[James Hutchins]

Re: A guide to the evolutionist conspiracy

1. I never said they were apes
2. The commonly held opinion of evolution is not that we are descended from apes but that we share a common ancestor with apes.
3. to say there is no chance of something happening is to completely misunderstand the meaning of chance.



your kids look a little different because there is variation in their ancestry. i.e., you and your wife are not exact clones of each other, neither were your childrens grandparents and so on. Mutations happened along the way. Being by Gods hand does not change the fact that it was a mutation. If I made a cup of coffee would you deny that alterations were made to the base ingredients just because it might somehow detract from the fact that I made it?



Ok, someone did earlier, they said that Adam and Eve were the first and not the only humans implying there were other humans we could be descended from.



I think it gives credence to the idea that we are not God's original design of man, that is all, I am not trying to prove evolution right, I'm just curious as to why you're all so opposed to the idea when it is in the bible.

I think God will neglect to mention what he pleases. Do we have the right to know everything about his creation?

Genesis 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.

notice here how he 'neglects' to mention what his image is. You accuse me of making assumptions when I have not assumed anything, I refuse to make any kind of guess as to what the first man looked like but assuming he was an aryan caucasian is as bad as assuming he was a piece of slime.

And as you seem so kind to remind me of the same points over and over again, I do not believe Darwin's theory of evolution!

I see, so you are saying my grandfather was some sort of ape then! That is pretty offensive. My grandfather was not a primate, he was an imate. He was unjustly accused and executed. I expect an apology.

[Fencepost88]

Re: A guide to the evolutionist conspiracy

I see, so you are saying my grandfather was some sort of ape then! That is pretty offensive. My grandfather was not a primate, he was an imate. He was unjustly accused and executed. I expect an apology.

I fail to see how you drew that conclusion?

1. I never said they were apes

however I do apologise if I have caused any offence to you or your grandfather's memory.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: A guide to the evolutionist conspiracy

I'm just curious as to why you're all so opposed to the idea when it is in the bible.

it's not in The Bible

I think God will neglect to mention what he pleases. Do we have the right to know everything about his creation?

Yes, we do not have the right to know everything about His creation. And God can withold any information He chooses without explanation. Nevertheless He very often does give an explanation and sometimes remarkably complete and detailed explanations which have not been readily understood at the time. And even though His word must have seemed enigmatic (at best) or even erroneous to ancient scribes they preserved what He had revealed and in the fulness of time His meaning became clear. Some passages still present an enigma but we accept them and wait for His unfolding grace.

As regards common ancestors though He leaves no doubt. Whales are not some sort of land mammal returned to the oceans. Whales were created before there were any land mammals at all! God explicitly states this to be so. Similarly in the case of plants. These were all created before there were any sea OR land animals, and any seeds that were carried from the ocean to the land (by crabs or something) were already in existence on the land before there were any crabs (but I have seen mud-crabs drag bits of plant onto the land, probably by accident, so it does happen: it just doesn't turn into a "new kind" of plant). In chronological order:

GENESIS 1

DAY 3

11-13 And God said, Let the Earth bring foorth grasse, the herbe yeelding seed, and the fruit tree, yeelding fruit after his kinde, whose seed is in it selfe, vpon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought foorth grasse, and herbe yeelding seed after his kinde, and the tree yeelding fruit, whose seed was in it selfe, after his kinde: and God saw that it was good. And the euening and the morning were the third day.

no common stock, each variety created separately and each reproducing without variation: remember that each type of plant was differentiated by the time animal life was created during days 5 & 6 - but next we come to:

DAY 4

14-19 And God said, Let there bee lights in the firmament of the heauen, to diuide the day from the night: and let them be for signes and for seasons, and for dayes and yeeres. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heauen, to giue light vpon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the starres also. And God set them in the firmament of the heauen, to giue light vpon the earth: And to rule ouer the day, and ouer the night, and to diuide the light from the darkenesse: and God saw that it was good. And the euening and the morning were the fourth day.

the sun did not exist when plants were created: all plants were created at the same time, there are no "primitive" and "modern" plants - animals next:

DAY 5

20-23 And God said, Let the waters bring foorth aboundantly the mouing creature that hath life, and foule that may flie aboue the earth in the open firmament of heauen. And God created great whales, and euery liuing creature that moueth, which the waters brought forth aboundantly after their kinde, and euery winged foule after his kinde: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitfull, and multiply, and fill the waters in the Seas, and let foule multiply in the earth. And the euening and the morning were the fift day.

the sequence so far is:
. . . . plants (including fruit trees and cereals)
NEXT the sun
NEXT fish and stuff
. . . . birds (no dinosaurs to "evolve" from as these didn't exist)
. . . . whales (no land mammals to "evolve" from: these didn't exist, either)

DAY 6

24-25 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the liuing creature after his kinde, cattell, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kinde: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kinde, and cattell after their kinde, and euery thing that creepeth vpon the earth, after his kinde: and God saw that it was good.

no "common ancestors" for whales and birds, no "return to the oceans" and no mutants: a perfect creation

26-28 And God said, Let vs make man in our Image, after our likenesse: and let them haue dominion ouer the fish of the sea, and ouer the foule of the aire, and ouer the cattell, and ouer all the earth, and ouer euery creeping thing that creepeth vpon the earth. So God created man in his owne Image, in the Image of God created hee him; male and female created hee them. And God blessed them, and God said vnto them, Be fruitfull, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and haue dominion ouer the fish of the sea, and ouer the foule of the aire, and ouer euery liuing thing that mooueth vpon the earth.
©1611

The very clear revelation that living things be they plant or animal reproduce after their own kind and do not vary, that fruit trees were created as such and did not evolve (or develop if you are touchy about the word evolve) from ferns, that whales were created before land mammals, after the sun, together with birds i.e. that they are an OLDER species than their supposed PROGENITORS

head spinning is it? you are reading THE TRUTH it is different from what you've been saying! it's GOD'S REVELATION and it is quite specific on numerous details EXACTLY THOSE DETAILS which you are saying are not in The Bible. They are in The Bible.

There is even more detail. In chapter2 God gives us a blow-by-blow account of some of the events on day6, relating to the creation of Adam (and the woman). There is no definitive statement that humanity should reproduce after its kind because there was only one kind created - and God would be fully aware that the Darwinist (or Lamarckian, whatever) does not assert that humans have "evolved" into something else, although nothing would surprise me.

Why, they say that the sun is 4½ billion years old! WACKO!!

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: A guide to the evolutionist conspiracy

Mitza!

Every word the truth and every word that contradicts the ideas he has in his head destined to be ignored. He thinks the Bible and secular science can co-exist in some soup he has in his head.

Your father raised you well.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Fencepost88]

Re: A guide to the evolutionist conspiracy

Thanks Mitza, having read Genesis 1,2,3 etc. I did notice the contradictions to Darwins theory. I also noticed some similarities but I'm not gunna commit the heinous crime of cherry picking and asserting that the bible proves Darwin's theory, that is not the point I'm making.

I'm glad you brought up whales as these, along with creatures like the platypus, to me strengthen the idea of a creator. Not for the theories about walking on land then water etc. but it is undeniable that they are mammals (having mammary glands) and yet they are so remarkably different from most mammals.

I am not a Darwinist. I have not said alot of the things you argued against in your post. I said that it is in the bible that Man and serpent have been altered since there inception. This is evolution, not Darwins theory or probably any other scientific theory but the basic definition of evolution. Further where does it say that all these things God created have remained the same for the past 6000 years?

...
'And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitfull, and multiply, and fill the waters in the Seas, and let foule multiply in the earth. And the euening and the morning were the fift day.'

This is a statement I've seen many times whilst reading the bible 'be fruitful and multiply' putting the onus on the creation to reproduce, God created life to be self sustaining, that is undeniable. Is it not possible that God knew his creation may need to adapt to change?

The very clear revelation that living things be they plant or animal reproduce after their own kind and do not vary, that fruit trees were created as such and did not evolve (or develop if you are touchy about the word evolve) from ferns, that whales were created before land mammals, after the sun, together with birds i.e. that they are an OLDER species than their supposed PROGENITORS

I think you've over stretched the words after their kind here, while I accept the initial 'reproduce after their own kind' as inter-species reproduction, though it can be done, does not go well e.g., mules. I do not think this text say that living creatures do not vary, for a start it would be a completely ridiculous statement to make in the house I'm sitting in there are three humans and three dogs and regardless of the fact that two of the humans are related to each other not one looks like the other nor do any of the dogs look like each other. variance is a fact of life and it has been for a long time, I doubt the bible would oppose it.

EXACTLY THOSE DETAILS which you are saying are not in The Bible. They are in The Bible.

when did I say that the points you have made we're not in the bible?

...and God would be fully aware that the Darwinist (or Lamarckian, whatever) does not assert that humans have "evolved" into something else, although nothing would surprise me.

I believe Darwinists assert that human evolution has halted because we no longer need to adapt to our enviroment, we adapt our enviroment to suit us. Something which I think gives credence to the bible: 'and haue dominion ouer the fish of the sea, and ouer the foule of the aire, and ouer euery liuing thing that mooueth vpon the earth.'

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: A guide to the evolutionist conspiracy

I believe Darwinists assert that human evolution has halted because we no longer need to adapt to our enviroment, we adapt our enviroment to suit us.[/COLOR][/B]

No they don't.

[MitzaLizalor]

Re: A guide to the evolutionist conspiracy

Thanks Mitza, having read Genesis 1,2,3 etc.

[Some of the details you require to support your idea are in Genesis 9 & 10]

In order to understand that Genesis 1 means what it says and is not using some encoded language necessitating a private interpretation


II PETER 1:20; 3:2-3,5-6 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any priuate Interpretation…That yee may be mindfull of the wordes which were spoken before by the holy Prophets, and of the Commandement of vs the Apostles of the Lord and Sauiour: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last dayes scoffers, walking after their owne lusts…For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heauens were of olde, and the earth standing out of the water, and in the water, Whereby the world that then was, being ouerflowed with water, perished.
©1611


You mentioned cross fertility. It is true that some animals, such as horses & donkeys or sheep & goats or even lions & tigers engage in interspecies erotica and get one another pregnant but any offspring are sterile. That is because they are not the same kind (the word conveys "kin" rather than "variety"). The secularist uses the Latin derived species [specere: to look at] and indeed donkeys and horses do look similar, but they are not cross fertile and so they are described as being different species. Donkeys and humans are not cross fertile either as has been proven experimentally on numerous occasions. Neither are humans and Dobermans - but Dobermans and Boxers are cross fertile: they are the same kind i.e. dogs.

All dogs are the same species.

Ancient agriculturalists developed different breeds of animals, but despite 5,000 years of selective breeding, none of the varieties have become a different species. A sheep is still a sheep. A goat is still a goat. A dog is still a dog. With the introduction of sin, and therefore of death (nothing died before Eve abased herself) (if you recall, nothing was more than 3 days old, except the sun of course which was only 2 days old) what we observe as deformities became a possibility as mankind would choose to pervert God's plan - for example by conducting experiments to determine cross-fertility particularly between humans and certain other species I never cease to be revolted at the slimy imagination of my sisters - thus incurring a variety of curses:

concerning DIET and LOCOMOTION Genesis 3:14
concerning CHILDBIRTH and SLUT Genesis 3:16
concerning certain PLANTS Genesis 3:18
concerning CAPABILITY of INDEPENDENT THOUGHT Genesis 9:25

..but also blessings:

SHEEP Genesis 28:3 + 30:39

When people start talking about "naturally occurring" mutations and one species turning into another species over millions and even billions of years they fail on two counts. Firstly, they deny the veracity of God's inerrant word and secondly, there are not billions or millions or even hundreds-of-thousands of years available to these mutants (all of whom are sterile) and in fact there isn't even ONE year available for their gelatinous quagmire to foment its murderous struggle for life BECAUSE everything was completed by the sixth day. No new species have "emerged" in the entire 6 subsequent millennia of history. None ever will.

Those who suggest otherwise are agents of the devil conjoined with him in his frenzy to seduce us with the grotesque fetishes of sympathetic magic, in direct contravention of God's Word, and to have himself worshipped as some monstrous, reeking phallus.

God has warned us, and told us how to differentiate:

II PETER 1:21 For the prophecie came not in olde time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moued by the holy Ghost.
©1611

PEDANT'S CORNER: “cherry picking” refutation centre
..GENESIS 3 .read whole chapter
....GENESIS 9 .GENESIS 10 INCLUDED HERE
......GENESIS 28 and 30 .both chapters
........II PETER 1 .read whole chapter
..........II PETER 3 .read whole chapter

[Fencepost88]

Re: A guide to the evolutionist conspiracy

Fantastic Mitza thankyou.

I understand now that the problem is not with evolution but more specifically with the assertion that evolution is the origin of species.

[Some of the details you require to support your idea are in Genesis 9 & 10]

I'm up to about Genesis 22. etc. is an abreviation of et cetera, it means 'and so forth' it also means that I'm lazy.

You mentioned cross fertility. It is true that some animals, such as horses & donkeys or sheep & goats or even lions & tigers engage in interspecies erotica and get one another pregnant but any offspring are sterile.

slightly inaccurate, most offspring are sterile, e.g., in mules all males are sterile but only 99.9% of females are sterile (yes my use of the word was purely for the purposes of irony) of course this still means that mules can never become a species because reproduction is impossible.

Donkeys and humans are not cross fertile either as has been proven experimentally on numerous occasions.

made me giggle.

With the introduction of sin, and therefore of death (nothing died before Eve abased herself) (if you recall, nothing was more than 3 days old, except the sun of course which was only 2 days old)

Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

I don't think death was a result of the introduction of sin. Firstly it seems unfair to punish the whole of creation for the err of two humans and a serpent, secondly the above verse suggests God had planned for things to die naturally anyway.

No new species have "emerged" in the entire 6 subsequent millennia of history. None ever will.

Nice use of the word emerged. I'm sure you're aware that 'new' species have been discovered, but discovery isn't proof or disproof of anything. I do dispute that no new species ever will emerge. Can God not create a new species if he chooses to? or (God forbid) what if man gained the ability to create new species?

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: A guide to the evolutionist conspiracy

I don't think death was a result of the introduction of sin. Firstly it seems unfair to punish the whole of creation for the err of two humans and a serpent, secondly the above verse suggests God had planned for things to die naturally anyway.

There you go interpreting and filtering with your opinion again!

So what if you think God is unfair? God can be as capricious as He wants to be. He'd God and above reproach.

[Fencepost88]

Re: A guide to the evolutionist conspiracy

actually I was going to elaborate on the first point to the effect of so what if God is unfair.

Please tell me how your opinion filters and interprets the need for a tree of life if nothing was going to die anyway?

Genesis 1:22
And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Genesis 1:28
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.



Genesis 1:30

And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

please tell me how you interpret the need for multiplying and eating if there is no death?

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: A guide to the evolutionist conspiracy

If God tells me there was a tree of life there was a tree of life.

God told things to be fruitful and multiply. Oh look! all around me things being fruitful and multiplying. Ummm... I'm struggling to find the controversy.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: A guide to the evolutionist conspiracy

please tell me how you interpret the need for multiplying and eating if there is no death?

What is this obsession with figuring out the "need" for anything?

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isaiah 55:8

We trust Him because we know He has our best interests at heart.

If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
Luke 11:11

We trust His Holy Word, even the parts that don't make sense to us this side of Heaven. Someone on my facebook posted this horrible picture, apparently with the intention of shocking Christians from their faith.



It won't work. We True Christians™ will never be shocked from our faith. It can't happen because we have the Living Holy Spirit deep inside our souls. We have been bought with the Blood of Christ and we shall not perish!

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
1st Corinthians 6:19-20

We will never forsake God, even if His Ways seem cruel and unkind to us, because we cannot know His ultimate plan. We can only know [KNOW!] that He is with us ALWAYS.

and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Matthew 28:20

So you can try to dissuade us all you'd like, we will hold fast to our faith because we know the LORD who created the earth is in control of the earth.

Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.
Isaiah 48:13

If the Holy Word of God says there was a tree of life in the Garden of Eden, then we KNOW there was a TREE OF LIFE, and we don't need to know how it worked or why it was there! We need only to know that salvation comes from the Christ Jesus, the Living Son of God!

That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
John 3:15

Hallelujah! Christ is Risen!

[Fencepost88]

Re: A guide to the evolutionist conspiracy

your assumption that I'm trying to shake your faith is incorrect. I respect your faith, to a certain extent I envy your ability to have such faith.

I merely disagreed with your interpretation that it was eve abasing herself that brought death to the earth.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: A guide to the evolutionist conspiracy

your assumption that I'm trying to shake your faith is incorrect. I respect your faith, to a certain extent I envy your ability to have such faith.

I merely disagreed with your interpretation that it was eve abasing herself that brought death to the earth.

You disagree with this based on your own superstitions and imaginations. We have the Truth to show us the way and yet you will close tight your eyes and believe in your atheist religion anyway. What a waste of a soul.

[Fencepost88]

Re: A guide to the evolutionist conspiracy

I dissagree because it is not written in the scripture. I was under the impression you guys followed it to the letter and it is not subject to interpretation.

further I believe I read somewhere that if you feel we have twisted scripture please tell us how.