Ah, gee, kid, did you haveta say this?

EL-DUDERINO POSTS #346

That's just it...evolutionists are having real trouble coming up with evidence of their theory from one common ancestor a simple one-celled amoeba evolves to a complex human idea. The closer we look for evidence of scientific substance,  the less we find.  That's why the theorists keep postulating evidence and failing to find it keeps moving on to other postulates...

In fact evolution, as defined above, crumbles when challenged by real science...genetics is one..it demolishes Darwinism.

Let's face it ....Darwinism was an atheistic intellectual revolution...it's in a sense a scientific religion that many scientists accepted and bent their observations to fit with it.  Evolution failed becasue it broke man's link to God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end.

I quoted only a few science books....this is what's being taught in schools...children learn that they are an advanced level of animals and that there are no moral principles as to their worth and dignity. If evolution is true, then people are just evolved from animals they can do whatever they want, and make up their own rules of right and wrong.

On the other side of the debate, if Special Creation is true, then people were made by God and He gets to make the rules. His standards decide right and wrong. Either way, both ideas affect the way people act.       

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Pointing and laughing is not the only option, the other is crying, but I choose to go with the happier route.

"in fact" nothing you said is fact. And stop using strawmen argument and lies about evolution, if you can't even counter the actual points by it and have to make up ones for you to counter (straw man argument), then you should just admit to yourself that you are wrong.

and the evolutionists don't have facts either...that's why their theory keeps on changing.  They've made some real blunders, not to mention outright farces, over the years to try and pull the wool over our eyes.  Let me just mention a few.....

Piltdown man-

Lucy-she represents the oldest skelton and even the evolutionists don't know what to do with her.  She's very controversial

Java Man- proven to be a hoax.  The founder before he died admitted the whole thing was a fraud and the mistakes surrounding it.  But guess what?  Still in the textbooks as if it were true.  This happens alot. 

The Evolutionary Theory of chemical plus time equals life is not only bad science but also bad philosophy.  Many recent scientific evidences point to a divine design but the resistence to this in the secular will never go away because it's based on faith, not true genuine Science. 

Sir Frederick Hoyle, a brilliant astronomer with many awards and acheivements in his life rejected this nonesense.  He calculated the chance for even the simplist of cells coming into existence outside of an intelligent being was one in ten to the 40,000th power.  He said:

"If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design.  No other possibility I have been able to think of."

I emphasized the part about the wrath of scientific opinion because it's funny to see that just like it was way back in the dark ages when one dared not question the RCC, we now being intimidated by the secular Scientific community into believing what they want us to believe......even though they keep changing the rules along the way.  Scientists who disagree have to keep their mouths shut or they lose a speaking voice in the Science World because the NIH and other secular science programs  run the show. 

It's no different than the religious establishment of old.  It's the same  religious tactics being used on us only this time in the name of Science and they go after the kids with their ever changing bad science and philosophy. 

That's why what Lula was taught, and I was taught and what is being taught today is totally different. 

But the historical biblical account never ever changes.  I believe one day that true Science and the true account of creation as depicted in the ancient scriptures will come together.  It's just a matter of timing. 

Again and again you call things that aren't evolution, evolution.

Evolution never has and never will deal with the origin of life, it only deals with the development of species from existing life.

SCIENTISTS happen to freqently beleive in both evolution, and in the theory of life creation that says that life spontanous arose from chemicals.

And there being a hoax or two doesn't have any bearing about weather evolution is true or not, thats like saying that religion is a pedophile scam because a priest or two have touched little boys inappropriately.

like chemicals plus time equalling life?  Then what do you call it?  It's definitely a belief that came from the evolutionists' camp.  We didn't make this up.  They did. 

According to Darwin's theory....all living creatures descended from a single ancestor.....all the plants, animals, and other organisims that exist today are products of random mutation and natural selection.  

to me that's sounds an awful lot like some sort of origin talk even if everything came from that first unknown ancestor already present.....not to mention his very famous book was entitled "Origin of Species."  What does origin mean?   

To me that sounds an awful lot like a tomato at one time could have been a watermelon. If they all came from the same cell, why not?   That's why I say that even tongue in cheek. 

Evolution had to start from somewhere.  It didn't just "evolve" from nothing.

I happen to believe Science is a friend to faith. 

I just don't buy into the evolutionary theory that is being taught today is Science.  It's not based on fact but interpretation of the facts.  That's where the rub is.   I look at Dawinism not as Science but as a grand philosophy that attempts to explain the world without a creator, or in naturalistic terms. 

according to a Professor at Berkeley the reason Darwinism won't die is that its basic premise is simply taken for granted; that is that chance and the laws of nature can account for everything we see around us, even living things.  Given that assumption, Darwinism has to be true because nothing else is permitted inside the arena of possible explanations.  Creation has been ruled out from the start and the other naturalistic theories are worse than Darwin's.  So any aregument against Darwinism is usually ignored or lauged at. 

Richard Dawkins said:

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that.)"

Nice guy.  You know what they say when you can't defend your argument without insulting the person?  Dawkins is following  in the footsteps of Darwin and his defenders.  Ever since Darwin proposed his theory of Evolution his defender's favorite tactic has been to attack their critics' intelligence and integrity (which has happened to me alot here on JU right Leauki?) 

Darwin himself used this tactic against some of the great Scientists of his day accusing them of superstition and religiousity.  Why not just stick to the argument? 

Just so you know, this has been going on for eons. 

See, she doesn't have the integrity to correct her statements about evolution. It doesn't matter how often you tell her that she is misrepresenting and lying about evolution, it just doesn't matter.

Some Christians will tell us that honesty is a Christian principle, but they won't live it.

They do expect other people to take their word that their interpretation of scripture is correct though.

But they have achieved something. While formerly I was on the fence regarding the gay marriage thing, I am now finally convinced that it is a good thing. If those who are against it are proud liars, I want to be for it.

I don't know if he really said that (sounds like him though).

But I do know that I have yet to meet a single Creationist who understands evolution. They all believe that their ignorance entitles them to "know better" than the scientists.

So far all articles and essays I have been pointed to written by Creationist "scientists" rejecting evolution betray their ignorance by using one of the three popular lies about evolution:

1. Evolution is about the beginning of life. (It's not.)

2. Evolution claims that one species turns into another. (It doesn't. Species branch into two species without ever turning into another.)

3. Evolution denies the existence of a god. (I can't.)

The odd thing is that all those lies are always told be people who are proud to have faith in G-d. But they lie anyway and publicly and all the time. And G-d keeps punishing them by making those societies where evolution is taught in schools more successful than those societies where Creationist fairy tales are told.

Taltimer,

Glad you find it funny, but if you believe in evolution--- that is, according to the evolutionist's definition ----as an established fact, then the joke is on you...as there is no substantial scientific data to sustain it. 

How would you know? You don't know what evolution is.

But it does, Leauki...according to dictionary definitions and science textbooks.

Evolutionists would have gullible youngsters believe the lie that an ape species somehow branched (evolved) into a brutish ape-like creature who in turn branched into a human.   

Nope, Genesis tells us God created man in his own image and likeness, that man is a special creation, therefore he differs from other species in kind. God created the whole man at once, complete, and independent of all antecedents. The human species descended from one pair, Adam and Eve. 

Before Adam, "there was not a man to till the earth." 2:5,

"Eve is the mother of all the living." 3:20

"God made the world....from one man He created the whole human race." Acts. 17:24, 26.

I cannot accept any evolutionary theory that denies belief in God as the direct Creator of heaven and earth, 1:1 of every living and moving creature, 1:21, and of man, male and female..1:27.

Catholic teachings insist that man is something more than a mere physical body, he is a living rational soul, a direct creation of God. It would be intellectually lacking to believe that a soul, a perfect spiritual entity made by Almighty God, could have a body of brute ape origin!

Leauki,......let me clue you in....when you go after someone's character, you've lost the debate.  How many times have I called you out on your misrepresentation of the bible by showing you what it really says without going after your person?  The latest  was when you said we (Christians)  are supposed to "convince" others to come into the faith by using the great commission? 

Did I call you out by calling you names and slandering your integrity even tho you greatly misquoted and misrepresented the Christian faith? 

Now, calm down.....show me where I've lied about evolution in Post #356. 

Calling someone a liar is a serious thing.  Usually the ones so adament like this show they're on shaky ground to begin with.....which is exactly what the humanistic theory of Evolution is built on....that's why it keeps on shifting around. 

You need to get a grip. 

really? then why did Dawkins also say and I again....go right to the source Leauki...

"Darwin made it posible to be an intellectualy fulfilled atheist." 

KFC POSTS #354

A few pages back you took a stab at the Church over the Galileo case. Your anti-CC prejudice is rearing it's ugly head again. Dark Ages, that would be 500 through 1000. Could you be more specific how the Chruch warred against science during the Dark Ages? As far as I know before the 1800s, few scientists saw any conflict between science and religion.

There's never been a conflict between science and Catholicism becasue God is the source of all truth whether it's in the natural or spritiaul sphere of man's being and activity. Consequently, nothing in the Chruch's teachings would be wrathful to science. The Church has no quarrel with proved facts of science, but she does warn us not to accept erroneous guesses of some scientists as positive facts.

The conflict is of the true scientist with the pretender, the pseudo scientist who has but a smidgeon of scientific knowldege and seeks with it to refute the unchangeable laws of God as they apply to morality.  

Replying to this assumption that the Chruch is opposed to science, Pope Leo XIII said, "Whoever gives credit to fancies so grotesque shows shows how little he knows of the flame of zeal that burns in the heart of Christ's spouse, the Chruch. The galaxy of scientists , Catholics, stand forth in history as evidence that Catholic Chruch teachings were not a hindrance to their scientific work, to put it negatively." Their names are an elequent answer to your assertion.

Actually, it's when you start lying that you lose the debate. And when you continue to lie even when several people tell you that you are not telling the truth, you lose credibility.

I do NOT "misrepresent" what the Bible says. I offer my own translations and interpretations. They are NOT lies any more than your theology is a lie.

But we can let this stand. I accuse you of lying about evolution and you accuse my religion of being a lie.

That was not a lie. That is how I understand Christianity.

If you can tell me that it is not true and refer to some Christian leaders who disagree (with explanation) with a Christian duty to convince others of the truth of the Christian faith, I will gladly accept that attempting to convince others of the truth of the Christian faith is not a Christian duty.

That's the difference between being wrong and telling a lie.

I didn't quote anything. I didn't "misquote" anything either. If you disagree with my interpretation of Christianity regarding the point about a duty to bring Jesus Christ closer to non-Christians, you are free to correct me like I did you about your claims about evolution for months and months.

If you tell me that I am wrong and why I am wrong, as explained above, I will no longer say that Christians have a duty to evangelise and if I do it again, you could call me a liar and you might be right.

It wasn't in post #356. It was in several posts before that and lots of posts over the last year.

El-Duderino pointed out to you when you misrepresented evolution and I told you as well.

You keep claiming that evolution teaches that one species turns into another (you also claim that evolution is about where life comes from). I have explained, in detail, how one species can become two without ever "turning" into another. I have told you that this is how evolution works. Yet you keep claiming that evolution means that one species turns into another.

And I know why you do it. You have this strange belief that there is a species border of some kind that evolution cannot cross. And apart from the fact that there is no such species border (except in a snapshot) that is also wrong because evolution does not work in such a way as to be able to hit such a border even if it did exist.

I told you, I explained it you, I referred you to books that explain it much better than I ever could; yet again and again you come back here and make your original claim, as if it was the unchallenged truth. You don't even add something "although I have been told that this is not evolution what I am talking about here" or anything else that would suggest that your false statement about evolution is not a fantastic argument.

And a fantastic argument it is, I am sure. It works with everyone who also doesn't understand how evolution works.

But it's still a lie.

Calling someone a liar is indeed a serious thing. But I am sick and tired of you lying about evolution.

If there really were a valid point to be made in favour of Creationism, it should be possible to make that point without resorting to lies. Apparently, it is not.

If you were really as principled as you claim to be, you would be glad if someone pointed out an error you make. Instead you ignore corrections and keep pretending that there isn't even a doubt that your statements about evolution are correct, when instead you have been misrepresenting evolution in the same way ever since I first met you here.

In the example I once gave I used the evolution of human languages to describe how one type of thing can become two without ever becoming another type of thing. Some Germanic language evolved into both English (on the islands) and German (on the continent), but at no point did that original language turn into a different language (and no "language border" was ever crossed). Animal species evolution works in the same way (simplified). There is no species border.

I am telling you again, and I absolutely expect you to ignore that you were told when you bring it up the next time.

I don't think that you have much integrity when it comes to evolution vs Creationism, because I know you are telling untruths. But I do know that you are completely consistent.

I think your interpretations of the Bible are interesting and useful as a basis for a good society and I think you are a good person. But I really don't like the way you claim that your interpretations are the only valid interpretations, that your interpretations become the official word of G-d, even when the literal translation contradicts them or allows for other interpretations, that you claim that I "misrepresent" the Bible when I dare to read for myself those chapters you make claims about, and that you keep making false claims about evolution in order to confuse your religious beliefs with science.

No, it doesn't.

Evolution explains how new species emerge, but the mechanism does NOT include the event of "one species turning into another".

Dictionary definitions are not enough to explain how a mechanism works. And the science textbooks I have read never claimed that "one species turned into another".

Populations of one species branch and evolve into two species. But at no point during this process is a "species border" being crossed. The parent generation and its child generation are always of the same species.

The Catholic Church endorses the teaching of evolution and rejects the teaching of Creationism or "intelligent design" in science class.

You are the only Catholic I have ever met who opposed evolution on supposedly religious grounds, despite the fact that your Pope does not. And I live in a Catholic country.

Your theology might say that there is an incompatibility between evolution and Christian faith, but the Catholic Church says that there is not.

You misunderstand the purpose of the image.

It's not supposed to mean that one species turns into another, it is meant to show how the first generation and the last generation can be really different while all generations in between are always very much like the generations following and preceding them.

It is perhaps an unfortunate way of visualising how evolution works.

If the same type of image contained a million pictures of creatures between ape and man (as depicted as the first and last individual in the image), and each pair (parent and child generation) of those creatures were to be shown to people, everyone would say that the two creatures they are shown are the same species, yet the first and last generation appear as different species.

And that's what the image is supposed to show, how a species evolves. It does not show how a species turns into another.

Where in the bible does it say that apes are brutish, that apes have souls, that those souls are brutish, and that human souls are PERFECTION?

How can I let that stand when you just made something up? when have I ever accused your religion of being a lie?  Isn't that a lie in itself?  Go ahead and show me where I've called your religion (I didn't know you even had one) a lie?  I know you have a Jewish background but I have no idea what religion you even belong to, so how can I call it a lie? 

So does this make you a liar then because you are purposely misrepresenting me? 

you went into a fit of temper right after #356 calling me a liar.  So again....I'll ask you  (still haven't answered me)  don't just call me a liar...point to my error.  What did I say in 356 for you to go into a rage about? 

 I also see you are using the tactic of bringing in another to srengthen your argument...typical Leauki because what you are saying is you can't stand alone.  You're not strong enough.  My problem isn't with El-D.   It's with you.  El-D didn't insult me.  You did.  And I'm going to call you on it.  I like you Leauki and I enjoy our conversations but I'm not letting you off the hook on this one. 

Again, got to shore up the numbers to make it seem like you're right (but that's the name of the game isn't it?).  When did "several people" call me a liar?  You're the only one that has to my knowledge.  Should I bring in Lula like you do El-D?  Does that help the whole number thing?  If you knew your OT well, you'd see that God wasn't about numbers at all.  The ones with fewer were in the right all the time.   According to your theology David was in the wrong because he was alone going against Goliath and thousands of others behind him.  Or Gideon who God pared down his army so there were very few going against a huge Midianite Army.  Or Moses going against the whole of Egypt....or the two spies against the 10 who lied.  (read that the majority lied)

Maybe Christ was wrong too, because the consensus was that he was really the devil so they hung him on a cross.  One alone with no one to stand up for him.   Do you know they called him a liar as well? 

so I can say the same about you when you misrepresent Christianity?   You say:

What's good for the goose is not for the gander?  well maybe that's how I understand Evolution (using your own words)....and I am using the Evolutionists to get my ideas and thoughts from.  I'm constantly quoting your guys Leauki.  It's coming from their own mouths. 

so....let me guess.  You're just wrong and I'm a liar? 

Just read the passage yourself......the great commission is found at the end of Matthew.....Jesus said to go out and make disciples.......that's not conversion.   A disciple is one who sits under another to learn.  A disciple has already been convinced previously and now is ready to learn under another is more knowledgeable.  We are to make disciples....not to persistently try to convince others that Jesus was/is the Messiah for all mankind.  Do me a favor...go read Matthew 10:14 (5-14 for context) and that should take care of this discussion. 

Leauki you just described yourself.  They say the things that bother us the most are what we are most guilty of.  I think you need to do some self-examination.  I'm not an expert on Evolution anymore than you are....there are times I've asked you pointed questions  about some of the claims you bring to the table and all I get is an impatient ....."how do I know?"  Well you made the claim! 

I have no idea what you mean there is no species border?  Isn't that saying a tomato can be a watermelon if there is no border?  Both are fruits afterall.   

you give me nothing Leauki....I specifically asked you this:

You go off on a tizzy, call me names but don't give me any specifics on this post that set you off.  Now tell me where I lied or be quiet. 

See, now using your mode of operation I could call you a liar right here......just like you do me....how many times have I told you Leauki....it's NOT about MY interpretation?  How many times have I shown you the bible interprets itself? How many times have I said I don't really care about my opinion when it comes to scripture?  How many times have I prefaced when I was using my own opinion on certain things that we are unsure about?  Don't I say...."well I can only give my opinon here because this is all we know?"

KFC POSTS #314

Exactly! These two sentences say it all!

Unfortunately, since the time of Darwin, we have seen firsthand how intellectual confusion, in the political, academic, religious and scientific world, results from a loose use of the term "evolution".

Species "evolving" from their own kind is true science, what is sometimes called "micro-evolution", but in reality isn't evolution at all and shouldn't be confused with evolution...it's Variety Within Kind due to reshuffling of genes also called Recombination.  God instantaneously created the dog....one "kind"...2 were loaded onto the Ark and over time, as a result of recombination of genes within the dog gene pool (within kind), gave rise to variety...lots and lots different dogs....all still dogs, one "kind".

LEAUKI POSTS # 319

Yes, you have and same thing with fruit flies as with dogs...start out with fruit flies... end...with fruitflies.   The experiments with fruitflies confirmed variety within kind.

KFC POSTS #314

KFC POSTS #369

Exactly!  The idea of change to something vastly different, "transmutation",  e.g. reptiles supposedly changing into birds over eons of time is psudeo science being masqueraded as true science under the name of Evolution according to Darwin's theory.

LEAUKI POSTS # 319

Yes, Darwinism does claim just that. Darwin's followers, Evolutionists, have defined evolution and taught through science textbooks that evolution is a molecules-to-man natural transformation in which new, "higher" genetic information is gained which was not possessed by one's ancectors. They are the ones who have given us this understanding now commonly held across society.   

And going one step further, many have taken Darwin's Evolution Theory and turned it into an Atheist naturalistic philosophy on the false ground that human life is just a natural descent of a long line of animals.

LEAUKI POSTS:

kfc,

Species border is DNA. And as you know, Almighty God designed it "irreducably complex" for good purpose.  Scientific research has gained many, many new insights into the message sequence of DNA as a result of bio chemistry, molecular biology, genetics, biology, etc. It's now known with a high degree of certainty that the Creator's design of DNA will not allow evolution according to Darwinists to occur...the message sequence of DNA prevents transmutation of genes from one "kind" to a different one.  

So modern scientific research has proved "molecules- to- man" evolution isn't plausible. What we now know about DNA has busted Darwin's evolutionary tree of life ancestry wide open. But you know acknowledging the truth comes hard to a lot of people...being created by God and not descended from an ape is a whole new ball game of life.

its funny seeing the ignorant preach.

And actually a watermellon shares a common ancestor with a cuecumber.

If you want to know anything about evolution stop asking lula and go open a book.

from post #348

That's correct, Leauki.  We are only repeating what Evolutionists themselves claim..I've shown this by directly quoting from the dictionary and 3 science books.

Do you agree with or deny what evolutionists claim evolution is?  

leauki posts 366

Let's be clear....according to the dictionary and science textbooks, evolutionists state that new species emerge from different ones, but have not yet been able to explain how evolution occurs or come up with empirical evidence.

Now you're diverting to the ever elusive mechanism. While Evolutionists take for granted that evolution--molecules to mankind-- definitely occurred, as can be seen from direct quotes of the dictionary and science textbooks....Here evolution is portrayed as a fact, but it's crucial mechanism (the missing link) continues to be ever-elusive....it's never been found in the fossil evidence. If molecules-to-mankind cannot occur, there is no mechanism to find.

Find a new post.  I'm locking this one.

Lula posts

LEAUKI POSTS 367

Oh yes, I understand the purpose of the image...all too well! It's meant to show a series of (evolutionary) changes from ape to human....to SCHOOL CHILDREN. Remember, it's in science textbooks that unwary, naive, uncritical, unquestioning school children read...the same textbook that defines evolution as all living things are modified descendants of a common ancester that lived in the distant past...like on page 13, Darwin developed the modern theory of evolution, successfullly explaining how more complex species arose over time from simpler ones. in fact, the image shows this.... the simple ape evolving to the complex human. Evolution claims that complex humans are descendants of simple ape-like ancestors and that they in turn came from still more primitive apes. What school children read is augmented by an image of an ape-like creature shown evolving through a series of hypothetical intermediate froms into a modern human being....the image is to indoctrinate them into believing Darwin's theory of human origins...that they decscended from apes...that they are just animals.  Are they just animals?

Atheistic humanism is being taught in public schools through the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution while the other side of the Origins debate, Special Creation, is being suppressed.