ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE ( In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil) ~ Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology).
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their vital structures, organs, and reproductive system hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site.
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe works doesn't mean there's no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the apparatus exists to direct the formation of more cells, but how did that first cell originate? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not arrange or produce. If a variation survives then that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
GENETIC INFORMATION COULDN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
So a mutation that makes you have more hair isnt benefitial in the colder regions of earth? The answear is yes.. it is benefitial which is why the mammoths evolved into elephants when they travelled south because you can barely breathe with such fur on.
About the billions of random mutuations.. do you mean the accumilated or per some particular being in their lifetime?
Random fact: The modern day homo sapiens mutate aprox 100 times in their lifetime
there is no correct mutation. thousand of mutations happen at nature every day and million have happend to a specie since it first appeared. some mutations are bad and they fail resolving to a mutated gene to disappear after a while. Same goes for mutations that are benefitial making the specie stronger those stay with the specie cause as stronger they reproduce more.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Do you know that genetic mutations made you not look like a super model and there is a high risk for your genes to die out in a few generations. You can tell your children this too if you have any.
I can't believe people are trying to prove a theory about a nature that hates them! Open your minds and stop giving that no-god s#it. There is a GOD for those who believe in him.
Read about scientist like Bruce Lipton, Piotr Gariaev, Greg Braden or others and you'll see how stupid is this Darwin PR.
Hmmm...maybe you might want to learn some critical thinking skills, Ireel...
Try this on for size...
We have 5 THOUSAND years' worth of descriptions of horses, crocs, spiders, and Man. In those 5K years, why haven't there been any mutations noted? Why haven't there been any new species?
Answer? Evolution would go against the Law of Entropy. The system is in place, and CANNOT be changed. It can only be kept in order by outside input. We aren't that input. Think about it...
"why haven't there been any mutations noted in horses, crocs, spiders, and man in 5k years?"
5k years is not much, and you are looking at the wrong animals. Crocodiles haven't changed in 200 million years. Also, the differences needed to actually notice them in "descriptions" from 5k years ago (we're talking cave drawings here) are actually quite substantial. Check out the banana fly from Hawaii for recent, documented evolution.
Please explain why evolution would go against entropy
Simple? The only reason evolution "seems" so simple is because people like this give ludicrous examples of how these mutations could add more wings or better eyes. Have we all forgotten that mutations are harmful to life? They have done MANY experiments on fruit flies by mutating their DNA. Have they ever seen one change into a butterfly or dragonfly or moth or anything .. absolutely not! It doesn't happen.
And if it happened it would actually be an argument AGAINST Evolution, as something like that truly requires Divine Intervention.
What has been observed in the fruitflies however, is that mutated creatures can dominate "normal" creatures. I saw one such experiment once where a color mutation eventually reached the entire population.
As for developing additional wings, it's clearly explained by duplication errors. Several "switch" genes have been identified that will trigger the growth of for instance legs or eyes. Where these switches appear in the genetic blueprint controls where the body parts are grown.
So simple mutations can have dramatic effects - if they change the nature of these switch genes.
if one fruit fly had these mutations and passed the genes on wouldn't the mutations eventual be absorbed into the fruit fly population hence making no lasting change.
I love how creationists are always blabbing "Evolution Versus Creationism!" Scientists never put anything "VS anything, unless its observation 1 vs. observation 1. Right on with the explanation, though.
It's amazing how simple evolution is. Yet many still believe the creation story to be true, dispite all the double talk, ignoring obvious inconsistencies, and necessity to explain thing away by the need of "faith."
Evolution is simple? Since you are so knowledgeable, explain to me how a single eukaryotic cell becomes each species on the planet. Since it's so simple, it shouldn't take you too long to explain. To anyone that isn't as brilliant as RedCeltic, learn about evolution before you try to argue for it. Don't think that humans evolved from apes. If that is the extent of your learning, do a little more studying.
Haha.. I don't see any need to be hostile to me. I wasn't atempting to sound superior. I did major in anthropology in college... yet I was really saying it's simple in comparison to the hocus pokus of the Bible.
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THE SCIENTIFIC CASE AGAINST ATHEISM: Please read this Internet article of mine published in Russia's English Pravda. It will be a real eye-opener for all who think belief in a Creator is merely subjective blind faith. Also read my article, LIFE ON MARS NO SURPRISE ( In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which spewed life-containing dirt and rocks (meteors) into outer space. Mars may literally have millions tons of Earth soil) ~ Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology).
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy (even in an open system). Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EINSTEIN CONFIRMED that space and time are just as physical as matter. That's why space and time can be altered by gravity, and space produces particles. Einstein's equations show that the universe couldn’t be eternal. It had a beginning. Einstein believed, because of science, in the existence of God behind the origin and order of the universe. He didn't believe in a personal God like Christians do, but he did believe science pointed to the existence of an all powerful and intelligent Creator
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their vital structures, organs, and reproductive system hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read articles by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation Research site.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
EXPLAINING HOW AN AIRPLANE WORKS doesn't mean no one made the airplane. Explaining how life and the universe works doesn't mean there's no Maker behind them. Natural laws explain how the order in the universe works, but mere undirected natural laws can't explain the origin of that order. Once you have a complete and living cell then the apparatus exists to direct the formation of more cells, but how did that first cell originate? Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL SELECTION IS NO BLIND WATCHMAKER because it can only "select," not arrange or produce. If a variation survives then that's called being "selected." Natural selection operates only once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't have been involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it alive! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged-pawed dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION COULDN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! Also, "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) in nature is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument of a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpretation of a structure as being flawed or useless.
Mogley52 5 months ago
Can any one name at least one benifitial mutation? I really would like to know at least.
Elestareus 2 years ago
Nylon-eating bacteria.
justforflag2 1 year ago
natural selections makes sense....but BILLIONS of RANDOM and BENEFICIAL mutations? nah!
MaskofMystery 3 years ago
So a mutation that makes you have more hair isnt benefitial in the colder regions of earth? The answear is yes.. it is benefitial which is why the mammoths evolved into elephants when they travelled south because you can barely breathe with such fur on.
About the billions of random mutuations.. do you mean the accumilated or per some particular being in their lifetime?
Random fact: The modern day homo sapiens mutate aprox 100 times in their lifetime
KarinMikazuki 3 years ago
Well, say that 1% of those mutations is beneficial. Natural seleciton picks THAT ONE PERCENT, the rest die. Got it?
justforflag2 1 year ago
there is no correct mutation. thousand of mutations happen at nature every day and million have happend to a specie since it first appeared. some mutations are bad and they fail resolving to a mutated gene to disappear after a while. Same goes for mutations that are benefitial making the specie stronger those stay with the specie cause as stronger they reproduce more.
puffpuffdragon 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Do you know that genetic mutations made you not look like a super model and there is a high risk for your genes to die out in a few generations. You can tell your children this too if you have any.
I can't believe people are trying to prove a theory about a nature that hates them! Open your minds and stop giving that no-god s#it. There is a GOD for those who believe in him.
Read about scientist like Bruce Lipton, Piotr Gariaev, Greg Braden or others and you'll see how stupid is this Darwin PR.
chavdar84 3 years ago
What an idiot. I ask you to learn science! Please!
lreel16 3 years ago 5
Hmmm...maybe you might want to learn some critical thinking skills, Ireel...
Try this on for size...
We have 5 THOUSAND years' worth of descriptions of horses, crocs, spiders, and Man. In those 5K years, why haven't there been any mutations noted? Why haven't there been any new species?
Answer? Evolution would go against the Law of Entropy. The system is in place, and CANNOT be changed. It can only be kept in order by outside input. We aren't that input. Think about it...
cecilbdml 2 years ago
@cecilbdml
"why haven't there been any mutations noted in horses, crocs, spiders, and man in 5k years?"
5k years is not much, and you are looking at the wrong animals. Crocodiles haven't changed in 200 million years. Also, the differences needed to actually notice them in "descriptions" from 5k years ago (we're talking cave drawings here) are actually quite substantial. Check out the banana fly from Hawaii for recent, documented evolution.
Please explain why evolution would go against entropy
TamaThePeck 8 months ago
Right on man, right on
omgimontheinternet 4 years ago
HE'S QUITE FAT, ISN'T HE?!
Jambo234 4 years ago
Yes.
It didn't make his argument any less valid, though.
Damn fatty. Not that I care AT ALL.
7x5Blunt 4 years ago
Simple? The only reason evolution "seems" so simple is because people like this give ludicrous examples of how these mutations could add more wings or better eyes. Have we all forgotten that mutations are harmful to life? They have done MANY experiments on fruit flies by mutating their DNA. Have they ever seen one change into a butterfly or dragonfly or moth or anything .. absolutely not! It doesn't happen.
Midicmpsr 4 years ago
And if it happened it would actually be an argument AGAINST Evolution, as something like that truly requires Divine Intervention.
What has been observed in the fruitflies however, is that mutated creatures can dominate "normal" creatures. I saw one such experiment once where a color mutation eventually reached the entire population.
olavka 4 years ago
As for developing additional wings, it's clearly explained by duplication errors. Several "switch" genes have been identified that will trigger the growth of for instance legs or eyes. Where these switches appear in the genetic blueprint controls where the body parts are grown.
So simple mutations can have dramatic effects - if they change the nature of these switch genes.
olavka 4 years ago
i felt like I was watching "a clockwork orange"
limoguy42 4 years ago
if one fruit fly had these mutations and passed the genes on wouldn't the mutations eventual be absorbed into the fruit fly population hence making no lasting change.
bennotherock 5 years ago
I love how creationists are always blabbing "Evolution Versus Creationism!" Scientists never put anything "VS anything, unless its observation 1 vs. observation 1. Right on with the explanation, though.
paleeoguy 5 years ago 2
It's amazing how simple evolution is. Yet many still believe the creation story to be true, dispite all the double talk, ignoring obvious inconsistencies, and necessity to explain thing away by the need of "faith."
RedCeltic 5 years ago 2
Evolution is simple? Since you are so knowledgeable, explain to me how a single eukaryotic cell becomes each species on the planet. Since it's so simple, it shouldn't take you too long to explain. To anyone that isn't as brilliant as RedCeltic, learn about evolution before you try to argue for it. Don't think that humans evolved from apes. If that is the extent of your learning, do a little more studying.
thered0390 4 years ago
Haha.. I don't see any need to be hostile to me. I wasn't atempting to sound superior. I did major in anthropology in college... yet I was really saying it's simple in comparison to the hocus pokus of the Bible.
RedCeltic 4 years ago 2
"explain to me how a single eukaryotic cell becomes each species on the planet."
Thats easy, they didnt.. straw man arguement.
You wouldnt say a mammoth became an elephant either in the same way. Can you even comprehend the magnitude of the time in earth's history?
I bet not because i think you're a creationist and think the world is 6000 years old...
KarinMikazuki 3 years ago