Creation o Evolution.

[the_human_being]

froggy, creationism/evolution is not a salvation issue.

You do understand where this comes from though, do you not? Faith comes by hearing and hearing from the word of God. The very first verse in the Bible says, " In the beginning God created. " It has been said that if one does not believe the very first verse, then one might as well throw out the whole Bible.

Who am I to say anything at all on the subject though? I believe in Universal Reconciliation myself and am often scorned for believing that.

I also have a minor in mathematics and the proposition that this earth was placed exactly where it is placed following some type of Big Bang, the proposition that it also came with everything necessary for life as we know it, and the proposition that a single celled organism crawled forth from some sort of slime pool and then evolved into a two or more celled organism even over a period of billions of years is a mathematical impossibility.

 

[JakeStarkey]

froggy, creationism/evolution is not a salvation issue.

You do understand where this comes from though, do you not? Faith comes by hearing and hearing from the word of God. The very first verse in the Bible says, " In the beginning God created. " It has been said that if one does not believe the very first verse, then one might as well throw out the whole Bible.

Who am I to say anything at all on the subject though? I believe in Universal Reconciliation myself and am often scorned for believing that.

I also have a minor in mathematics and the proposition that this earth was placed exactly where it is placed following some type of Big Bang, the proposition that it also came with everything necessary for life as we know it, and the proposition that a single celled organism crawled forth from some sort of slime pool and then evolved into a two or more celled organism even over a period of billions of years is a mathematical impossibility.

Your conclusion is easily challenged. However, my point is that the argument between creationism and evolution is not a salvation matter.

 

[the_human_being]

froggy, creationism/evolution is not a salvation issue.

You do understand where this comes from though, do you not? Faith comes by hearing and hearing from the word of God. The very first verse in the Bible says, " In the beginning God created. " It has been said that if one does not believe the very first verse, then one might as well throw out the whole Bible.

Who am I to say anything at all on the subject though? I believe in Universal Reconciliation myself and am often scorned for believing that.

I also have a minor in mathematics and the proposition that this earth was placed exactly where it is placed following some type of Big Bang, the proposition that it also came with everything necessary for life as we know it, and the proposition that a single celled organism crawled forth from some sort of slime pool and then evolved into a two or more celled organism even over a period of billions of years is a mathematical impossibility.

Your conclusion is easily challenged. However, my point is that the argument between creationism and evolution is not a salvation matter.

I agree. I suppose one can only assume the OP awakened this a.m. wanting to stir up an argument that has been argued over for years and years already.

 

[froggy]

The fact is we don't know. And the answer will come when we die. As for some it will be to late as for some it will be a day of rejoicing.

The fact is .. Apples and Oranges.
Evolution speaks to life AFTER It started/how it progressed.
Life's start is called abiogenesis.
Life may have arisen 'evolutionarily' from non-life. but the Fact of evolution does NOT depend on how life started... Only explains it's progression.

A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible | The Institute for Creation Research

LOL, A conspiracy website.

The human body with all of its magnificence could not have just evolved.

LOFL
It demonstrably has evolved.
Life can traced to a continuum, with many creatures, including us, having anatomical vestiges of our evolutionary ancestors.
An Immaculate 'Creation' event wouldn't leave useless organs/etc.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2
Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
Prediction 2.1: Anatomical vestiges

Some of the most renowned Evidence for evolution are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, both anatomical and molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality...
[.......]
Geoffroy was at a loss for why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ", yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy
[.......]...these "Hypocritical" structures profess something that they do Not do—they clearly appear designed for a certain function which they do Not perform. However, Common Descent provides a scientific explanation for these peculiar structures. Existing species have different structures and perform different functions. If all living organisms descended from a common ancestor, then both functions and structures necessarily have been gained and lost in each lineage during macroevolutionary history. Therefore, from Common Descent and the constraint of gradualism, we predict that many organisms should retain vestigial structures as structural remnants of lost functions. Note that the exact evolutionary mechanism which created a vestigial structure is irrelevant as long as the mechanism is a gradual one.

Confirmation:
There are Many examples of rudimentary and Nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence, snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles. Most Pythons (which are legless snakes) carry Vestigial Pelvises hidden beneath their skin.. The Vestigial pelvis in Pythons is Not attached to vertebrae (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity. Some lizards carry rudimentary, Vestigial Legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside...
Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet have rudimentary, Vestigial eyes....
[.......]
The ancestors of Humans are known to have been Herbivorous, and molar teeth are required for chewing and grinding plant material. Over 90% of all adult humans develop third molars (otherwise known as Wisdom Teeth).
Usually these teeth never erupt from the gums, and in one Third of all individuals they are Malformed and Impacted...
These Useless teeth can cause significant pain, increased risk for injury, and may result in illness and even death.

Another Vestige of our herbivorous ancestry is the vermiform appendix. While this intestinal structure may retain a function of some sort, perhaps in the development of the immune system, it is a rudimentary version of the much larger caecum that is essential for digestion of plants in other mammals..."

Yet another human Vestigial structure is the Coccyx, the four fused caudal vertebrae found at the base of the spine, exactly where most mammals and many other primates have external Tails protruding from the back. Humans and other apes are some of the only vertebrates that lack an external tail as an adult.
The coccyx is a developmental Remnant of the embryonic tail that forms in humans and then is degraded and eaten by our immune system ... Our internal tail is Unnecessary for sitting, walking, and elimination (all of which are functions attributed to the coccyx by many anti-evolutionists). The caudal vertebrae of the coccyx can cause extreme and unnecessary chronic pain in some unfortunate people, a condition called coccydynia. The entire coccyx can be surgically removed without any ill effects (besides surgical complications)...
[.......]​

That's funny I can't recall any new organs evolving humans still have the same as we started with apes have evolved into humans. Never heard reports of a new human evolving out of the sea.

Dumb argument. Do you have a couple million years I'll show you.

Your comment exposes your ignorance of how long 1 million years is

To a creator that had been forever what would a million years be. Nothing

Also consider if we are central to gods reason for creating the universe why did it take 13 billion years to invent us? And what were the dinosaurs before us all about? Or the trilobites that ruled millions of years before the dinosaurs?

If you'd been forever how many things would you have created

 

[froggy]

froggy, creationism/evolution is not a salvation issue.

You do understand where this comes from though, do you not? Faith comes by hearing and hearing from the word of God. The very first verse in the Bible says, " In the beginning God created. " It has been said that if one does not believe the very first verse, then one might as well throw out the whole Bible.

Who am I to say anything at all on the subject though? I believe in Universal Reconciliation myself and am often scorned for believing that.

I also have a minor in mathematics and the proposition that this earth was placed exactly where it is placed following some type of Big Bang, the proposition that it also came with everything necessary for life as we know it, and the proposition that a single celled organism crawled forth from some sort of slime pool and then evolved into a two or more celled organism even over a period of billions of years is a mathematical impossibility.

Your conclusion is easily challenged. However, my point is that the argument between creationism and evolution is not a salvation matter.

I agree. I suppose one can only assume the OP awakened this a.m. wanting to stir up an argument that has been argued over for years and years already.

What argument have I started

 

[the_human_being]

froggy, creationism/evolution is not a salvation issue.

You do understand where this comes from though, do you not? Faith comes by hearing and hearing from the word of God. The very first verse in the Bible says, " In the beginning God created. " It has been said that if one does not believe the very first verse, then one might as well throw out the whole Bible.

Who am I to say anything at all on the subject though? I believe in Universal Reconciliation myself and am often scorned for believing that.

I also have a minor in mathematics and the proposition that this earth was placed exactly where it is placed following some type of Big Bang, the proposition that it also came with everything necessary for life as we know it, and the proposition that a single celled organism crawled forth from some sort of slime pool and then evolved into a two or more celled organism even over a period of billions of years is a mathematical impossibility.

Your conclusion is easily challenged. However, my point is that the argument between creationism and evolution is not a salvation matter.

I agree. I suppose one can only assume the OP awakened this a.m. wanting to stir up an argument that has been argued over for years and years already.

What argument have I started

Well, perhaps argument is a poor choice in words but you are being ridiculed by the non-believers and God deniers.

 

[froggy]

froggy, creationism/evolution is not a salvation issue.

You do understand where this comes from though, do you not? Faith comes by hearing and hearing from the word of God. The very first verse in the Bible says, " In the beginning God created. " It has been said that if one does not believe the very first verse, then one might as well throw out the whole Bible.

Who am I to say anything at all on the subject though? I believe in Universal Reconciliation myself and am often scorned for believing that.

I also have a minor in mathematics and the proposition that this earth was placed exactly where it is placed following some type of Big Bang, the proposition that it also came with everything necessary for life as we know it, and the proposition that a single celled organism crawled forth from some sort of slime pool and then evolved into a two or more celled organism even over a period of billions of years is a mathematical impossibility.

Your conclusion is easily challenged. However, my point is that the argument between creationism and evolution is not a salvation matter.

I agree. I suppose one can only assume the OP awakened this a.m. wanting to stir up an argument that has been argued over for years and years already.

What argument have I started

Well, perhaps argument is a poor choice in words but you are being ridiculed by the non-believers and God deniers.

That is to be exspected. The word God scares many

 

[the_human_being]

You do understand where this comes from though, do you not? Faith comes by hearing and hearing from the word of God. The very first verse in the Bible says, " In the beginning God created. " It has been said that if one does not believe the very first verse, then one might as well throw out the whole Bible.

Who am I to say anything at all on the subject though? I believe in Universal Reconciliation myself and am often scorned for believing that.

I also have a minor in mathematics and the proposition that this earth was placed exactly where it is placed following some type of Big Bang, the proposition that it also came with everything necessary for life as we know it, and the proposition that a single celled organism crawled forth from some sort of slime pool and then evolved into a two or more celled organism even over a period of billions of years is a mathematical impossibility.

Your conclusion is easily challenged. However, my point is that the argument between creationism and evolution is not a salvation matter.

I agree. I suppose one can only assume the OP awakened this a.m. wanting to stir up an argument that has been argued over for years and years already.

What argument have I started

Well, perhaps argument is a poor choice in words but you are being ridiculed by the non-believers and God deniers.

That is to be exspected. The word God scares many

Yes and if one's choice of lifestyle is such that it offends God, then they deem it more expedient to simply deny the existence of God and continue in their lifestyle.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your conclusion is easily challenged. However, my point is that the argument between creationism and evolution is not a salvation matter.

I agree. I suppose one can only assume the OP awakened this a.m. wanting to stir up an argument that has been argued over for years and years already.

What argument have I started

Well, perhaps argument is a poor choice in words but you are being ridiculed by the non-believers and God deniers.

That is to be exspected. The word God scares many

Yes and if one's choice of lifestyle is such that it offends God, then they deem it more expedient to simply deny the existence of God and continue in their lifestyle.

All of which is true, bu the OP is not a salvation issue.

 

[the_human_being]

I agree. I suppose one can only assume the OP awakened this a.m. wanting to stir up an argument that has been argued over for years and years already.

What argument have I started

Well, perhaps argument is a poor choice in words but you are being ridiculed by the non-believers and God deniers.

That is to be exspected. The word God scares many

Yes and if one's choice of lifestyle is such that it offends God, then they deem it more expedient to simply deny the existence of God and continue in their lifestyle.

All of which is true, bu the OP is not a salvation issue.

I was responding to a question put to me by the OP.

 

[abu afak]

Yes and if one's choice of lifestyle is such that it offends God, then they deem it more expedient to simply deny the existence of God and continue in their lifestyle.

My lifestyle wouldn't offend 'god.'
WHICH/WITCH god btw?
There just aren't any gods in evidence.
In fact, what's evident, is that man created gods, Tens of thousands of them. Many contradictory ones.

But do chime in once you have some evidence for god/gods. IOW, Never.
+

 

[froggy]

Yes and if one's choice of lifestyle is such that it offends God, then they deem it more expedient to simply deny the existence of God and continue in their lifestyle.

My lifestyle wouldn't offend 'god.'
WHICH/WITCH god btw?
There just aren't any gods in evidence.
In fact, what's evident, is that man created gods, Tens of thousands of them. Many contradictory ones.

But do chime in once you have some evidence for god/gods. IOW, Never.
+

And if proof were there you'd do what?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Your conclusion is easily challenged. However, my point is that the argument between creationism and evolution is not a salvation matter.

I agree. I suppose one can only assume the OP awakened this a.m. wanting to stir up an argument that has been argued over for years and years already.

What argument have I started

Well, perhaps argument is a poor choice in words but you are being ridiculed by the non-believers and God deniers.

That is to be exspected. The word God scares many

Yes and if one's choice of lifestyle is such that it offends God, then they deem it more expedient to simply deny the existence of God and continue in their lifestyle.

The idea that atheists have some lifestyle that isn't in line with your or anyone else's perception of God deny God to continue that lifestyle - a lifestyle I assume you consider to be a sinful or more sinful than yours since we're all sinners, right? - is a common misconception among the faithful. I do not deny the existence of a God or creator or higher power or supreme being; I just deny your interpretation of God because the evidence against such a being has convinced me that this particular interpretation isn't true and isn't moral.

 

[the_human_being]

Yes and if one's choice of lifestyle is such that it offends God, then they deem it more expedient to simply deny the existence of God and continue in their lifestyle.

My lifestyle wouldn't offend 'god.'
WHICH/WITCH god btw?
There just aren't any gods in evidence.
In fact, what's evident, is that man created gods, Tens of thousands of them. Many contradictory ones.

But do chime in once you have some evidence for god/gods. IOW, Never.
+

Trying to convince me or trying to convince yourself? What I believe is my own responsibility..

 

[JakeStarkey]

What argument have I started

Well, perhaps argument is a poor choice in words but you are being ridiculed by the non-believers and God deniers.

That is to be exspected. The word God scares many

Yes and if one's choice of lifestyle is such that it offends God, then they deem it more expedient to simply deny the existence of God and continue in their lifestyle.

All of which is true, bu the OP is not a salvation issue.

I was responding to a question put to me by the OP.

OK.

 

[the_human_being]

I agree. I suppose one can only assume the OP awakened this a.m. wanting to stir up an argument that has been argued over for years and years already.

What argument have I started

Well, perhaps argument is a poor choice in words but you are being ridiculed by the non-believers and God deniers.

That is to be exspected. The word God scares many

Yes and if one's choice of lifestyle is such that it offends God, then they deem it more expedient to simply deny the existence of God and continue in their lifestyle.

The idea that atheists have some lifestyle that isn't in line with your or anyone else's perception of God deny God to continue that lifestyle - a lifestyle I assume you consider to be a sinful or more sinful than yours since we're all sinners, right? - is a common misconception among the faithful. I do not deny the existence of a God or creator or higher power or supreme being; I just deny your interpretation of God because the evidence against such a being has convinced me that this particular interpretation isn't possible, isn't true, and isn't moral.

Then you should be totally at peace with yourself and your beliefs. Congratulations.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

What argument have I started

Well, perhaps argument is a poor choice in words but you are being ridiculed by the non-believers and God deniers.

That is to be exspected. The word God scares many

Yes and if one's choice of lifestyle is such that it offends God, then they deem it more expedient to simply deny the existence of God and continue in their lifestyle.

The idea that atheists have some lifestyle that isn't in line with your or anyone else's perception of God deny God to continue that lifestyle - a lifestyle I assume you consider to be a sinful or more sinful than yours since we're all sinners, right? - is a common misconception among the faithful. I do not deny the existence of a God or creator or higher power or supreme being; I just deny your interpretation of God because the evidence against such a being has convinced me that this particular interpretation isn't possible, isn't true, and isn't moral.

Then you should be totally at peace with yourself and your beliefs. Congratulations.

Thanks, but I am not and continue to challenge myself and my beliefs, such as they are and are not, everyday. As should we all. There is always room for improvement and change is inevitable.

 

[abu afak]

Yes and if one's choice of lifestyle is such that it offends God, then they deem it more expedient to simply deny the existence of God and continue in their lifestyle.

My lifestyle wouldn't offend 'god.'
WHICH/WITCH god btw?
There just aren't any gods in evidence.
In fact, what's evident, is that man created gods, Tens of thousands of them. Many contradictory ones.

But do chime in once you have some evidence for god/gods. IOW, Never.
+

And if proof were there you'd do what?

I didn't even demand proof, but merely evidence after all these years.
Still NONE.
(as opposed to, ie, Evolution, which has Overwhelming evidence from many disciplines)

But here's Part of a post I've made about 10 times.

"...so in light of:
ALL the "I dunno it must be god"S on which we have a verdict being Bogus...
The incredible Lack of evidenceS of any gods...
The Many "only" "gods" which negate each other, and make the vast majority of other contradictory ones false...
I can say, for all Practical purposes (in addition to mere lack of belief), "there is no god", fully realizing Proving that Negative is Impossible.

But if the stars all line up overhead one night and form the word "JESUS", or ANY other Evidence comes to light, I would be glad - even 'thrilled' - to change my mind.
Until and unless, Atheism is the most logical position."​

So I would indeed be thrilling for me to see/understand the 'creator' and his creations.
But that aint gonna happen and, somewhere, all but the truly deluded/indoctrinated know it.
+

 

[the_human_being]

Here's my point on lifestyle: We all are sinners. Even Christians sin. Now, if I am in an adulterous situation and recognize that that lifestyle is a sin and an affront to God yet I continue in that adulterous situation and harden my heart against God in order to remain in that adulterous situation because I enjoy it, then I have no forgiveness until I actually repent and cease that adulterous lifestyle.

 

[the_human_being]

Yes and if one's choice of lifestyle is such that it offends God, then they deem it more expedient to simply deny the existence of God and continue in their lifestyle.

My lifestyle wouldn't offend 'god.'
WHICH/WITCH god btw?
There just aren't any gods in evidence.
In fact, what's evident, is that man created gods, Tens of thousands of them. Many contradictory ones.

But do chime in once you have some evidence for god/gods. IOW, Never.
+

And if proof were there you'd do what?

I didn't even demand proof, but merely evidence after all these years.
Still NONE.
(as opposed to, ie, Evolution, which has Overwhelming evidence from many disciplines)

But here's Part of a post I've made about 10 times.

"...so in light of:
ALL the "I dunno it must be god"S on which we have a verdict being Bogus...
The incredible Lack of evidenceS of any gods...
The Many "only" "gods" which negate each other, and make the vast majority of other contradictory ones false...
I can say, for all Practical purposes (in addition to mere lack of belief), "there is no god", fully realizing Proving that Negative is Impossible.

But if the stars all line up overhead one night and form the word "JESUS", or ANY other Evidence comes to light, I would be glad - even 'thrilled' - to change my mind.
Until and unless, Atheism is the most logical position."​

So I would indeed be thrilling for me to see/understand the 'creator' and his creations.
But that aint gonna happen and, somewhere, all but the truly deluded/indoctrinated know it.
+

Actually, you still would not accept it. The proof as you demand has been right in front of you for all this time had you had eyes to see.