@ Chizzled06 do you still want to be enlightened more? Do you even know what the process of natural selection is? Isn't it amazing that the man whom you base your belief on said he might have been wrong on his death bed.

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This article will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory, instead of a law.

The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.

If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black. The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color. Many evolutionists argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark-skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark-skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. Dark-skinned people have always lived near the Equator, not white-skinned people, even though the dark skin is more uncomfortable in the hot, sunny climate. Black skin absorbs the heat from the sun's rays more than white skin. Humans show no sign of natural selection based on the environment. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.

Animals like bears, tigers, lions, and zebras living near the equator have heavy fur while humans living north of the Artic Circle have bare skin. A leopard from the jungle near the equator has fur like the snow leopard of the Himalayas. The snow leopard grows thicker hair but the jungle leopard would also if moved to a cold climate. Horses and dogs grow a heavy winter coat in colder climates. Natural selection isn't working as falsely claimed by Charles Darwin.

The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.

The following proofs will show that evolution is not a scientific fact. The reverse will be proven. Evolution is scientifically impossible. Evolution is simply a theory that was developed one hundred forty years ago by Charles Darwin, before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false. His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to prove the Theory of Evolution.

Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by evolutionists. That is pure childish fantasy. Evolution is simply a myth.

Children believe the Theory of Evolution because they have been brainwashed by the education system. Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support. They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense. These government-educated kids actually believe this nonsense. Just ask one of them. Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. Don't believe that nonsense.

Kent R. Rieske

Jeromejnr:


Okay read this carefully.

I hope first of all you understand the law of double reference.

Secondly,

read this:

Micah 5:2 predicts, “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.” The verse clearly speaks of a coming king in Israel, but does it predict the coming of the Messiah?

Micah 5:2 makes a couple of predictions. First, the birthplace of this future “ruler of Israel” would be Bethlehem Ephrathah. Since there were two locations known as Bethlehem at the time of Micah’s writing, the addition of Ephrathah is significant. It specifies the Bethlehem in Judah, the portion of Israel in which the capital, Jerusalem, was located. Bethlehem was considered “little,” or insignificant, among the cities of Judah, yet would serve as the birthplace of this future ruler.

Second, the coming ruler of Jewish background was one “whose coming forth is from old, from ancient days.” What else could this refer to other than the Messiah? Only the Messiah fits the description of a ruler in Israel whose origin was from times past. In fact, “from ancient days” is sometimes synonymous with “eternal” (as in Habakkuk 1:12). Only the Jewish Messiah could be a ruler in Israel from eternity past.

This interpretation is strengthened by the fact that the Jewish religious leaders in the first century identified Micah 5:2 as a Messianic prophecy. In Matthew 2, wise men from the East visited King Herod in Jerusalem and asked where the king of the Jews had been born. Herod assembled all the chief priests and scribes, and “he inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. They told him, ‘In Bethlehem of Judea,’” basing their answer on Micah 5:2.

Only Jesus Christ fits the Messianic claims of Micah 5:2. He was born in Bethlehem Ephrathah (Matthew 2; Luke 2:1-20). Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, the ruler of Israel (John 4:25-26). He also fits the description as being “from ancient times” or eternal (John 1:1; Colossians 1:16-17). No other ruler in Israel fits these requirements. Dozens of other direct prophecies in the Old Testament (some scholars cite hundreds) fit Jesus’ birth, ministry, and death.

Jesus told the Jews that the Law and the Prophets provided a clear witness that He was who He claimed to be. “These are the Scriptures that testify about me,” He said (John 5:39). Still today, those who investigate the prophecy of Micah 5:2 and other Messianic passages find compelling evidence that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.

Read this also: http://www.prophecyproof.org/2012/11/micah-5-the-end-times-siege-of-jerusalem/ The prophecy was fulfilled in Christ birth but is still being fulfilled as Christ is still to come back as a King and reign.

I have read it carefully.

First of all your law of double interpretation is spurious, made up and of no doctrinal relevance. You or whomever you copied and pasted the document from simply dreamt up the concept, even Origen, the father of allegory in the Christian bible uses imagery and not events to foreshadow prophecies, clearly you have no idea what you are going on about.

As for your Micah prophecy, it is absurd beyond words.

Sarassin:


I have read it carefully.

First of all your law of double interpretation is spurious, made up and of no doctrinal relevance. You or whomever you copied and pasted the document from simply dreamt up the concept, even Origen, the father of allegory in the Christian bible uses imagery and not events to foreshadow prophecies, clearly you have no idea what you are going on about.

As for your Micah prophecy, it is absurd beyond words.

Are you interested in me giving you proofs of double reference?

I don't even need to give you. You can go online and check for yourself.

And besides these things are not for you to understand, why am I wasting my time.

Jeromejnr:


Are you interested in me giving you proofs of double reference?

Give me ONE verse in the Bible (Old or new Testament) where the law of double reference is outlined. I don't mean events which you will allude to as doubly interpreted, give me a "smoking gun" verse that states the law of double reference as doctrine.

Also it is not a waste of time, other's I am sure will benefit from your superior Christology.

Sarassin:


Give me ONE verse in the Bible (Old or new Testament) where the law of double reference is outlined. I don't mean events which you will allude to as doubly interpreted, give me a "smoking gun" verse that states the law of double reference as doctrine.

You want the exact word "Double Reference"?

Jeromejnr:


You want the exact word "Double Reference"?

We both know there are no such words in the bible, but since you have made the inference then I am sure you will find the words in the verses that approximate as closely as possible.

Sarassin:


We both know there are no such words in the bible, but since you have made the inference then I am sure you will find the words in the verses that approximate as closely as possible.

Well, I could give you events but not the exact word you are looking for.

Double Reference is a part of Hermeneutics. Which is commonly used in interpreting texts.

So It's just like asking me to show you where pronoun is in the bible.

Jeromejnr:


Well, I could give you events but not the exact word you are looking for.

Double Reference is a part of Hermeneutics. Which is commonly used in interpreting texts.

So It's just like asking me to show you where pronoun is in the bible.

But surely your hermeneutic exegesis is based on doctrinal scripture? my question is, what is the scriptural underpinning of your hermeneutics or is it simply arbitrary ? anyone can pick any event and make a topological allegory out of it, what makes yours scriptural ?

Sarassin:


But surely your hermeneutic exegesis is based on doctrinal scripture? my question is, what is the scriptural underpinning of your hermeneutics or is it simply arbitrary ? anyone can pick any event and make a topological allegory out of it, what makes yours scriptural ?

Well If I get you right, the fact that some people including Jesus whom we were supposed to follow gave examples of some prophecies raised by prophets of old that were fulfilled already but will also be fulfilled finally later in the future.

If you understand what that means.

Jeromejnr:


Well If I get you right, the fact that some people including Jesus whom we were supposed to follow gave examples of some prophecies raised by prophets of old that were fulfilled already but will also be fulfilled finally later in the future.

If you understand what that means.

Jesus quoted the Prophets as well as their prophecies, he also used allegory and similie to tell parables. I see no incidents of "double interpretation" where an un-related event is used to foreshadow a future prophecy.

Sarassin:


Jesus quoted the Prophets as well as their prophecies, he also used allegory and similie to tell parables. I see no incidents of "double interpretation" where an un-related event is used to foreshadow a future prophecy.

We are still saying the same thing broda! well, partly.

What is Reference?: mention: a spoken or written comment that either specifically mentions or calls attention to somebody or something or is intended to bring somebody or something to mind
Microsoft® Encarta® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

So if a prophecy was given for a particular person or nation at a particular time because of maybe a particular sin, but God in His divine way is not only alluding the prophecy for that person or event but also of another time later in future seeing that a particular nation or person will go down that same route. Then there is a Double Reference or Double Mentioning or Double Attention to two separate but identical events in maybe just one sentence.

Many times that was done in scriptures.

So theologians seeing that called it "Double Reference".

Jeromejnr:


We are still saying the same thing broda! well, partly.

What is Reference?: mention: a spoken or written comment that either specifically mentions or calls attention to somebody or something or is intended to bring somebody or something to mind
Microsoft® Encarta® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

So if a prophecy was given for a particular person or nation at a particular time because of maybe a particular sin, but God in His divine way is not only alluding the prophecy for that person or event but also of another time later in future seeing that a particular nation or person will go down that same route. Then there is a Double Reference or Double Mentioning or Double Attention to two separate but identical events in maybe just one sentence.

Many times that was done in scriptures.

So theologians seeing that called it "Double Reference".

I am not aware of any reputable theologian who refers to "Double Reference" as biblical doctrine. By your explanation then every Prophecy ever rendered could in its own way be re-interpreted and thereby referred to as a double reference which of course is simply untenable, what would be the point of a prophecy if it was not specific in time and place?

My point is this, the process of deciding which prophecy is a "double reference" is entirely arbitrary and general. It involves the proponents simply combing backwards through the Christian texts and then assigning any prophecy that has even the remotest link, however tenuous, to certain keywords as being a foreshadow of future prophecy, so far even you cannot demonstrate that the practice is rooted in doctrinal Christianity, it is definitely not in Judaism. Therefore it should be taken with a pinch of salt with no more value than "entertainment value" Thanks for your patience but I guess we agree to disagree.

Sarassin:


I am not aware of any reputable theologian who refers to "Double Reference" as biblical doctrine. By your explanation then every Prophecy ever rendered could in its own way be re-interpreted and thereby referred to as a double reference which of course is simply untenable, what would be the point of a prophecy if it was not specific in time and place?

My point is this, the process of deciding which prophecy is a "double reference" is entirely arbitrary and general. It involves the proponents simply combing backwards through the Christian texts and then assigning any prophecy that has even the remotest link, however tenuous, to certain keywords as being a foreshadow of future prophecy, so far even you cannot demonstrate that the practice is rooted in doctrinal Christianity, it is definitely not in Judaism. Therefore it should be taken with a pinch of salt with no more value than "entertainment value" Thanks for your patience but I guess we agree to disagree.

Well, the whole point was that there were statements made for someone like King David which was later also atrributed to Jesus.

The whole issue of the word "Double Reference" is not necessary. That was just a coined word to explain the matter.

Jeromejnr:


Well, the whole point was that there were statements made for someone like King David which was later also atrributed to Jesus.

The whole issue of the word "Double Reference" is not necessary. That was just a coined word to explain the matter.

Yes, that was your point. My point is, that attribution of a prophecy made for someone like King David....to Jesus is wrong, and there is no doctrinal basis for it, more to the point you have NOT demonstrated that such attributions are scripturally sound, it is guesswork.

Sarassin:


Yes, that was your point. My point is, that attribution of a prophecy made for someone like King David....to Jesus is wrong, and there is no doctrinal basis for it, more to the point you have NOT demonstrated that such attributions are scripturally sound, it is guesswork.

If you think so.

@Chizzled06

Wadup? Your belief came from a man who gave his own theory before the discovery of the DNA and how law of natural selection works.

Isn't it amazing that God also in Genesis in confirmation of this natural law of selection said that every seed gives birth to its own kind. The DNA of a product is in its seed. And an apple tree cannot bring forth oranges.

Imagine living a life that was based on a lie all the time. I hope you will be meek enough to accept change.

BTW, I also need my reward of world fame as you promised.

Jeromejnr:
@ Chizzled06 do you still want to be enlightened more? Do you even know what the process of natural selection is? Isn't it amazing that the man whom you base your belief on said he might have been wrong on his death bed.

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This article will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory, instead of a law.

The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.

If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black. The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color. Many evolutionists argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark-skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark-skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. Dark-skinned people have always lived near the Equator, not white-skinned people, even though the dark skin is more uncomfortable in the hot, sunny climate. Black skin absorbs the heat from the sun's rays more than white skin. Humans show no sign of natural selection based on the environment. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.

Animals like bears, tigers, lions, and zebras living near the equator have heavy fur while humans living north of the Artic Circle have bare skin. A leopard from the jungle near the equator has fur like the snow leopard of the Himalayas. The snow leopard grows thicker hair but the jungle leopard would also if moved to a cold climate. Horses and dogs grow a heavy winter coat in colder climates. Natural selection isn't working as falsely claimed by Charles Darwin.

The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.

The following proofs will show that evolution is not a scientific fact. The reverse will be proven. Evolution is scientifically impossible. Evolution is simply a theory that was developed one hundred forty years ago by Charles Darwin, before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false. His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to prove the Theory of Evolution.

Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by evolutionists. That is pure childish fantasy. Evolution is simply a myth.

Children believe the Theory of Evolution because they have been brainwashed by the education system. Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support. They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense. These government-educated kids actually believe this nonsense. Just ask one of them. Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. Don't believe that nonsense.

Kent R. Rieske

You're in science? And you think Scientific Theories graduate into Laws? You just shot your own foot.

You've gone to scour the internet to search for more mindless propaganda to back up your claims, to win an argument that you are having with yourself.

There'll always be crazy people saying stuff to feed the billions of religious people currently living.

You have refused to try to learn. But once again, I'll implore you to do so. There's a reason this theory is thought in biology classes instead of the biblical creation story.

It's funny how in all of this, you never mentioned your own "fact based" theory on the origin of man.

Take some time off internet warlordship and try to understand this concept, backed up by anthropology, paleontology, archeology and (relatively recently discovered) DNA evidence.

Facts will always be facts. It's up to you to choose between insurmountable evidence and Jewish folklore.

Jeromejnr:


You divert the discussion ignoring the concepts you can't explain.

First of all know that I am from a science field.

Secondly the word theory I used is such:

Theory: idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture
Microsoft® Encarta® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Thirdly, There are various arguments from different scientists that oppose your own version of evolution. So I don't know what you're saying.

So are you sure if I prove you wrong I will be world famous??

Read this: From the Guardian Newspaper US.

First read the conclusion of the article. And note, it wasn't written by a christian so no bias.

"The irony in all this is that Darwin himself never claimed that it was. He went to his deathbed protesting that he'd been misinterpreted: there was no reason, he said, to assume that natural selection was the only imaginable mechanism of evolution. Darwin, writing before the discovery of DNA, knew very well that his work heralded the beginning of a journey to understand the origins and development of life. All we may be discovering now is that we remain closer to the beginning of that journey than we've come to think."


Now read from the beginning.....

The story, still sometimes repeated in creationist circles, goes like this: it is the 1960s, at Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, and a team of astronomers is using cutting-edge computers to recreate the orbits of the planets, thousands of years in the past. Suddenly, an error message flashes up. There's a problem: way back in history, one whole day appears to be missing.

The scientists are baffled, until a Christian member of the team dimly recalls something and rushes to fetch a Bible. He thumbs through it until he reaches the Book of Joshua, chapter 10, in which Joshua asks God to stop the world for . . . "about a full day!" Uproar in the computer lab. The astronomers have happened upon proof that God controls the universe on a day-to-day basis, that the Bible is literally true, and that by extension the "myth" of creation is, in fact, a reality. Darwin was wrong – according to another creationist rumour, he'd recanted on his deathbed, anyway – and here, at last, is scientific evidence!

Inevitably, those of us who aren't professional scientists have to take a lot of science on trust. And one of the things that makes it so easy to trust the standard view of evolution, in particular, is amply illustrated by the legend of the Nasa astronomers: the doubters are so deluded or dishonest that one needn't waste time with them. Unfortunately, that also makes it embarrassingly awkward to ask a question that seems, in the light of recent studies and several popular books, to be growing ever more pertinent. What if Darwin's theory of evolution – or, at least, Darwin's theory of evolution as most of us learned it at school and believe we understand it – is, in crucial respects, not entirely accurate?

Such talk, naturally, is liable to drive evolutionary biologists into a rage, or, in the case of Richard Dawkins, into even more of a rage than usual. They have a point: nobody wants to provide ammunition to the proponents of creationism or "intelligent design", and it's true that few of the studies now coming to public prominence are all that revolutionary to the experts. But in the culture at large, we may be on the brink of a major shift in perspective, with enormous implications for how most of us think about how life came to be the way it is. As the science writer David Shenk puts it in his new book, The Genius in All of Us, "This is big, big stuff – perhaps the most important [discoveries] in the science of heredity since the gene......

For more: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong

Now that's another bible amazement.

How the leap year came about.

So this shows your views are not accepted by all.

Accepted by scientists. Not national journalists looking to sell papers.

The NASA 'story'. Guess what? MYTH!

Your article says itself that the Darwin death bed story is RUMOUR AMONG CREATIONISTS.

You like science and facts eh? I beg you, start reading actual scientific stuff.

This level of gullibility is very dangerous.

Chizzled06:



You're in science? And you think Scientific Theories graduate into Laws? You just shot your own foot.

You've gone to scour the internet to search for more mindless propaganda to back up your claims, to win an argument that you are having with yourself.

There'll always be crazy people saying stuff to feed the billions of religious people currently living.

You have refused to try to learn. But once again, I'll implore you to do so. There's a reason this theory is thought in biology classes instead of the biblical creation story.

It's funny how in all of this, you never mentioned your own "fact based" theory on the origin of man.

Take some time off internet warlordship and try to understand this concept, backed up by anthropology, paleontology, archeology and (relatively recently discovered) DNA evidence.

Facts will always be facts. It's up to you to choose between insurmountable evidence and Jewish folklore.

Since you decided to base your life on a theory,

Congratulations on your successful evolution from being a monkey.

As for me, I was created by the Almighty.

Peace man.

Rom 1:21 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools,…"

23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Another Prophecy fulfilled.

Jeromejnr:


Since you decided to base your life on a theory,

Congratulations on your successful evolution from being a monkey.

As for me, I was created by the Almighty.

Peace man.

Rom 1:21 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools,…"

23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Another Prophecy fulfilled.

"Created by the almighty"

You fell from the sky?

Chizzled06:



"Created by the almighty"

You fell from the sky?

And you mutated from a monkey right? X-man.

Jeromejnr:


And you mutated from a monkey right? X-man.

No, actually we all share a common ancestor with monkeys. I've tried to explain that earlier.

I'm genuinely curious. What's your current belief about the origin of mankind?

Chizzled06:



No, actually we all share a common ancestor with monkeys. I've tried to explain that earlier.

I'm genuinely curious. What's your current belief about the origin of mankind?

Genesis chapter one and two is my belief.

In fact, that is the only sane belief I have encountered.

But seriously, why don't you check out studies on how the DNA in seeds and humans function. You will see that the evolution theory doesn't make sense.

Jeromejnr:


Genesis chapter one and two is my belief.

In fact, that is the only sane belief I have encountered.

But seriously, why don't you check out studies on how the DNA in seeds and humans function. You will see that the evolution theory doesn't make sense.

How do you explain fossils?

Chizzled06:


How do you explain fossils?

The bible also shows that there was a world before ours that was destroyed.

That's why the Hebrew word used in the Genesis account denoted a Recreation.

Jeromejnr:


The bible also shows that there was a world before ours that was destroyed.

That's why the hebrew word used in the Genesis account denoted a recreation.

Ok hold on you've lost me.

This destroyed 'world' existed before the creation story, hence before earth was created?

Chizzled06:


Ok hold on you've lost me.

This destroyed 'world' existed before the creation story, hence before earth was created?

Yup!

That's new to you isn't it.

Jeromejnr:


Yup!

That's new to you isn't it.

If something existed before planet earth, why is its remains being found inside earth?

Chizzled06:


If something existed before planet earth, why is its remains being found inside earth?

Nope. The earth existed long before man in God's image was created.

When God then created man He said they should replenish it.

Replenish= Fill again, Replace used items...

Jeromejnr:


Nope. The earth existed long before man in God's image was created.

When God then created man He said they should replenish it.

Replenish= Fill again, Replace used items...

But, you just said your destroyed world existed before earth was created.

Are you retracting your statement? Are you confused?

Chizzled06:


But, you just said your destroyed world existed before earth was created.

Are you retracting your statement? Are you confused?

Okay looked back at your earlier statement. I saw only world and not earth.

World is different from earth.

World is made up of a system of culture or life. Earth is the planet itself.

There was a world long before it was destroyed. The earth existed long before man was created.

The world was on the earth. The first man was commanded by God to replenish the earth.

Jeromejnr:


Okay looked back at your earlier statement. I saw only world and not earth.

World is different from earth.

World is made up of a system of culture or life. Earth is the planet itself.

There was a world long before it was destroyed. The earth existed long before man was created.

The world was on the earth. The first man was commanded by God to replenish the earth.

Okay. Earth first. (Undocumented) Initial world next. Before man.

Are you aware that Adam, according to biblical claims lived 6000 years ago?

How do you explain fossils of mankind in our current form that date longer than that, some up to 100,000 years?