cloudstar:
In summary, evolution is not proven science but blind faith. That is all I wanted you to admit and you have done you several times. So, whenever you tell yourself that evolution is true and more plausible than creationism, remember that both rely on faith. I rest my case .

you haven't explained the success of evolution in biology cos last time I checked biology is based on evolution and its success is a logical evidence. why don't you start a biological field based solely on creationism.

cloudstar:
You can't prove science with text and images. For example, I can prove gravity by taking a stone and dropping it; if it falls to the ground, I can repeat the experiment, document it, observe it and even have others confirm it - THAT IS SCIENCE. The same way, if I put concentrated sodium on H2O, I will get a combustive reaction; I can repeat such action and everytime get the same result. Unfortunately, the "science" of evolution doesn't fall into that category. Yet, people like you want us to accept it as true even when it's not even a theory but it is based on blind faith.

the science of evolution is very easy to understand except your brain is choked. as you have pointed out yourself, a lion and a tiger can produce an offspring, being of the same evolutionary ancestor. this however disproves the biblical notion of every animal independently created by god. its funny how you mentioned you only believe in proven yet you believe all the bedtime stories in the bible which are utmost crap.

cloudstar:
You claimed it was. You inferred that the present Bible is the work of men because it is full of errors and have been edited and the entire theme corrupt. I challenged you to prove it by showing what was changed, when it was changed and by whom. I even asked you to refer to the earliest manuscript in question. You have refused to because you have little understanding on the subject.
You quoted from wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an authoritative reference when it comes to New Testament history. To prove a manuscript written in the 2nd century is corrupted; you will have to provide multiple attestation from several sources that can confirm that the manuscript in question was corrupt.

that quote is not from wikipedia, it is from an archeological website. this shows you never even read the text but swiftly refuted it.

cloudstar:
It appears you have reading comprehension. I told you that I have seen a crippled woman walk. You made fun of it and said you have seen the same with artificial limbs. I am referring to a lady that I saw over the course of a week that walked in clutches everyday and was healed by prayers. She got up and walked.

I told you I have also seen a paralyzed woman walk with electrical stimulation so what is your point. do you have any recording of the incidence, please do share. you also should be able to explain why people are born with deformities from a biblical and creationist stance.

cloudstar:
You refused to answer my question. Are you claiming that you are all knowing? Your answer will logically decide if there is a possibility that God exists or not.

I never claimed to know all and science is an aptitude that involves constant learning and research to gain more knowledge on a subject. me not knowing simply does not imply the presence of a creator but rather a quest to answer our existence which so far evolution has proved to be outstanding. based on that reasoning, there isn't proof for god either and from the same logical reasoning, you can't eliminate evolution either.

cloudstar:
Do you have any proof of this encounter i.e. a video or audio recording?

unfortunately it was such a remote location and I had no charge on my phone. but not to worry there are other videos online of the evolving human structure and frame.

cloudstar:
From my understanding, I would say several hundreds million years

come on, you should be able to give a biblical evidence for that. I also want to know if the bible talks about the meteor which hit the earth.

diarra94

you haven't explained the success of evolution in biology cos last time I checked biology is based on evolution and its success is a logical evidence. why don't you start a biological field based solely on creationism.

Please check again. Biology is proven science - evolution is faith based theory. They are mutually exclusive. Mind you, your claim of single cell origin of life from a single cell to the complex human DNA can't and haven't been proven. Hence the reason you come up with evolution. There is NOT one evolution claim that you can re-produce in a lab.

the science of evolution is very easy to understand except your brain is choked. as you have pointed out yourself, a lion and a tiger can produce an offspring, being of the same evolutionary ancestor. this however disproves the biblical notion of every animal independently created by god. its funny how you mentioned you only believe in proven yet you believe all the bedtime stories in the bible which are utmost crap.

It's evident you are deliberately trying to misrepresent the Bible. Here is the Bible account about the creation of animals according to their kind:

Genesis 1:24-25: Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

It is clear that God made animals after their kind - the lion and tiger are of the same species and kind; that is why they can mate and have off-springs. The fish and lizard are not of the same kind. The hippo and crocodile are not of the same kind. Man and apes are not of the same kind. You have claimed so many things of the Bible but as always it comes back to bite you.

that quote is not from wikipedia, it is from an archeological website. this shows you never even read the text but swiftly refuted it.

Bros, you quoted an article that was captured on Wikipedia. My point was if you are providing authoritative references, please don't use wikipedia

I told you I have also seen a paralyzed woman walk with electrical stimulation so what is your point. do you have any recording of the incidence, please do share. you also should be able to explain why people are born with deformities from a biblical and creationist stance.

You asked me if I have experienced any miracles as related to the Bible and I gave you my account. I didn't record it. I don't see what difference it would have made if you are a skeptic from the jump start. What explanation are you expecting Bros? Let me ask you a question, can you scientifically explain how a seed is made?

I never claimed to know all and science is an aptitude that involves constant learning and research to gain more knowledge on a subject. me not knowing simply does not imply the presence of a creator but rather a quest to answer our existence which so far evolution has proved to be outstanding. based on that reasoning, there isn't proof for god either and from the same logical reasoning, you can't eliminate evolution either.

You have answered my question - since you are not all knowing; you can't claim there is no God. You can decide with your limited knowledge and within the confines of evolutionary theory that a God isn't feasible and doesn't exist. My stand is simple - the evolution explanation is not plausible as it leaves major gaps on our origin. Also, evolution can't be proven scientifically. There is not one evolution claim you have made that can be reproduced using scientific methods.

Evolution claims that the universe originated from nothing - scientifically, that is an impossible statement. Evolution is saying that if you take one million nuclear bombs and they blow up, it will create a perfect, beautiful and wonderful country called America. Or, if a tornado hits a town and destroys all the houses and spins them around over 200 miles per hour - it will produce a perfect air-plane. It I take metal junk from the scrap-yard, put it in a box and shake it hard for 10 months, it will produce a Rolex.

I have conceded that it takes faith to believe in an all intelligent being. An intelligent being that is more intelligent than us that He created the earth and fine tune it perfectly for human life. You tend to take the stand that evolution can be proven scientifically yet if we use any scientific method; not one evolution claim can be proven. You said man came from fish yet it can't be proven using scientific method. Instead you believe someone else account of it not because it is true but because it is an alternative to intelligent design.

So, if tomorrow we can trace our origin with proven facts that we can test and reproduce that we came from fish; I will become an evolutionist. Until then, the evolution theory lacks any scientific merit, IT IS BASED ON BLIND FAITH - not any different that believing in Alladin's magic Genie lamp.

unfortunately it was such a remote location and I had no charge on my phone. but not to worry there are other videos online of the evolving human structure and frame.

Where did you meet these people? Did they mate with apes? If yes, what did their off-spring look like?

come on, you should be able to give a biblical evidence for that. I also want to know if the bible talks about the meteor which hit the earth.

.

I can only give evidence of historical account. For example, I can't prove God created the world - that is a theological perspective. So, I have faith that God created our universe by all the evidence of His creations. For example, science can't prove the universe just created itself out of nothing?; I am sure about that because nothing can create nothing. So, if you believe that matter came out of nothing and everything we have came out of nothing; you are conceding that it is based on faith and not science.

cloudstar: cloudstar



Please check again. Biology is proven science - evolution is faith based theory. They are mutually exclusive. Mind you, your claim of single cell origin of life from a single cell to the complex human DNA can't and haven't been proven. Hence the reason you come up with evolution. There is NOT one evolution claim that you can re-produce in a lab.

like I said evolution is a young science and therefore not extensive research has been done. just as the foundation, theories and equations for chemistry were laid down centuries ago, so are we laying the foundation and grid for evolution. it seems you skipped biology lessons in school because last time I checked biology is firmly built on evolution and disproving evolution also disproves biology. you can check out what plant angiosperms evolved from biologically and quote it right here.

cloudstar:
It's evident you are deliberately trying to misrepresent the Bible. Here is the Bible account about the creation of animals according to their kind:
Genesis 1:24-25: Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

hahaha, but you failed too see that this verse basically puts all beasts of the earth as one kind or family which is completely false. using this reasoning a bear and a tiger can copulate. "everything that creeps on the ground" is not a classification for animal or insects in any way. I can't believe you refuse to comprehend evolution but put your faith in such nonsense.

cloudstar:
It is clear that God made animals after their kind - the lion and tiger are of the same species and kind; that is why they can mate and have off-springs. The fish and lizard are not of the same kind. The hippo and crocodile are not of the same kind. Man and apes are not of the same kind. You have claimed so many things of the Bible but as always it comes back to bite you.

but the bible just said everything that creeps on earth is of the same kind. remember the bible made it clear not to corrupt god's work. if this is the Bible's classification of animals, then I think it requires a well deserved update.

cloudstar:
Bros, you quoted an article that was captured on Wikipedia. My point was if you are providing authoritative references, please don't use wikipedia

I told you that text was never from Wikipedia but directly from an archeological site. this shows you never even read the text but just rushed to Make comments

cloudstar:
You asked me if I have experienced any miracles as related to the Bible and I gave you my account. I didn't record it. I don't see what difference it would have made if you are a skeptic from the jump start. What explanation are you expecting Bros? Let me ask you a question, can you scientifically explain how a seed is made?

of course it will make a difference. you need to prove your assertions just as you have requested proofs from me. so I can also safely conclude that it wouldn't make any difference explaining myself if you are skeptic from the start.
Seed-making in flowering plants is a little more complicated.
Most flowers contain both male and female sex cells. The
typical flower has four main parts: an outer cup of leaflike
sepals, a ring of petals within the sepals, and inside, male
reproductive organs surrounding female parts. Male cells
develop in structures called stamens and travel enclosed in
the hard shell of pollen grains. Female cells, or ovules, develop
deep in a flower's ovary, enclosed in a structure called a pistil.
The top of the pistil-known as the stigma-is long and sticky
and a good target for pollen. After it reaches the stigma, a
small tube grows out of the pollen grain. The male cells travel
down the pollen tube, eventually reaching female ovules. Then
fertilization occurs and seeds start to grow.
Since flowers possess both male and female parts, some
flowers can fertilize themselves (or fertilize another flower on
the same plant), which is called self-pollination. Or the ovules
of one flower may be fertilized by the pollen of a different
flowering plant of the same species, a method called cross-
pollination. The wind, water, insects, and other animals help to
carry pollen from one flower to another. Cross-pollination
usually produces a better plant: the offspring of cross-
pollination possesses the genetic traits of two parents, which
may give it new characteristics that will help it survive in an
always-changing environment. Cross-pollination is so desirable,
in fact, that many flowering plants have developed different
ways to keep self-pollination from happening. In the flowers
of a spiderwort plant, for example, the stamens are ready to
release pollen grains before the pistils are ready to accept
them, so the pollen has to travel to other spiderwort plants in
search of a ripe pistil. I don't really see the relevance of this question. you should know that there are plants which don't produce seeds.

cloudstar:
You have answered my question - since you are not all knowing; you can't claim there is no God. You can decide with your limited knowledge and within the confines of evolutionary theory that a God isn't feasible and doesn't exist. My stand is simple - the evolution explanation is not plausible as it leaves major gaps on our origin. Also, evolution can't be proven scientifically. There is not one evolution claim you have made that can be reproduced using scientific methods.

You have answered my question - since you are not all knowing; you can't claim there is God. You can't decide with your limited knowledge and within the confines of biblical teachings that a God is feasible and does exist. My stand is simple - the biblical explanation is not plausible as it leaves major gaps on our origin. Also, evolution can be proven scientifically as it is the basis of biology. like I said evolution is a relatively new field compared to other well established fields such as chemistry. we need more critics like you to enable use research extensively and build up evolutionary science into a separate discipline.

cloudstar:
Evolution claims that the universe originated from nothing - scientifically, that is an impossible statement. Evolution is saying that if you take one million nuclear bombs and they blow up, it will create a perfect, beautiful and wonderful country called America. Or, if a tornado hits a town and destroys all the houses and spins them around over 200 miles per hour - it will produce a perfect air-plane. It I take metal junk from the scrap-yard, put it in a box and shake it hard for 10 months, it will produce a Rolex.

not just evolution but core science such as physics is based on the big bang. with that knowledge I guess you should be able to address what, who and how god came into existence because as you said something can't come out of nothing. I want you to quote exactly where the big bang was compared to a nuclear bomb, I guess your problem is you lack an understanding of science completely. a tornado rather increases entropy that's the only similarity it shares with the big bang. At this point, I have to refer you to a psychologist because its apparent you are comparing science to magic. evolution occurs in living cells, and no one ever said it involves order so you can keep shaking that Rolex for a gazillion years and nothing will change.

cloudstar:
I have conceded that it takes faith to believe in an all intelligent being. An intelligent being that is more intelligent than us that He created the earth and fine tune it perfectly for human life. You tend to take the stand that evolution can be proven scientifically yet if we use any scientific method; not one evolution claim can be proven. You said man came from fish yet it can't be proven using scientific method. Instead you believe someone else account of it not because it is true but because it is an alternative to intelligent design.

just as I said you should be able to explain god and his existence because I still can't believe you requiring evidences and proofs for evolution yet believe in something as unfeasible as god. the earth is not fine tuned perfectly for human existence, we have adapted to the all treacherousness and ills of the earth and fine tuned ourselves to exist here, and now with technology we're doing that much faster than ever before. like I said you confuse evolution for magic, you can't just change a fish into human. that is the job of nature, the environment and mutation. so far a lot of success has been achieved on mutation studies, I am sure you've seen insects with legs on their heads instead of antennas on their heads created in the lab. that is just the tip of the iceberg on mutation. evolution is different fom coventional sciences as it requires the effects of time, a lot of time. if you want to see evolution in action, you can decide to live for a million years. now I want you to explain the elephant man based on an intelligent design and God's perfection.

cloudstar:
So, if tomorrow we can trace our origin with proven facts that we can test and reproduce that we came from fish; I will become an evolutionist. Until then, the evolution theory lacks any scientific merit, IT IS BASED ON BLIND FAITH - not any different that believing in Alladin's magic Genie lamp.

you see evolution is already established, you not accepting it doesn't change a thing. with more research and outstanding studies being carried out on evolution, I am positive that future generations and even your children will accept evolution. if only we could make cells replicate at a very fast rate and in the required conditions, we can watch evolution in action. for now that is impossible but I am positive your descendants will enjoy that privilege.

cloudstar:
Where did you meet these people? Did they mate with apes? If yes, what did their off-spring look like?

they were African natives in Niger. their records showed they did evolved from an apelike creature. their offsprings looked like the average African child.

cloudstar:
I can only give evidence of historical account. For example, I can't prove God created the world - that is a theological perspective. So, I have faith that God created our universe by all the evidence of His creations. For example, science can't prove the universe just created itself out of nothing?; I am sure about that because nothing can create nothing. So, if you believe that matter came out of nothing and everything we have came out of nothing; you are conceding that it is based on faith and not science.

please, do prove your assertion, because the biblical genealogy of Jesus never pointed to that. you said you can't prove God's existence or creation yet you want to use historical accounts to evaluate the earth's age since creation, wow. like you said since nothing can create nothing, it is safe to assume god is nonexistent else you should be able to explain god's source.

diarra94

like I said evolution is a young science and therefore not extensive research has been done. just as the foundation, theories and equations for chemistry were laid down centuries ago, so are we laying the foundation and grid for evolution. it seems you skipped biology lessons in school because last time I checked biology is firmly built on evolution and disproving evolution also disproves biology. you can check out what plant angiosperms evolved from biologically and quote it right here.

Evolution is not science; it's a theory. This theory has no scientific basis that can be tested, measured or controlled. It is based on belief that something happen. Chemistry can be tested and chemistry developed by others confirming and observing it's basis. That is why no one argues or can disprove Chemistry methods as a science. Evolution on the other hand claims to have happened over hundreds of millions of years, we can't measure it, we can repeat it, we can't test it. So, how is evolution scientific if it can't be observed? How can we observe a fish turning into a snake? Can you please throw more light on how the science of biology is similar to evolution. Biology doesn't claim that humans came from fish Bros. Biology doesn't claim that human life came from a single cell organism. You are the one using Biology concept as a face to evolution.

hahaha, but you failed too see that this verse basically puts all beasts of the earth as one kind or family which is completely false. using this reasoning a bear and a tiger can copulate. "everything that creeps on the ground" is not a classification for animal or insects in any way. I can't believe you refuse to comprehend evolution but put your faith in such nonsense.

If I could make it any clearer for the sake of a discussion I would. You like to argue from silence and I have tried several times to tell you that it has no bases. The Bible used the word beasts and their kind. There are hundreds of beasts each after their own kind. You have formatted your brain to refuse this explanation but would rather believe that all living creatures came from a tadpole

but the bible just said everything that creeps on earth is of the same kind. remember the bible made it clear not to corrupt god's work. if this is the Bible's classification of animals, then I think it requires a well deserved update.

Another mis-representation. The Bible never claimed that everything that creeps is of the same kind. The two verses clearly categories that animals are listed under their own kind. Beasts i.e. lions, dogs, horses, elephants are unique to their own kind. You comprehension level really shows your ignorance or direct misrepresentation on the narrations.

I told you that text was never from Wikipedia but directly from an archeological site. this shows you never even read the text but just rushed to Make comments

Please post the link then if that was the case

of course it will make a difference. you need to prove your assertions just as you have requested proofs from me. so I can also safely conclude that it wouldn't make any difference explaining myself if you are skeptic from the start.
Seed-making in flowering plants is a little more complicated.
Most flowers contain both male and female sex cells. The
typical flower has four main parts: an outer cup of leaflike
sepals, a ring of petals within the sepals, and inside, male
reproductive organs surrounding female parts. Male cells
develop in structures called stamens and travel enclosed in
the hard shell of pollen grains. Female cells, or ovules, develop
deep in a flower's ovary, enclosed in a structure called a pistil.
The top of the pistil-known as the stigma-is long and sticky
and a good target for pollen. After it reaches the stigma, a
small tube grows out of the pollen grain. The male cells travel
down the pollen tube, eventually reaching female ovules. Then
fertilization occurs and seeds start to grow.
Since flowers possess both male and female parts, some
flowers can fertilize themselves (or fertilize another flower on
the same plant), which is called self-pollination. Or the ovules
of one flower may be fertilized by the pollen of a different
flowering plant of the same species, a method called cross-
pollination. The wind, water, insects, and other animals help to
carry pollen from one flower to another. Cross-pollination
usually produces a better plant: the offspring of cross-
pollination possesses the genetic traits of two parents, which
may give it new characteristics that will help it survive in an
always-changing environment. Cross-pollination is so desirable,
in fact, that many flowering plants have developed different
ways to keep self-pollination from happening. In the flowers
of a spiderwort plant, for example, the stamens are ready to
release pollen grains before the pistils are ready to accept
them, so the pollen has to travel to other spiderwort plants in
search of a ripe pistil. I don't really see the relevance of this question. you should know that there are plants which don't produce seeds.

I never asked you about flowers Bros - please pay attention to the question. I said a seed. For example can you scientifically explain how a seed of say an apple or a mango is made. Can you also use evolution to explain how a such a seed is made. I am not talking about germination. I will like you to use evolution to explain how we get a simple apple seed.

You have answered my question - since you are not all knowing; you can't claim there is God. You can't decide with your limited knowledge and within the confines of biblical teachings that a God is feasible and does exist. My stand is simple - the biblical explanation is not plausible as it leaves major gaps on our origin. Also, evolution can be proven scientifically as it is the basis of biology. like I said evolution is a relatively new field compared to other well established fields such as chemistry. we need more critics like you to enable use research extensively and build up evolutionary science into a separate discipline.

Again, you have repeatedly confirm my position even though you are using the same reasoning you have been refuting all along . The question was never about if there was a God. I have conceded that I believe there is a God on faith - I never once took the stance that I can prove the origin of our universe or that the Bible can be 100% proven historically. You were the one that stated authoritatively that life is as a result of chance and yet you have confirmed that such a view might be wrong. So, from your argument you confirmed:

1. There there is a possibility that God exist since you are not all knowing
2. That your grounds on evolution is based on faith and not on proven scientific methods

From the above, I rest my case

not just evolution but core science such as physics is based on the big bang. with that knowledge I guess you should be able to address what, who and how god came into existence because as you said something can't come out of nothing. I want you to quote exactly where the big bang was compared to a nuclear bomb, I guess your problem is you lack an understanding of science completely. a tornado rather increases entropy that's the only similarity it shares with the big bang. At this point, I have to refer you to a psychologist because its apparent you are comparing science to magic. evolution occurs in living cells, and no one ever said it involves order so you can keep shaking that Rolex for a gazillion years and nothing will change.

Asking who and how God came into existence is similar to asking "what does blue smell like?". Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is un-caused and un-created—He simply exists. How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

The big bang is a theory Bros, it is not proven science. I can measure gravity, I can test and record it. You can't measure the big bang, you can't test or replicate it - that is why it is called a theory. Your problem is that you are mixing up theory with facts. No scientist can tell you the genesis of the big bang or the origin of our universe simply because they can't peek into time. So, they come up with a theory with a "Big Bang" our universe was born. I accept that it is a theory but to claim that it is fact when it can't be proven is the issue. You have to have blind faith to believe that our world was as a result of a big bang as it cant be proven. In the same way I believe that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"

A scientific law has no known exceptions, or else it would not be a law in the first place. A "theory - as in evolution" on the other hand, is merely an "attempt to explain" phenomena by deduction from other known principles . A theory may not be true, but a law, by definition, is always true. Since there are no known exceptions to scientific laws, would it not be unscientific for evolutionists to assert, without any scientific evidence, that there have been exceptions to the laws of science in the past?

Furthermore, As far as science can tell, its laws have never been violated. They are without exception. From a scientific perspective, the evolutionary model falls short of being able to account for the origin of the Universe. Indeed, it contradicts the known laws of science that govern the Universe.

You keep shouting that Biology and Evolution are linked and similar, NO THEY ARE NOT. For example, look at the Law of Bio-genesis. It is accepted and proven that the Law of Bio-Genesis is a scientific and Biological fact. So, how does such law fits into evolution. Evolution suggests that living things like you and I came from non-living things. Can you please explain that.

just as I said you should be able to explain god and his existence because I still can't believe you requiring evidences and proofs for evolution yet believe in something as unfeasible as god. the earth is not fine tuned perfectly for human existence, we have adapted to the all treacherousness and ills of the earth and fine tuned ourselves to exist here, and now with technology we're doing that much faster than ever before. like I said you confuse evolution for magic, you can't just change a fish into human. that is the job of nature, the environment and mutation. so far a lot of success has been achieved on mutation studies, I am sure you've seen insects with legs on their heads instead of antennas on their heads created in the lab. that is just the tip of the iceberg on mutation. evolution is different fom coventional sciences as it requires the effects of time, a lot of time. if you want to see evolution in action, you can decide to live for a million years. now I want you to explain the elephant man based on an intelligent design and God's perfection.

Proof there is a Creator doesn't explain evolution. You have conceded that you are not all-knowing and since you are not all-knowing that it is possible there is a God. The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. God is the first cause and is entirely self existent, meaning the reason for God’s existence is contained within the very definition of God. God is beyond time and space so He wasn't created

If we want to prove God's existence we should agree to a standard that you and I submit to i.e. the laws of cause and effect, the law of teleology. In the same way if we want to prove evolution, we have to agree to scientific laws i.e. the laws of cause and effect, the law of teleology, the second law of thermodynamics, the law of bio-genesis. If you agree on these common grounds we can explore the if evolution or God provides a better answer to the origins of the universe using existing laws of science.

We survive here because the earth is perfect for human life. Go and adapt on Mars, Saturn or Pluto. The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life. The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day. So, it is not because we can adapt but because this earth is fine tuned exactly for life as we have it.

I am not confusing evolution with magic. Your basis of evolution is lots of time and faith in mother nature. Faith and time are not ingredients of scientific laws. Insects with legs on their heads is not based on environment or mother nature. Also, these insects are not changing into other insects; their DNA is not re-written Bros. That been said, can you please provide an authoritative reference to this claim.

You have confirmed that evolution requires millions and millions of years so in other words, we can't test for evolution. In scientific terms, if you can test a phenomenon to prove it's theory; what is that called?

you see evolution is already established, you not accepting it doesn't change a thing. with more research and outstanding studies being carried out on evolution, I am positive that future generations and even your children will accept evolution. if only we could make cells replicate at a very fast rate and in the required conditions, we can watch evolution in action. for now that is impossible but I am positive your descendants will enjoy that privilege.

If you accepted evolution for what it is, there wouldn't be any disagreement. The issue here is that you are claiming it is proven science when it is not. I am not faulting evolution as a theory - it is EXACTLY that, a theory. But to claim that this theory is true and proven when you need millions of millions of years and chance to not even come close to proven it is not scientific. Everyone can decide what they want to believe, any fool can make a rule and every fool can believe in it.

they were African natives in Niger. their records showed they did evolved from an apelike creature. their offsprings looked like the average African child.

By ape-like creatures are you saying the existing apes we have now or another kind of apes?

please, do prove your assertion, because the biblical genealogy of Jesus never pointed to that. you said you can't prove God's existence or creation yet you want to use historical accounts to evaluate the earth's age since creation, wow. like you said since nothing can create nothing, it is safe to assume god is nonexistent else you should be able to explain god's source.

You are mis-representing me. I said I can't prove God created the Universe and the question of how old the earth is a theological one. You stated that some Christians believe that our earth and universe is 6000 years old. I said that time-frame is when the author started telling the story of God creation. When I mentioned historical evidence, I was referring to historical evidence that can be traced i.e. the early manuscripts, Roman account and documented account of Jesus crucifixion. These are events that can be proven historically. Events such as the creation of the world can't be proven historically. So please, do not misrepresent what I said.

Try this interesting experiment: Empty your garage of every piece of metal, wood, paint, rubber and plastic. Make sure there is nothing there. Nothing. Then wait for ten years and see if a Mercedes evolves. Try it. If it doesn’t appear, leave it for 20 years. If that doesn’t work, try it for 100 years. Then try leaving it for 10,000 years. Here’s what will produce the necessary blind faith to make the evolutionary process believable: leave it for 250 million years

cloudstar: cloudstar



Evolution is not science; it's a theory. This theory has no scientific basis that can be tested, measured or controlled. It is based on belief that something happen. Chemistry can be tested and chemistry developed by others confirming and observing it's basis. That is why no one argues or can disprove Chemistry methods as a science. Evolution on the other hand claims to have happened over hundreds of millions of years, we can't measure it, we can repeat it, we can't test it. So, how is evolution scientific if it can't be observed? How can we observe a fish turning into a snake? Can you please throw more light on how the science of biology is similar to evolution. Biology doesn't claim that humans came from fish Bros. Biology doesn't claim that human life came from a single cell organism. You are the one using Biology concept as a face to evolution.

I would not write long sentences any longer because its clear your problem is you have no understanding of evolution. all these misconceptions you have are well evaluated and discussed in books and videos. go figure. you never answered my question, what does biology say about the evolution of angiosperms.

please educate yourself: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html.

cloudstar:
If I could make it any clearer for the sake of a discussion I would. You like to argue from silence and I have tried several times to tell you that it has no bases. The Bible used the word beasts and their kind. There are hundreds of beasts each after their own kind. You have formatted your brain to refuse this explanation but would rather believe that all living creatures came from a tadpole

the problem is Christians try to indiscreetly change the words in the bible to suite present day scenarios, the bible clearly said everything that creeps on the ground which is not a distinction of animals on any basis.

cloudstar:
Another mis-representation. The Bible never claimed that everything that creeps is of the same kind. The two verses clearly categories that animals are listed under their own kind. Beasts i.e. lions, dogs, horses, elephants are unique to their own kind. You comprehension level really shows your ignorance or direct misrepresentation on the narrations.

this is a direct quote from you " Then God said, " Let the earth bring forth
living creatures after their kind : cattle and creeping things and
beasts of the earth after their kind "; and it was so. God made
the beasts of the earth after their kind , and the cattle after
their kind , and everything that creeps on the ground after its
kind ; and God saw that it was good." you should also know that cattle were domesticated from wild aurochs and bisons around 10000 years ago so I don't get that. you should also check out the definition for a beast before you rush to defend such nonsense.

cloudstar:
Please post the link then if that was the case

the link is in the text. http://bib.irr.org/todays-bible-real-bible. please learn to read quotes before dismissing them.

cloudstar:
I never asked you about flowers Bros - please pay attention to the question. I said a seed. For example can you scientifically explain how a seed of say an apple or a mango is made. Can you also use evolution to explain how a such a seed is made. I am not talking about germination. I will like you to use evolution to explain how we get a simple apple seed.

I did exactly that. seeds are produced in flowers and so you you can't explain one ignoring the other. go back and read that more concisely.

cloudstar:
Again, you have repeatedly confirm my position even though you are using the same reasoning you have been refuting all along . The question was never about if there was a God. I have conceded that I believe there is a God on faith - I never once took the stance that I can prove the origin of our universe or that the Bible can be 100% proven historically. You were the one that stated authoritatively that life is as a result of chance and yet you have confirmed that such a view might be wrong. So, from your argument you confirmed:

1. There there is a possibility that God exist since you are not all knowing
2. That your grounds on evolution is based on faith and not on proven scientific methods

From the above, I rest my case.

I don't believe in faith but reason. I never said evolution is not a theory. I made myself clear when I said just as the foundation for modern chemistry was laid centuries ago, so is evolutionary science being developed today. A lot of new findings will be made and many misconceptions will also be resolved. This is pure science.

cloudstar:
Asking who and how God came into existence is similar to asking "what does blue smell like?". Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is un-caused and un-created—He simply exists. How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

And this is why I can't bring myself to believe in god. Everything has a source and god can not be excluded as I am sure he must be made up of matter.

cloudstar:
The big bang is a theory Bros, it is not proven science. I can measure gravity, I can test and record it. You can't measure the big bang, you can't test or replicate it - that is why it is called a theory. Your problem is that you are mixing up theory with facts. No scientist can tell you the genesis of the big bang or the origin of our universe simply because they can't peek into time. So, they come up with a theory with a "Big Bang" our universe was born. I accept that it is a theory but to claim that it is fact when it can't be proven is the issue. You have to have blind faith to believe that our world was as a result of a big bang as it cant be proven. In the same way I believe that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"

You are drifting from our argument. Your misconceptions on the big bang are not my problem to solve as you have Google and physicists for that. No one said the big bang theory was triggered by nothing. Go figure.

cloudstar:
A scientific law has no known exceptions, or else it would not be a law in the first place. A "theory - as in evolution" on the other hand, is merely an "attempt to explain" phenomena by deduction from other known principles . A theory may not be true, but a law, by definition, is always true. Since there are no known exceptions to scientific laws, would it not be unscientific for evolutionists to assert, without any scientific evidence, that there have been exceptions to the laws of science in the past?
Furthermore, As far as science can tell, its laws have never been violated. They are without exception. From a scientific perspective, the evolutionary model falls short of being able to account for the origin of the Universe. Indeed, it contradicts the known laws of science that govern the Universe.
You keep shouting that Biology and Evolution are linked and similar, NO THEY ARE NOT. For example, look at the Law of Bio-genesis. It is accepted and proven that the Law of Bio-Genesis is a scientific and Biological fact. So, how does such law fits into evolution. Evolution suggests that living things like you and I came from non-living things. Can you please explain that.

I would not say much please do read this
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
and just to let you know evolution theories are without exceptions.

cloudstar:
Proof there is a Creator doesn't explain evolution. You have conceded that you are not all-knowing and since you are not all-knowing that it is possible there is a God. The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. God is the first cause and is entirely self existent, meaning the reason for God’s existence is contained within the very definition of God. God is beyond time and space so He wasn't created

And yet he destroyed a tower cos humans were trying to build up to heaven. I don't think he is beyond space then. How can you claim god is beyond time and space when you can't prove his existence.

cloudstar:
If we want to prove God's existence we should agree to a standard that you and I submit to i.e. the laws of cause and effect, the law of teleology. In the same way if we want to prove evolution, we have to agree to scientific laws i.e. the laws of cause and effect, the law of teleology, the second law of thermodynamics, the law of bio-genesis. If you agree on these common grounds we can explore the if evolution or God provides a better answer to the origins of the universe using existing laws of science.

Like I've said countless times I am not here to change your concept of our existence but to make you understand that evolution is already well established and major breakthroughs are continuously made

cloudstar:
We survive here because the earth is perfect for human life. Go and adapt on Mars, Saturn or Pluto. The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life. The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day. So, it is not because we can adapt but because this earth is fine tuned exactly for life as we have it.

Why do plants use carbon dioxide while animals use oxygen. Why can't humans live in water or very high terrains. We have adapted to living on land. I understand what you mean by the earth having the right conditions and resources for our existence but adaptation enabled us make the best use of those resources.

cloudstar:
I am not confusing evolution with magic. Your basis of evolution is lots of time and faith in mother nature. Faith and time are not ingredients of scientific laws. Insects with legs on their heads is not based on environment or mother nature. Also, these insects are not changing into other insects; their DNA is not re-written Bros. That been said, can you please provide an authoritative reference to this claim.

hahaha you're knowledge on mutation and genetics is also very shallow. please make sure you check out these links

http://www.icr.org/article/fruit-flies-face-macroevolution/

http://news.yale.edu/2013/10/17/researchers-rewrite-entire-genome-and-add-healthy-twist

cloudstar:
You have confirmed that evolution requires millions and millions of years so in other words, we can't test for evolution. In scientific terms, if you can test a phenomenon to prove it's theory; what is that called?

its called a scientific law . evolution is not a law. you haven't answered my question on the elephant man.

cloudstar:
If you accepted evolution for what it is, there wouldn't be any disagreement. The issue here is that you are claiming it is proven science when it is not. I am not faulting evolution as a theory - it is EXACTLY that, a theory. But to claim that this theory is true and proven when you need millions of millions of years and chance to not even come close to proven it is not scientific. Everyone can decide what they want to believe, any fool can make a rule and every fool can believe in it.

So just because evolution takes millions of years to occur simply means it is not scientific. Yes evolution is a theory. Like I said we presently lack the tools and knowledge to replicate or prove evolution in a lab. We are not dealing with chemicals here but living cells which are much more complex to manipulate. I like your last statement because the bible is a classic example.

cloudstar:
By ape-like creatures are you saying the existing apes we have now or another kind of apes?

they were apelike but more upright and with slightly larger brains.

cloudstar:
You are mis-representing me. I said I can't prove God created the Universe and the question of how old the earth is a theological one. You stated that some Christians believe that our earth and universe is 6000 years old. I said that time-frame is when the author started telling the story of God creation. When I mentioned historical evidence, I was referring to historical evidence that can be traced i.e. the early manuscripts, Roman account and documented account of Jesus crucifixion. These are events that can be proven historically. Events such as the creation of the world can't be proven historically. So please, do not misrepresent what I said.

but you hypothesized the earth being several million years old. You should be able to back that estimate with a proof. Besides I said the new testament gives Jesus' genealogy up to Adam and that information does not reflect even a 100 thousand years.

cloudstar:
Try this interesting experiment: Empty your garage of every piece of metal, wood, paint, rubber and plastic. Make sure there is nothing there. Nothing. Then wait for ten years and see if a Mercedes evolves. Try it. If it doesn’t appear, leave it for 20 years. If that doesn’t work, try it for 100 years. Then try leaving it for 10,000 years. Here’s what will produce the necessary blind faith to make the evolutionary process believable: leave it for 250 million years

of course you'll find a Mercedes if you won the lottery. Like I said you lack complete knowledge of evolution. You agreed in a previous post that humans adapt to their environment, now you'll have to explain that. If a Mercedes could just appear out of thin air you'll officially be the next Houdini. What if I said yes in 250 million years you will find a Mercedes SLR in that garage, would you argue that. Hahaha you are a classic joker
its quite apparent that this argument is going nowhere. please stick to your ideals.

diarra94

I would not write long sentences any longer because its clear your problem is you have no understanding of evolution. all these misconceptions you have are well evaluated and discussed in books and videos. go figure. you never answered my question, what does biology say about the evolution of angiosperms.

please educate yourself: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html.

Can tell me what "Biology says about angiosperms" in summary and how that is related from humans coming from single cell organism. Again, the case of evolution is based on blind faith, you have confirmed that several times.

the problem is Christians try to indiscreetly change the words in the bible to suite present day scenarios, the bible clearly said everything that creeps on the ground which is not a distinction of animals on any basis.

You are insisting it is - the interpretation is clear but you keep arguing from silence. I have made this point several times but you keep poking holes in your argument

this is a direct quote from you " Then God said, " Let the earth bring forth
living creatures after their kind : cattle and creeping things and
beasts of the earth after their kind "; and it was so. God made
the beasts of the earth after their kind , and the cattle after
their kind , and everything that creeps on the ground after its
kind ; and God saw that it was good." you should also know that cattle were domesticated from wild aurochs and bisons around 10000 years ago so I don't get that. you should also check out the definition for a beast before you rush to defend such nonsense.

The issue here might be the language used in 16th century. Let us give you something more modern. Taken from Genesis

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth" 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

So, you can continue to argue of silence and misrepresentation - it is clear that is your position

the link is in the text. http://bib.irr.org/todays-bible-real-bible. please learn to read quotes before dismissing them.

The link shows that the "Page is Not Available". Please confirm and provide the correct link

I did exactly that. seeds are produced in flowers and so you you can't explain one ignoring the other. go back and read that more concisely.

So an apple and mango seed are grown from flowers?

I don't believe in faith but reason. I never said evolution is not a theory. I made myself clear when I said just as the foundation for modern chemistry was laid centuries ago, so is evolutionary science being developed today. A lot of new findings will be made and many misconceptions will also be resolved. This is pure science.

I think you have made an honest statement. You have conceded to one of my points - evolution is a theory and DOESN'T follow the laws of science. If evolution theory is proven and can be replicate, studied, diagnosed, observed and repeated, then yes - evolution can then be called a science.

And this is why I can't bring myself to believe in god. Everything has a source and god can not be excluded as I am sure he must be made up of matter.

I don't expect you to believe in God, it's your personal choice. However, suggesting there is no evidence of God because of evolution doesn't hold water. You confirmed evolution is a theory and not based on facts but you rather believe it than God - so, it's a matter of choice after all.

I stated that God is not bound by time and space. He is not bound by limitation or laws of science. God exceeds and predates the "Big Bang". So, since nothing can produce nothing, it's logical to conclude that there was an intelligent being that started it all i.e. life produces life.

You are drifting from our argument. Your misconceptions on the big bang are not my problem to solve as you have Google and physicists for that. No one said the big bang theory was triggered by nothing. Go figure.

Okay. Can you please the origin of the universe from your evolution stand-point.

I would not say much please do read this
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
and just to let you know evolution theories are without exceptions.

Then there is a conflict on your stand. Can you explain your evolution in terms of the law of bio-genesis

And yet he destroyed a tower cos humans were trying to build up to heaven. I don't think he is beyond space then. How can you claim god is beyond time and space when you can't prove his existence.

You are the one diverting from the main argument now. You are talking about the tower now when you are ignoring His existence. I logically proved God's existence when you conceded that you are not all knowing and it's possible that God exist.

Like I've said countless times I am not here to change your concept of our existence but to make you understand that evolution is already well established and major breakthroughs are continuously made

I am not debating on my concept of existence. I am asking about using present day laws of science to compare evolution as you explain creation. You have always stated that evolution is coherent with present day science. I am saying if that is the case, we can use these laws to easily test if the case of evolution is likely or not. For example, the law of bio-genesis states that all life comes from life. You are saying evolution claims that we came from non-life i.e. non-life to living organism. I am asking you to throw more light on that.

Why do plants use carbon dioxide while animals use oxygen. Why can't humans live in water or very high terrains. We have adapted to living on land. I understand what you mean by the earth having the right conditions and resources for our existence but adaptation enabled us make the best use of those resources.

We are saying the same thing. The earth is designed so life as we know if can exist and be sustained. It is only the earth that possesses the right factors in order for human life to adapt. If we humans can adapt no matter the environment, then we should be able to live on other planets but that is not the case because those planets can't sustain life. Hence, it's only the earth that is unique when it comes to human survival - why is that?

hahaha you're knowledge on mutation and genetics is also very shallow. please make sure you check out these links

http://www.icr.org/article/fruit-flies-face-macroevolution/

http://news.yale.edu/2013/10/17/researchers-rewrite-entire-genome-and-add-healthy-twist

Again, you are misunderstanding me. The mutation you are referring to is based in the lab, attempts by scientist to make changes,humans are experimenting. The evolution you have been explaining is based on nature only. So, you are explaining two different things i.e. one is a lab test and another is claimed over time and by nature.

Take for example, most of the tomatoes and other fruits in the grocery stores have been re-engineered and genetically modified i.e. bio-foods. The truth here quite obvious - natural mutation than human engineered mutation. In summary, none of these mutations in the insects are changing the insects into different insects.

Here is a statement from one of the links:

[]Since 1910 geneticists have documented over 3,000 mutations in this creature, yet science journals have not documented a single fruit fly evolving into something else, no matter how often and badly they're mutated. Indeed, the late evolutionist Pierre-P. Grassé said, "The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.

Decades ago, an example of a "good mutation" was given by a Denver University biologist during a public debate with this author. It involved the bithorax gene that produces an atypical four-winged fruit fly. Unfortunately, the evolutionist failed to tell the audience that the fruit fly's ability to fly was severely impaired. What would natural selection do to such mutated creatures?[/i]

As you can see - natural mutation is not possible Bros insomuch that such mutation has to be engineered in labs. Even they mutated in the labs, they can't function appropriately.

its called a scientific law . evolution is not a law. you haven't answered my question on the elephant man.

How is evolution scientific law when it can't be tested? Also, what is your question on the elephant man?

So just because evolution takes millions of years to occur simply means it is not scientific. Yes evolution is a theory. Like I said we presently lack the tools and knowledge to replicate or prove evolution in a lab. We are not dealing with chemicals here but living cells which are much more complex to manipulate. I like your last statement because the bible is a classic example.

Your explanation of evolution is an exception to scientific laws as we have it. That is why it's not a plausible explanation. You always claimed that evolution is scientific yet you can't use any scientific method to measure or prove any part of it. 250 millions of years isn't "just because". 250 millions years means you don't know for sure and you are basing evolution on blind faith

they were apelike but more upright and with slightly larger brains.

What about their DNA, where it 100% like humans?

but you hypothesized the earth being several million years old. You should be able to back that estimate with a proof. Besides I said the new testament gives Jesus' genealogy up to Adam and that information does not reflect even a 100 thousand years.

Yes I did and I said it was based on theology. Theology can't be proven, it is based on interpretation of events. Here is my stand:

http://www.gotquestions.org/earth-age.html

of course you'll find a Mercedes if you won the lottery.

I wonder how lottery came into the scene. If evolution is similar to lottery then we all have no hope

Like I said you lack complete knowledge of evolution. You agreed in a previous post that humans adapt to their environment, now you'll have to explain that. If a Mercedes could just appear out of thin air you'll officially be the next Houdini.

Of course we do, we adapt to our environments, we do not mutate. You can take me from sunny Lagos Island and put in in freezing cold Russia. I will adapt to the cold. I will get use to the minus zero freezing temperatures than people who haven't lived there. However, I will not mutate or "evolve and grow furs.

What if I said yes in 250 million years you will find a Mercedes SLR in that garage, would you argue that. Hahaha you are a classic joker
its quite apparent that this argument is going nowhere. please stick to your ideals.

Bros, you have no case. 250 millions of years is based on blind faith something you have admitted to. It's funny that you rather place your blind faith in evolution that doesn't submit to scientific laws yet make fun of others that hold theist views of creation. I rest my case.

In between, when you ever have an off-spring with the ape; please let us know so we can test your theory

SangoCrusader: God told the Israelites to slaughter all the Amalekites. Kill all men, women, children, animals and SUCKLING BABIES.

Any God that can do that is just as bad as Boko Haram.

Why do Christians always ignore this passage? It shows that God is wicked and vengeful and if I were not an atheist, I would rather follow Lucifer!

"Kill all sucking babies"... smh.

Have you ever taken the time to get to the root of the matter?
Why God swore to perpetually destroy the Amalekites?
Do you even know what that name means? God and check!

Do you know what the Amalekites did to Israel when Israel was passing by their land?

Let me help you a bit:
Deu 25:17 "Remember what the Amalekites did to you as you were coming from Egypt.
Deu 25:18 They had no fear of God, and so they attacked you from the rear when you were tired and exhausted, and killed all who were straggling behind.
Deu 25:19 So then, when the LORD your God has given you the land and made you safe from all your enemies who live around you, be sure to kill all the Amalekites, so that no one will remember them any longer. Do not forget!

Today, if a bully comes into your family and goes after the youngest ones, say 6-month-old and 2-year-old, in the household and begins to smash their heads against the wall, you will be clapping and saying well done? If that is what you will do, then you must be the worst person on planet Earth!

It is a coward who shoots his opponent from the back!

God will defend the weak and innocent one.

[size=14pt]cloudstar took all the arguments of diarra94 and DESTROYED them one by one![/size]

BrotherJohn:

Have you ever taken the time to get to the root of the matter?
Why God swore to perpetually destroy the Amalekites?
Do you even know what that name means? God and check!

Do you know what the Amalekites did to Israel when Israel was passing by their land?

Let me help you a bit:
Deu 25:17 "Remember what the Amalekites did to you as you were coming from Egypt.
Deu 25:18 They had no fear of God, and so they attacked you from the rear when you were tired and exhausted, and killed all who were straggling behind.
Deu 25:19 So then, when the LORD your God has given you the land and made you safe from all your enemies who live around you, be sure to kill all the Amalekites, so that no one will remember them any longer. Do not forget!

Today, if a bully comes into your family and goes after the youngest ones, say 6-month-old and 2-year-old, in the household and begins to smash their heads against the wall, you will be clapping and saying well done? If that is what you will do, then you must be the worst person on planet Earth!

It is a coward who shoots his opponent from the back!

God will defend the weak and innocent one.

So you believe that if God orders it, it would be acceptable to kill a suckling baby? Even an Amalekite baby?

am so in luv with dis topic. tnx alot@ op

BrotherJohn: [size=14pt]cloudstar took all the arguments of diarra94 and DESTROYED them one by one![/size]

Thanks Bro. It isn't hard if you poke the claims of evolution that it will begin to crumble under it's own weight. Evolution is a theory that isn't based on scientific laws. It requires blind faith on any evolutionists part to claim that we originated from single cell organism yet prove that Apes are humans closest relatives.

How did u learn Spanish

Ivyluvie2: toh!n na me carry first for list sf,God forgive me.

God is indeed awesome

Ymodulus:
The bible is the greatest book of fairy tales ever

shoro niyen

Kizmarty:



isn't the cosmos,nature nd the order of universe?
even your complicated body nd cells enough reason to believe there is a major architect responsible for all these??

God lives nd exist

yes, granted God exist, let us find him ourselves, not what some deluded cave dwellers wrote or thought. i should be able to find out for myself..

For biblical truth and facts visit this site its nice i confirmed it. Very informative https://josephara..com