[James Hutchins]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Friend, It troubles me that you put your parlour game of science before the Majesty of Jesus. Card tricks are fun but Creation is serious. No one have ever stated with absolute conviction that evolution is 'how it all happened'. It is all guesses. Many of us have tried the jar of peanut butter experiment. No one ever climbed out. Several Theologians have sat at the zoo, watching the monkee cage, looking for a chimp to shave and go to work. It is simply wild postulates. God on the other hand, clearly and definitively stated how He created everything in six days in the Books of Genesis.
Beleive in God friend, that is the only Truth(r).

[NiggsBosom]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

So you think our prefect, all knowing God makes mistakes and needs to correct them. Is that not the position of Satan?

No, but i dont find previous evolutions mistakes either. I think that its like a learning curve, to show that, as humans, we are further along than we used to be, and should respect what we have, and maybe some day we'll be granted something even more better and awesome than we could even imagine. Its simple, and maybe a bit naive, but its what i believe.

[Bobby-Joe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Yes, i do believe the creation of stars was first. But i mean simply that this wonderful earth we have, and the stars and animals, it seems to make sense to me that they change over time, in evolution, but also that believing that they just happened from a scientific view is far fetched, and that divine intervention in our design and lives must be present

So you think our prefect, all knowing God makes mistakes and needs to correct them. Is that not the position of Satan?

[NiggsBosom]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

The Bible and secular science are completely incompatible. The only way they can be merged is if large chunks of either are thrown out. You need to decide which is true. I find one simple question helps with this.

Q. Which existed first, grass on Earth or stars?

If you believe that the answer is grass then reject science.

If you believe that the answer is stars then call God a liar, choose science and burn in hell,



Hopefully that is of some help,

YIC

Jack



Genesis 1

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Yes, i do believe the creation of stars was first. But i mean simply that this wonderful earth we have, and the stars and animals, it seems to make sense to me that they change over time, in evolution, but also that believing that they just happened from a scientific view is far fetched, and that divine intervention in our design and lives must be present

[NiggsBosom]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

That'd be the science that's pretty definite about the idea that dead people decompose and never ever come back to life....

Well, from a scientific view, every humans genetic code is unique, so the resurrection of one would be thus far inprobable. However, it could also be said that its the soul that resurrects, not the flesh, unless a godly figure as Jesus.

[Jack O'fagan]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Hi, i saw these questions and subsequently created an account to try my best to answer them. I dont mean to cause a stir, i was raised christian, attend church, believe in God almighty and his son Jesus. But i am also a follower of science. When i saw these questions, i felt the need to speak up and present a scientific answer, as to me, communication, especially between beliefs, is the best way to enlighten ones self to the world around them.

The Bible and secular science are completely incompatible. The only way they can be merged is if large chunks of either are thrown out. You need to decide which is true. I find one simple question helps with this.

Q. Which existed first, grass on Earth or stars?

If you believe that the answer is grass then reject science.

If you believe that the answer is stars then call God a liar, choose science and burn in hell,



Hopefully that is of some help,

YIC

Jack



Genesis 1

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Hi, i saw these questions and subsequently created an account to try my best to answer them. I dont mean to cause a stir, i was raised christian, attend church, believe in God almighty and his son Jesus. But i am also a follower of science. When i saw these questions, i felt the need to speak up and present a scientific answer, as to me, communication, especially between beliefs, is the best way to enlighten ones self to the world around them.



I hope my answers are adequate, and would like to know if they need further expansion or are helpful. Thank you for reading, and i apologize for any grammar or spelling errors i may have made.

That'd be the science that's pretty definite about the idea that dead people decompose and never ever come back to life....

[NiggsBosom]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Hi, i saw these questions and subsequently created an account to try my best to answer them. I dont mean to cause a stir, i was raised christian, attend church, believe in God almighty and his son Jesus. But i am also a follower of science. When i saw these questions, i felt the need to speak up and present a scientific answer, as to me, communication, especially between beliefs, is the best way to enlighten ones self to the world around them.

Account for the missing land sharks
If we evolved from fish, why haven’t sharks, who according to your theory predate us, evolved into land animals and are hunting us?

Evolution is sparked primarily through a change in an organisms environment, for example, a decrease in available food. Sharks though, aren't facing such a change, as there are plenty of fish and other sea, and sometimes land, creatures to feed on. The mutations of evolution, therefore, don't take hold and prove superiority over the current common shark.

Explain floods on Mars with out the Great Flood of the Bible
If Noah’s flood didn’t happen then how do explain the evidence of a great flood on Mars?[/

If mar experiences or experienced a flood, it would be a caused by a climactic anomaly, most likely caused by a change in rotation or orbit, by say, a comet, astaroid, or other stellar object colliding with it. Even a slight change in the orbit or atmosphere can spike the temperature, melt any frozen liquid, and result in a flood.

Account for fools
If evolution is survival of the fittest then how do explain the continued survival of unsuccessful groups of stupid humans?

Thats not so much a fault of evolution as its a fault of psychology and sociology. Its true that in the process of natural selection, the "stupid" would die off more quickly than the "smart". However, humanity and compassion have put a kink in that. Various programs, even random acts of kindness, like stopping someone from stepping into the street in front of a car, halt survival of the fitest. It should also be considered that an arguement of "stupid isnt genetic" could be made, with any number of developmental, situational, environmental, and even emotional characteristics playing a part in ones intelligence.
Explain why human's aren't perfect
If we are evolving why don’t we have third arms now?

As i mentioned above, evolution is brought about by a change or need. Humans have instead of changing to better ourselves, taken to changing the environment to better suit our needs. For example, if a small group of people lived entirely isolated, and the only available resources were rocks, dirt, and slightly toxic berries, if a few of those people have a slight genetic mutation that allows the body to digest those berries, they can survive while those who cannot would die off, making that mutation "the new normal". So if our environment changed and those who grew a third arm from a mutation survived where others struggled, we'll most likely evolve into a three armed creature.

Explain infant murder
If we are evolved to nature our young then how do you secular humanist explain your groups pathological desire to kill yours with abortions?

Thats a tricky question, as it again isnt evolutionary as it is psychological. All i can say without changing this into a debate on moralities is that the idea of nuturing ones offspring is actually quite young. A large majority of none-human organisms consume the sick or weak, so only the strong survive, part of natural selection. An example of this mentality is a rare breed of bird, a strain of boobie, that lays only two eggs. When they hatch, they mature in the mothers nest for a few weeks, and the stronger then kills and consumes the weaker. If the chick is attack, the mother wont intervene. I know its a bird, considered a lesser form, but a similar mentality is shared among many species


Why no bodies?
If humanity was roughly a million people living at one time. If the human race is 150,000 years old like you maintain that means there have been 150,000,000,000 who lived before the current era. If each corpse takes up 3 by 6 feet then that means the remains of human ancestors cover 1350 billion square feet of the earth! Why are we not buried under the remains of 150 billion people?

Not so much a matter of evolution, but biology and the such. First, of those ancestors, cremations have to be accounted for, as well as any deaths resulting in a general lack of corpse, ie fires, animal attacks, cases of cannibalism, gruesome blender accidents, and countless other nasty ways to go out. Secondly, decomposition. Humans are entirely organic beings (besides those knee pins and hip replacements, but even those decompose, just far slower). Worms, beetles, flys, and fungus, just to name a few decomposers, all consume flesh and the like, especially that of ancestors who didnt widely use preservatives to pickle the dead, not including ancient Egyptian pharaohs and the like. The reason behind the mysterious lack of a massive worm population is simple, worms consume, and like us, what goes in must come out. It might seem a strech, but most ancestral humans, if not focilized, are converted to none other than dirt.


Were do angels and demons fit into the Evolutionist tree of life?
Please explain the earliest common ancestor with all animals, angles and demons. What is their ancestry and transitional form?

Im afraid connections like this are, to date, impossible. Currently, the most common ancestor of all creatures arent angels and demons but single celled organisms, which grew to intertabrates, to fish, to amphibians, to mammals, and man. Angels and demons are currently, to the scientific community, biblical and stuff of legends. When evidence comes to light, they will no doubt be entered into the evolutionary tree, but im afraid that evidence has not spanned beyond the pages of the bible. This isnt to say they dont exist, but merely that man has yet to see them. When the time comes, im sure they will make their debut, when the world is ready.

Explain talking snake in the garden threw evolution.
Please tell me when serpents lost the power of speech and the process with which it happened. Please include any fossil of impaired speech snakes.

For a question like this, it is, as of now, impossible for sound physical evidence of a talking snake to put forth. The only creature that can communicate with man is currently man, so the criteria for a creature capable of speech is limited to our own voice boxes. The modern snake doesn't share a common vocal and oral design, so it cannot communicate as we do. Its lineage traces back to primal lizards, and then to legged fish (the original amphibian), so as far as we know, the snake has never had the capacity to speak as humans do.

Explain the Loch Ness Monster threw evolution.
I find it hard to believe that a whole species can sustain itself from so few individuals as observed in Loch Ness. Sounds like a hole in your theory to me

It's still currently under debate whether or not the loch ness monster even exists. No hard evidence has been agreed upon to actually be loch ness, only some accounts and photographs, which could easily be tricks of smoke and mirrors. If evidence of the loch ness monster does come to light, it is possible that it evolved as a mutation of an unknown species similar to the dinosaur, or another aquatic mammal, like the platypus.

If evolution is true, then why don't trees stretch up to the stratosphere?
Scientists say that trees grow taller and taller because natural selection forces them to compete for light with other trees. However, they have supposedly had hundreds of millions of years to evolve, but the tallest tree in the world is a mere 370 feet tall.
If evolution were true, we should be living in pitch dark, because the entire troposphere would be encased in a big sheet of tree leaves. Asked by Pastor Billy-Rueben

The modern tree still grows really quite slow, and slower still as it grows. It is also possible that, untill it evolves further, a few hundred feet is as tall as trees are getting, as an organism that massive would require equally massive amounts of nutrients to grow. When the nutrients begin to run ahort, the tree grows slower, and when the soil is depleted, the tree would die

Why don't we act like monkeys
If we are evolved from monkeys why do we behave like them; service our selves constantly an throw our feces about? Asked by Eight or Better

Behavior is something formed by society. When we evolved, and the first humans came about, it is likely that we still held behavioral ties to apes. But as we continued to form communities, and societies were formed, behaviors changed, and the modern human began to emerge. The same could also be said about the custom of primo gentry in older societies, where the first born inherited all of a families assets. It was considered unfair and is now in far less practice as before.

Why are there still monkey?[/B]
Evolution predicts the stronger species (humans) would crush and exterminate the weaker species(monkeys) it evolved from. Asked by ChristianSoldier

The idea of the stronger destroying the weaker isn't necessarily true. If it were, earth would most likely be dominated soley by trees, as plant life(as algae or primal ferns) is considered the first evolution of life. Evolution could be thought of more as one species breaks away from the prime species and changes through natural selection. If you follow the belief that apes are the ancestors of humans, then the logic is that through mutations, certain apes, to be humans, produced more offspring, and grew exponentially, continueing to fit the environment better than apes, making humans. Now, unless the human race feels we will survive better without monkeys, its unlikely they'll die off any time soon.


Please account for quick extinctions.
According to evolution theory it takes millions of years for a species to go extinct. Yet we have examples of species dying out in a few hunderd years like the Dodo. Please account for this.

The best example of this is the great extinction ending the dinosaur era. As it was a prehistoric time and no records exist to document this event, it is unclear how exactly it happened, the most accepted reason being a great cosmic phenomena, like a massive asatroid colliding with earth or an extreme climactic change happened so quickly, evolution which takes hundreds of thousands of years, simply couldnt keep up with. Other extinctions, like those of recent years, can be attributed to human intervention, where we changed the environment so greatly, again, evolution simply couldnt keep up.

Were are ancestors and fossilizes remains of the dragon, satyr and unicorn?[/B]
I would say the lack of fossils foorr these three creatures presents a clear gap in the record.

I am afraid the modern society has written such creatures off as stuff or legends, myths and not true creatures. Thus far, solid evidence has not been found to support the existence if these creatures.

Why are no human ancestors mentioned in The Bible? [/B]
The very fact that Neandertals, Homo-Erectuces are not mentioned in The Bible proves they are made up. I mean you would think God would have mentioned them 6,000 years ago when He wrote The Bible. duh.

As i am not in any manner God and thus cannit account for the ancestral humans nit mentioned. No one could say certainly that they aren't mentioned because they didn't exist as those around when the bible surfaced are no longer with us. Nit every single creature around today could be included in the Holy Book, and i can only assume pre human creatures didnt have a place in the Bible.

Explain wasps with evolution.
Wasp paralyze spiders and then implant their young in them to feed on living, but helpless insect. If evolution was true them spiders would have anti-wasp poison in their blood. But they don’t. The only way you can get such a horrific death as those countless spiders suffer is threw the power of God.

In that case, cells would have anti-virus toxins, as viruses act on the same principle. It is survival of the fitest, and if spiders havent evolved into wasp resiatant insects, they would become the fitest, and wasps would die off. Its all a matter of wasps prey evolving fast enough.

How could Cain could procreate with his sisters if evolution was true?
If can was getting busy with his sister like The Bible relates then the human race should be a race of inbreed deformities like the English Royal Family. Instead we see the general population is healthy. This can only happen if Cain and his sister were of the pure first generation after Adam not corrupted by sins yet.

This is a complicated question, but ill give it my best shot. Though hereditary diseases, like those that plague the english royal family do tend to surface through incest, if you speak of cain and not of evolution from apes, it could be a matter of there was no genetic disorders yet. Those disorders are another mutation, a failed one. Mutations in evolution is not only a way to create advantages, but also disadvantages. Its like saying that one genetic mutation caused more harm then good, so it will die off anf most likely not occur again until conditions change. That said, cain and his sister could simply have "clean" genetics, and mutations may have simply occured later, in a more isolated population, when humanities numbers grew and the average birth rate grew as well.

The Genealogy of Henry III
The "Evidence From Genealogy" display, donated by Edgar Nurnberg, is one of the more favorite displays of our visitors. These scrolls from the Lambeth Palace in England trace the genealogy of King Henry the 6th back to Adam and Eve.
Asked by Heathen Basher 8/18/09

Though it sounds bad, it is entirely possible that the lineage of king henry VI was false. Religion held most of the government during that period of time, and the royal family used its image as the holy rulers put to work by God to rule the earth to prove their power. In this case, the possibility that king henrys connection to adam and eve was purely religious belief.

Unicorn Horns
What so-called "evoloutionary role" does the horn on a unicorn play? I was taught evolutionary theory, and I can't figure it out! Asked by H. Montague Worthington's 8/24/09

Well firstly, it should be considered that no fossils or other proof of the unicorns existence is yet to be uncovered, and i suppose when the unicorns existence is proven it will be easier to pin point the use of a horn, as environment, life span, behavior, and even diet all play a part in a evolutionary change.

Transitional fossils for single celled organism.
The Darwinists would have us believe that life evolved from single-celled organisms to more complicated forms. If that's true, then we should expect to see intermediaries between organisms with one cell and organisms with millions/billions/trillions of cells, but that's exactly what we don't see. Where are all the two-celled organisms that we should see if evolution was true? Where are all the five-celled organisms or twelve-celled organisms? Are we supposed to believe that 50 million amoebas randomly assembled into a fully formed flatworm by chance? Asked by Pastor Billy-Reuben. 8/25/09

The reason there are no two celled organisms is, simply put, there were none. This is because a single celled organism, say, bacteria, cannot support a multicelled formation. It could split and multiply through mitosis, but couldnt sustain a complex organism. Its not until the appearance of primitive plants and invertebrates that evolution created a stable complex multi celled life form.

Why is there still mud?
Darwinists claim that life originate in mud. If you really believe that a big pile of mud turned into a fish, which sprouted legs and arms and turned into monkeys, which turned into human beings, then you're more stupid than I thought. For a start, if that's true, why's there still mud around, and why do babies not have tails like monkeys when they're born? Asked by Rachel Pierce 11/4/09

Yes, you could say life originated from mud, but not the mud itself, instead the single celled life forms living in it. Mud is and always will be inanimate. Its the decomposed remains of earlier plants and animals and not living. Thus, it cant evolve. Now, if the worl dried up and there was no more water to make mud, well that would be the end of it, along with everything living.

Why don't chemicals think?
If our brains are just a mishmash of biochemistry, how come chemicals like gasoline or bug spray can't think? Rev. Jim Osborne 1/11/10

Chemicals cant think because they arent alive. Chemicals are the precise mixture of various elements, and our brains only think through electrical pulses. Until the chemicals are introduced to energy to produce a reaction, they cannot acomplish anything. Its that energy in our brains that allows us to think, through a multitude of complicated relations and reactions. In that case, a single compound cannot think.

Why don't we have natural clothing?
People have been wearing clothes for thousands of years. Why haven't our bodies evolved natural clothes that come out of our skin then? Rev. Jim Osborne 1/11/10

Using biblical events for this one, in the garden of Eden, as adam and eve lived happily without being tainted by knowledge, they didnt need or care for clothea. Clothes are, then, not required for life. The evolutionary equivalent is hair, on your head and body, but aside from that, the role of clothes is simply societal, and not necessary to live.

What was the "evolutionary advantage" of Adam's extra rib?
Why do women have an extra rib than men like the Bible tells us. asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07

As for this one, i studied the chapter of Genesis, with the creation of man and woman and dont recall a set number of ribs being said. If so, id love to see the passage. From what i know though, cadavers and x rays have been studied and confirm that both men and woman have twelve ribs a piece, in which case, neither has the evolutionary upper hand. However, if there was, it would probably be to support the breasts and back for child rearing. Since there's no difference though, neither sex has the advantage.

What is the evolutionary advantage of demonic possession
Please explain how demonic possesions humans, horses, dogs and pigs helps them to be a more successful species. asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07

Though there are no scientifically proven accounts of demonic posessions, it can be argued that it would be easier to handle dirty or dangerous work if you have a human glove to work through.

Do you believe that Jesus was more primitive and less "fit" than today's slugs and worms?
Christ earthly ministery was 2,000 years ago, a more primitive time than now. asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07

As this is question requires an opinion, not facts, i can only use my own opinion. Personally, i say neither is more primitive. Both serve there purposes and their bodies are fitting. Accounts of human history, specifically greek and roman, and the art depicting them, show little to no discrepancies between humans then Nd now. It could actually be argued that Jesus was the start of modern man, and therefore no less primitive. Again though, this is only my opinion, and others will differ.

What did the rocks and lightning evolve from?
According to evolutionary theory, all life evolved out of rocks and lightning,Please show the evolutionary linage and transitional forums for rocks and lighting. asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07

Actually, the original life was believed to be aquatic bacteria. Rocks, the composite of dirt and sand, isnt living and cannot evolve or have a lineage out side of the occurance of fossils, while lightning, also in aninate, is the release of electrical energy that builds between friction in the particles of air and clouds, cannot evolve either. Im afraid neither have a lineage.

Please show the disorder inherent in evolution
Scientific "laws" regarding thermodynamics and entropy say that things go from ordered to disordered. ?]How do you explain evolution in light of this. asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07

The laws of thermodynamics, ir enthalpy, and entropy, or the existence of "chaos" isnt related to the idea if evolution. Evolution is a branch of biology, while enthalpy and entropy are from the branch of chemistry. Specificially, enthalpy and entropy are used to explain spontaneous reactions, or sudden chemical reactions that occur in nature, and play only a slight part in evolution, namely the idea of ebtropy. Entropy is a measurement of randomness, and is used in biology in the fertilization of a embrio. In this, the two parent cells take part of there full genetic code and combine to make one unique code out of a virtually enless number of choices, seemingly randomly.

Where are those transitional forms???
asked by Virginia D. Templeton 6/8/07

Im afraid i dont understand how you mean transitional forms, unless it is in relation to the question on where the intermediately sized cellular organisms are, which i responded to above.

Well evolutionist, please give it your best shot. Even one question will be helpful. I look forward to your answers.

I hope my answers are adequate, and would like to know if they need further expansion or are helpful. Thank you for reading, and i apologize for any grammar or spelling errors i may have made.

[shy Rita]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Well, just take it by faith. You must believe in the Dagger of Helios and you will see, it exists.
And yes, it can kill Gods. That's why the Bible doesn't mention it. Again a proof .....




The dagger itself helps you to reach its target. Just believe in it.




No, by nothing - EXCEPT the Dagger of Helios.....

Okay put down the weed and get some fresh air into your system before you post next time. Seriously though, are you on something? Or perhaps you forgot your medication this morning? Put down the spliff and pick up a Bible (KJV only). Don't try to fill up the God vacuum in your life with other things.

[Dr Laurence Niles]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Well, just take it by faith. You must believe in the Dagger of Helios and you will see, it exists.
And yes, it can kill Gods. That's why the Bible doesn't mention it. Again a proof .....




The dagger itself helps you to reach its target. Just believe in it.




No, by nothing - EXCEPT the Dagger of Helios.....

You make all these wild statements but (as we can all see) they are unsupported assert actions and frankly further evidence that you are engaging in mutual masterbation with your ego, spouting nonsense and trying to pass it off as cleverness.

Very well done.

YIC

[loco73]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Okay two things.
1) The Dagger of Helios? REALLY? You don't mean the one that was destroyed by ares, do you? It's a myth. A fairytale. An old TV show!!!

2) Even if this dagger was to exist (which again, it doesn't), it still would have no power against the True and Living God- "And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." (Revelation 19:6)
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, one who is omnipotent (like God) has virtually unlimited authority or influence. Now since God is omnipotent, and thereby has unlimited authority, how could He be defeated by a dagger? Simple as this- He will not be defeated by it. You won't even be able to get the dagger close.

Well, just take it by faith. You must believe in the Dagger of Helios and you will see, it exists.
And yes, it can kill Gods. That's why the Bible doesn't mention it. Again a proof .....

He will not be defeated by it. You won't even be able to get the dagger close.

The dagger itself helps you to reach its target. Just believe in it.

Now since God is omnipotent, and thereby has unlimited authority, how could He be defeated by a dagger?

No, by nothing - EXCEPT the Dagger of Helios.....

[shy Rita]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

No, not with the 'Dagger of Helios'.....

Okay two things.
1) The Dagger of Helios? REALLY? You don't mean the one that was destroyed by ares, do you? It's a myth. A fairytale. An old TV show!!!

2) Even if this dagger was to exist (which again, it doesn't), it still would have no power against the True and Living God- "And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth." (Revelation 19:6)
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, one who is omnipotent (like God) has virtually unlimited authority or influence. Now since God is omnipotent, and thereby has unlimited authority, how could He be defeated by a dagger? Simple as this- He will not be defeated by it. You won't even be able to get the dagger close.

[loco73]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

You're going to have satan's giant barbed tallywhacker shoved up your poop chute for all eternity if you don't repent. And I don't mean later.

No, not with the 'Dagger of Helios'.....

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

I have got the 'Dagger of Helios'.......

You're going to have satan's giant barbed tallywhacker shoved up your poop chute for all eternity if you don't repent. And I don't mean later.

Mark 13:34 For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.
13:35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
13:36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
13:37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Originally Posted by logo73
The competition between predator and prey is going on in all media - water, land, air. So, the first animals to get out of the ocean..bird spiders..crawled on land..

The evolutionist does not claim that bird spiders (or any other spider) crawled out of the ocean. Please cite your sources.

Oh, sure it happened. But it was not a worldwide flood..

Yes it was.

GENESIS 7:19-21a
19 And the waters preuailed exceedingly vpon the earth, and all the high hils, that were vnder the whole heauen, were couered.
20 Fifteene cubits vpward, did the waters preuaile; and the mountaines were couered.
21a And all flesh died
©1611

And who is the predator of the lions?

Hyænas. Please get to the point.

Why no bodies?
If humanity was roughly a million people living at one time. If the human race is 150,000 years old like you maintain that means there have been 150,000,000,000 who lived before the current era. If each corpse takes up 3 by 6 feet then that means the remains of human ancestors cover 1350 billion square feet of the earth! Why are we not buried under the remains of 150 billion people?

..So, all these people and animals were mineralized again

In which case Why are we not buried under the FOSSIL remains of 150 billion people?

Why don't we act like monkeys?
If we are evolved from monkeys..

In face we are doing..Our faces are similar, when expressing anger, fear or joy. And apes are able to understand our expressions.

You just don't get it do you. Monkeys are not apes.

Why did Aristoteles (and ancient greek) not construct a steam engine? He had all the parts and all the methods to do so. He just did not see any need to do.

I think you're confusing Aristotle with Archimedes. But once again you are floundering: steam engines were designed and constructed by Heron in Alexandria. His work to some extent derived from pneumatic technology originated by Ktesibios approx. 300 years earlier (he invented the pipe organ for example) - but the point here is that

• steam engines were put to different uses then
• that technology was destroyed by Rome
• where are your sources?
• please get to the point