[michele]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Yes, it does. According to evolution, predator and prey co-evolve in an "Arms Race." There is no sufficient explanation for why there are no land sharks.

Sharks are an Apex predator...evolution is an effect, there has been no cause to warrant a shark coming onto land, to eat anything let alone humans...


1. Mars is tectonically inactive. was it inactive 3.5 billion years ago?
2. How would that water become locked under the ground? Who put it there?
well when you mix hydrogen (the most abundant element) and oxygen you get water. Its quite feasible that 4 billion years ago water formed under the surface of mars due to the mix of those 2 elements. And then 3.5 billion years ago the pressure of these broke through the surface. This is all speculation just like your idea of what happened.


Yes, but stupid people don't. That was more or less my point.
You yourself are living proof that evolution is a lie, as someone so argumentative yet oblivious to reality like you would have been eaten out of existence by tigers long ago if there really had been an "Age of Prehistoric Man."
If someone would shout: "There's a tiger!" someone with your genes would either say: "of course not, that's a lion, you idiot," and get eaten, or fail to see that there is any feline predator at all, and get eaten.

Oblivious to reality? Really? I believe in what I see and what I can touch and what my body knows.
So me having ideas and ideals means I would die out?

Surely your story would go something like this.

“theres a tiger!!”

“Oh god will save me”

Then you’d get eaten.

THAT is oblivious to reality.

According to lying evilutionists, the individuals with the highest "fitness" would survive. It doesn't matter if something works, if something else works better, like three arms vs only two arms, the better design would survive.
As we have only two arms, we can say with great certainty that evolution is a dumb myth.

What the hell do we need a third arm for? And evolution takes millions of years. Mankind isn’t old enough to have taken those sort of leaps yet....(besides if your anything to go by, the entire planet is only 6000 years old!!)

What? How do you know that? And why would that desire "evolve" in the first place?

Because we have a developed sense of cognitive thought...”I’m 13...i cant support a child and i was a rape victim...it would be unwise to have THIS child....” weigh up the points and reach a conclusion. To suggest we just kill them indiscriminately is just lack of understanding.

So according to you, we live on thick layers of decompressed compost? That's stupid. Only a fraction of the earth surface is covered with organic-rich material (soil). Oceans, deserts and mountains aren't. By the way, you should have to compact it really tightly to prevent filling the oceans up with it.

not everyone died on land...or land thats lived on now. Land masses have shifted and moved. If someone dies in the desert, give it 20 years and there wouldn’t even be a sign anyone was there.


So I take it that you have no proof of evolution, outside the "proof" your religion (science) offers?
And there are no contradictions in the Bible. Apparent contradictions are the result of the imperfect human mind failing to understand God's Wisdom.

Let me show you just some contradictions.

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
So why would all mighty god say he loves all then personally murder (for example) David’s child?
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
So how can Jesus and his father be one but his father be greater? If they are one they are the same then they are the same.
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
How can god make beasts then man but then have man name the beasts if the beasts came first? But then later make the beasts after man?
Need I say more?


That is pure speculation. People talk to animals because they project human feelings and emotions on those animals. Animals have no language like we have.

Why did the snake speak in the garden of eden?
You’ve answered your own question there.

The Loch Ness Monster is big. To have a stable population, you need several individuals. Loch Ness is simply too small and too fragile to hold an entire population of Loch Ness Monsters.

Do you actually know how big the loch is? It is around twenty two and a half miles long and between one and one and a half miles wide, with a depth of around 750 feet. I think that’s enough for that sort of creature to live in.

Well, why couldn't they evolve a longer lifespan then, if they needed that? And why didn't they evolve something against gravity (which is a lie, by the way, things fall because of Intelligent Falling)?

nature isn’t greedy it gets what it NEEDS and stops...greed is a human abomination.

So let me get this right. You believe the world is flat AND there’s no such thing as gravity?


Exactly. That proves I'm no monkey or "primate," as evolution contends. Otherwise, I would still be throwing feces all over the place.

No what the proves is you have cognitive thought. Which is more than what a monkey does because we have evolved!

If it was more advantageous to live in the forest, then why did our "ancestors" leave that place? If it wasn't, why didn't the monkeys evolve into humans as well?

I never said it was advantageous to live in the forest. If a certain part of our common ancestor went to live in primitive caves, villages, whatever. It could be that monkeys saw these as outcasts and stayed in the forest. In the forest a monkey can find just as much food as what we would eat anyway.

And this proves the evolutionary idea of species dying out over long timespans false.

How does it?

If you saw a species of dog. In the entire world there are 2 of these dogs. You kill these 2 dogs. You have made this species extinct.

If there was a new species of dog and in the world there were 3 of them. As there aren’t many of them they cannot sufficiently procreate. Therefore the species dies out.

There are many ways a species can become extinct. ONE of them being the slow process over years and years. or a quicker extinction through hunting or other means.


The Bible was written by God. The hands who wrote it were human, but were guided by God. It is irrational to doubt that, because God, being almighty, could have made the humans write whatever He liked. As He apparently likes the Bible as it is now, it means that that is God's story, and therefore the Irrefutable Truth™.

It is irrational to doubt the bible? So it is irrational to think for myself?

It has been written and re written too many times for it to be seen anywhere close to irrefutable truth. If the bible was irrefutable there would be evidence. Of which I see none.

1. The Bible is very clear that God is a He. (written by a man)
2. Why would God hide this from us? The Bible clearly speaks about God creating one man, Adam, and one woman, Eve. The Bible leaves no place for other "hominids."

Maybe SHE didn’t want you to know as she was shameful of this. Or maybe god didn’t think to mention it.
Could be that god just didn’t want us to know.



That's just stupid. According to genetics, every creature passes half of its genes on to its offspring, whether they live long or short. If these spiders didn't, how would its offspring know where to put the legs and where to put the eyes? Creatures need genes to exist. Duh.

Yes that’s right. Parents pass on half of their genes. ButLet me put it to you this way then. If you die how would you pass your genes onto your child? You wouldn’t.

Or if you already had a child and you got bitten by a snake and die shortly after how would your child’s body know to make and anti venom? It wouldn’t.

DUH!!!



Maybe, maybe. You are not really sure of this aren't you? And meanwhile, you skip my main point, which was that there are hundreds of generations between either Jesus or Henry on one hand, and Adam on the other hand. Why do these genealogies, with hundreds of generations to choose from, stop at exactly the same generation? Do you know how small the odds are for that, girl?

Yes the odds are great. One thing you fail to take into account though is that carbon dating shows evidence of humans BEFORE Adam and eves supposed romp around the garden of eden.

No, they aren't. Unicorns have one horn, not antlers or two horns. If evolution were true, they would evolve into mooses or something like them perhaps. But seeing that they didn't, we can conclude evolution is a falsehood.

I’m sorry let me get this right. I said “todays modern moose could be an evolution of the unicorn” You then go on to say “if evolution was true the unicorn would evolve into a moose or something similar but seeing as they didn’t we conclude evolution is false.”

You’ve just said what I said then said your own idea was false…..

They exist in every environment. But that's beside the question. You haven't explained to me why there aren't hordes of two-, three- or four-celled organisms crawling around, as intermediates between unicellular and multicellular organisms.

Because as soon as one cell joins another more join and it becomes bigger and bigger.


exactly! So how could life evolve from mud, if mud isn't alive? Everyone knows that that can't happen.

Life could have gone to mud to live in or around. You really are closed minded aren’t you?

Yes, I do. Chemicals do not think because evolution is a lie.

Your right chemicals do not think. But humans do.

So what is thought then?

What? Why would we have evolved that away? If we had hairs, we wouldn't need clothing, would we? So why would we start wearing clothes then? That makes no sense. Likewise, it makes no sense to start having less hair, as hair is needed for insulation.

When the weather started getting cold we would have started wearing clothes. As the years passed and we wore more and more clothing our bodies realised that we no longer needed full body hair so started to change.

Huh? There was nothing in 6000 BC. That was 2000 years before Creation Day, girl! Who told you those lunacies?

So all the carbon dated evidence that shows existence of humans before creation day is a lie? I don’t think so. Theres only so much evidence that can be collated before truth is revealed.

No it is not. After all, how could you possibly know that those carvings would be 8000 years old?

Carbon dating

.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

tl;dr

So, would you like to hear the Good News about Jesus Christ?

[michele]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

go on

[michele]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

so no news?

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

so no news?

Quit bugging Pastor Ezekiel. You know exactly what he meant and you know exactly what you have to do.

[michele]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Quit bugging Pastor Ezekiel. You know exactly what he meant and you know exactly what you have to do.

and whats that? repent?

[True Sinner]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Am I too late?

Sorry about that, just thought I'd offer my thoughts about this series of supposedly unanswerable questions... let's see.

Here is some questions for the scientific theocrats of the Darwinist Gestapo to try and answer;

Q. 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?

A. While I don't profess to be an expert in the field of pre-historic biology, I can see that this question is purposely ignorant of our understanding of early life.My explanation is that the lifeforms that gradually evolved into tetrapods (4 legged land based organisms) were unevolved creatures to begin with, hence their evolution onto land.
Unlike sharks and other advanced fish, they were already evolved and specialised in their environment.
Sharks don't just grow legs and come running out of the ocean to eat mammals, especially when there is no need for them to do so.
I suggest closer study of the Paleozoic era for more detailed information.

Q. 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?

A. Excuse my lack of understanding, but how is the bible connected to Mars?
You mean to say that Moses was a martian?
Is this what they mean by parting the Red Sea?
I don't get the connection, really... but first I would like to see evidence that their was a great flood on Mars, second I would say if this has happened then it's probably because there has possibly been water/oceans on Mars.
I'm fairly sure no "liberal pussy" scientists out there have ever disputed this possibility.


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

A. I would like to throw this question right back at ya'
If creationism is true, and we are all made in the perfect image of god... then why did he create so many idiots?
Then in all his vengeful glory, allowed them to live and procreate.
I think evolution is exactly why there is so much diversity in the human race... think of evolution as trial and error.


Q. Explain why human's aren't perfect
If we are evolving why don’t we have third arms now?

A. See above... right back at ya.
3 arms would be annoying, imbalance problems etc etc... 2 is fine.
I think human evolution is displayed perfectly in the advances in knowledge, understanding and most blatantly technology.


Q. 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?

A. First of all, a question that presumes the reader considers anyone outside of their belief system to possess a pathological desire to have an abortion.
This is not true.
I am a man, so clearly I cannot have an abortion, I know women who have had abortions and I know women who wouldn't be able to go through with it. Some religious, some not... I know women who believe in god and also the right to abortion... a myriad of possibilities that don't conform to your very narrow worldview.
I believe that abortion is a sensitive issue that should be addressed only by those qualified to do so. And by qualified I mean medically or those with REAL personal involvement, not self appointed preachers.



Q. 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?

A. Decomposition?
Do you seriously expect to be stepping over the bodies of people who died 150,000 years ago?



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

A. They don't.
As in, as far as science and I know, Angels and Demons is a book by Dan Brown.
There is no scientific evidence to suggest that Angels or Demons exist.


Q. Explain talking snake in the garden through 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.

A. It's all getting very silly earlier than I thought... here goes.
Snakes have never had the power of speech, the Garden of Eden story is a fable, a metaphor... snakes have never spoken to people who aren't on hallucinogens.
Maybe Adam and Eve partook in some mushrooms before the apple.
Maybe it's just a story.


Q. Explain the Loch Ness Monster through 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

A. I find it hard to believe that the Loch Ness monster can sustain itself at all, sounds like another fairy tale to me.


Q. 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

A. Trees breathe through their leaves, stratosphere is much thinner than atmosphere at canopy level, thus not good for trees.
As for the second point, I will point you in the direction of my earlier ingenius solution to the piling corpses conundrum... namely decomposition.



Q. 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

A. You guys don't get out much do ya?
Try going out to a large city on Friday or Saturday night, go to a frat party or observe any group of teenagers... definately lots of primate like behaviour going on.
As for the throwing faeces and public masturbation, that would just be rude... even my godless european nation is civilised.


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

A. Not true, and a deliberate misinterpretation I think.
Evolution predicts nothing as far as I can see.
Evolution also points to the earth being a symbiotic system, as in we all play a part and we all need each other... nothing to do with crushing or exterminating as you true christians like to talk about.


Q. 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.

A. The Dodo is a perfect example of evolution at it's most cruel.
The Dodo had evolved on the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius in an environment devoid of a natural predator... then man arrived, bringing with him Dogs and Cats and development... no more Dodo. Not natural selection, but unintentional extermination.


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

A. I would say that a lack of fossils for these creatures would actually indicate that they have never existed. Also presenting a clear gap in the reasoning of anyone who asserts that they do exist.
What is a Satyr anyway?
Also please define a dragon. Could dinosaurs not be considered dragons?



Q. Why are no human ancestors mentioned in The Bible?
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.

A. Maybe it proves that the bible was written by someone who didn't have prior knowledge of pre-historic ancestors.
This question asserts that the bible was written by god, which is speculation not fact.



Q. 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.

A. I take it you are referring to the Parasitoid Wasp, as most wasps I know of make nests.
Life isn't like a video game or the movies... every creature doesn't develop an answer to every threat it might encounter. I mean it's like me saying... maybe if god designed spiders better they would have anti-wasp missiles strapped to their back.
I would say the Parasitoid Wasp problem has no real effect on Spider populations, thus an evolutionary answer is not required.

Q. How could Cain could procreate with his sisters if evolution was true?
If Cain 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.

A. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that. Firstly, the Cain and Abel story is a fairytale as far as I'm aware, thus having no real effect on real people. Secondly, the human race is interconnected and evolved from a common source, this does not mean direct inbreeding however, two very different things.


Q. 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

A. Well, first of all who is Edgar Nurnberg and how did he come into possession of scrolls from Lambeth Palace?
I would like to see these scrolls or at least examine their content before commenting, but seeing as they are stored in a creationist museum in Canada, not a Royal Library in the UK, I am dubious to their authenticity.
Conjecture would lead me to say that King Henry the 6th was a powerful man, if he wanted his genealogy tracing back to Adam and Eve, you didn't say no.


Q. 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

A. There is no evolutionary role of unicorn horns, as unicorns don't exist. They are the stuff of fairy tales.
I will readdress this issue once the existence of unicorns, past or present, is established scientifically.




Q. 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

A. Take a proper look at the fossil record, you will find that it mostly consists of bone material. If not bone material, than fibrous material like shell, hair or feather... ya know, stuff that doesn't decompose very quickly.
Single and 2 cell organisms, by comparison, decompose very quickly.
I'm not confident that single cell fossils would even be found if they exist, I mean that makes a needle in a haystack seem easy.
But seriously, this question is scraping the barrel a bit.



Q. 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


A. wow, making a connection between primordial soup and plain old mud is stunning.
Please look up primordial soup theory and reword this question, it is silly and not worthy of an answer.
There is still mud around because there is still soil and still water, as long as soil and water exist then so will mud.
Babies, tails... What? Maybe because we are not monkeys?
I don't know of any evidence or suggestion that we had tails, I assume we did a long long long time ago, I also assume we evolved without them after we moved from being arboreal and became land dwellers, negating a need for a tail.


Q. 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


A. I think you already know the answer to this one, and you know it has to do with the difference between a complex being with a brain that is more akin to a bio computer than just a mishmash of chemicals... and gasoline, or bugspray, which is just a mishmash of chemicals.




Q. 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


A. Because clothes are a cultural thing, not something we naturally require but something society and conditions require of us.
Now, this begs the question, if god is all knowing and designed us perfectly... then why did he design us all naked and then force us to wear clothes? Is this a mistake?

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

Well, here are my answers... better late than never I suppose.

Hope I did well!

Please feel free to ask for help on any more issues you would like clearing up.

[Cranky Old Man]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

and whats that? repent?

Exactly.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Please feel free to ask for help on any more issues you would like clearing up.

Jesus needs your help. He wants you to love Him unconditionally. He asked me to tell you.

[True Sinner]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Thanks for passing on the message.

I do find it hard to offer up unconditional love to someone who threatens to burn me in hell if I don't comply though, maybe if Jesus could chill out a bit on the eternal damnation threats I'd like him a little more.

Hell, I might even learn to love the guy if he spoke to me directly instead of always passing messages on though complete strangers... that is a little rude don't ya think?

[MAJ. Beruh]

Proof Evolution is Wrong

Just by this phrase I can dismiss evolution. If we evolved from monkeys why are they still here?

[True Disciple]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

Well, silly girl, let's take a look at your puny attempts at science worship on these forums, shall we?

Sharks are an Apex predator...evolution is an effect, there has been no cause to warrant a shark coming onto land, to eat anything let alone humans...

I am not talking about humans. I am talking about "Acanthostegas," those supposed transitional fossils fraudulent scientists fabricated to prove their laughable theories.
Apart from that, your post isn't making sense in any way. I've explained several times now why there would have been a "cause," according to evolution.

was it inactive 3.5 billion years ago?

There was no universe 3,5 billion years ago. Try to keep up.

well when you mix hydrogen (the most abundant element) and oxygen you get water. Its quite feasible that 4 billion years ago water formed under the surface of mars due to the mix of those 2 elements. And then 3.5 billion years ago the pressure of these broke through the surface. This is all speculation just like your idea of what happened.

Right now, you're displaying appalling ignorance of very basic chemistry. There is very few hydrogen under the earth, according to geochemists. It is mainly silica and oxygen, which form silicates. So there could be no water buildup under the crust, which then gushes out in great amounts. Do you even know what a volcano is, girl? What comes out of a volcano? Water? Only a little bit. Lava is mainly composed of silica.

This is of course hypothetically speaking, as volcanoes in reality are tantrums of Satan, who lives in Hell beneath our feet. Plate tectonics and a solid or liquid interior of the earth are lies which Satan fed to secular scientists like Alfred Wegener.

Oblivious to reality? Really? I believe in what I see and what I can touch and what my body knows.
So me having ideas and ideals means I would die out?

Where did I ever say that? You following your own stupidity instead of Creation Scientific Knowledge will make you go extinct, according to evolution. However, your very presence makes it clear that evolution is wrong on this.

Surely your story would go something like this.

“theres a tiger!!”

“Oh god will save me”

Then you’d get eaten.

THAT is oblivious to reality.

Of course it wouldn't go like this. God sends tigers to test us, to see whether we are smart enough to run from danger, or stupid enough to start being uppity and arguing about it, and get eaten.

What the hell do we need a third arm for? And evolution takes millions of years. Mankind isn’t old enough to have taken those sort of leaps yet....(besides if your anything to go by, the entire planet is only 6000 years old!!)

1. Yes, I know that the earth is 6000 years old.
2. Yes, this indeed means that evolution is a lie, as evolution needs millions of years to do anything.
3. I've already explained the possible advantages of a third arm
4. Why wouldn't mankind be "old enough?" Since when does evolution require something to be of a certain age?

Because we have a developed sense of cognitive thought...”I’m 13...i cant support a child and i was a rape victim...it would be unwise to have THIS child....” weigh up the points and reach a conclusion. To suggest we just kill them indiscriminately is just lack of understanding.

Not all women who abort their children are rape victims, you dumb woman. You have been misinformed by baby-murdering atheist organizations, no doubt. Most women are grown up women, who perfectly could nurture a child. According to evolution, the desire of these women to kill their offspring should have been weeded out long ago. It is still there, which proves evolution a falsehood.

not everyone died on land...or land thats lived on now. Land masses have shifted and moved. If someone dies in the desert, give it 20 years and there wouldn’t even be a sign anyone was there.

1. Desert is land as well.
2. The bones of someone who dies in the desert do not just disappear. It does not turn into sand, but the bones are moved by animals or the wind. It stays somewhere. Likewise, the flesh is preserved in the bodies of the scavengers. Who taught you that people turn into sand after they die?

Let me show you just some contradictions.

PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
So why would all mighty god say he loves all then personally murder (for example) David’s child?

It is clear that you understand nothing at all of the Divine Love™ with which God loves us. God killed David's Son to punish David, as a father would punish a son.
This Love is greater than any human can imagine. After all, would you kill entire nations to teach other people a valuable lesson for their lives? Of course not! That's because your human love is far inferior to God's Love. God's Love is so great, that He is willing to murder thousands of people to better educate His Children. You can't say He isn't willing to make great sacrifices for people He Loves!

So you see, being infinitely loving of all people and committing mass murder is in no way contradictory.

JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
So how can Jesus and his father be one but his father be greater? If they are one they are the same then they are the same.

No, you say that because you are a woman, and therefore not capable of True Christian™ Logic. God is greater than Jesus, as Joh. 14:28 teaches. However, together with the Holy Ghost, They Both are Parts of yet Another Being, Who is the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. Where would the contradiction be? According to your logic, America is not one country, because some Americans are bigger than other Americans.

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
How can god make beasts then man but then have man name the beasts if the beasts came first? But then later make the beasts after man?
Need I say more?

God stands outside the realms of Time and Space, because He is Eternal. When He saw Man needing a help, He went back in time, and created animals before Man. A very well-known fact.

Why did the snake speak in the garden of eden?
You’ve answered your own question there.

As I said, they lost it. Clearly, people who speak to animals do not get an answer in whatever language they speak. This is different from the situation described in Genesis 3. Why did the snake lose this ability? According to evolution, it shouldn't have, as being able to speak would have been a tremendous advantage for this animal.

Do you actually know how big the loch is? It is around twenty two and a half miles long and between one and one and a half miles wide, with a depth of around 750 feet. I think that’s enough for that sort of creature to live in.

Yes, but not for an entire population of them. What would these beasts eat to sustain their population? During a period of 65 million years? According to evolutionary and zoological pseudosciences, it would certainly go extinct, as it was in a way too vulnerable position.

nature isn’t greedy it gets what it NEEDS and stops...greed is a human abomination.

Are you a nature-worshipping pagan wiccan hippie as well?

Anyway, evolution dictates that every species tries to be as successful as possible. It doesn't stop because it is "content," as natural processes have no understanding of "enough," you stupid girl.

So let me get this right. You believe the world is flat AND there’s no such thing as gravity?

Of course. Don't tell me you have been on these forums for several weeks and only discover this at this point? The link I gave you provides irrefutable evidence as to why gravity is a filthy lie of Satan. We have similar articles for the shape on the earth as well. Anyway, it's all in the Bible, girl.

No what the proves is you have cognitive thought. Which is more than what a monkey does because we have evolved!

According to evolution, evolution is not directional, there is no state of being "more evolved" than other beings. This results in the despicable idea of humans being animals. Why would all our supposed "related animals" throw feces at each other, and we wouldn't? That doesn't make any sense! Hey, wait, maybe I know, maybe evolution is false!

I never said it was advantageous to live in the forest. If a certain part of our common ancestor went to live in primitive caves, villages, whatever. It could be that monkeys saw these as outcasts and stayed in the forest. In the forest a monkey can find just as much food as what we would eat anyway.

Then why do we see no monkeys building villages or live in caves, if that would allow them to become humans, and be more successful?

How does it?

If you saw a species of dog. In the entire world there are 2 of these dogs. You kill these 2 dogs. You have made this species extinct.

If there was a new species of dog and in the world there were 3 of them. As there aren’t many of them they cannot sufficiently procreate. Therefore the species dies out.

There are many ways a species can become extinct. ONE of them being the slow process over years and years. or a quicker extinction through hunting or other means.

The reason species can only die out slowly, at least according to evilution, is because they have evolved to become adaptable to changes. Species are supposed to be flexible, so you need really tough methods to exterminate species. Dodos, however, were not adaptable to changes, and died out quickly. If evolution were true, there would still be dodos.

It is irrational to doubt the bible? So it is irrational to think for myself?

No, if you would rationally think for yourself, which you clearly do not, you would have concluded long ago that God is the Highest Authority, and He likely knows best where everything comes from.

The reason that you deny this, is because you have been indoctrinated with liberal atheist propaganda, which turned you into a science-worshipping drone.

It has been written and re written too many times for it to be seen anywhere close to irrefutable truth. If the bible was irrefutable there would be evidence. Of which I see none.

What are you talking about? God never changed His Word since He wrote It in 1611.

Maybe SHE didn’t want you to know as she was shameful of this. Or maybe god didn’t think to mention it.
Could be that god just didn’t want us to know.

1. Why would Eve be shameful of this? Makes no sense.
2. Why would God, who is both Omniscient and Omnipotent, forget anything? Makes no sense.
3. Why would God lie about His Creation? Makes no sense.

Conclusion: you aren't making any sense, you rambling lunatic. And you see yourself as a rational being?

Yes that’s right. Parents pass on half of their genes. ButLet me put it to you this way then. If you die how would you pass your genes onto your child? You wouldn’t.

No, of course I wouldn't. That's why I, if I were a spider and evolution were true, would evolve protective genes as potent as possible!

Or if you already had a child and you got bitten by a snake and die shortly after how would your child’s body know to make and anti venom? It wouldn’t.

DUH!!!

But if you had evolved an anti-venom, both you and your child would survive, according to evolutionists, the most efficient result. Is this really so hard for you to grasp?

Yes the odds are great. One thing you fail to take into account though is that carbon dating shows evidence of humans BEFORE Adam and eves supposed romp around the garden of eden.

This is a rather sudden change in subject, little girl. Don't skit away from the question. Why do these genealogies start at the same point? Do you realize how small the possibility of this happening is?

I’m sorry let me get this right. I said “todays modern moose could be an evolution of the unicorn” You then go on to say “if evolution was true the unicorn would evolve into a moose or something similar but seeing as they didn’t we conclude evolution is false.”

You’ve just said what I said then said your own idea was false…..

Mooses are artiodactylid animals. Unicorns are perissodactylids. Both families are mentioned in the Bible, so they already existed then. This means that, if they would have been evolutionary related to one another, then they couldn't exist together.

Because as soon as one cell joins another more join and it becomes bigger and bigger.

And why is that happening? Why would they? This isn't logical in any way.

Life could have gone to mud to live in or around. You really are closed minded aren’t you?

What are you talking about? All evolutionists claim life came from mud. In grown-up words: organic life from inorganic matter, aka abiogenesis. If you think somethink even more bizarre, please tell me.

Your right chemicals do not think. But humans do.

Exactly. This proves that humans aren't mere chemicals, as evilutionists claim.

So what is thought then?

A process in which we use our God-given spirit and soul to ponder things. What else did you think?

When the weather started getting cold we would have started wearing clothes. As the years passed and we wore more and more clothing our bodies realised that we no longer needed full body hair so started to change.

When the weather started getting cold, according to evilutionists, we would have become even hairier, like other animals on earth. Us developing cloths would only be an option if there was no evolution. Seeing that we indeed do wear cloths, the only possibility is that evolution is false. How hard can that be to understand, failing female?

So all the carbon dated evidence that shows existence of humans before creation day is a lie? I don’t think so. Theres only so much evidence that can be collated before truth is revealed.

Yes, of course it is. You claim carbon-dating as absolute proof, but this method is fraught with error. For example, it is dependant on the amount of C14 an organism takes up when it forms tissues. However, the amount of C14 in the atmosphere changes constantly, so this method brings us no closer to actual ages.

Additionally, it is just plain stupid to trust the word of a carbon atom over the Word of the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. How could that atom know how old a thing is?

Carbon dating

Same as above.

And this new True Sinner guy, you could have saved yourself a lot of effort on this.
You are the umpteenth person posting an incredibly long post to answer each and every question, apparently unaware that your arguments have been convincingly rebuked already. For example, look at my discussion with this confused teenaged girl.

Of course, the arguments of this girl are very likely to be significantly more stupid than regular evilutionist arguments, as she is a woman, and discussions like this are several degrees more complicated than the types of conversation for which God designed the female brain. So I can imagine you still have to say something. I'm not going to rebuke your entire post, however. My time is precious.

[F. Nietzsche]

Re: Proof Evolution is Wrong

Just by this phrase I can dismiss evolution. If we evolved from monkeys why are they still here?

In part because we didn't evolve directly from the monkeys one sees today. Humans and chimpanzees are distantly related by virtue of a common ancestor, though the branch that spawned hominids diverged from the great apes ~5 million years ago. One branch of this original species simply found its way to the Great Rift valley, where bereft of the tree cover, eventually became bipedal and developed larger brains to account for a different environment, while the great apes, left in their original environment, did not. Indeed, it's quite the opposite of random chance, since organisms will necessarily adapt to the environment they find themselves within lest they die out.

I hope that answers your question.

[michele]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

considering you think the earth is flat (its round), you dont believe in gravity (it does exist. its not satan) , and you think the earth is 6000 years old when we blatently have evidence that shows otherwise i think i'll leave you all to stew in your own juices.

and yes i am more a pagan than anything else. problem?

[Pastor Rune Enoe]

Re: Questions that evolutionist can’t answer

considering you think the earth is flat (its round),

Flat. Round. A pancake is flat and round. Are you here to debate semantics?

you dont believe in gravity (it does exist. its not satan)

Maybe you will be kind enough to point out where in the Bible God mentions gravitiy?

and you think the earth is 6000 years old

It's 6,014 years. Get your facts straight if you want some respect.

when we blatently have evidence that shows otherwise

So you claim. But you fail to give the chapter and verse that supposedly back up your claims.

Small wonder you call yourself "know-it-all female idiot". At least you get points for honesty.