@pinayako97 No, this song was written by Stuart Townsend and Keith Getty. It has been covered by many. The Newsboys recorded this long before Owl City.
Definite influences of Reformed theology such as Penal Substitution and some form or other of Eternal Security, but not anything, I think, that couldn't with some effort also be interperted in an orthodox Christian way, I think, with the possible exception of "no guilt in life."
@lincomen Im not a Bible expert so no, Im still maturing as well, but Gods love for a person, whether theyre the biggest of sinners or the smallest, will never change
@lincomen NO WHERE. please read my reply to "JayJMusicDestination"
God is perfectly displeased with the sinner. The sinner hates God, disobeys God, is ungrateful to God for all His favors, would kill God if he could. He is dead in trespasses and sins. (Eph.2:1) “The thoughts and intents of his heart are only evil continually.” (Gen.6:5) He is the slave of sin (John 8:34), the servant of the devil, (Eph.2:2)
@eaglrombie13 Thanks for your Biblical support. So few refuse to make a stand for the truth of God's word, leaving nothing but a bunch of sinning Christians running around spreading lies about God. 1 John 3:9 "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." I live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, and that makes me his son - not a sinner. "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid."
@JayJMusicDestination No sir, you - along with the other two commenters above - are biblically incorect. God is perfectly displeased with the sinner. The sinner hates God, disobeys God, is ungrateful to God for all His favors, would kill God if he could. He is dead in trespasses and sins. (Eph.2:1) “The thoughts and intents of his heart are only evil continually.” (Gen.6:5) He is the slave of sin (John 8:34), the servant of the devil, (Eph.2:2)
@eaglrombie13 Im not saying that God overlooks the sin and pretends like theyre perfect, He is of course displeased with the sinner. But His love for them never EVER changes
@JayJMusicDestination Jay, I'm sure your very sincere and might even love God and want to follow him. But I've gotta call you out on this clique that your clinging to. God has love for his bride, the elect, the church. Those who he predestined before time began, who HE chose against their will.... THOSE people, God extends grace that we don't deserve to.However, his enemy's, who's WRATH still abides on them, are not shown grace but punished rightfully for what they deserve.
@JayJMusicDestination God has NO complacent love for the sinner at all. He has a perfect hatred of him, “I hate them with a perfect hatred.” (Ps. 139:22)
@eaglrombie13 As much as it would make me happy to hear the Bible quote God's word as hateful in Ps. 139:22, in fairness and at cost to my argument, I think the Bible does not. It is unclear who speaks, "I hate them with a perfect hatred." It is possible that God interjected here, but the rest of that passage is spoken to God, not by him.
It is possible at least, but likely even that you are misunderstanding the verse.
If you however, think that I have made an eisegesis in my exegesis of the script, take a peak at the verse in context :) Start from the begining of Psalm 139 it's a small chapter :] cross reference to
@doubleKlutch ...Continuing from my second reply 1/17/12
As Paul wrote to the Christian Church in Ephesians, it would bring you clarity to read the entire chapter of Ephesians 2 :)
By the way, if you would like to have an intellectual conversation about God, I would love to do so with you, but it would probably be best to continue via Private message's due to the character limit we have here in the comments section :/
@eaglrombie13 I don't do IMs. There is only one audience member, and while you, for example, may be far too entrenched to ever be able to escape the mind-prison that the church locked your younger self in, others less unfortunate may benefit from the dialog in this public forum regardless of which of us is mistaken.
I can't draw any connection between Eph2 and the identity of the speaker in Ps 139.22.
139.22 still seems clearly spoken to God, not by him, just as 139.21 is.
@doubleKlutch O, I agree whole heartedly - there is much fruit to be reaped from dialogues like this (espically being public) The limited space is VERY constricting though.. The Church hasn't locked me in - God changed my heart :] I think you completely missed the point. We both agree that the one penning is the psalmist. The POINT however, is that He hates sinners PERFECTLY. Insinuating there is a way to perfectly hate sinners. The question is-does God also? (Continuing on next..)
@eaglrombie13 The answer is YES! We find his holy and just wrath revealed in (but definitally not limited to) the following passages; Amos 3:1-2, Duet. 32:32-42, Ps. 5:4-5, Ps. 31:5-6, Heb. 1:8-9, Ps. 58:10-12... I somehow think though, that I've strayed from the argument you were presenting, mind making your position one more time please? :] Just so I can answer whatever question/argument you're posing. fair enough?
@eaglrombie13 My point to you was simply that Psalms 139.22 is a line of dialog belonging to a speaker, not an author. One speaker in a two-party conversation where the other party is listening to the spoken verse. Who recorded the line is unimportant in the context of the story. And my underlying point is that this speaker is not clearly, expressly identified.
If the speaker is the mortal party, then there is no grammar error.
If the speaker is God, as you claim, then the grammar is faulty.
@eaglrombie13 If you think there is another verse that shows God's hatred toward sinners, it would make me feel validated to know of it, so please post the verse.
That the Ps. 139.22 speaker claims to hate 'perfectly' is not proof that the speaker is Godly, but only that he makes exaggerated claims. Or maybe I misunderstood your argument.
I could claim to hate Religion 'perfectly', but that proves neither that I am God, nor that I can do anything perfectly.
@eaglrombie13 Or are you saying that God also spoke the verse of Psalms 139:21? In which case he is questioning himself and there is no other mortal identity present?
It seems clear that it is the same speaker continues from verse 21 to verse 22, no?
@eaglrombie13 That is David talking to God, David is the one doing the hating. John 3:16 should be a verse you know. For God so loved the WHOLE world. Please do not twist the truth. God loves all men, but hates sin.
@JayJMusicDestination Still can't show me a verse in the BIble for that - so stop spreading lies! Read this : 1 John 3:9 "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." Now that's in the Bible!
@MrFancySchmancyPants I have too heard ppl say :(that but it's not true only man's lies, there is only one sin that God will never forgive deniying him and saying his works are of the devil's..... if anything, gays make him sad not angry.
....no guilt in life, no fear in death, this is the power of Christ in me, from lifes first cry to final breath, JESUS commands my destiny!!!!!!!! Like if you agree!
Even if God is just a dream & not reality who are we hurting?
Christianity gives people hope. The idea behind Christianity is this: life has ups and downs and nobody is perfect, but those who trust Jesus can monitor themselves better and can tough out hard times with less dificulty knowing that Christ has been in the same situations except 10x worse. So again I ask you: who are we hurting & why can't you leave us alone?
@faith4monster Do you really believe that mass Religion is harmless when condoms are banned in pandemic Africa because a Religious leader says so? Could the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be what it is today, without the US Christian support? Would the Iraqi mess of a war be possible without our Religious divide?
You want a peaceful, tolerant, personal philosophy with Jesus, fine. But can following that sacred book in it's literal entirety result in anything but joining a destructive collective?
@doubleKlutch These are not problems of misinterpreting a peaceful Religion, these are the results of KNOWING that your side is truly and divinely right, and all other's are the enemy of God. There is no other outcome from that perspective. With a Religious gap, no compromise can be had, because compromise implies admitting an error, and Religions are never erroneous. World peace is literally impossible because of 'peaceful' religions.
For His Name shall be written in stone upon the hearts of the chosen and His voice shall be known to their ears. And those who dwell in darkness shall not hear Him nor head His call! Thus shall His flock be gathered! For God speaks to His children through their hearts and calls them by name known only to Him and them! Amen!
Why bother wasting your breath? Be at peace and Glorify the Kingdom
GUYS! This whole debate is worthless! It says that if a non-believer will not accept what you have to say then you must drop the subject! Some people believe in a crazy thing like evolution and as I can see some of my fellow believers agree with me that it is not true that God created the universe. And if anyone here has a problem with what we believe quit commenting on a video that is MEANT FOR US! This song isn't for nonbelievers its for the church so we should all just drop it.
@Davidstan2 Well, considering what blips of what normal people call "society" I've seen (just take a look at Lady Gaga music videos), I'm pretty glad that I am NOT blinded by it. Instead I turn around and /choose/ to not see it. I am blinded by the glory of God.
If there was no reformation and Natalie Grant wrote this song, people would say "Beautiful song kid, but no kidding." Of Course it is by Christ alone, but He acts through the stuff of earth called sacraments.(Take this bread and eat of it, this is my body) Everyone truly knows we can't save ourselves, neither Mary nor priests, saints, popes, nor even reformers like Luther ,Calvin Zwingli etc, I might add.
500 years later the "alones" are still touted even in song, so I think the answer is that, I suspect the writer may have not purposely been trying to poke the Catholic Church in the eye, but her lyrics are deeply steeped in her theology which by definition has to continue to protest.
So it's just that Christ uses the agency He established called The Church to pour his grace down upon his people. The reformers needed to separate themselves from this authority and "protest." Thus "Christ alone," "Grace alone" (which of course we believe) faith alone, scripture alone (which we don't entirely believe) became the mantra.
So they say we are saved by works, by membership, by prayers to saints, by priest's intercession, by indulgences etc, not realizing that we as Catholics of course believe that it is only by Christ alone that we can be saved. However, He gave men, priests, power to forgive sins, consecrate the Eucharist, baptize etc.
@GutenbergBible forgive me if I am misunderstanding your comments, but you seem to be very inaccurately labeling Protestants. We Protestants believe that Christ is the only One who saves, so I strongly disagree with what you say about that. In addition, I must say that many Catholics (I must be careful not to generalize, although you certainly did) worship Mary and/or the Pope which is evil. Mary was just a woman who bore Yeshua, she is not God and is not holy more than you or I.
@GutenbergBible I also just want to add that all Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant are to be united as one body, so I think it's important that it's not a fight of Protestants vs Catholics, but that we put aside our small differences and recognize that we are alike in that we all are saved by the Blood of the Lamb.
@BlindedByTheSun666 It would certainly be helpful if you didn't spread falsehoods about the Church like "Catholics worhip mary and the pope." Fair enough?
@GutenbergBible I didn't say that ALL catholics do, but there are many who do.. And Worship doesn't necessarily mean that they say "Praise Mary, Glory to Mary", it could be having a statue of Mary inside a church. That is worship and God does not like it, and it is a fact that SOME Catholic churches have a statue Mary, or that Catholic people have such at their house.
@GutenbergBible And in addition, YOU were the one who spread falsehoods about the Protestant faith: "So they say we are saved by works, by membership, by prayers to saints, by priest's intercession, by indulgences etc" ... Where did that come from?? That is the falsehood, so don't tell me that I'm spreading falsehoods. What I said was facts, applying to SOME people, and what you said what downright incorrect.
As you know, non-Catholic Christians, particularly to justify their break from Catholicism needed to paint the Church's doctrines in a dark light. Surely any religion that proposes we are saved through anything but Christ is wrong and evil!
the idea of "In Christ Alone" is most likely written as a subconscious response to a mis-understanding and perhaps straw dog interpretation of Catholic belief.
@doubleKlutch Part 4: On the other hand, repeatable experiments do not support many of the claims darwinists propagate about the origin of species from a single cell, let alone non-organic material through random processes. Moreover, the statistical chances of getting something as complex as a single cell (which by the way darwin had no idea how complex it was) from chemicals though random change is next to nil.
@doubleKlutch Part 3:Another example is regarding the spread of pandemics. Biostatistics predict to a high degree how deceases spread and direct the medical industry and government into strategic planning agianst pandemics.
In genetics and genetic engeneering, combinatorics and graph theory are used. Moreover, repeatable experiments support the theories present.
@doubleKlutch Part 2:For example, the basis of chemistry is mollecular and nuclear interactions. You can reproduce chemical reactions in the lab to authenticate the claims of chemistry and the behaviour of atmos and subparticals can be predicted and explained to a high degree of accuracy by certain mathematical fields such as Lie Algebra and Quantum groups.
@doubleKlutch Part 1P: You miss-read my cmnt. I am claiming darwinism is scientifically unsound not evolution. i.e. that random natural selection brought about the variety of species from a simple cell, which in teurn came about by the same process from an mixture of non-organic chemical material. I say that because this theory lacks the support of the two basic tenants of any scientifically sound theory. 1) repeatable experiements that support the theory 2) mathematical base.
@chamzoful So you’re not talking about Evolution? Okay, then you must not be talking to me. Which ‘Darwinist’ are you addressing with your original comment? In the context of the current debate, it seems I’m the only one you’d be addressing, but I haven’t said anything about the origin of life or man-kind being born of a single cell.
I can’t figure out how your input on ‘Darwinism’ (a very poorly defined term) has any relevance to the current conversation.
@chamzoful So you’re not talking about Evolution? Okay, then you must not be talking to me. Which ‘Darwinist’ are you addressing with your original comment? In the context of the current debate, it seems I’m the only one you’d be addressing, but I haven’t said anything about the origin of life or man-kind being born of a single cell.
I can’t figure out how your input on ‘Darwinism’ (a very poorly defined term) has any relevance to the current conversation.
@chamzoful So you’re not talking about Evolution? Okay, then you must not be talking to me. Which ‘Darwinist’ are you addressing with your original comment? In the context of the current debate, it seems I’m the only one you’d be addressing, but I haven’t said anything about the origin of life or man-kind being born of a single cell.
I can’t figure out how your input on ‘Darwinism’ (a very poorly defined term) has any relevance to the current conversation.
@doubleKlutch I am talking about a special kind of evolution that is not scientific. something you seem to champion (species evolve into other species based on random selection). I showed you why this isn't scientific cuz it lacks repeatable experiments and a mathematical basis. I even used some fields you alleged to be usefull yet not validated by math& showed you otherwise.Yet you ignore all that and change the discussion.Seriously! What's more important than claimins this idea is unscientific
Calm down dude, I simply didn’t know how you defined ‘Evolution’ and ‘Darwinism’ (a loose term). Now I know who you are addressing.
How did I ‘change the discussion’? ‘Seriously!’
Of course many sciences have mathematical foundations, but that doesn’t make math foundations a requirement of science, especially regarding young fields (like Germ Theory in it’s infancy).
I’m not convinced that Evolution can’t be tested or observed repeatedly:
Every usefull scientific theory must be supported by a coherent mathematical system; like. Quantum mechanics, relativity, genetic biology,...etc. Darwinism has no coherent mathematical base to support it. The problem is that most people who believe it are mere hacks and not in the research field. So they throw jargon here and there to mask their BELIEF in the non-existence of an all-sustaining Creator. For most, It is more of a faith debate/propaganda and not a honest scientific debate.
@chamzoful So then the Pathogenic Theory of Medicine is useless?
Regarding the usefulness of Evolution:
talkorigins DOTorg/indexcc/CA/CA215.html
Including improvements in:
Desease and Pest control
Fisheries production
Streamlined Artificial Selection (Breeding)
“Biology without Evolution is Natural History.” “Teaching biology without evolution would be like teaching chemistry without the periodic table of the elements.”
...
As if Creationism is overflowing with useful applications...
Why can't people please enjoy the song, and why do atheists have to come here and ruin it for us? I would've expected more from a group of people that say that theyre "the most mature out of concepts"
God is creator thats true.....but he is an arrogant cocksucker who has no way to truly designate his power and real purposes....if He did then this world would remain perfect and his natural plan of peace, order, and thanksgiving for spiritual truths to be held constant would always flow over every part of society springing from the origins of the Garden of Eden.....well we now see that God is one fucked up lame ass fraud who cant get a bitch to save his life...praise gregory house
@drenkat87 the perfect world you speak of is waiting for us, but only the righteous may enter..this world (earth) was tainted by mans choice in the garden and now we all have to chose between God, and the world..those that choose Christ are allowed onto the new earth after hes destroyed satan and all his evil, we have to earn the perfect world by choosing Christ.
and i wont respond to anymore comments that refer to my savior that way so please..can we at least ACT like adults..
@drenkat87 WOW. just Wow I CANNOT belive you think that. It's our own fault this world isn't perfent anymore. God gave us our own free will and we ruined the perfect world he gave us.
@12sportfan noones beating on him..its a debate..and no i dont think thats correct..he said "I dont know" when asked where life started and that, among other things, would hint at him not believing in God..which is the focus of our little discussion ;)
@ndzoko thats correct..thats exactly what youve jumped into this conversation with.."No evidence. None !!" which is also why im guessing you jumped over here instead of continuing our conversation on the other page..but in any case..what colleges teach has nothing to do with what i believe..and what makes the biblical account of creation "stupid"? surely if one believes in any kind of supernatural being then the literal creation of the world through that being isnt far fetched?
@HustIeKing Creation is right; Once upon a time, a god, comming from god knows where, stepped out of the void. Said "POOF " and there was the whole universe, with it`s millions of galaxies, all millions of lightyears apart. And all this happened in a second OUT OF NOTHING. This magician should apply in Las Vegas for a job.
"once upon a time: there was nothing...and then ever so suddenly BOOM..out of NOTHING..the universe..'BECAME'...no magician needed.."
it makes more sense to think of God as "eternal" or "always there" then it does to think a random of explosion of NOTHING started an evolutionary chain of events that put humans smack dab in the middle of a war between what is good..and what is not..think about that..
@BobSalmonSmacky you are right in that satan is your father. All who are not in the family of God are in satans. But you don't have to stay there and i pray you don't.
@BobSalmonSmacky i can not believe your statement...i will pray for you. i promise. for i do not want you to go anywhere but heaven and neither does anyone else.
guys, debating evolution when we have this song playing is ridiculous. Evolution can be 100% true and change precisely nothing about the Bible. It makes Genesis 1 figurative, not literal, which many Christians think is the case anyway. Who cares? God loves people who believe in evolution and you don't have to stop believing in evolution to love Jesus.
and despite the different theorys about how life evolves..where did it start? ive been assuming you must believe in the big bang theory but im not educated enough in that area to know what other theorys there even are so if i jumped to the wrong conclusion im sorry..but where DID life start? theres still NO evidence to indicate that something inorganic can evolve into something organic..whats your view on where life came from?
@HustIeKing “Where did life come from?” That is a fair question. And I will tell you what I think after you answer my previous question. One thing at a time.
“What would you need to see to call a fossil ‘transitional’?
@doubleKlutch i beleive your question was what WOULD prove evolution for me..well i know youll call this closedminded but nothing could prove it..at least not to the point of falsifying christianity..the bible has proven itself to me, Jesus has made himself known in my life many times..THAT has been proven..so nothing a scientist finds would change my faith..
is there anything that would PROVE to you that the bible is correct and Jesus is savior to all who ask him?
No, my question was literal; “What would you need to see in order to consider a fossil evident of transition?”
It seems to me that no matter how clearly a fossil demonstrates transition, you will not accept it.
You: “There’s not a single transitional fossil.”
Me: “Here’s more than 150 documented fossils, working in concert no less, that are chronological and morphological gap-bridgers, evident of transition.”
@doubleKlutch And since you've been waiting a while for your question: "Where did life come from anyway?"
I don't know where life came from. I am open to several possible explanations. I don't think macro-evolutionary theory has much to do with it. For me, evolution relates to our current form, the origin of our species, not the origin of life.
But applying god every time something mysterious occurs is historically erroneous and sadly common. So I'd prefer simply to say, I don't know.
@doubleKlutch well the theory ill stick with explains everything including where life came from (and more importantly where its going) and closedminded or not it wouldnt matter how many fossils scientists SAY are transitional because like you admit..science has been wrong countless times..my God never has..hes explained everything and he did it thousands of years ago and it still holds up today..i hope you read 1 corinthians 1:18-21..its all about your scientists and thier "wisdom"
This is why I didn’t want to answer your question before you answered mine. You still have dodged the question on what it takes for you to consider a fossil ‘transitional’. Why do you feel the need to sidestep my question? An honest, accurate position should not need to dodge a question.
Maybe I should rephrase: Do you think it’s reasonable that I, and others, might see transition when looking at the fossil record? Don’t those fossils at least APPEAR transitional?
@doubleKlutch i answered your question...nothing..there is nothing that could make me think a fossil is transitional because a fossil is a fossil..interpreting it into anything else is JUST an interpretation and therefore will not cause me to question my faith..the problem is that scientist find these fossils LOOKING for transitional species..so everything they find they apply to that mould and anything that even fits loosley is hailed as proof.
@doubleKlutch uhh c i guess..i believe we've found fossils..they may "appear to show transition" but as we saw with ceolecanth (where every sign they said showed transition turned out to be something completely different and unrelated) scientists interpretation of the fossil (meaning when they say "this fossil shows transition because: .. etc) is nothing more than a guess that i wouldn't even call an educated one..and since that guess goes against what i already KNOW..it must not be correct..
@HustIeKing now the obvious problem with my respone is where i said "it goes against what i already know" to which you may call that closedminded..however as ive already stated..the bible has been proven to me already..and evolution has NO proof it just has evidence that only even equals evidence after you apply the scientists "guess"..which weve seen be wrong so many times...so basically i disagree that the fossils actually show any transition..they just have different traits..
@HustIeKing Okay, you say C, but it sounds like A to me. We agree that we found fossils, and that they APPEAR to show transition, but that doesn’t mean that life is necessarily transitional. Evidence does not mean proof, so we agree that the fossil record does not prove evolution, but it is evident of transition; that it IMPLIES transition, even if the implication is inaccurate and counter to the possible truth of God’s creation, right?
@doubleKlutch not really...i agree that weve found fossils..thats literally it, i dont believe they show transition because i dont believe that transition is something that has ever existed or should be looked for in the first place..but because scientists are looking for fossils specifically to prove their point, everything they find will be with that in mind which (even if its only subconsiously) alters their interpretations..so no..not A...C
@HustIeKing I’m sorry, I was confused because you said “they may ‘appear to show transition’ but...” My mistake.
When I look at the fossil record I see a rainbow, a transition from one side to the other. One or two pixels may be out of place, but overall, there is a pattern. That doesn’t necessarily prove evolution, but the current rainbow does exist.
When you look at the fossil record, you see randomness? No pattern at all? That’s what your saying?
@doubleKlutch im saying i dont try to study the fossils to find something i dont believe will exist because i may just find something like..o i dunno..a swim bladder and then ignorantly label is at something its not such as an "unevolved lung"..and then i may just have to eat my own words one day...so from my standpoint since the bible hasnt been proven wrong ill stick with that..rather than waiting for it to be proven right because then it will probably be too late..
@doubleKlutch and the keyword to your confusion would be "appear" meaning..scientists may THINK they're looking at a transitional species or.."the fossil may 'appear' to be transitional when in fact it is not" you see how im not actually admitting to their really being transition im just saying they may "appear" to show some..whether or not it exists..
-Me:12/7 “...they[fossils] APPEAR to show transition, but that doesn’t mean that life is necessarily transitional.”
-You:12/6 “they may ‘appear to show transition’”
-You:12/9 “im just saying they may "appear" to show some[transition]..whether or not it exists..”
And yet, somehow, you insist we don’t agree on this point? I’m not talking about the conclusions, I’m merely talking about the fossils themselves. Common ground first.
@doubleKlutch well i apologize if my sentence structure appears to be misleading..thats the problem with a conversation through text rather than talking so please allow me to clear all confusion here...when i say a fossil may appear to show transition i mean "that may be the conclusion drawn by the scientists however I personally believe those conclusions to be incorrect, because the one and only time (so far) they were able to be tested (ceolecanth)....they were incorrect"
@HustIeKing I understand that Coelacanth (Cth)is a big problem for you, but I think you are missing some data and it is misleading you.
‘Cth’ is not 1 animal, but an Order.
Modern Cth (Latermeria Chalumnea) has several structural differences from ancient Cth (Macropomo Lewensis), notably the ‘bladder’ chamber. Modern Cth has a soft swim bladder, ancient Cth has a bony, ossified chamber.
@HustIeKing Okay, so you’re saying that without Scientists, just the raw fossils have no pattern. I’m trying to remove scientist interpretation from the equation. I’ve been trying, for 2 weeks, to understand what YOU see when you look at the fossils themselves, stripped of speculation. You don’t see any pattern at all? Pederpes doesn’t show any relationship to Tulerpeton and Eryops?
@doubleKlutch okay i think i know how to answer to answer your question though you may not find it very scientific, in fact its strictly biblical, and my interpretation of creation from the viewpoint of already believing in God, who is all powerful and can do anything instantly, yet he spent 2 full days "creating" almost 2 million different species of plants, animals and algae. so the fact that some "resemeble" others doesnt mean anything to me..but i didnt major in biology..
@HustIeKing and i dont claim to be qualified to look at fossils and know what im looking for, part of the reason for that is because that entire field (in my opinion) is mostly guess work that cant be verified in most situations. and, yes, ceolecanth is a big problem for me because so far to my knowledge thats the only time the guesses of evolution (regarding fossils)have been truly put to the test and since those were my suspicions..thats more than enough evidence for me.
@HustIeKing Except that ancient Coelacanth WASNT put to the test. Did you read my other two posts about Macropomo Lewensis? Did you check out the links? Modern, living Latermeria is unrelated to pre- and post-1930’s hypotheses regarding Macropomo’s link to the first tetrapods.
There has not been an ‘oops’.
God didn’t just create similar creatures, he had to have created (and destroyed) them in order by geological depth. How is this explained better by Biblical account?
@doubleKlutch what do you mean by destroyed? does that mean died off of natural earthly causes? because no, i wouldnt call that a stretch by any means to think that a completley linear fossil record is the result of Gods "intelligent design". God put a whole "creation" (stars, sun, earth, moon etc..) -- with an ecosystem to maintain it..and US to inhabit and rule over it -- together in 6 days, to suggest "order" being evidence against God seems silly to me..
@HustIeKing perhaps he created them in order "intelligently", and they're dying off in that order..or maybe as i said earlier it was a direct result of "randomness" caused by the flood that, and God allowed the fossils to lay that way so he could "make foolish the 'wisdom of the world'" as he states in 1 cor. 1:20
I think the first question that should be asked is "where did everything start?". And once you have an answer for that, it can be your "definite" that you can compare new evidence too and say "does it fit?". and if it doesnt fit then either your "definite" is wrong, or the evidence is?
so far nothing that youve presented "doesnt fit" with creation, it only hints at something else, while fitting. and evolutions answer for day 1 doesnt sit with me in the slightest..
@HustIeKing “..."where did everything start?". And once you have an answer for that, it can be your ‘definite’ that you can compare new evidence too and say "does it fit?".”
How can you arrive at a good answer, let alone a ‘definite’, without considering all the evidence first?
Can’t anybody, of any creed or faith, use this ‘system’ of truth to justify ANY position?
How is this different from ‘starting with a conclusion’?
@doubleKlutch because since, according to science, everything had to start somewhere. Starting at the start seems like a good place to..start..lol..
the evidence doesnt prove or disprove either theory (the bible OR evolution), but only one theory answers every question, thats my point...where did it start?
you basically said you havent decided that yet right? Since you put your faith in a theory that technically "answers that question", why is that?
@HustIeKing “God allowed the fossils to lay that way so he could "make foolish the 'wisdom of the world'" “
So, the fossil record is a confusion, a misrepresentation; God, or the Flood, laid them out in an order contrary to reality’s actual history. The evidence is untrustworthy. It might even be a trap to snare the arrogant.
In reality, man walked with Dinosaurs and the fossil record is a red herring.
This is a coherent explanation, I’m not mocking it. Do I understand your position correctly?
@doubleKlutch i wouldnt call it my position but its one hypothesis in my mind, sure..although i wouldnt say Gods trying to cause confusion or trap people. My actual "position" is much less dramatic in that i think the whole idea of evolution is a tool of the devil that HE uses to trap people. Because again, the actual evidence doesnt prove creation wrong it just hints at evolution in some areas..
@HustIeKing so to me, to trust in evolution you have to disregard a theory that has no actual disproof (Christianity), for a theory that has no disproof except Christianity...
@HustIeKing “According to science, everything had to start somewhere.” Really, where is that a law? (2nd Law of thermodynamics has already been discussed in the comment history.) Personally, if forced to choose, I don’t believe in any beginning, infinity is simpler.
God is not a theory. It’s a story. Any story can pretend to answer all questions.
I’m defending Macro-Evolution. It does not ‘answer that question’.
@doubleKlutch You really like the word ‘proof’, but it really isn’t appropriate in a discussion with me. I’ve not claimed any ‘proof’ for evolution, only evidence. Please, search the comment history, it hasn’t happened once.
I’m focused on the evidence, and I’m looking for an explanation that accounts for all the evidence.
Can you please stop using the word ‘proof’ in this discussion? You don’t have it, I don’t have it.
Evidence, however, I have. Religion only has hearsay.
@doubleKlutch i dont see in the comment history where i stated that you HAVE claimed proof so defending the fact that you havent seems pointless but i guess you just wanted us to know. Im focused on the evidence as well however my evidence doesnt hold water with you because it comes from the bible which is just "a story" right?
but you dont have evidence either bud..you have fossils..and those fossils dont disagree with creation at all so why is that evidence of anything else?
@HustIeKing So, we agree to stop using the word ‘proof’ then, great.
The difference between my evidence and your evidence is the number of Human fingerprints on it. Fossils exist without the taint of man. Without man, your evidence couldn’t even exist. I don’t trust people, and so I don’t trust evidence that is dependent on people.
Even if fossils COULD be tampered with, Biblical evidence, by it’s written nature, HAS TO be.
@HustIeKing “The fact that life exists … means it had to start.” Why?
Science only says THIS planet is billions of years old, and that only THIS universe originated from the Big Bang; there is no data on all of existence. I don’t think anything in Science demands that there was nothing before the Big Bang; why can’t it be cyclical, or caused by an event in a neighboring universe?
Life may have arrived here by comet, alien intent, or even abiogenesis. An origin is not mandatory.
@doubleKlutch and your apparently not looking for something that accounts for all the evidence because the fact that life exists (even if it evolved) means it had to start..something which you seem to disagree with..but if it didnt start that means it was always here and always evolving right? science apparently has it wrong too because they say the earth is only billions of years old..but in fact its agless cus it was always here? do i understand your "position" correctly?
@HustIeKing Why is it that so much of your evidence against Evolution is missing key data?
Such as Coelacanth being one animal, and the polystrate Baleen whale story.
Maybe:
“...most disturbing was the tendency for creationists to deliberately omit specific locational data and references. Thus, they made it as difficult as possible for a person to independently confirm the data on which they offered as proof of a Biblical world-wide flood.”
@doubleKlutch i didnt go back or forth lol but since you continue to quote me out of context please allow me to correct you once more, what i beleive (my position, if you will) is that evolution is a tool of the devil, i dont know if thats correct or not so i also put out the idea that "maybe" God let them lay that way so anyone naive enough to trust a fossil record over God would be made foolish along with the "wisdom of the world" as he states in 1 cor: 1:21 which i believe refers to evolution
@HustIeKing if you cant stop trying to discredit christianity and myself by misquoting me (go back and read the comment..) then im not gonna waste my time trying to debate with you when all your trying to do is argue....
@HustIeKing It wasn’t my intention to misquote you. I was genuinely confused. Regarding the Devils role, vs the Flood’s role, in the development of the Evolution ‘illusion’, I’m still unsure, but I don’t think it really matters in this conversation so I’ll simply retract and apologize.
@doubleKlutch macro-evolution is part of evolutionary theory..and evolutionary theory DOES answer that question..unless your just picking one part of evolutionary theory to believe in with all your heart and calling the rest hogwash because of how obviously ridiculous it is?
you say there was no beginning? so the earth was always here and always had life on it that has always been evolving?
and your right..God is not a theory but he is more than a story..evolution is a story..God is creator
@HustIeKing Am I ‘cherry picking’ science by defending Macro-Evolution and ignoring abiogenesis? No. I see consistent natural, empirical evidence supporting Macro-Evolution, while abiogensis through Chemical Evolution is an unknown for me. I simply don’t know enough about it to argue for it. Regardless of whether abiogenesis occurred or not is irrelevant to how natural history is contrary, or not, to the literal story of Genesis.
Me:12/7 “...they[fossils] APPEAR to show transition, but that doesn’t mean that life is necessarily transitional.”
You:12/6 “they may ‘appear to show transition’”
You:12/9 “im just saying they may "appear" to show some[transition]..whether or not it exists..”
And yet, somehow, you insist we don’t agree on this point? I’m not talking about the conclusions, I’m merely talking about the fossils themselves. Common ground first.
@HustIeKing Would you mind studying first ,what you so vigourously condemn !! Millions of christians have no qualms with evolution. From the 540,000 scientists polled( by Newsweek) only a mere 700 stand behind creation. Creation is so infantile, that from the 106 colleges, which form the : "Christian Coalition of Colleges " only 5 teach litteral biblical creation. Why ? Because creation is bulls... !!
@ndzoko so basically your proof that christianity is false consists of .."most people dont believe in it so it CANT be correct"..ok..go with the world..but just so your aware the bible predicts that too in mathew 7:13,14 "Enter through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
@HustIeKing but so far all im finding is a whole lot of "this might be the case..and if it is then THIS also might be true..and if assume both those are true then THIS is most certainly how life evolves on earth" and every now an then their be tiny shreds of "almost evidence" that was twisted around and imagined into something entirely new but who cares right? its not like it can be proven wrong since were guessing about creatures that dont exist any more..
@HustIeKing o wait whats that??? your saying they found actual live ceolecanth and absolutely EVERY SINGLE THING that i said proved this to be a transitional fossil turned out to be something else entirely unrelated to anything having to do with transition..well OOPS..lets just hope we dont find any living versions of the other fossils were claiming are proof against the bible cus just one probably isnt enough to show evolutionary theory as a silly "scheme of man"..
@HustIeKing and im in the process of studying eveolution >>>>> Finally !! That`s one of the few sentences you wrote that make sense. All your bible quotes are useless, you can as well quote from" Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves ", Unless you prove the bible to be a reliable history book. It is not.
Love this song "till on that cross as Jesus died the wrath of God was satisfied" I love those words.
bobcatfishing 1 day ago
I L<3VE THIS SONG!!!!!
116Finley 3 days ago
I love this song!
TheMatthewBarnes 6 days ago
It's uncanny how similar this vid is to my own...the only difference is that this one is sung by Newsboys, not Owl City and some diff pics too.
TheWubbzter 1 week ago
Jesus is DYNAMITE!
in a good way, man.
ThundyrDrum 1 week ago
I LOVE YOU JESUS!!
socoldsmith 2 weeks ago
This song gives me much comfort. It reminds me of what Jesus did for me, a sinner saved because of grace. Thanks for having it. :)
bondservant4jesus 2 weeks ago
I bevieve this sums up our faith in a bueutiful song. I can't get enough of it!!
VoidDragon505 2 weeks ago
@pinayako97 No, this song was written by Stuart Townsend and Keith Getty. It has been covered by many. The Newsboys recorded this long before Owl City.
eric112art 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
eric112art 2 weeks ago
Hi to all,this is my first time I hear this beautiful song.
I like it very much:praise the Lord.
God bless you.
rifulgon 2 weeks ago
ESSA É A MELHOR BANDA GOSPEL DE TODOS OS TEMPOS( NEWSBOYS), DEUS É COM VCS
novohellon 3 weeks ago
Romans 5:8 "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
rockchokt 3 weeks ago
Definite influences of Reformed theology such as Penal Substitution and some form or other of Eternal Security, but not anything, I think, that couldn't with some effort also be interperted in an orthodox Christian way, I think, with the possible exception of "no guilt in life."
aelredtheless 3 weeks ago
God hates fags?
In that case I worship Satan.
MrFancySchmancyPants 3 weeks ago
@MrFancySchmancyPants Who told you that?
MePieter 3 weeks ago
@MrFancySchmancyPants who the heck told you that?
daav43 3 weeks ago
@MrFancySchmancyPants by fag you mean gay men? and no He doesnt, He hates the sin but loves the sinner
JayJMusicDestination 3 weeks ago
@JayJMusicDestination
"He hates the sin but loves the sinner"
Where's that verse in the Bible???
lincomen 3 weeks ago
@lincomen Its not just one verse, His love for the sinner is displayed all over the Book
JayJMusicDestination 2 weeks ago
@JayJMusicDestination Just like I said! You still can't show me a verse - can you?
lincomen 1 week ago
@lincomen Im not a Bible expert so no, Im still maturing as well, but Gods love for a person, whether theyre the biggest of sinners or the smallest, will never change
JayJMusicDestination 1 week ago
@lincomen NO WHERE. please read my reply to "JayJMusicDestination"
God is perfectly displeased with the sinner. The sinner hates God, disobeys God, is ungrateful to God for all His favors, would kill God if he could. He is dead in trespasses and sins. (Eph.2:1) “The thoughts and intents of his heart are only evil continually.” (Gen.6:5) He is the slave of sin (John 8:34), the servant of the devil, (Eph.2:2)
Also.. read Pslams 139:22
eaglrombie13 1 week ago
@eaglrombie13 Thanks for your Biblical support. So few refuse to make a stand for the truth of God's word, leaving nothing but a bunch of sinning Christians running around spreading lies about God. 1 John 3:9 "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." I live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, and that makes me his son - not a sinner. "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid."
lincomen 1 week ago
@JayJMusicDestination No sir, you - along with the other two commenters above - are biblically incorect. God is perfectly displeased with the sinner. The sinner hates God, disobeys God, is ungrateful to God for all His favors, would kill God if he could. He is dead in trespasses and sins. (Eph.2:1) “The thoughts and intents of his heart are only evil continually.” (Gen.6:5) He is the slave of sin (John 8:34), the servant of the devil, (Eph.2:2)
eaglrombie13 1 week ago
@eaglrombie13 Im not saying that God overlooks the sin and pretends like theyre perfect, He is of course displeased with the sinner. But His love for them never EVER changes
JayJMusicDestination 1 week ago
@JayJMusicDestination Jay, I'm sure your very sincere and might even love God and want to follow him. But I've gotta call you out on this clique that your clinging to. God has love for his bride, the elect, the church. Those who he predestined before time began, who HE chose against their will.... THOSE people, God extends grace that we don't deserve to.However, his enemy's, who's WRATH still abides on them, are not shown grace but punished rightfully for what they deserve.
eaglrombie13 1 week ago
@JayJMusicDestination God has NO complacent love for the sinner at all. He has a perfect hatred of him, “I hate them with a perfect hatred.” (Ps. 139:22)
eaglrombie13 1 week ago
@eaglrombie13 As much as it would make me happy to hear the Bible quote God's word as hateful in Ps. 139:22, in fairness and at cost to my argument, I think the Bible does not. It is unclear who speaks, "I hate them with a perfect hatred." It is possible that God interjected here, but the rest of that passage is spoken to God, not by him.
It is possible at least, but likely even that you are misunderstanding the verse.
doubleKlutch 1 week ago
@doubleKlutch O sir, God didn't simply "interject" it was actually breathed out by him:)
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness
~2 Timothy 3:16
If you however, think that I have made an eisegesis in my exegesis of the script, take a peak at the verse in context :) Start from the begining of Psalm 139 it's a small chapter :] cross reference to
Eph.2:1-2
Gen.6:5
John 8:34
enjoy :]
eaglrombie13 1 week ago
@doubleKlutch ...Continuing from my second reply 1/17/12
As Paul wrote to the Christian Church in Ephesians, it would bring you clarity to read the entire chapter of Ephesians 2 :)
By the way, if you would like to have an intellectual conversation about God, I would love to do so with you, but it would probably be best to continue via Private message's due to the character limit we have here in the comments section :/
eaglrombie13 1 week ago
@eaglrombie13 I don't do IMs. There is only one audience member, and while you, for example, may be far too entrenched to ever be able to escape the mind-prison that the church locked your younger self in, others less unfortunate may benefit from the dialog in this public forum regardless of which of us is mistaken.
I can't draw any connection between Eph2 and the identity of the speaker in Ps 139.22.
139.22 still seems clearly spoken to God, not by him, just as 139.21 is.
doubleKlutch 1 week ago
@doubleKlutch O, I agree whole heartedly - there is much fruit to be reaped from dialogues like this (espically being public) The limited space is VERY constricting though.. The Church hasn't locked me in - God changed my heart :] I think you completely missed the point. We both agree that the one penning is the psalmist. The POINT however, is that He hates sinners PERFECTLY. Insinuating there is a way to perfectly hate sinners. The question is-does God also? (Continuing on next..)
eaglrombie13 1 week ago
@eaglrombie13 The answer is YES! We find his holy and just wrath revealed in (but definitally not limited to) the following passages; Amos 3:1-2, Duet. 32:32-42, Ps. 5:4-5, Ps. 31:5-6, Heb. 1:8-9, Ps. 58:10-12... I somehow think though, that I've strayed from the argument you were presenting, mind making your position one more time please? :] Just so I can answer whatever question/argument you're posing. fair enough?
eaglrombie13 1 week ago
@eaglrombie13 *definitely
eaglrombie13 1 week ago
@eaglrombie13 My point to you was simply that Psalms 139.22 is a line of dialog belonging to a speaker, not an author. One speaker in a two-party conversation where the other party is listening to the spoken verse. Who recorded the line is unimportant in the context of the story. And my underlying point is that this speaker is not clearly, expressly identified.
If the speaker is the mortal party, then there is no grammar error.
If the speaker is God, as you claim, then the grammar is faulty.
doubleKlutch 1 week ago
@eaglrombie13 If you think there is another verse that shows God's hatred toward sinners, it would make me feel validated to know of it, so please post the verse.
That the Ps. 139.22 speaker claims to hate 'perfectly' is not proof that the speaker is Godly, but only that he makes exaggerated claims. Or maybe I misunderstood your argument.
I could claim to hate Religion 'perfectly', but that proves neither that I am God, nor that I can do anything perfectly.
doubleKlutch 1 week ago
@eaglrombie13 Or are you saying that God also spoke the verse of Psalms 139:21? In which case he is questioning himself and there is no other mortal identity present?
It seems clear that it is the same speaker continues from verse 21 to verse 22, no?
doubleKlutch 1 week ago
@eaglrombie13 That is David talking to God, David is the one doing the hating. John 3:16 should be a verse you know. For God so loved the WHOLE world. Please do not twist the truth. God loves all men, but hates sin.
Tac5Man 1 day ago
@JayJMusicDestination Still can't show me a verse in the BIble for that - so stop spreading lies! Read this : 1 John 3:9 "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." Now that's in the Bible!
lincomen 1 week ago
@MrFancySchmancyPants I have too heard ppl say :(that but it's not true only man's lies, there is only one sin that God will never forgive deniying him and saying his works are of the devil's..... if anything, gays make him sad not angry.
jaller11121 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
MrFancySchmancyPants 3 weeks ago
....no guilt in life, no fear in death, this is the power of Christ in me, from lifes first cry to final breath, JESUS commands my destiny!!!!!!!! Like if you agree!
bornagain2day 3 weeks ago 25
@bornagain2day Him and only Him! :D
Strike10555 2 weeks ago
AMEN!!
cj92796 3 weeks ago 4
I sang this at my grandfather's funeral...
MeganBoulden 1 month ago
Ulgh. I dislike youtube discussions.
I <3 this song though.
joseffatrip 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I obey love and reason. That's the best way I know to obey God.
eastariel 1 month ago
TO EVOLUTIONISTS:
Even if God is just a dream & not reality who are we hurting?
Christianity gives people hope. The idea behind Christianity is this: life has ups and downs and nobody is perfect, but those who trust Jesus can monitor themselves better and can tough out hard times with less dificulty knowing that Christ has been in the same situations except 10x worse. So again I ask you: who are we hurting & why can't you leave us alone?
faith4monster 1 month ago
@faith4monster Do you really believe that mass Religion is harmless when condoms are banned in pandemic Africa because a Religious leader says so? Could the Israeli-Palestinian conflict be what it is today, without the US Christian support? Would the Iraqi mess of a war be possible without our Religious divide?
You want a peaceful, tolerant, personal philosophy with Jesus, fine. But can following that sacred book in it's literal entirety result in anything but joining a destructive collective?
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch These are not problems of misinterpreting a peaceful Religion, these are the results of KNOWING that your side is truly and divinely right, and all other's are the enemy of God. There is no other outcome from that perspective. With a Religious gap, no compromise can be had, because compromise implies admitting an error, and Religions are never erroneous. World peace is literally impossible because of 'peaceful' religions.
Now, you ask me to leave you alone? You first.
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
For His Name shall be written in stone upon the hearts of the chosen and His voice shall be known to their ears. And those who dwell in darkness shall not hear Him nor head His call! Thus shall His flock be gathered! For God speaks to His children through their hearts and calls them by name known only to Him and them! Amen!
Why bother wasting your breath? Be at peace and Glorify the Kingdom
1Beachem1 1 month ago
GUYS! This whole debate is worthless! It says that if a non-believer will not accept what you have to say then you must drop the subject! Some people believe in a crazy thing like evolution and as I can see some of my fellow believers agree with me that it is not true that God created the universe. And if anyone here has a problem with what we believe quit commenting on a video that is MEANT FOR US! This song isn't for nonbelievers its for the church so we should all just drop it.
12sportfan 1 month ago
@Davidstan2 Well, considering what blips of what normal people call "society" I've seen (just take a look at Lady Gaga music videos), I'm pretty glad that I am NOT blinded by it. Instead I turn around and /choose/ to not see it. I am blinded by the glory of God.
0123akky 1 month ago
@Davidstan2 we all will be praying for you.
eelyab95 1 month ago in playlist YouTube Mix for Newsboys
There is no god! You've all been blinded by society!
Davidstan2 1 month ago
If there was no reformation and Natalie Grant wrote this song, people would say "Beautiful song kid, but no kidding." Of Course it is by Christ alone, but He acts through the stuff of earth called sacraments.(Take this bread and eat of it, this is my body) Everyone truly knows we can't save ourselves, neither Mary nor priests, saints, popes, nor even reformers like Luther ,Calvin Zwingli etc, I might add.
GutenbergBible 1 month ago
500 years later the "alones" are still touted even in song, so I think the answer is that, I suspect the writer may have not purposely been trying to poke the Catholic Church in the eye, but her lyrics are deeply steeped in her theology which by definition has to continue to protest.
GutenbergBible 1 month ago
So it's just that Christ uses the agency He established called The Church to pour his grace down upon his people. The reformers needed to separate themselves from this authority and "protest." Thus "Christ alone," "Grace alone" (which of course we believe) faith alone, scripture alone (which we don't entirely believe) became the mantra.
GutenbergBible 1 month ago
So they say we are saved by works, by membership, by prayers to saints, by priest's intercession, by indulgences etc, not realizing that we as Catholics of course believe that it is only by Christ alone that we can be saved. However, He gave men, priests, power to forgive sins, consecrate the Eucharist, baptize etc.
GutenbergBible 1 month ago
@GutenbergBible forgive me if I am misunderstanding your comments, but you seem to be very inaccurately labeling Protestants. We Protestants believe that Christ is the only One who saves, so I strongly disagree with what you say about that. In addition, I must say that many Catholics (I must be careful not to generalize, although you certainly did) worship Mary and/or the Pope which is evil. Mary was just a woman who bore Yeshua, she is not God and is not holy more than you or I.
BlindedByTheSun666 1 month ago
@GutenbergBible I also just want to add that all Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant are to be united as one body, so I think it's important that it's not a fight of Protestants vs Catholics, but that we put aside our small differences and recognize that we are alike in that we all are saved by the Blood of the Lamb.
Blessings
BlindedByTheSun666 1 month ago
@BlindedByTheSun666 It would certainly be helpful if you didn't spread falsehoods about the Church like "Catholics worhip mary and the pope." Fair enough?
GutenbergBible 1 month ago
@GutenbergBible I didn't say that ALL catholics do, but there are many who do.. And Worship doesn't necessarily mean that they say "Praise Mary, Glory to Mary", it could be having a statue of Mary inside a church. That is worship and God does not like it, and it is a fact that SOME Catholic churches have a statue Mary, or that Catholic people have such at their house.
BlindedByTheSun666 1 month ago
@GutenbergBible And in addition, YOU were the one who spread falsehoods about the Protestant faith: "So they say we are saved by works, by membership, by prayers to saints, by priest's intercession, by indulgences etc" ... Where did that come from?? That is the falsehood, so don't tell me that I'm spreading falsehoods. What I said was facts, applying to SOME people, and what you said what downright incorrect.
BlindedByTheSun666 1 month ago
As you know, non-Catholic Christians, particularly to justify their break from Catholicism needed to paint the Church's doctrines in a dark light. Surely any religion that proposes we are saved through anything but Christ is wrong and evil!
GutenbergBible 1 month ago
the idea of "In Christ Alone" is most likely written as a subconscious response to a mis-understanding and perhaps straw dog interpretation of Catholic belief.
GutenbergBible 1 month ago
Jesus loves you man
Ajthesermonman 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch Part 4: On the other hand, repeatable experiments do not support many of the claims darwinists propagate about the origin of species from a single cell, let alone non-organic material through random processes. Moreover, the statistical chances of getting something as complex as a single cell (which by the way darwin had no idea how complex it was) from chemicals though random change is next to nil.
chamzoful 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch Part 3:Another example is regarding the spread of pandemics. Biostatistics predict to a high degree how deceases spread and direct the medical industry and government into strategic planning agianst pandemics.
In genetics and genetic engeneering, combinatorics and graph theory are used. Moreover, repeatable experiments support the theories present.
chamzoful 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch Part 2:For example, the basis of chemistry is mollecular and nuclear interactions. You can reproduce chemical reactions in the lab to authenticate the claims of chemistry and the behaviour of atmos and subparticals can be predicted and explained to a high degree of accuracy by certain mathematical fields such as Lie Algebra and Quantum groups.
chamzoful 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch Part 1P: You miss-read my cmnt. I am claiming darwinism is scientifically unsound not evolution. i.e. that random natural selection brought about the variety of species from a simple cell, which in teurn came about by the same process from an mixture of non-organic chemical material. I say that because this theory lacks the support of the two basic tenants of any scientifically sound theory. 1) repeatable experiements that support the theory 2) mathematical base.
chamzoful 1 month ago
@chamzoful So you’re not talking about Evolution? Okay, then you must not be talking to me. Which ‘Darwinist’ are you addressing with your original comment? In the context of the current debate, it seems I’m the only one you’d be addressing, but I haven’t said anything about the origin of life or man-kind being born of a single cell.
I can’t figure out how your input on ‘Darwinism’ (a very poorly defined term) has any relevance to the current conversation.
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chamzoful So you’re not talking about Evolution? Okay, then you must not be talking to me. Which ‘Darwinist’ are you addressing with your original comment? In the context of the current debate, it seems I’m the only one you’d be addressing, but I haven’t said anything about the origin of life or man-kind being born of a single cell.
I can’t figure out how your input on ‘Darwinism’ (a very poorly defined term) has any relevance to the current conversation.
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@chamzoful So you’re not talking about Evolution? Okay, then you must not be talking to me. Which ‘Darwinist’ are you addressing with your original comment? In the context of the current debate, it seems I’m the only one you’d be addressing, but I haven’t said anything about the origin of life or man-kind being born of a single cell.
I can’t figure out how your input on ‘Darwinism’ (a very poorly defined term) has any relevance to the current conversation.
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch I am talking about a special kind of evolution that is not scientific. something you seem to champion (species evolve into other species based on random selection). I showed you why this isn't scientific cuz it lacks repeatable experiments and a mathematical basis. I even used some fields you alleged to be usefull yet not validated by math& showed you otherwise.Yet you ignore all that and change the discussion.Seriously! What's more important than claimins this idea is unscientific
chamzoful 1 month ago
@chamzoful
Calm down dude, I simply didn’t know how you defined ‘Evolution’ and ‘Darwinism’ (a loose term). Now I know who you are addressing.
How did I ‘change the discussion’? ‘Seriously!’
Of course many sciences have mathematical foundations, but that doesn’t make math foundations a requirement of science, especially regarding young fields (like Germ Theory in it’s infancy).
I’m not convinced that Evolution can’t be tested or observed repeatedly:
talkorigins DOTorg/indexcc/CA/CA220.html
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
Every usefull scientific theory must be supported by a coherent mathematical system; like. Quantum mechanics, relativity, genetic biology,...etc. Darwinism has no coherent mathematical base to support it. The problem is that most people who believe it are mere hacks and not in the research field. So they throw jargon here and there to mask their BELIEF in the non-existence of an all-sustaining Creator. For most, It is more of a faith debate/propaganda and not a honest scientific debate.
chamzoful 1 month ago
Comment removed
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@chamzoful So then the Pathogenic Theory of Medicine is useless?
Regarding the usefulness of Evolution:
talkorigins DOTorg/indexcc/CA/CA215.html
Including improvements in:
Desease and Pest control
Fisheries production
Streamlined Artificial Selection (Breeding)
“Biology without Evolution is Natural History.” “Teaching biology without evolution would be like teaching chemistry without the periodic table of the elements.”
...
As if Creationism is overflowing with useful applications...
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
Why can't people please enjoy the song, and why do atheists have to come here and ruin it for us? I would've expected more from a group of people that say that theyre "the most mature out of concepts"
LamboC95 1 month ago
God is creator thats true.....but he is an arrogant cocksucker who has no way to truly designate his power and real purposes....if He did then this world would remain perfect and his natural plan of peace, order, and thanksgiving for spiritual truths to be held constant would always flow over every part of society springing from the origins of the Garden of Eden.....well we now see that God is one fucked up lame ass fraud who cant get a bitch to save his life...praise gregory house
drenkat87 1 month ago
@drenkat87 the perfect world you speak of is waiting for us, but only the righteous may enter..this world (earth) was tainted by mans choice in the garden and now we all have to chose between God, and the world..those that choose Christ are allowed onto the new earth after hes destroyed satan and all his evil, we have to earn the perfect world by choosing Christ.
and i wont respond to anymore comments that refer to my savior that way so please..can we at least ACT like adults..
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@drenkat87 WOW. just Wow I CANNOT belive you think that. It's our own fault this world isn't perfent anymore. God gave us our own free will and we ruined the perfect world he gave us.
AHGodGirl99 1 month ago
Comment removed
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing I am in awe, that you can spell in your mothertongue. Congratulations. What other languages do you master Genius ?
ndzoko 1 month ago
Wait i'm confused why everyone is beating on @doubleKlutch. . . . he's agreeing with the fact that God is the universal creator. . .
12sportfan 1 month ago
@12sportfan noones beating on him..its a debate..and no i dont think thats correct..he said "I dont know" when asked where life started and that, among other things, would hint at him not believing in God..which is the focus of our little discussion ;)
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing Ahh i did not see that comment my bad.
12sportfan 1 month ago
@ndzoko thats correct..thats exactly what youve jumped into this conversation with.."No evidence. None !!" which is also why im guessing you jumped over here instead of continuing our conversation on the other page..but in any case..what colleges teach has nothing to do with what i believe..and what makes the biblical account of creation "stupid"? surely if one believes in any kind of supernatural being then the literal creation of the world through that being isnt far fetched?
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing Creation is right; Once upon a time, a god, comming from god knows where, stepped out of the void. Said "POOF " and there was the whole universe, with it`s millions of galaxies, all millions of lightyears apart. And all this happened in a second OUT OF NOTHING. This magician should apply in Las Vegas for a job.
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko why...he created vegas........?
HustIeKing 1 month ago
so..what makes more sense is
"once upon a time: there was nothing...and then ever so suddenly BOOM..out of NOTHING..the universe..'BECAME'...no magician needed.."
it makes more sense to think of God as "eternal" or "always there" then it does to think a random of explosion of NOTHING started an evolutionary chain of events that put humans smack dab in the middle of a war between what is good..and what is not..think about that..
HustIeKing 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HustIeKing
Joy Of Satan . org
BobSalmonSmacky 1 month ago
I know it is indeed in Christ alone. There is no other way! If you don't know Him, you are missing out more than big time, you will miss an eternity.
Odettesharesherheart 2 months ago
I really wish people would take their pissing matches elsewhere...
julianf0918 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Praise the Lord! JESUS SAVES!!!
MsClaudia777 2 months ago in playlist Christian
Why discuss evolution here?
its exists. Despite loony americans and their warped take on christianity
FGalaxie 2 months ago
@FGalaxie
Hail Father Satan!
*
Joy Of Satan . org
BobSalmonSmacky 2 months ago
@BobSalmonSmacky haha
very funny
FGalaxie 2 months ago
@BobSalmonSmacky you are right in that satan is your father. All who are not in the family of God are in satans. But you don't have to stay there and i pray you don't.
aianime07 2 months ago
@BobSalmonSmacky : Read Revelations. Satan is no match for God's power.
SummerSunshine1988 2 months ago
@SummerSunshine1988 a gift of knowledge
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@BobSalmonSmacky i can not believe your statement...i will pray for you. i promise. for i do not want you to go anywhere but heaven and neither does anyone else.
Missintheolddays 2 months ago
@BobSalmonSmacky God loves you. Why would you turn your back on someone that loves you and worship someone that hates you?
pkprince14 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm looking to find funding for a Christian Short Film. If anyone can help me PLEASE message me!!
TheConferenceRoomTV 2 months ago
guys, debating evolution when we have this song playing is ridiculous. Evolution can be 100% true and change precisely nothing about the Bible. It makes Genesis 1 figurative, not literal, which many Christians think is the case anyway. Who cares? God loves people who believe in evolution and you don't have to stop believing in evolution to love Jesus.
jtwidmer 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jtwidmer
“debating evolution when we have this song playing is ridiculous”
This 'song' may not directly regard evolution, but the video certainly does: 3:21
--------
“Evolution can be 100% true and change precisely nothing about the Bible. It makes Genesis 1 figurative, not literal”
Changing Genesis from literal to figurative is a massive change, and certainly isn’t ‘precisely nothing’.
Are HustleKing and aianime ready to call Genesis ‘figurative’?
doubleKlutch 2 months ago
and despite the different theorys about how life evolves..where did it start? ive been assuming you must believe in the big bang theory but im not educated enough in that area to know what other theorys there even are so if i jumped to the wrong conclusion im sorry..but where DID life start? theres still NO evidence to indicate that something inorganic can evolve into something organic..whats your view on where life came from?
HustIeKing 2 months ago
@HustIeKing “Where did life come from?” That is a fair question. And I will tell you what I think after you answer my previous question. One thing at a time.
“What would you need to see to call a fossil ‘transitional’?
doubleKlutch 2 months ago
@HustIeKing Where did you go HustleKing? Have you abandoned this conversation?
doubleKlutch 2 months ago
@doubleKlutch i beleive your question was what WOULD prove evolution for me..well i know youll call this closedminded but nothing could prove it..at least not to the point of falsifying christianity..the bible has proven itself to me, Jesus has made himself known in my life many times..THAT has been proven..so nothing a scientist finds would change my faith..
is there anything that would PROVE to you that the bible is correct and Jesus is savior to all who ask him?
HustIeKing 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HustIeKing
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Learn the truth.
*
Joy Of Satan . org
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
BobSalmonSmacky 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HustIeKing
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Learn the truth.
*
Joy Of Satan . org
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
BobSalmonSmacky 1 month ago
@HustIeKing
No, my question was literal; “What would you need to see in order to consider a fossil evident of transition?”
It seems to me that no matter how clearly a fossil demonstrates transition, you will not accept it.
You: “There’s not a single transitional fossil.”
Me: “Here’s more than 150 documented fossils, working in concert no less, that are chronological and morphological gap-bridgers, evident of transition.”
-“Nope. Not transitional.”
-“...” Hence, my question above.
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch And since you've been waiting a while for your question: "Where did life come from anyway?"
I don't know where life came from. I am open to several possible explanations. I don't think macro-evolutionary theory has much to do with it. For me, evolution relates to our current form, the origin of our species, not the origin of life.
But applying god every time something mysterious occurs is historically erroneous and sadly common. So I'd prefer simply to say, I don't know.
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch well the theory ill stick with explains everything including where life came from (and more importantly where its going) and closedminded or not it wouldnt matter how many fossils scientists SAY are transitional because like you admit..science has been wrong countless times..my God never has..hes explained everything and he did it thousands of years ago and it still holds up today..i hope you read 1 corinthians 1:18-21..its all about your scientists and thier "wisdom"
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing
This is why I didn’t want to answer your question before you answered mine. You still have dodged the question on what it takes for you to consider a fossil ‘transitional’. Why do you feel the need to sidestep my question? An honest, accurate position should not need to dodge a question.
Maybe I should rephrase: Do you think it’s reasonable that I, and others, might see transition when looking at the fossil record? Don’t those fossils at least APPEAR transitional?
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch i answered your question...nothing..there is nothing that could make me think a fossil is transitional because a fossil is a fossil..interpreting it into anything else is JUST an interpretation and therefore will not cause me to question my faith..the problem is that scientist find these fossils LOOKING for transitional species..so everything they find they apply to that mould and anything that even fits loosley is hailed as proof.
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing I’m not asking you to agree that fossils prove transitional lifeforms. I just want to understand what we disagree on; Either:
A) We agree that some fossils APPEAR transitional, but disagree on how to interpret that appearance.
-or-
B) We disagree that the fossils even exist in the ‘inbetween’ forms at the ‘inbetween’ geological depths.
Tell me, is it A or B?... or C???
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch uhh c i guess..i believe we've found fossils..they may "appear to show transition" but as we saw with ceolecanth (where every sign they said showed transition turned out to be something completely different and unrelated) scientists interpretation of the fossil (meaning when they say "this fossil shows transition because: .. etc) is nothing more than a guess that i wouldn't even call an educated one..and since that guess goes against what i already KNOW..it must not be correct..
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing now the obvious problem with my respone is where i said "it goes against what i already know" to which you may call that closedminded..however as ive already stated..the bible has been proven to me already..and evolution has NO proof it just has evidence that only even equals evidence after you apply the scientists "guess"..which weve seen be wrong so many times...so basically i disagree that the fossils actually show any transition..they just have different traits..
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing Okay, you say C, but it sounds like A to me. We agree that we found fossils, and that they APPEAR to show transition, but that doesn’t mean that life is necessarily transitional. Evidence does not mean proof, so we agree that the fossil record does not prove evolution, but it is evident of transition; that it IMPLIES transition, even if the implication is inaccurate and counter to the possible truth of God’s creation, right?
Do we have this common ground at least?
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch not really...i agree that weve found fossils..thats literally it, i dont believe they show transition because i dont believe that transition is something that has ever existed or should be looked for in the first place..but because scientists are looking for fossils specifically to prove their point, everything they find will be with that in mind which (even if its only subconsiously) alters their interpretations..so no..not A...C
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing I’m sorry, I was confused because you said “they may ‘appear to show transition’ but...” My mistake.
When I look at the fossil record I see a rainbow, a transition from one side to the other. One or two pixels may be out of place, but overall, there is a pattern. That doesn’t necessarily prove evolution, but the current rainbow does exist.
When you look at the fossil record, you see randomness? No pattern at all? That’s what your saying?
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch im saying i dont try to study the fossils to find something i dont believe will exist because i may just find something like..o i dunno..a swim bladder and then ignorantly label is at something its not such as an "unevolved lung"..and then i may just have to eat my own words one day...so from my standpoint since the bible hasnt been proven wrong ill stick with that..rather than waiting for it to be proven right because then it will probably be too late..
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch and the keyword to your confusion would be "appear" meaning..scientists may THINK they're looking at a transitional species or.."the fossil may 'appear' to be transitional when in fact it is not" you see how im not actually admitting to their really being transition im just saying they may "appear" to show some..whether or not it exists..
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing Now I’m confused again.
-Me:12/7 “...they[fossils] APPEAR to show transition, but that doesn’t mean that life is necessarily transitional.”
-You:12/6 “they may ‘appear to show transition’”
-You:12/9 “im just saying they may "appear" to show some[transition]..whether or not it exists..”
And yet, somehow, you insist we don’t agree on this point? I’m not talking about the conclusions, I’m merely talking about the fossils themselves. Common ground first.
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch well i apologize if my sentence structure appears to be misleading..thats the problem with a conversation through text rather than talking so please allow me to clear all confusion here...when i say a fossil may appear to show transition i mean "that may be the conclusion drawn by the scientists however I personally believe those conclusions to be incorrect, because the one and only time (so far) they were able to be tested (ceolecanth)....they were incorrect"
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing I understand that Coelacanth (Cth)is a big problem for you, but I think you are missing some data and it is misleading you.
‘Cth’ is not 1 animal, but an Order.
Modern Cth (Latermeria Chalumnea) has several structural differences from ancient Cth (Macropomo Lewensis), notably the ‘bladder’ chamber. Modern Cth has a soft swim bladder, ancient Cth has a bony, ossified chamber.
Modern Cth simply proves nothing regarding speculation on Cth’s historic role.
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch 70 page PDF on the cavity structure:
ida.mtholyoke DOTedu/jspui/handle/10166/851
A photo of the Macropomo Lewensis cavity fossil:
corbisimagesDOTcom/images/Corbis-DK004353.jpg?size=67&uid=96d01606-419e-4ed9-9c50-07c65c595d57
A Creationist article that doesn’t even mention the cavity, despite it being present in it’s own images (wtf?):
naturalselection.0catch DOTcom/Files/fossilrecord.html#Coelacanths
Can we stop using Cth as an example of failed science now?
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@HustIeKing Okay, so you’re saying that without Scientists, just the raw fossils have no pattern. I’m trying to remove scientist interpretation from the equation. I’ve been trying, for 2 weeks, to understand what YOU see when you look at the fossils themselves, stripped of speculation. You don’t see any pattern at all? Pederpes doesn’t show any relationship to Tulerpeton and Eryops?
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch okay i think i know how to answer to answer your question though you may not find it very scientific, in fact its strictly biblical, and my interpretation of creation from the viewpoint of already believing in God, who is all powerful and can do anything instantly, yet he spent 2 full days "creating" almost 2 million different species of plants, animals and algae. so the fact that some "resemeble" others doesnt mean anything to me..but i didnt major in biology..
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing and i dont claim to be qualified to look at fossils and know what im looking for, part of the reason for that is because that entire field (in my opinion) is mostly guess work that cant be verified in most situations. and, yes, ceolecanth is a big problem for me because so far to my knowledge thats the only time the guesses of evolution (regarding fossils)have been truly put to the test and since those were my suspicions..thats more than enough evidence for me.
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing Except that ancient Coelacanth WASNT put to the test. Did you read my other two posts about Macropomo Lewensis? Did you check out the links? Modern, living Latermeria is unrelated to pre- and post-1930’s hypotheses regarding Macropomo’s link to the first tetrapods.
There has not been an ‘oops’.
God didn’t just create similar creatures, he had to have created (and destroyed) them in order by geological depth. How is this explained better by Biblical account?
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch what do you mean by destroyed? does that mean died off of natural earthly causes? because no, i wouldnt call that a stretch by any means to think that a completley linear fossil record is the result of Gods "intelligent design". God put a whole "creation" (stars, sun, earth, moon etc..) -- with an ecosystem to maintain it..and US to inhabit and rule over it -- together in 6 days, to suggest "order" being evidence against God seems silly to me..
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing perhaps he created them in order "intelligently", and they're dying off in that order..or maybe as i said earlier it was a direct result of "randomness" caused by the flood that, and God allowed the fossils to lay that way so he could "make foolish the 'wisdom of the world'" as he states in 1 cor. 1:20
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch
I think the first question that should be asked is "where did everything start?". And once you have an answer for that, it can be your "definite" that you can compare new evidence too and say "does it fit?". and if it doesnt fit then either your "definite" is wrong, or the evidence is?
so far nothing that youve presented "doesnt fit" with creation, it only hints at something else, while fitting. and evolutions answer for day 1 doesnt sit with me in the slightest..
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing “..."where did everything start?". And once you have an answer for that, it can be your ‘definite’ that you can compare new evidence too and say "does it fit?".”
How can you arrive at a good answer, let alone a ‘definite’, without considering all the evidence first?
Can’t anybody, of any creed or faith, use this ‘system’ of truth to justify ANY position?
How is this different from ‘starting with a conclusion’?
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch because since, according to science, everything had to start somewhere. Starting at the start seems like a good place to..start..lol..
the evidence doesnt prove or disprove either theory (the bible OR evolution), but only one theory answers every question, thats my point...where did it start?
you basically said you havent decided that yet right? Since you put your faith in a theory that technically "answers that question", why is that?
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing “God allowed the fossils to lay that way so he could "make foolish the 'wisdom of the world'" “
So, the fossil record is a confusion, a misrepresentation; God, or the Flood, laid them out in an order contrary to reality’s actual history. The evidence is untrustworthy. It might even be a trap to snare the arrogant.
In reality, man walked with Dinosaurs and the fossil record is a red herring.
This is a coherent explanation, I’m not mocking it. Do I understand your position correctly?
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch i wouldnt call it my position but its one hypothesis in my mind, sure..although i wouldnt say Gods trying to cause confusion or trap people. My actual "position" is much less dramatic in that i think the whole idea of evolution is a tool of the devil that HE uses to trap people. Because again, the actual evidence doesnt prove creation wrong it just hints at evolution in some areas..
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing so to me, to trust in evolution you have to disregard a theory that has no actual disproof (Christianity), for a theory that has no disproof except Christianity...
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing “According to science, everything had to start somewhere.” Really, where is that a law? (2nd Law of thermodynamics has already been discussed in the comment history.) Personally, if forced to choose, I don’t believe in any beginning, infinity is simpler.
God is not a theory. It’s a story. Any story can pretend to answer all questions.
I’m defending Macro-Evolution. It does not ‘answer that question’.
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch “God allowed the fossils to lay that way”
“evolution is a tool of the devil”
Going back and forth on yourself like this makes dialogue with you really hard.
I often get the feeling that communication is not really a priority of yours.
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch You really like the word ‘proof’, but it really isn’t appropriate in a discussion with me. I’ve not claimed any ‘proof’ for evolution, only evidence. Please, search the comment history, it hasn’t happened once.
I’m focused on the evidence, and I’m looking for an explanation that accounts for all the evidence.
Can you please stop using the word ‘proof’ in this discussion? You don’t have it, I don’t have it.
Evidence, however, I have. Religion only has hearsay.
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch i dont see in the comment history where i stated that you HAVE claimed proof so defending the fact that you havent seems pointless but i guess you just wanted us to know. Im focused on the evidence as well however my evidence doesnt hold water with you because it comes from the bible which is just "a story" right?
but you dont have evidence either bud..you have fossils..and those fossils dont disagree with creation at all so why is that evidence of anything else?
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing
No, you don't understand my position correctly.
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch i hoped as much..
HustIeKing 1 month ago
Comment removed
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@HustIeKing So, we agree to stop using the word ‘proof’ then, great.
The difference between my evidence and your evidence is the number of Human fingerprints on it. Fossils exist without the taint of man. Without man, your evidence couldn’t even exist. I don’t trust people, and so I don’t trust evidence that is dependent on people.
Even if fossils COULD be tampered with, Biblical evidence, by it’s written nature, HAS TO be.
Do you think that’s an unfair comparison?
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@HustIeKing “The fact that life exists … means it had to start.” Why?
Science only says THIS planet is billions of years old, and that only THIS universe originated from the Big Bang; there is no data on all of existence. I don’t think anything in Science demands that there was nothing before the Big Bang; why can’t it be cyclical, or caused by an event in a neighboring universe?
Life may have arrived here by comet, alien intent, or even abiogenesis. An origin is not mandatory.
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch and your apparently not looking for something that accounts for all the evidence because the fact that life exists (even if it evolved) means it had to start..something which you seem to disagree with..but if it didnt start that means it was always here and always evolving right? science apparently has it wrong too because they say the earth is only billions of years old..but in fact its agless cus it was always here? do i understand your "position" correctly?
HustIeKing 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HustIeKing Why is it that so much of your evidence against Evolution is missing key data?
Such as Coelacanth being one animal, and the polystrate Baleen whale story.
Maybe:
“...most disturbing was the tendency for creationists to deliberately omit specific locational data and references. Thus, they made it as difficult as possible for a person to independently confirm the data on which they offered as proof of a Biblical world-wide flood.”
talkorigins dotOrg /faqs/polystrate/whale.html
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch i didnt go back or forth lol but since you continue to quote me out of context please allow me to correct you once more, what i beleive (my position, if you will) is that evolution is a tool of the devil, i dont know if thats correct or not so i also put out the idea that "maybe" God let them lay that way so anyone naive enough to trust a fossil record over God would be made foolish along with the "wisdom of the world" as he states in 1 cor: 1:21 which i believe refers to evolution
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing if you cant stop trying to discredit christianity and myself by misquoting me (go back and read the comment..) then im not gonna waste my time trying to debate with you when all your trying to do is argue....
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing **1 cor 1:20**
HustIeKing 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HustIeKing It wasn’t my intention to misquote you. I was genuinely confused. Regarding the Devils role, vs the Flood’s role, in the development of the Evolution ‘illusion’, I’m still unsure, but I don’t think it really matters in this conversation so I’ll simply retract and apologize.
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
Comment removed
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@doubleKlutch macro-evolution is part of evolutionary theory..and evolutionary theory DOES answer that question..unless your just picking one part of evolutionary theory to believe in with all your heart and calling the rest hogwash because of how obviously ridiculous it is?
you say there was no beginning? so the earth was always here and always had life on it that has always been evolving?
and your right..God is not a theory but he is more than a story..evolution is a story..God is creator
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing Am I ‘cherry picking’ science by defending Macro-Evolution and ignoring abiogenesis? No. I see consistent natural, empirical evidence supporting Macro-Evolution, while abiogensis through Chemical Evolution is an unknown for me. I simply don’t know enough about it to argue for it. Regardless of whether abiogenesis occurred or not is irrelevant to how natural history is contrary, or not, to the literal story of Genesis.
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@HustIeKing
Now I’m confused again.
Me:12/7 “...they[fossils] APPEAR to show transition, but that doesn’t mean that life is necessarily transitional.”
You:12/6 “they may ‘appear to show transition’”
You:12/9 “im just saying they may "appear" to show some[transition]..whether or not it exists..”
And yet, somehow, you insist we don’t agree on this point? I’m not talking about the conclusions, I’m merely talking about the fossils themselves. Common ground first.
doubleKlutch 1 month ago
@HustIeKing Would you mind studying first ,what you so vigourously condemn !! Millions of christians have no qualms with evolution. From the 540,000 scientists polled( by Newsweek) only a mere 700 stand behind creation. Creation is so infantile, that from the 106 colleges, which form the : "Christian Coalition of Colleges " only 5 teach litteral biblical creation. Why ? Because creation is bulls... !!
ndzoko 1 month ago
@ndzoko so basically your proof that christianity is false consists of .."most people dont believe in it so it CANT be correct"..ok..go with the world..but just so your aware the bible predicts that too in mathew 7:13,14 "Enter through the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
and im in the process of studying eveolution
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing but so far all im finding is a whole lot of "this might be the case..and if it is then THIS also might be true..and if assume both those are true then THIS is most certainly how life evolves on earth" and every now an then their be tiny shreds of "almost evidence" that was twisted around and imagined into something entirely new but who cares right? its not like it can be proven wrong since were guessing about creatures that dont exist any more..
HustIeKing 1 month ago
@HustIeKing o wait whats that??? your saying they found actual live ceolecanth and absolutely EVERY SINGLE THING that i said proved this to be a transitional fossil turned out to be something else entirely unrelated to anything having to do with transition..well OOPS..lets just hope we dont find any living versions of the other fossils were claiming are proof against the bible cus just one probably isnt enough to show evolutionary theory as a silly "scheme of man"..
HustIeKing 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HustIeKing and im in the process of studying eveolution >>>>> Finally !! That`s one of the few sentences you wrote that make sense. All your bible quotes are useless, you can as well quote from" Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves ", Unless you prove the bible to be a reliable history book. It is not.
ndzoko 1 month ago