Not Darwin's Law, it's God's Law.

[the_human_being]

.
evolution is circumstantial to its environment, the proximity of earth to the sun and is for the same reason not a creation but an inevitable reaction over time.

the creationist have nothing than life to exemplify creationist theory such as an inert sculpture similarly formed as living organisms that would verify creation rather than a circumstantial reaction.

.

correction:

creationism is NOT a scientific theory or even a theory

Evolution is a myth or a combination of myths depending upon which myth you wish to promote.

 

[Dante]

.
evolution is circumstantial to its environment, the proximity of earth to the sun and is for the same reason not a creation but an inevitable reaction over time.

the creationist have nothing than life to exemplify creationist theory such as an inert sculpture similarly formed as living organisms that would verify creation rather than a circumstantial reaction.

.

Do you even realize that the position of the earth to enable the support of life as we know it is in and of itself a mathematical impossibility? Actually, it is the evolutionists who have nothing to support how life began or even how your Big Bang came about except conjecture. You cannot explain how either mass or energy came from nothing.

improbability or impossibility?

 

[the_human_being]

You evolutionist really do need to get together and come up with ONE doctrine. You guys have so many different takes on your own theory it's impossible to follow all of them.

How many sects of christianity are there?

I have no idea and really don't care. All of them that I know of support that God is the creator, making all of them of one accord in this issue. You guys say it was a spontaneous creation of life, something crawled out of a cesspool of slime, it was a chemical creation of life which has never been duplicated in the finest of laboratories, a single asexual cell mutated and divided over billions and billions of years, and now whatever wild proposition you are now putting forth. It's totally ridiculous! Pick ONE please and stick with it.

God is a figment of the human imagination. That does not disprove a creation or creator. but YOUR God is make believe/

Then who was the Creator? Does He have a name in your religion? The Great Spirit? The Great Crocodile? Zeus? Al Sharpton?

Who? an accident can create something. I drop a vial of something and it mixes with something else to form something new. I did not create anything. Creation does not demand intent. An accident can create something new with no intent involved

Can? Can? Maybe? Suppose? This is what you have? Cheeze!!

 

[Dante]

.
evolution is circumstantial to its environment, the proximity of earth to the sun and is for the same reason not a creation but an inevitable reaction over time.

the creationist have nothing than life to exemplify creationist theory such as an inert sculpture similarly formed as living organisms that would verify creation rather than a circumstantial reaction.

.

correction:

creationism is NOT a scientific theory or even a theory

Evolution is a myth or a combination of myths depending upon which myth you wish to promote.

scientific theories are NOT myth.

now you have exposed yourself

Note: keeper thread post

 

[the_human_being]

.
evolution is circumstantial to its environment, the proximity of earth to the sun and is for the same reason not a creation but an inevitable reaction over time.

the creationist have nothing than life to exemplify creationist theory such as an inert sculpture similarly formed as living organisms that would verify creation rather than a circumstantial reaction.

.

Do you even realize that the position of the earth to enable the support of life as we know it is in and of itself a mathematical impossibility? Actually, it is the evolutionists who have nothing to support how life began or even how your Big Bang came about except conjecture. You cannot explain how either mass or energy came from nothing.

improbability or impossibility?

Impossibility.

 

[Dante]

How many sects of christianity are there?

I have no idea and really don't care. All of them that I know of support that God is the creator, making all of them of one accord in this issue. You guys say it was a spontaneous creation of life, something crawled out of a cesspool of slime, it was a chemical creation of life which has never been duplicated in the finest of laboratories, a single asexual cell mutated and divided over billions and billions of years, and now whatever wild proposition you are now putting forth. It's totally ridiculous! Pick ONE please and stick with it.

God is a figment of the human imagination. That does not disprove a creation or creator. but YOUR God is make believe/

Then who was the Creator? Does He have a name in your religion? The Great Spirit? The Great Crocodile? Zeus? Al Sharpton?

Who? an accident can create something. I drop a vial of something and it mixes with something else to form something new. I did not create anything. Creation does not demand intent. An accident can create something new with no intent involved

Can? Can? Maybe? Suppose? This is what you have? Cheeze!!

accidents have created new things. Google it

 

[Dante]

.
evolution is circumstantial to its environment, the proximity of earth to the sun and is for the same reason not a creation but an inevitable reaction over time.

the creationist have nothing than life to exemplify creationist theory such as an inert sculpture similarly formed as living organisms that would verify creation rather than a circumstantial reaction.

.

Do you even realize that the position of the earth to enable the support of life as we know it is in and of itself a mathematical impossibility? Actually, it is the evolutionists who have nothing to support how life began or even how your Big Bang came about except conjecture. You cannot explain how either mass or energy came from nothing.

improbability or impossibility?

Impossibility.

wrong

 

[the_human_being]

.
evolution is circumstantial to its environment, the proximity of earth to the sun and is for the same reason not a creation but an inevitable reaction over time.

the creationist have nothing than life to exemplify creationist theory such as an inert sculpture similarly formed as living organisms that would verify creation rather than a circumstantial reaction.

.

correction:

creationism is NOT a scientific theory or even a theory

Evolution is a myth or a combination of myths depending upon which myth you wish to promote.

scientific theories are NOT myth.

now you have exposed yourself

Note: keeper thread post

Anything that is a mathematical impossibility is a myth. Evolution is a myth.

 

[the_human_being]

I have no idea and really don't care. All of them that I know of support that God is the creator, making all of them of one accord in this issue. You guys say it was a spontaneous creation of life, something crawled out of a cesspool of slime, it was a chemical creation of life which has never been duplicated in the finest of laboratories, a single asexual cell mutated and divided over billions and billions of years, and now whatever wild proposition you are now putting forth. It's totally ridiculous! Pick ONE please and stick with it.

God is a figment of the human imagination. That does not disprove a creation or creator. but YOUR God is make believe/

Then who was the Creator? Does He have a name in your religion? The Great Spirit? The Great Crocodile? Zeus? Al Sharpton?

Who? an accident can create something. I drop a vial of something and it mixes with something else to form something new. I did not create anything. Creation does not demand intent. An accident can create something new with no intent involved

Can? Can? Maybe? Suppose? This is what you have? Cheeze!!

accidents have created new things. Google it

That's it? That's your argument? A freaking accident. Cheeze!! Science fiction.

 

[the_human_being]

.
evolution is circumstantial to its environment, the proximity of earth to the sun and is for the same reason not a creation but an inevitable reaction over time.

the creationist have nothing than life to exemplify creationist theory such as an inert sculpture similarly formed as living organisms that would verify creation rather than a circumstantial reaction.

.

Do you even realize that the position of the earth to enable the support of life as we know it is in and of itself a mathematical impossibility? Actually, it is the evolutionists who have nothing to support how life began or even how your Big Bang came about except conjecture. You cannot explain how either mass or energy came from nothing.

improbability or impossibility?

Impossibility.

wrong

Then figure it out. Do the math yourself and prove it for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

 

[Dante]

.
evolution is circumstantial to its environment, the proximity of earth to the sun and is for the same reason not a creation but an inevitable reaction over time.

the creationist have nothing than life to exemplify creationist theory such as an inert sculpture similarly formed as living organisms that would verify creation rather than a circumstantial reaction.

.

Do you even realize that the position of the earth to enable the support of life as we know it is in and of itself a mathematical impossibility? Actually, it is the evolutionists who have nothing to support how life began or even how your Big Bang came about except conjecture. You cannot explain how either mass or energy came from nothing.

improbability or impossibility?

Impossibility.

wrong

Then figure it out. Do the math yourself and prove it for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

mathematical impossibility? you do know that nuts?

 

[the_human_being]

There's very little difference between an atheist and an evolutionist, but I do admit there is some little difference, The atheist readily professes there is no God nor a Satan. This is fine with Satan. Satan could care less just as long as the atheist keeps on bashing God and he has the atheist's soul firmly within his grasp.

The evolutionist on the other hand, is really not comfortable totally denying the existence of God and Satan. The evolutionist recognizes that if he denies God, then God will deny him. He wavers and waffles. The evolutionist only denies that God had anything at all to do with creation.

Both are toast.

I believe in God and in evolution. I am definitely not an atheist.

God is your belief. Evolution is a scientific theory you accept

Says who? You? I work in a scientific field. I also have a lot of common sense. I am an engineer as was God himself an engineer. I use science in my work but I also have a place for God. I design and build. I have an intelligence which enables me to work out complex mathematical equations and design complicated things. I have enough common sense to realize that my own brain had to be designed by an intelligence far greater than my own.

 

[the_human_being]

Do you even realize that the position of the earth to enable the support of life as we know it is in and of itself a mathematical impossibility? Actually, it is the evolutionists who have nothing to support how life began or even how your Big Bang came about except conjecture. You cannot explain how either mass or energy came from nothing.

improbability or impossibility?

Impossibility.

wrong

Then figure it out. Do the math yourself and prove it for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

mathematical impossibility? you do know that nuts?

If it is then mathematics itself is nuts. Go ahead and work it out. You'll see for yourself.

 

[the_human_being]

improbability or impossibility?

Impossibility.

wrong

Then figure it out. Do the math yourself and prove it for yourself. Don't take my word for it.

mathematical impossibility? you do know that nuts?

If it is then mathematics itself is nuts. Go ahead and work it out. You'll see for yourself.

I'll give you time to work it out. I'm off here for the night. I'll check back after church tomorrow and see if you've got it worked out by then.

 

[Dante]

Funny,

The mathematical model produced by Prof Andrew Watson suggests that the odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low because of the time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve and the remaining life span of the Earth. Structurally complex and intelligent life evolved late on Earth and this process might be governed by a small number of very difficult evolutionary steps.​

yet some people think for the earth to enable the support of life as we know it is in and of itself a mathematical impossibility?

 

[Boss]

The Bible is not ambiguous about evolution. It says God ripped a rib out of Adam and Presto! Eve. God created the world in what was it, 6 days?

God ripped a rib out of Adam and Presto! Eve.
Did several Bible searches and didn't find this passage, which version are you using?
New Atheist Puke Version?

Again... NO THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY THAT.

A yom can be anything? How convenient.

It's not about 'convenience' as much as translation from Hebrew to English. The original used "yom" to define these "days" you're talking about. In Hebrew, they used the term "yom" to describe 147 different periods of time. It depends on the context of how it is used. Again, the evidence of this is the creation of the sun paradox. You can't have 3 earthly days pass without a sun. Each of those "days" might have been billions of years. God is beyond time.

Now.... here's the thing... IF God wanted to create the world in 6 days, or even .00000006 seconds.... God could do that, and at the same time, give you a physical sensation of it having only been 4.5 billion years. There is no limitation on how God can make things appear in the physical universe.

If the Bible doesn't make sense it doesn't make sense. God's perspective? To convey to people what God did?

Fantastic! The reason the Bible makes little sense isn't because of faith or religion -- it makes no sense because the people who wrote it lived during an era when the science of the day knew very little to what we know

And yet, we still don't really know anything.

The Bible doesn't make sense to you, and I get that. It doesn't make sense to me in many areas, but to a lot of people, it does make sense and it is their religious faith. Perhaps it makes better sense to them because they go to Bible Study classes and dig down deep to explore what is being said? Whereas, you dismiss it because you really don't want it to make sense.

 

[Dante]

The Bible is not ambiguous about evolution. It says God ripped a rib out of Adam and Presto! Eve. God created the world in what was it, 6 days?

God ripped a rib out of Adam and Presto! Eve.
Did several Bible searches and didn't find this passage, which version are you using?
New Atheist Puke Version?

Again... NO THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY THAT.

A yom can be anything? How convenient.

It's not about 'convenience' as much as translation from Hebrew to English. The original used "yom" to define these "days" you're talking about. In Hebrew, they used the term "yom" to describe 147 different periods of time. It depends on the context of how it is used. Again, the evidence of this is the creation of the sun paradox. You can't have 3 earthly days pass without a sun. Each of those "days" might have been billions of years. God is beyond time.

Now.... here's the thing... IF God wanted to create the world in 6 days, or even .00000006 seconds.... God could do that, and at the same time, give you a physical sensation of it having only been 4.5 billion years. There is no limitation on how God can make things appear in the physical universe.

If the Bible doesn't make sense it doesn't make sense. God's perspective? To convey to people what God did?

Fantastic! The reason the Bible makes little sense isn't because of faith or religion -- it makes no sense because the people who wrote it lived during an era when the science of the day knew very little to what we know

And yet, we still don't really know anything.

The Bible doesn't make sense to you, and I get that. It doesn't make sense to me in many areas, but to a lot of people, it does make sense and it is their religious faith. Perhaps it makes better sense to them because they go to Bible Study classes and dig down deep to explore what is being said? Whereas, you dismiss it because you really don't want it to make sense.

I hung around seminarians in a past life time. They were orthodox Greek and others. Please do not give me Protestant Bible study nonsense

 

[Boss]

why is it so hard to accept that Evolution is how God created living things?

It's not in the bible

Not true, the Bible is ambiguous regarding how God created things.

The problem is, evolution doesn't explain creation. Evolution is something that happens to the things that are already created and existing. Life comes from creation and evolution comes from life.

Hmmm...why can't others who believe in Creationism separate the two like that? Instead they attack evolution, which you say comes from life, with creation, from which life comes. Have you also done that?

I can't speak for why others do things or make other arguments. However, I see plenty of Atheists trying to argue Evolution over Creation as if that's the argument. One doesn't negate the other, they are about two entirely different things, in my opinion

Two entirely different things: one is a scientific theory. The other is a religious based bed time story

Nope. The scientific theory of abiogenic process is not supported by the Law of Biogenesis. If the theory is ever proven it will forever replace Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis. I won't dwell on the fact there are currently 47 variations of theory on abiogenesis, some contradicting others. So what you have is Junk Science based on nothingness. Science Fiction.

Creation involves ever-present human spirituality.

 

[Dante]

It's not in the bible

Not true, the Bible is ambiguous regarding how God created things.

The problem is, evolution doesn't explain creation. Evolution is something that happens to the things that are already created and existing. Life comes from creation and evolution comes from life.

Hmmm...why can't others who believe in Creationism separate the two like that? Instead they attack evolution, which you say comes from life, with creation, from which life comes. Have you also done that?

I can't speak for why others do things or make other arguments. However, I see plenty of Atheists trying to argue Evolution over Creation as if that's the argument. One doesn't negate the other, they are about two entirely different things, in my opinion

Two entirely different things: one is a scientific theory. The other is a religious based bed time story

Nope. The scientific theory of abiogenic process is not supported by the Law of Biogenesis. If the theory is ever proven it will forever replace Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis. I won't dwell on the fact there are currently 47 variations of theory on abiogenesis, some contradicting others. So what you have is Junk Science based on nothingness. Science Fiction.

Creation involves ever-present human spirituality.

\
this is so nuts it's almost unbelievable

 

[BreezeWood]

Creation involves ever-present human spirituality.

.
as pointed out that is the flaw for the theory of creationism, there are no examples of inert creations similar in complexity to living beings, sculptures as would be if creationism were the origin of life - as representations of complex structures on planets where life is not possible.

.