There are no scientific gods that I am aware of and I prefer Jack Denials having given Kool-Aid about the time I decided god was nothing but empty space in the minds of a select few. This is fun, but I would rather talk about evolution theory ... but if you insist, nonsense it will be.

Don't use 'stellar evolution'  because I prefer the scientific names; I call it cosmology (or cosmogony, cosmography, physics, astrophysics or physical cosmology as needed) depending on my immediate interest. There are no absolutes that concern mankind in the least because it would take an actual real deity to pull it off and there isn't such a thing.

You are clueless but considering you believe every word in a two thousand year old book may explain it. Darwin was a great man and his work was invaluable to science. But as smart as he was, he was dependent on the science that was available to him ... and he was brilliant for the time. We actually update our sciences as we learn new things and it isn't my fault you go to your same old outdated comic book, the unabridged one, every time you want to pretend you know something. 

Well, I can see where your expertise and terminology come from ... another bible thumper who would have guessed??? Well I think his ideas are as silly as your conclusions, but at least now I know who to blame for the improper terminology and ridiculous statements ... and who the parrot was, whatever. Are we having fun yet … can we talk about evolution now … humm?

PS - good clip huh, I like to talk about DNA too but I see you don't. It is just easier to ignore it and hope it goes away; sorry it isn’t going away … but it is going to get much better so get your ostrich act in gear.

PPS - #50 is not even worth looking at … just prattling about other things of which you seem clueless.

 

 

 

 

And don't forget "survival of the fittest" is thrown in there as well.  In his first edition of his book, this time by the entire title: Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin regarded "Natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" as different concepts. By the 6th edition of  Origins of the Species, he thought they meant the same thing, but that "survival of the fittest" was more accurate. In a still later book, Descent of Man 1871, Darwin ultimately abandoned "natural selection" as a hopeless mechanism, and returned to Lamarckism. 

Back to evolution..truth mixed with lies. 

The truth part is "natural selection" but not at all in the Darwinian evolution sense because new, higher genetic information is not gained and thus no evolution change from one true species into another.   

Evolution by "descent with modification" and "survival of the fittest" is the lies part...the Evolutionary kool-aid of Lamarck (1744-1829), Alfred Wallace (1823-1913), Darwin, and his modern followers, evolution teachers today that so many uncritically gulp down.    

Wallace is considered the man who developed the theory which Darwin published. Wallace's theory is that species have changed in the past by which one species descended from another. In Feb. 1858, adding to descent with modification, he conceived the idea of "survival of the fittest" as being the method by which species change. But the concept proves nothing. The fittest? Which one is that? It's the one that survived longest. Which one survives longest? The fittest. This is reasoning in a circle. The phrase says nothing about evolutionary process much less being the mechanism or proving it. 

No, Genetics has no proofs for evolutionary theory becasue Genetics is science and ET is not science but pseudo science. 

Sure analyses of DNA sequences in various species show similarities, but so what? That confirms the accuracy of taxonomy and not postulated evolutionary sequences  say from fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals. Molecular genetics confirms systematics,  Linneaus not phylogeny of Darwin.

 In truth, natural Sciences have failed to provide any evidence for Darwinian, neo-Darwinian or biological Evolution, whatever you will call it.

Ken Miller has proven no such thing. Stop regurgitating the kool-aid. I'll concede such a thing as "Theistic Evolution" was developed where some foolish Christians tried to bolster ID theory and accommodate this unproved postulate of materialistic philosophies such as atheistic evolution theory is. 

Much time and intellectual effort went in vain and along the way, school age children have been duped into believing they evolved from apes. 

 

 

 

 

There is not one proof the universe is expanding. So why ask this question in this tone?

Just becasue you drink the atheistic "big bang" cosmology kool-aid---that about 13.5 billion years ago, nothing exploded into something and is still expanding/exploding producing all that we see in the starry universe today---doesn't mean we do.  

Besides which don't you know that the atheistic science establishment has changed its "Big Bang" theory from "an expanding universe"  to "an exploding universe"? But even all this is based on pure conjecture, not an observed fact. 

Turns out Natural Science is proving there are lots of deficiencies with the BB theory. The atheistic science establishment is not giving us satisfactory representation of reality. Just like others before it, the BB theory is being tipped off its pedestal. But it won't go easy for the reigning atheistic science establishment won't even consider other models of the universe that are consistent with observed facts  becasue such models have religious overtones. Oh no, they say, we can't have that. 

Creator God Who can neither be deceived nor deceive, gave us the chronology in Genesis which says something entirely different as to the order and timing of these planetary bodies. I think when all is said and done, science will confirm Genesis and possibly tell us much more. It is grave folly to dismiss the only Eyewitness, the Author of Genesis 1. 

 

 

 

  

This nonsense has gone on long enough now; what is your problem??? Darwin was just a man (like me, sort of), a religious man at that. He was no god (there are none) but you are trying to make him into one for my benefit of course, just like the science gods you invent on demand, as needed. He (Darwin) pioneered the “Origins of Species“ which in time became so expanded upon that it permeated into just about every scientific field we have today and that is absolute proof that you are misinformed, big time. You have to denounce all of them (ALL the sciences) if just one doesn’t work … but they all work and support themselves just fine … so you are either clueless or oblivious for which neither is excusable today, unless of course The Catholic Encyclopedia is your main source of misinformation. You don’t want to prove anything or else you would have at least tried by now. All you do want to do is quash everything you can blame on someone else by calling it ‘sin’ but insist on taking all credit for everything you think is good (which isn’t for mankind), just like a typical bully or common thug. You demand the respect of everyone in the world and insist we respect every nonsensical thing you believe in no matter how ridiculous it is … all the while offering nothing but disrespect for everyone who dares to disagree with you or who questions your Church’s wisdom … as well as anything they believe in too. Thanks to your dysfunctional church, even you are prohibited from asking any questions whatsoever and are forbade to even investigate outside your circle of dis-information (ever even wonder why?). I don’t have any problem at all evaluating the wisdom of the RCC, not one bit, because there is little there. I don’t have any real problems with any of the ‘gods’ because none of them have any problems with me (even yours), else they would have taken care of it themselves by now ... being concerned gods and all. I don’t have any problems with people who love and respect their gods or those who are at one with their god through spirituality, live and let live is my motto. I don’t have any problems even with you Lula, I just don’t understand just about everything you say and your logic is just nonexistent. I am sure to other Christians (of the right stripe) you are nice and fuzzy and maybe even polite at times, but nowhere else. So have a good life and enjoy your shrinking circle of dogmatic control over the lives of others who are entitled to believe whatever they like … and watch your miracle “hope chest” dwindle down to the micro-verse, but have a good life anyway. God bless you if that helps. But I do so despise hypocrisy and bigotry.

PS – if you cannot come down to planet earth to have a simple discussion, then don’t come down at all. Stay out there in the void (I would suggest some Lagrangian point or another) where you don’t have to be bothered by reality. Maybe your ‘electrical and gravimetrical demons’ won’t pester you there, who knows.  All I know is we wouldn’t be pestering each other, although my concern is just for my sanity.

Now, do you want to discuss actual for real evolutionary theory … OR NOT?

Genesis 2, version 2 of creation (don’t ask me???):

“By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.” I don’t think omnipotence embraces getting tired from a little universal work. “Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.” … his words not mine.

Now we get a little more detail concerning Adam and Eve, as if:

“Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground [of the whole flat earth], but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground” just in case.

“Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. But Genesis 1 said “So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” But Eve is not even a concept in Genesis 2 yet???  In the first version (this is confusing?), god created just about everything before he created Adam but seems to remember it differently, probably for some unexplainable godly reason or another.

Wait a minute in Genesis 1 it states “Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. ” And it was so. This was accomplished on day 3 well before Adam was created on day 6, WTF???

“Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed” without the woman he had already made in the Genesis 1 world … so he will make her from a rib later, whatever.

This time through this unerringable god made the trees grow … in the garden and describes the geography in more detail than is customary or desirable for this myth.

Adam was beamed over to the garden and made to take care of it (experience?), not in today’s world. Now Adam was finely allowed to eat but was warned ‘do not eat this ONE thing’, yea right (no logic here) Adam is human right? I mean we are only talking about perfection forever or a little pussy with good behavior. God will lose every time.

This time through, god decided to fish for a ‘companion (???) for Adam so he created  a bunch of animals to see if one suited him and Adam said ‘I’m not into bestiality’ WTF (in a low voice). Adam in no uncertain terms asked god for a real helper, something he could help properly. Now god created an illiterate and subservient ‘pussy’ he named Eve and instructed Adam to resist it as long as he could … which was like a New York minute, sex being what it is. God never had a chance … and this is the sin my children and I are to suffer for, get real.

PS - this is much simpler if you just watch the vidios in (geese) #2, 4 and 6.

Here's your problem, again. 

 

"I don’t think omnipotence embraces getting tired from a little universal work."

 

So you decide this is a contradiction instead of thinking and coming to a conclusion that makes sense.  I've already discussed this IN THIS THREAD but you ignored me.  God rested because it was FINISHED and PERFECT.  Now, you said you came from a Catholic background, and if this is the way you decided to look at the Bible, you're not going to understand it.  The 'conflicts' and 'contradictions' mean you're interpreting it wrong.  Here, you're worried about whether some plants had grown up before or after the sixth day.  In the first account, God says 'make these do something' but there's no mention of how long they should take to do it.  Obviously, if He planted a garden, and it grew to make the tree, what he said made it work that way.

 

Now, I'm okay with you thinking the Bible is crap, but I'm not okay with you continuing to talk about it without any understanding.  The difference between your positions and mine is that applying critical thinking to the Bible allows you to understand and connect the dots to interpret it correctly, whereas applying critical thinking to say, macro evolution, will eventually lead to the realization that it is a fabrication.  You don't need to believe in God to see that evolution is ridiculous - but if you really want to take God out of the equation, macro evolution is the only way you can.  So they teach us in school.

 

God knew exactly what the final result of His experiment with Adam and the animals would be.  How do I know?  Because He's God.  He knew He would be making women - He was not surprised by it.  Then, He made woman, and while she couldn't read, neither could Adam, because writing hadn't been invented yet.  I like that you also say subservient, because God calls her Adam's helper, a word which is only used in the Bible here and describing the role of the Holy Spirit.  So, pretty big company.  Did you know that women in every culture are completely dominated, except in Christian and post-Christian cultures?  I wonder why that is if we supposedly believe, and the Bible supposedly says, that we should treat women like dirt.  I think you're mixing Christianity, which lifts up women to equality, with some other religion.

 

And then Adam was told to be fruitful and multiply, and he went and knew his wife, and God was pleased with that, because that's what they were supposed to do.  Have you even looked at a Bible?  It says nothing about sex not being allowed between Adam and Eve.  God told them to do it!  That was NOT sin.  The fruit from the tree was sin, because God told them NOT to do it.  But they did.

 

So now are you going to pass off your lack of understanding as a joke again?  Because it sounded like you were interpreting scripture there in such a way that doesn't make any sense, and then saying "The Bible doesn't make any sense."  No, YOU don't make any sense.  There's a difference.

And that is your complete argument for everything. Well I don't believe you, so what ... it's not as if you believed me (ever) ... but that is just different somehow, the Christian way I suppose. Demand respect while offering none to anyone else???

Just the excuse used whenever you want to stress that you have no real arguments but don't want to embarrass yourself ... so god does it all. If you could just wrap your head around the fact that I am an atheist, this might be less complicated for you. I do not believe in any god (just like you do believe, but the opposite) and it should go without saying that I don’t believe one biblical word (all about that god I don’t believe in) and I see no reason to try and make this nonsense work. I cannot make it work anymore than any other fairy tale that employs magic … they are fantasies??? I knew you wouldn’t believe a word I said, so I thought having your god tell you himself in his own words that he was tired would sink in, I should have known better. I don’t think it matters how you or I choose to interpret anything because reality (and I) don’t GAS what people think. So we look at the bible differently … you think? I didn’t write Genesis 1 or 2, those feeble minded sheep herders did and to make it worse, this is the best they could cobble together ‘corrected’ for errors for a few centuries before these jewels were committed as gods own words. Who did you say wrote them? Do you know what incest is, how it works, how detrimental it is to life itself? Well those brilliant Jewish peasants sure didn’t or they might have supplied tens of thousands more processed people to provide a minimal gene pool, but biblically humanity had only one person with genes (presumably?). That is just a species DEAD END no brainer.  But I see there are a few bushes and trees and animals I missed so this will be continued. I have read the bible; cover to cover just as I told you before … but you cannot have, not if you are comfortable stating that Christianity cherishes women (in a pig’s eye), whose first century role was to be a whipping post and an incubator, pretty much like It is in Iran today. I just cannot wait to get to the flood, which is going to be brutal for sure. You just don’t get it do you??? If you wish to be coddled, go find another Christian so you folks can pat each other on the back and sing Kumbaya till the roosters’ crow … you won’t be getting it here from me for sure.

 

For not believing in God you sure do talk about Him a lot.  To mock me, perhaps, but just think - you can't prove He doesn't exist, or even give a decent explanation for how life came to be without Him.  Then, every time I try to explain something in the Bible with the Bible that you are misrepresenting, you can't argue with me - you can just say that you don't believe in God again, so it doesn't matter.  Okay, whatever, then shut your trap about it because you're a Bible imbecile. 

 

You cannot prove ANYTHING doesn't exist so we have that in common. So this claim is meaningless but often used in all honesty I am sure??? I have quite a bit of evidence concerning much enough of the universe and much enough of the things in it to know that humans in the real world on this little pebble anyway are not privy to purposeful physics violations . I just don't need someone else explain it to me ... I am well read. All your arguments are condescending and ill willed and I am just playing with a fairy tale. Anyway I am not going to take your advice (trap stays open). I cannot see how you can make even the first two books work but as you see I can't. Ok then biblify me: set my mocks aside (I'll bring them back later) and explain creation ... reasonably ... as you have ben told by the people that know?

If you are just here to trash me and all the evidence I put forth with a shrug and a godly finger; then explain the intellectual honesty of trash talk??? I wrote this OP in the only manor I can … in the light of a poorly written fairy tale. The difference is I am telling you what I believe and why and you are trying to tell me what I have to believe in and how ... without a shred of evidence for any of it???

So you're going to talk about the Bible but without trying to actually understand why people might believe in it.  Got it.

Look, I can explain creation, because my God is powerful enough to create.  So He did.  It's the way it is in the Bible, but without all the gobbledygook you add to it.  God was tired?  No, obviously not.  But when I say that, you say 'I don't believe in God so I don't care' instead of saying, 'Oh, I see, that's reasonable for someone who DOES believe in God.'  Not even admitting there's something to this God thing, or anything, just saying that a person looking at this particular thing in that particular light is reasonable. 

I don't understand your confusion because I am not confused???  I am sure you can explain creation (but you won't), I am sure you can explain everything in the bible (but you won't) and I am sure you can express everything in your god's mind in minute detail (this you will do) because it just happens to coincide with everything YOU believe in, sum-bitch. How am I supposed to embrace your beliefs when they are rooted in a god that doesn't exist to me (doesn’t matter why)??? I don't know what is reasonable for anyone who believes in magic of any kind. If one believes in magic then the sky is the limit, there are no bounds, no limits that cannot be crossed, no atrocity at all that can’t be justified in the name of one true god or another … just like it has always been for humans. I do not know what you expect from me besides the sacrifice of my free will and my capitulation to whatever you think is right … without a stitch of evidence???

Ps - I don't have a god issue at all (you do though) because I see all the gods as equals in every way ... I have a religion issue as in I don't need you or anyone else to 'explaining' to me why I have to believe in your or their god(s) … when I just don't???

The problem is, though, that there is an actual truth and it's objective, not subjective.  True means it's true for both of us, but you don't see the truth.  So should I let you wallow in your false world?  That wouldn't be very nice.

I don't have time to explain everything in the Bible to you.  I do have time to explain the bits that the OP was slamming.  So I did.  Just curious though, when did I express what's in God's mind?  God is a lot bigger than me.  I don't speak for Him, I speak for what I believe.  However, you believing God got tired and that it doesn't make any sense... well, you're right, that doesn't make sense, but the actual reason God rested DOES make sense. 

I don't expect you to embrace my beliefs without believing in God, but I don't see why your faith in no-God is so set.  If you believe in the God of the Bible, then you are more likely NOT to commit atrocities, not to cross the limits, not to justify your actions... it's the non-believers who get a hold of God and slander his name and lie about the contents of the Bible and what they mean.  They harness the power of the sheep of the church who don't bother to know any better than whatever is spewed from the pulpit.  The people grounded in the Word are much better off than those who just listen.

It's funny, why do you think you have free will?  There are all these historical sciences that you HAVE to believe in in order to maintain your position, and when those get disproved, there'll be a new Godless theory that you'll HAVE to believe in... With Christianity, I have hundreds of sects with slight differences to suit me.  I can be Catholic or Baptist or any number of other things depending on how I'd like to worship, my personal convictions, and other things.  You have no room for personal convictions... you're locked in.  Who really has a freedom?

I think God might have an issue with you not believing in Him, so in that way, you DO have a God issue.  If you don't believe your house has termites, and then the termites destroy your house, you still have a destroyed house without ever knowing about or believing in those termites.  In much the same way, you will be judged fairly and then destroyed for not believing in the only Name that gives salvation, which is the real purpose of Christianity.  We can argue about Genesis all you want but that's not the crux of the matter with God at all.

The problem with the random chance is that, even giving them a billion years with a billion chances per year, the likelihood of a 0% probability event happening will always be 0.  So given 1 second or 500 gazillion years, life still didn't emerge, increasing order still didn't emerge from disorder, etc.  That's where the whole thing falls apart, and why your billion of years is so easily dismissed.  I understand probability enough to figure that out.

Got it. Life cannot come from non-life, accepted and established scientific fact. 

That's why Darwinian evolution is one of the greatest scientific errors of all time, although the atheistic sceintific establishment passes it on as established truth. This is utter nonsense.

I know Darwin couldn't have known what modern biochemistry has presented, but he should have known better. Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was a genuine scientist and in the process of studying fermentation, he performed his famous experiment in which he disproved the theory of spontaneious generation, Life cannot arise from non-living materials. Pasteur concluded that only God could create living creatures. 

But Darwinian Evolution continues even today to be based on that outdated theory disproved by Pasteur. Why? Becasue it's the only basis on which evolution could occur. You see for them Creation becasue it has a whiff of religion is out of the question. 

Darwinian  Evolution is incoherent, the fossil record and Genetics has no proof of Evolutionism. Some of the so-called proof that has been supplied is wacxky experiments on fruit flies, and Haeckel's fraudulent drawings of embryos. And some people think Evolutionism is science. Ay-yi-yi. 

 

 

No one here has denounced all the Sciences. 

It is not the Catholic Church but actually it is the reigning atheistic scientific establishment that does not want the truth in the debate of Origins. As far as proving anything...there is no proof of their Big Bang and macroEvolution theories. ..so why are they asserted and proclaimed as fact?  

 

In the science world, their fabricated gospel of materialistic naturalism explains everything or no dice. The push behind it is to eliminate Almighty God from all facets of life and the militant atheists erect a separation between science and theology  in an effort to eliminate ALmighty God from the human consciousness.  Any science that supports Special Creation is locked out of scientific presentations and has no say. 

If you think Evolutionism is Science,  do yourself a favor and read Tom Bethell's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science." 

Lula, there is so much different in evolution that they can say 'evolution has been proven' and be right that things do change over time, but wrong that they'll ever change into a different species... but they'll still say evolution is true.  And evolution does not deal with the origins of life - they don't know how to bridge that gap, and the more they look into life the more complicated it gets on such a teeny tiny level that even some atheist scientists have turned their backs on that position and admitted, at least, that something must have designed it.

The only things I will answer are highlighted in yellow ... the rest is speculation biased by your religion and are meaningless or pointless to me, I am an atheist and this is not ‘Sunday School’!!!All this wasted space just to prove a point that will go completely over your head, oh well. I have free will because I can say NO whenever and to whomever I want ... I can question or believe anything I want ... and you just can't. I can laugh at everyone's magic (and I do) ... but you can only laugh at the other guys magic because your magic is the real deal ... just ask YOU huh? If you want to discuss evolution, read a book and at learn scientific vernacular so someone else can understand you.

Ditto: I know how old you think the world is because you are a biblical creationist??? I would be interested where you got this higher math stuff at though, bet it would be a gas to read. What falls apart ... what is "it" that you crush with this profound witticism? Everything you do not want to believe in, you just don't, you ignore it and claim god did it. That is all you have done since you began evangelizing, to me an atheist??? Until you get past that 5,000 year old nonsense, you will not even make an effort to understand evolution which tells me you have no valid opinion concerning it. And since Genesis is so real and fuzzy and perfect for you … why would you bother … you already have all the answers you need??? Well I just need more, a lot more, but you just don't care.

 

 

Once again, you don't have the facts. In my reply #27, I said that the Church hasn't yet established a doctrine of Creation and until she does, if she does, Catholics are free to speculate on some things concerning Origins such as the Biblical chronology as to age; and the meaning of "Yom"..is it a literal 24 hour day or a long period of time? 

Since the concept of Special Creation is harmonious with the official teachings of the Church and most of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church it is the one which I favor. SC is the only one that offers a coherent basis for understanding the earliest events and quite frankly how man came to be in such a state of confusion and distress and in need of a Redeemer. 

The SC view accepts on the basis of faith in the revealed God that Scripture must be free from error and that empirical Science will never discover any empirical data which will conclusively contradict it. From the Fathers and Doctors we learn that finite man can know something about the infinite, can deduce the existence of an Unseen Designer, a supernatural dimension of existence and can discern absolute principles. I love St. Thomas Aquinas (13th Century) on Creation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have no idea at all for the first question and I don't care about the second one; when life formed it wasn't done one cell at a time and cannibalism works just fine at that level. Neither of these questions (or answers) is important or necessary to explain and understand evolution as we know it today. You have a book compiled from lore thousands of years ago. You value this book and say that each and every word is god’s word. And I say you are out of your mind. This literal interpretation was a big mistake; they should have just said it was all magic up front and that the bible was composed of god’s inspirations or whatever. Then it could have been updated as needed without the need to lie in the beginning.  Do you think those barbarians could have grasped what a fully equipped 21st century lab (with a satellite in space) could prove? I think the flick of a BIC back then would have been enough to accuse you of being a witch and a servant of the devil. Well it is the 21st century now and we have countless fully equipped labs around the world and we have satellites in space. What’s new with Christianity today? Well actually nothing for the past 2,000 years and still counting … unless memorizing the bible ‘properly’ counts. You have the same first century document that they used. You pretend to believe in that document just as they did back when the earth was still flat. And you still believe in vile witches and rampaging demons, just like they did. Everything else that we have today is the result of our failed sciences whose books are filled with guesstimates and erroneous assumptions. Well you can have your comic book and your invisible god, but I choose science and knowledge, which are just trash topics to you. Lula, you are even more clueless than most on evolutionary theory or any science that I can tell. I don’t care about your god, his book or his believers because it is just magic to me and I don’t believe in magic.

Yes, it's true. "Evolution" is change over time.  And that's why when debating, it's important to distinguish between micro-evolution (which is small change within kind, true and proven) and macro-Evolution (which is large scale change beyond kind, not true and thus not proven.  

We are all on the same page as far as the difference. GFTess proved that in her response # 26 to your question, reply #20. 

...........................................

 

Microevolution doesn't,  but the atheistic evolutionists took Darwin's theory and grew it from simply natural evolution to an all encompassing cosmic philosophy...sometimes called molecules-to-man evolution. 

To accommodate Darwinian Evolution, they bridged the gap with ID theory and mainly "Theistic Evolution". Theistic Evolution gives aid and comfort to Atheism by succombing to its propaganda. One of GFTess' videos was of Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, a Theistic Evolutionist.

Theistic Evolution has done a lot of damage to Christianity because it wreaks havoc on Genesis, Redemption, Original and Actual Sin, Evil and Grace. 

 

   

 

How did life begin?

Yes, indeed, both questions and answers are important and necessary to understand Evolution as we know it today.  

If it weren't important and necessary why are evolutionists teaching via science textbooks and videos that 3.5 billion years ago the first living cell emerged from non-life? This lie is found there as though it was scientific truth. It makes me sick.  

 

Re: the highlighted....Sorry dear, but this is laughable. 

You say you choose science and knowledge but your reply here shows something different. 

Well at least now I know that your argument is never going to be about trying to show the validity of Evolution, but rather just words slamming the opponent and/or his/her pro-Genesis views. 

PS. The answer to the first question is it is impossible for life to emerge from non-life. and since #1 is impossible, #2 is irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Silly you. Can't let you get away with this nonsense. 

In the 5th century BC, Job declared the power of God when he wrote:   

"He stretched out the north over the empty space, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."  Job 26:7 

 

Isaias knew the earth was a globe or circle long before it was seen that way by the science of astronomy. 

"It is he that sits upon the globe (circle) of the earth and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts; He that stretches out the heavens as nothing, and spreads them out as a tent to dwell in." Isaias 40:22 (740-680 BC) 

How did Job and Isaias know the earth was a globe and hangs upon nothing before the astronomers did? By the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, who was there in the beginning of Creation,  that's how.