genesis is a myth while the book of Revelation is depicted to be a book of mysteries so that they would not learn of his impending doom, his entry and undignified exit as well as the prophecy in Gen.3:15.  http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tba/war-of-worldviews

Whatever worldview you ascribe to does not validate your presuppositions as facts.  It only validates the panic attack that secularists, humanists, atheists and your master have because of the impending judgment and accountability. 

One fact that you should realise is that nothing ever turns into something by itself and the Cause of all things is the Eternal being.

Evidence of a young earth  http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

@KAG: Am not a Christian, but I am a Creationist. Your ability to continue to simple say Wrong about everything, does not mean that you are correct! I often wonder how you have not be able to tell us how the initial particle that existed before the big bang came about into existence? You should try to explain that to all of us and your heart that is harder than steel, deader than stone, yet it is flesh, pumping blood through your body to keep you alive. Yet this very simple process of life support has kept you alive from the time of your inception in your mother's body.

And why has not a group of humans and others evolved to breath in the huge amount of CO2 that is killing off the created humans and other animals who are designed to using O2 like humans?

After you do this, and others, I will ask you to tell us how the first particle that is so small that it has no size andno significan mass but that since it existed it must have a position, hence one is arbitrarily given to it by the theorist. The theorist can never proof their theory, because they know that nothing can exist (except God Almighty the Creator), without a causer to bring it about. They theorised something so small exploded with such a force that it had to be called Big Bang. And this then produced and continues to produce the tremendously immmeasurable large amount of weight of things, some already extincted, while others are not yet descovered, but what is known are so varied that we can't possibly explain how they could have had a direct link and common origin!  How can you explain that Jupiter or any of those other planets and you come from the same father and or mother?

KAG, you see that i cleverly did not say you and the earth, since you live on the planet earth. It is then that you will begin to explain how the elements in the earth and you are perfect with one another. I wonder why you could not go to the Moon near to us to live, except that you have to replicate the earthly condition on you whenever you even venture to a height just short distance off from the surface of the earth.

Now tell me how is grandma Gorilla doing? And grandpa Chipanzee, too? Am sorry KAG, you have flu or at least under the weather? I don't see the earth sneezing with watery eyes, and running nose in all my years alive. Ask those people who have been alive longer than all of us.


And your claim that science disagrees with theology, I bet you have based it only on what you know. n the Q.your'an, in Surah Rahman, the Creator says penetrate the space, if you can. But you can not except with what its allowed for you to penetrate.

In other parts of this Glorious Book, the Creator gives hints, inferences on known science branches and what is yet on known, but will be only for the future generations. You see, you have cheapened the Awesomeness of the Bringer of what you think is the source of your life. You need to change your ways.

Except, I didn't just say "Wrong", I also gave short reasons afterwards. I'd say I'm more correct than both you and the other clown.


First, as I've told you several times, your understanding of the Big Bang theory is terrible. However, if one were to argue that it was a "particle" that expanded into time and space, one could point to the quantum fluctuations which cause the rise of particles out of nothing. I've told you that before.

Second, the heart is not harder than steel, nor deader than stone (yes, I understand how metaphors work, but you did it wrong in your attempt to equivocate). The heart came as a result of evolution.


Um, why or how would humans evolve to breathe CO2. Do you understand how evolution works? In any case, there are organisms that did evolve to breathe in CO2. See if you can guess what they are.


A singularity expanded. The singularity had a great deal of energy, which has, in turn, made conversions, etc. Jupiter, like other planets, came to be through one of the processes of planetary formation. It's existence is not necessarily supernatural nor does it require the help of any beings.


Humans are not compatible with most of the elements on Earth. In fact, slight increases of the one we are compatible with will hurt or kill us. Having said that, humans did become compatible with several elements on Earth because we did evolve on Earth. See if you can figure out why humans can't live on the moon. I'll start you off: think gravity and oxygen.


Humans didn't evolve from gorillas or chimpanzees. I don't have the flu, nor am I under the weather. Dude, have you been drinking? For your sake, I hope that's your excuse.



No, I said science is commited to truth and theology to dogma. I didn't say it disagrees with it, although on many occasions it does.


That's swell.

@KAG;
Regardless of your short or long reasons afterwards, you make absolutely no sense, except that you keep providing silly  and unproven theories.


Particles coming out of nothing? You see how clownish your thinking is? Even magicians can not produce something out of nothing. There whole gimmick is slight of hands. Thats the same situation with the proposal of the Evolutionists; much talk without substance.

What i said about the heart is not about everybody's hearts. I was talking about your heart and the hearts of the Evolutionists, because it is devoid of truth. A heart that will not accept the truth is hard and dead.

KAG, I wonder if you thinking process has any depth. I simply ask you a question, you avoided it and begin talking about some organism. I spoke about human, you and me. You are talking about some organism. You are so clogged up with your evolution mumbo jumbo that you will avoid serious dialogue about it. Your escape route is always to go fall back on an unproven theory. You sound as if a tree will ever become a human being.

All unproven theories. And noticed that you said that there are more than one processes of planetary formation. And it is your singularity that expanded with great deal of energy that brought all the above to being. Then I want you to tell me how that singularity came about and what was its potential properties; mass as in weight, etc? And I have not heard of any thing that expanded, without some thermal changes. What created the initial thermal change, and what amount of it to make the singularity expand to the point that conversions took place? Are the conversions all at the same time or you don't know?  KAG, the evolutionsists have been making unsubstantiated blanketed statements for a long time, and have been left unchallenged. You now have to provide a proof. You are now to to tell us the layman about your thesis. And if you can not, then know that God is the Creator of all things. And mankind does not know all things at anytime. Afterall, we do not know the future in full.


You are a joke KAG. I think you are getting off on this type of meaningless postings. I ask you a direct question, you went all over the places without giving me a single answer of how you have not evolved to be able to live on the other planets without any aids/equipments from the earth?

Is.la.m prohibits me from drinks. I simply thought that you were under the weather when you responded to an inquiry, that you are now better than the week before. Anyway, I see that you are devoid of human emotion. So whatever humans evolved from, pardon me is now modern day human grand parents. So how are they? I am trying to get you to think that your theory of evolution is just a lousy theory from a demented mind, who could not logically or physically prove it, if his life depends on it. Your reputation depends on it, KAG and you are failing terribly.

By the way, where is that guy, Afern, or with a similar name? I hope he is well.



Has science proves already that there is no Primary Mover, the Creator who is God? Now that is the truth that they need to commit to or prove it wrong.


Need I say more, since all you could say is "that's swell?" 

Lol. Absolutely no sense? Well, I guess I'm beginning to understand why legible, understandable words will make absoultely no sense to you. Carry on.


That's nice, except, in quantum fluctuations,  virtual particles 1 2 are potential somethings from nothing. The quantum  world is notoriously counter-intuitive.


Which is why I said I do understand metaphors. You did it wrong.


No, you said "humans and others" that includes and demands an indication of the processes in other organisms. Again, how or why would humans evolve to breathe in CO2? Do you understand how evolution works?


Actually, proof is for maths and liquor. Theories, however, do require evidence. Yes, I indicated that more than one conception of planetary formation exists. No, the initial expansion didn't cause planetary formation - it came long afterwards. There are several hypotheses regarding the singularity; the most pervasive, however, is string theory. No, the singularity didn't have weight (I've told you that on more than one previous occassion. Keep up), as gravity must have appeared after inflation and expansion. I don't know what you're talking about with thermal change, as there was great amount of heat after the expansion of the Universe. Several elements came into being in the instance of the Universe's first moments because of the conditions
 

That's nice, except that's not how science works. First, most of what you've been asking about have nothing to do with evolution (as in the theory of evolution which the moniker of "evolutionist" refers).

Second, science theories are always challenged. That's an important aspect of science. The challenge happen by people who tend to know what the hell the theories are and what they entail, not some almost retarded person on the internet with a poor grasp of even basic knowledge.

Third, if you really were interested, as a layman, to understand the different theories, you wouldn't keep making the same basic errors at every turn and refusing to acknowledge answers that specifically address the things you clearly need to understand.

Finally, I have never said that humyn beings know everything. However, that shouldn't be an excuse to refuse to sate some of our curiousities, nor does it mean that it is evidence of gods.


Oh dear, that should be a lesson to me: never assume a Mohammedean Creationist has basic intelligence. I have quoted the whole sequence so that anyone with a half decent brain that decides to read this will get a feel for how laughable you're being. How haven't humyns evolved to live on other planets? Um, we evolved on Earth - take a moment and let that sink in.


Logic: learn it; use it. That I'm better than  thought I'd be last week is neither implies flu nor "under the weather". Geez! Humyn grandarents? Extinct.


I wouldn't know.


Science doesn't set out to falsify the existence of gods. What one can assert, however, is that with new findings, one can propose that gods aren't necessary for the state of things and beings. That is not to say, though, that one cannot be both a believer in a god and accept scientific findings.


Yup. Some polemics don't deserve anything other than whats amounts to a patronising pat on the head.

Many may not be like that but the significant majority are like that.  Human's behave compulsively, according to programs neurally formed by genetic inheritance and circumstances.  It's so Pavlovian it is almost scary.  Many religionist debaters often get off on that vindication buzz.  As indeed many atheist who seem to secretly feel that being an atheist make them more intelligent and superior to those who believe in God.  They get a kick out of the feeling and that is what drives them on. 

It doesn't have to be a feeling of superiority mind you.  Some might adhere to a religion because it feels cosy.  Perhaps they were raised in that religion and so they have a connection with it.  To argue with these people about their religion is to attack their security.  And they will react in such a manner as anyone would if their security was being threatened.  I wouldn't hold out for a logical discussion here.  It would be more advisable to prepare yourself against being physically attacked. 

Likewise many atheists are simply not comfortable with the idea of god's existence.  For whatever compulsive reason.  It could be the loss of a loved one that has them angry and leads them to denounce the existence of God. 

Basically there are a thousand and one reasons why anyone would advocate or denounce a doctrine that has nothing to do with the validity of that doctrine.  Until you make a proper appraisal of your motivations, whether neurotic or otherwise,  you run the risk of catering for other urges other than the quest for truth. 

- Kindly document and/or replicate.

- If you cannot replicate as requested above, then obviously it is.

Hiya,

Or you could say "The as yet unproven fact is", or "the belief without supporting evidence is" = "Faith"

Please re-read the links you posted. It was clearly stated as hypothetical. I post excerpts;

Microspheres
Arguably Sidney Fox's best-known research was conducted in the 1950s and 1960s, when he studied the spontaneous formation of protein structures. His early work demonstrated that under certain conditions amino acids could spontaneously form small peptides—the first step on the road to the assembly of large proteins. The result was significant because his experimental conditions duplicated conditions that might plausibly have existed early in Earth's history.

Further work revealed that these amino acids and small peptides could be encouraged to form closed spherical membranes, called microspheres. Fox has gone so far as to describe these formations as protocells, protein spheres that could grow and reproduce. They might be an important intermediate step in the origin of life. Microspheres might have served as a stepping stone between simple organic compounds and genuine living cells.

Microsphere
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Microspheres)• Learn more about using Wikipedia for research •Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Glass microsphere.
This article largely refers to microspheres or protein protocells as small spherical units postulated by some scientists as a key stage in the origin of life. The term microsphere is otherwise widely being used in various areas, such as, materials and pharmaceutical sciences, for spherical particles composed of various natural and synthetic materials with diameters in the micrometer range.

In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey demonstrated that many simple biomolecules could be formed spontaneously from inorganic precursor compounds under laboratory conditions designed to mimic those found on Earth before the evolution of life. Of particular interest was the substantial yield of amino acids obtained, since amino acids are the building blocks for proteins.

In 1957, Sidney Fox demonstrated that dry mixtures of amino acids could be encouraged to polymerize upon exposure to moderate heat. When the resulting polypeptides, or proteinoids, were dissolved in hot water and the solution allowed to cool, they formed small spherical shells about 2 μm in diameter—microspheres. Under appropriate conditions, microspheres will bud new spheres at their surfaces.

Although roughly cellular in appearance, microspheres in and of themselves are not alive. Although they do reproduce asexually by budding, they do not pass on any type of genetic material. However they may have been important in the development of life, providing a membrane-enclosed volume which is similar to that of a cell. Microspheres, like cells, can grow and contain a double membrane which undergoes diffusion of materials and osmosis. Sidney Fox postulated that as these microspeheres became more complex they would carry on more lifelike functions. They would become heterotrophs, organisms with the ability to absorb nutrients from the environment for energy and growth. As the amount of nutrients in the environment decreased, competition for those precious resources increased. Heterotrophs with more complex biochemical reactions would have an advantage in this competition. Over time organisms would evolve that used photosynthesis to produce energy.

Au contraire! It gave rise to more of it's kind. Organic non-life I would call it. Please excuse my terminology, I'm no scientist.

Which makes absolute sense. As it's not life it need'nt be specific. It can't concieve and needs no genetic material to pass on.

Biogenesis I believe is the scientific term. Or "after/according to it's kind" as the "The Uncreated Creator" says (and did)

Excerpts from Genesis 1.
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

God bless
TV

lol where do they get these people from? lmao

@KAG; Seriously, you need to rethink your position. You will see why in a minute.


"Potential" is not "actual." The fact that something may look like something or even look like something, is not a proof that it is. There are tremendous example that I can give you: Artificial sweeters of verious types are not sugar from Sugarcane. Although, it may even have the same nutrional values and crystalization (not really, but am exciting you to think and understand), the truth is that they have different distinct sources. You have not seen Virtual particles 1 and or 2 before. The scientist theorist just provide a seed of this potential possibility. For it to make any sense, you have to hav a completely controlled "vacuum enviroment," which is impossible. If it were possible, them for a particle to form and appear from this nothingness. You have agreed that it is not possible because of your usage of potential as a word to qualify the something from nothingness.



I see that your thinking is not as deep. Maybe you have carried the water on the Evolution mumbo jumbo to long. You need a change of concept. If your non god can help you it is time you try The One true God.

The reason I am asking you to talk about human evolving to 'super humans,' breathing C02 is to let you proof to us that man can still advance. Afterall, human are not perfect being, yet. Are we, because we should be able to defeat single handedly all that have potentials to defeat us. The body of human is not 100% efficient, vis a vias imput and output ratio.

Even common singular celled organism, like the ebola virus do kill humans very quickly. My question to you, again, is that which being are we going to evolve to? When?

If I simply go along with your C02 process, I could easily turn it around that you should tell us when will this organism will evolve to breathing in 02 or others or even what is even more abundant to them, and abandone the C02, for it?

We see that lions and other flesh eaters die of in the time of scarcity of their praeys. But they have plenty of trees and other grasses, why have'nt they evolved to a better adaptable animals suitable to thrive in this strange conditions? Intead their populations dwendle down dramatically. No pregnancy for new birth could be reported at this time.

And I wonder why crocodile and other water animals like that can not survive for a long time win places without their God designed appointed enviroments?

 
Listen to yourself, talking about hypothesis (outside the subject matter of math; i am following your lead because I did not include physics, etc). I want you to go back to a time before "Universe's first moments," to provide "evidence" of no need for the presence of GOD. If you notice, you said moments and conditions about Universe. It point to the theorem that many things of different forms, rates of completions and nature, etc happened at the same period of time. Yet you can not see the Power of a Mightier Entity in this? But of course you have not provided evidences to what the none matter/vacuum state was before this nothingness all of a sudden change to "Universe first  moments/conditions?" As I have said, KAG, provide evidence, but please provide how you came about without any part of your "Human Parents?" It is very easy to postulate, but the Evidence of the pudding is in the eating.


You just don't get it. I am not ignorant of Science. But thats beside the point. But am not interested the supposed theories and hypothesis, where there are no (proof) Evidences. Theories are good without evidences with those whose mind are fickled. Well, am not.


Lol. I guess a disagreement with you will bring your evil side. I guess when you evolve you will evolve to that Mr. Hype personality. For me you and your theorists are just seeking attention, without any possible of validation from the rest of the world. Of course the thought of the fact that you can eliminate God out of the equation of your existence is good enough for you. Yet you have no control of what will happen to you in your distant future. Or when you will die, or even though you were present, but you did have the experience or remember during your birth.

How old are you now? You see how quickly we forget? Just imagine therefore how forgetful mankind is towards the Creator?


I don't fall for everything, and that is the reason i call myself a layman. I do not need you or the evolutionist to tell me who God is or is not. My heart and soul already acknowledge His presence. I am a firm believer in Creation and that the Creator has provided in us all elements and processes for our adaptabilities to our conditions until death overtake us.

And in all there is no evidence that there is no God either. In your curiousity, you should have known that there is a place called Egypt, even if you disbelief every other evidence of existence of One Powerful God. In the land of Egypt, there used to be a king Pharaoh in the time that Moses was a 40 year old man . In a nutshell, this king was defeated along with his army, by drowning in the read sea. Moses was able to lead the people who followed his authority through and out of the sea to the otherside. Moses claimed that he was God messenger for this. Notivce that I did not say a (god). This God saved Moses and the defenseless followers with him, while the King and his well equiped army perished in the same sea.

The sea was a source of victory for Moses and his followers and the same see became at an instant the source of defeat for King Pharaoh and his followers. That God who was powerful enough to easily help a weak people by the stick in the hand of Moses and make a mighty warriors of Egypt under pharaoh suffer such great defeat is ever alive and well. That God is the Creator of all things. Your mumbo jumbo will never cut it with any sane mind.