[WinterFresh]

Originally Posted by Dirk

And who made the factory? People! But who created people? God!


Just when it works in your favor huh?


But don't they need pencils and colors?

Believe what you want about creation. I will do the same.

Artists are born with the gift of bending the shapes and dancing with the colors, of giving personality to otherwise cold and unnecessary objects, of modifying the sounds and images themselves! Artists CREATE art. But I don't suppose that anybody here is interested in philosophy so just skip the artist part.

[Brother Helge]

Originally Posted by WinterFresh

Believe what you want about creation. I will do the same.

I don't belive in creation - I know for sure!
How?
Because the Holy Bible (KJV1611) tells me so!

[Seth Campbell]

Originally Posted by WinterFresh

Believe what you want about creation. I will do the same.

Artists are born with the gift of bending the shapes and dancing with the colors, of giving personality to otherwise cold and unnecessary objects, of modifying the sounds and images themselves! Artists CREATE art. But I don't suppose that anybody here is interested in philosophy so just skip the artist part.

So are you saying God is an artist? Because that is something I could agree with. The way he put the earth together is absolutely beautiful.

How did we get off on this art tangent anyway, how does artists creating art prove evilution?

[WinterFresh]

Originally Posted by Seth Campbell

So are you saying God is an artist? Because that is something I could agree with. The way he put the earth together is absolutely beautiful.

If God exists then yes, He is an artist.

How did we get off on this art tangent anyway, how does artists creating art prove evilution?

My point was about using the "create" word even though I am an atheist.

[James Dewitt]

Originally Posted by WinterFresh

God exists then yes, He is an artist.

I would have to agree, God is a magnificent artist. He paints in LIVING color. Praise Jesus

[Steven E]

the reason why this experimant failed to prove evolution, is because the experiment isn't based on any real evolutionary theory.

first. what you expected to appear.
a car can't be created from evolution because evolution is about life. (the evolution of LIFE) a car cannot evolve because a car is not alive. not one person that understands how evolution works would tell you that a car should of appeared.

second. evolution is not predictable in the sense that you stated. (specificaly expecting to see a car) natural selection is basically survival of the fittest. we can't predicte the mutations a species will encounter. i.e. one can not expect to see a car not only because a car is not alive, but there would be no specific reason that a car would be the end product of an evolutionary chain.

third. the duration of the experiment.
evolution takes millions/billions of years. ( i know that you believe the world is only 6-10 thousand years old. but im talking about what evolution is based on, which conflict with your beliefs, so please understand the context of what i'm saying) ten years is not a sufficiant amount of time to for something to evolve, it is an incredibly long prosess, much longer than ten years

forth. abiogenissis vs evolution
just to clarify, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. evolution starts with life already existing and then examins how that life adapts (evolves). the origins of life has nothing to do with evolution. the origins of life is abiogenissis (please don't ask me about abiogenissis because i have a VERY limeted understanding of this. i basically only understand its seperation from evolution)

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Please make a thread of your own in the "Introductions" section of the forum, so that we can properly greet you. Tell us about yourself, your church, and how you came to find Jesus.

And if you're here to flame us, better take a look at THIS before making an even bigger ass out of yourself.

[Bobby-Joe]

Originally Posted by Steven E

forth. abiogenissis vs evolution
just to clarify, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. evolution starts with life already existing and then examins how that life adapts (evolves). the origins of life has nothing to do with evolution. the origins of life is abiogenissis (please don't ask me about abiogenissis because i have a VERY limeted understanding of this. i basically only understand its seperation from evolution)

Well let's take this a step further. How about if we repeat the experiment with a sub compact car, by evolution we should be able to find an SUV in the garage after ten years. After all car development is much quicker than biological development since it only took less than a hundred years to get from a model T to a Ford Dakota.

[Steven E]

Originally Posted by Bobby-Joe

Well let's take this a step further. How about if we repeat the experiment with a sub compact car, by evolution we should be able to find an SUV in the garage after ten years. After all car development is much quicker than biological development since it only took less than a hundred years to get from a model T to a Ford Dakota.

you seem to be disregarding my first point. a car is not alive, and because its not alive it cannot evolve. cars don't evolve, they are created by human hands, and knowledge. plus, evolution ins't a animal/creature/lifeform suddenly turning into another lifeform. evolution works through small mutations in one lifeform that gets transfered to its offspring and then that offpring giving that mutation to its offspring, and so on. evolution dosen't happen if you put one of anything in a garage for ten years, because that is not how evolution functions.

[Bobby-Joe]

Originally Posted by Steven E

you seem to be disregarding my first point. a car is not alive, and because its not alive it cannot evolve. cars don't evolve, they are created by human hands, and knowledge. plus, evolution ins't a animal/creature/lifeform suddenly turning into another lifeform. evolution works through small mutations in one lifeform that gets transfered to its offspring and then that offpring giving that mutation to its offspring, and so on. evolution dosen't happen if you put one of anything in a garage for ten years, because that is not how evolution functions.

Friend,
At one point, by your theory, nothing was alive. Logically the processes allowing reproduction and natural selection must be a basic process and possible in inorganic matter. I believe your group's leader Richard Dawkins used a simple computer program to show natural selection in action. Obviously this process that musthave occurred on a molecular level if evolution is true and can be scaled up to something the size of a car.

[Steven E]

Originally Posted by Bobby-Joe

Friend,
At one point, by your theory, nothing was alive. Logically the processes allowing reproduction and natural selection must be a basic process and possible in inorganic matter. I believe your group's leader Richard Dawkins used a simple computer program to show natural selection in action. Obviously this process that musthave occurred on a molecular level if evolution is true and can be scaled up to something the size of a car.

like i said before i don't fully understand abiogenissis but i will adress this as best i can.
for evolution to happen it requires life. now life started as single celled organisms, single celled organisms mulitiply through the process of mitosis. (i could be wrong about the name) the cell esensialy splits into two different cells through the process. this type of reproduction does not require multiple organisms to reproduce. that means that the cell with the mutation increases in number exponentialy.(1cell-2-4-8-16 and so on) but this is not how animals, and people reproduce. we cannot just suddenly split into two seperate people. we require another person to produce offspring, same goes for animals.

the point is that inorganic mater does not reproduce. life is made of cells, where as a car on the other hand is not made of cells. a car is not alive, it can't evolve.

once again i am sorry i can't tell you how abiogenissis works, it is just something i have little knowedge of. but the point still remains that only life can evolve, and a car is not alive. evolution has nothing to do with origins of life, evolution starts with the first life forms. (single celled organisms)

[Bobby-Joe]

Originally Posted by Steven E

like i said before i don't fully understand abiogenissis but i will adress this as best i can.
for evolution to happen it requires life. now life started as single celled organisms, single celled organisms mulitiply through the process of mitosis. (i could be wrong about the name) the cell esensialy splits into two different cells through the process. this type of reproduction does not require multiple organisms to reproduce. that means that the cell with the mutation increases in number exponentialy.(1cell-2-4-8-16 and so on) but this is not how animals, and people reproduce. we cannot just suddenly split into two seperate people. we require another person to produce offspring, same goes for animals.

the point is that inorganic mater does not reproduce. life is made of cells, where as a car on the other hand is not made of cells. a car is not alive, it can't evolve.

once again i am sorry i can't tell you how abiogenissis works, it is just something i have little knowedge of. but the point still remains that only life can evolve, and a car is not alive. evolution has nothing to do with origins of life, evolution starts with the first life forms. (single celled organisms)

Well read up on it friend and I await your answer. As I said, if evolution is to be possible (which I don't believe) then it has to be possible in any replicating system.

However I think you will find this is closer to reality here.
http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=10692

Like the obsolete cars something must be killing extinct, dare we say obsolete species. That has to be God.

[Steven E]

Originally Posted by Bobby-Joe

Well read up on it friend and I await your answer. As I said, if evolution is to be possible (which I don't believe) then it has to be possible in any replicating system.

i've been open about this from the beggining, abiogenissis is incredibly complicated. and i simply don't have the patience to study it in depth.
i'm sorry but if you want an anwser to the origins of life question you are going to have to find it yourself. just wiki abiogenissis

but i'd like to point out that you are still ignoring one incredibly important aspect of evolution. for evolution to happen life is required, and inorganic matter is not alive and cannot evolve. your not asking for an explaination of evolution, your asking for an explination of abiogenissis, a completely different field of science. this is why the original experemant of this disscusion does not dis-prove evolution. evolution requires life. inorganic mater does not multiply. if it did you could leave a piece of metal on the ground and in time it would get bigger, but it doesent because inorganic material is made of atomes which don't multiply, where as life is made of cells which do multiply. inorganic material don't produce offspring, where as people, animals and plants do.

i'm not asking you to believe in evolution, i am simply asking you to understand how evolution functions, before you decide to try and discredit it.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Originally Posted by Steven E

i'[...]i'm not asking you to believe in evolution, i am simply asking you to understand how evolution functions, before you decide to try and discredit it.

I'm not asking you to believe in God, I am simply asking you to understand how God functions, before you decide to try and discredit Him.

[Steven E]

Originally Posted by Ezekiel Bathfire

I'm not asking you to believe in God, I am simply asking you to understand how God functions, before you decide to try and discredit Him.

i would be happy to hear how god functions if i have somehow misrepresented him.
by the way i am not argueing that evolution is right, (though i do personaly believe it is correct), i am simly trying to clear any misconseptions and misunderstandings about what evolution is.

[Brother Alex]

Originally Posted by Steven E

i would be happy to hear how God functions if i have somehow misrepresented Him.

The best way to understand how God "functions" is to read the Holy Bible, accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, repent of your sins, get on your knees and pray for His forgiveness in order to avoid eternal damnation to hell.

Originally Posted by Steven E

i am simly trying to clear any misconseptions and misunderstandings about what evolution is.

There can be no misconceptions and misunderstandings regarding the evolution theory since the whole thing is a lie.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Steven E

i would be happy to hear how god functions if i have somehow misrepresented him.
by the way i am not argueing that evilution is right, (though i do personaly believe it is correct), i am simly trying to clear any misconseptions and misunderstandings about what evolution is.

God is not a physical being, why can't the monkey worshippers understand this? Read the bible:

Luke 18:27 "And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God."

It clearly states that God is what seems impossible to man.

[Malaysia_Christian]

Originally Posted by Steven E

the reason why this experimant failed to prove evolution, is because the experiment isn't based on any real evolutionary theory.

first. what you expected to appear.
a car can't be created from evolution because evolution is about life. (the evolution of LIFE) a car cannot evolve because a car is not alive. not one person that understands how evolution works would tell you that a car should of appeared.

second. evolution is not predictable in the sense that you stated. (specificaly expecting to see a car) natural selection is basically survival of the fittest. we can't predicte the mutations a species will encounter. i.e. one can not expect to see a car not only because a car is not alive, but there would be no specific reason that a car would be the end product of an evolutionary chain.

third. the duration of the experiment.
evolution takes millions/billions of years. ( i know that you believe the world is only 6-10 thousand years old. but im talking about what evolution is based on, which conflict with your beliefs, so please understand the context of what i'm saying) ten years is not a sufficiant amount of time to for something to evolve, it is an incredibly long prosess, much longer than ten years

forth. abiogenissis vs evolution
just to clarify, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. evolution starts with life already existing and then examins how that life adapts (evolves). the origins of life has nothing to do with evolution. the origins of life is abiogenissis (please don't ask me about abiogenissis because i have a VERY limeted understanding of this. i basically only understand its seperation from evolution)

1. Evolutionists believes human evolve from lifeless chemical soup. You shoot yourself at your feet.
2. I have to respect you for that comment you make. If you said that it's not end product of car, maybe human do. Like you, "evolved" into dummer spesies after being brainwashed by this evolution hoax.
3. Excuse me, how do you know? Where you there witness it? If not, then there's no prove.
4. How did "that" life that evolution start came from?

[Malaysia_Christian]

Originally Posted by Steven E

i would be happy to hear how god functions if i have somehow misrepresented him.
by the way i am not argueing that evolution is right, (though i do personaly believe it is correct), i am simly trying to clear any misconseptions and misunderstandings about what evolution is.

Sorry sir,

You see, you believe that millions years ago, nothing exploded into something, and lifeless mixture complex of chemical form the first life form, and the first life form somehow manage to find someone to get marrid, and found something to eat of course, then evolve.

Now why the hack it has to evolve into many kinds of animal when by that only increases the number of competitiors of food?

You see, you believe that you came from an ape (and call it grandpa), and that ape came from a rock. Hence, you came from the rock.

We are not superior. We just understand the truth that we are made in God's image. And He love us. If you choose not to love Him or follow Him, fine. Your business. Suit yourself by calling rocks grandpa.

If you believe you came from a rock, i found you your life verse in the bible:

"Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth:........" (Jeremiah 2: 27)

[Steven E]

Originally Posted by Malaysia_Christian

1. Evolutionists believes human evolve from lifeless chemical soup. You shoot yourself at your feet.
2. I have to respect you for that comment you make. If you said that it's not end product of car, maybe human do. Like you, "evolved" into dummer spesies after being brainwashed by this evolution hoax.
3. Excuse me, how do you know? Where you there witness it? If not, then there's no prove.
4. How did "that" life that evolution start came from?

1) evolutionists believe that all life evolved from single celled organisms, not "lifeless chemical soup"
2) respectfuly, can you rephrase the statment, i cant understsnd what exactly you are trying to say. but i would like to say that i didn't get brainwashed by evolution, i simply looked at many different theorys and thought that evolution made the most sence (to me at least, i know that you disagree)
3)neither were you. but radio metric dating and a number of other dating methods show the earth to be 4.54 billion years old (once again i know you disagree, but i'm talking about MY opinion hear) and for evolution by natural selection to work it takes a great amount of time. this is basic math. you are esentially waiting for one mutation to take over an entire species through breeding. this mathamaticly takes a very long time.
4)abiogenissis is one theory, but that has nothing to do with evolution.