Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

[joelr]

My take on this: some snakes produce offspring by eggs coming out of their bodies while others eject live little babies, not eggs. Do I think this means the differences came about by evolution? No. Whether there are explanations about why this is, it is clear to me at least that the explanations of projections of what is. They are not facts when discussed in the light of evolutionary supposed differences.

Usually some type of natural selection or environmental pressure is involved in the switching. Which is evolution. Maybe live baby snakes were being eaten and only types who laid eggs survived in one place? There are usually answers to evolutionary questions is you want them.

 

[joelr]

Yes, I believe there is a God who cares and He will put an end to wars, starvation and sickness.

25,000 die from starvation daily, millions from illness and war, what are you talking about. Our improved martality rate has NOTHING to do with scripture, it has to do with medical science. The Bible didn't even tell us about germs. Because it was written by men, no gods anywhere.

There are many scriptures that allude to that.

They didn't happen, written by people.


14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:


15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.


Lies.

On the other hand, how much would you say mankind cares, since merciless and violent acts take place regularly?

Mankind is the only thing that cares. Hospitals, the world wants an end to the war in the Middle East, charitable and violent acts happen, that is how humans are.

These types of things will not go on forever. Some have made the change now to become a better and more caring person. But until God stops badness, the earth is not going to be a better place. I have faith He will do that (remove wickedness) because that is what the Bible says and I believe it. Notice Micah 6:8, which says:
"He has told you, mortal one, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you
But to do justice, to love kindness And to walk humbly with your God?"

Yeah that didn't work. How many wars since then?


The Bible stories are not real, they are re-workings of older myths.
The return of god to make a paradise and resurrection of all followers in Revelation was adopted by Hebrews in the Persian occupation. It's a Zoroastrian mythology worked into Christian theology.




Revelations





but Zoroaster taught that the blessed must wait for this culmination till Frashegird and the 'future body' (Pahlavi 'tan i pasen'), when the earth will give up the bones of the dead (Y 30.7). This general resurrection will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will divide all the righteous from the wicked, both those who have lived until that time and those who have been judged already. Then Airyaman, Yazata of friendship and healing, together with Atar, Fire, will melt all the metal in the mountains, and this will flow in a glowing river over the earth. All mankind must pass through this river, and, as it is said in a Pahlavi text, 'for him who is righteous it will seem like warm milk, and for him who is wicked, it will seem as if he is walking in the • flesh through molten metal' (GBd XXXIV. r 8-r 9). In this great apocalyptic vision Zoroaster perhaps fused, unconsciously, tales of volcanic eruptions and streams of burning lava with his own experience of Iranian ordeals by molten metal; and according to his stern original teaching, strict justice will prevail then, as at each individual j udgment on earth by a fiery ordeal. So at this last ordeal of all the wicked will suffer a second death, and will perish off the face of the earth. The Daevas and legions of darkness will already have been annihilated in a last great battle with the Yazatas; and the river of metal will flow down into hell, slaying Angra Mainyu and burning up the last vestige of wickedness in the universe.


Ahura Mazda and the six Amesha Spentas will then solemnize a lt, spiritual yasna, offering up the last sacrifice (after which death wW be no more), and making a preparation of the mystical 'white haoma', which will confer immortality on the resurrected bodies of all the blessed, who will partake of it. Thereafter men will beome like the Immortals themselves, of one thought, word and deed, unaging, free from sickness, without corruption, forever joyful in the kingdom of God upon earth. For it is in this familiar and beloved world, restored to its original perfection, that, according to Zoroaster, eternity will be passed in bliss, and not in a remote insubstantial Paradise. So the time of Separation is a renewal of the time of Creation, except that no return is prophesied to the original uniqueness of living things. Mountain and valley will give place once more to level plain; but whereas in the beginning there was one plant, one animal, one man, the rich variety and number that have since issued from these will remain forever. Similarly the many divinities who were brought into being by Ahura Mazda will continue to have their separate existences. There is no prophecy of their re-absorption into the Godhead. As a Pahlavi text puts it, after Frashegird 'Ohrmaid and the Amahraspands and all Yazads and men will be together. .. ; every place will resemble a garden in spring, in which


there are all kinds of trees and flowers ... and it will be entirely the creation of Ohrrnazd' (Pahl.Riv.Dd. XLVIII, 99, lOO, l07).


Mary Boyce, Zoroastrians, Their Beliefs and Practices

 

[YoursTrue]

Usually some type of natural selection or environmental pressure is involved in the switching. Which is evolution. Maybe live baby snakes were being eaten and only types who laid eggs survived in one place? There are usually answers to evolutionary questions is you want them.

I was wondering if any ape populations (and by apes I mean chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos and the like) are in life-threatening situations in their habitats. Considering that the human population is many years in existence according to evolutionists, the theory is that they didn't need to write until making contractual arrangements. And of course, might not be that interested in figuring how they (we, humans) got here. So far as I know, gorillas and bonobos have not communicated whether they wonder about evolution. Unless of course, some humans might say, as I've seen done -- well, maybe they do wonder, or know ... (But I don't think so. If you do, that's up to you...) Thanks for your point above which I wonder just how you know from the theory that fish were endangered (environmental pressure perhaps) to move out of the water with legs and develop lungs to breathe air only? I realize there are conjectures about this, but would you say they 'know' beyond a doubt that's how gorillas and humans became (evolved) to what they are.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Because God created things differently to begin with.

He couldn’t even say what animals He created. It’s just “flying and swimming and crawling things.” That attention to detail would explain why basic biology eluded Him so much.

 

[Eli G]

What a joke...that the Creator has to adapt his vocabulary to the changeable conventions of his human creation!

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Why do you think scientists make up dates?

Given to your lack of knowledge and expertise, how can you know if they are just making things up versus following facts and data?

Is there a logical reason why anyone would value your non-expert belief about how scientists do things over experts in science reporting their research?

why should anyone value your non-expert belief either?

 

[McBell]

why should anyone value your non-expert belief either?

um...
just going out on a limb here...
He supports his claims with information from the experts?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

That is your claim that I do not believe them. It is nothing I have said. And further, you are requesting a circular argument of one has to believe in order to believe.

My beliefs are in Christianity. This is not the subject of the discussion.

My knowledge is of the science of biology based on the evidence. I can support my arguments, but you don't appear to be able support yours and seem to be getting itchy about it too.

You've made claims. You support them with logic, reason and evidence or admit you cannot and that your denial of science is based on an unsupported ideological view.

You are supporting your arguments with things that can't be proven. But you refuse to admit it.

 

[F1fan]

why should anyone value your non-expert belief either?

Because I am deferring to what experts report. When I state what science reports it is what experts say, not me.

I don't express my opinions like religious extremists do when they reject science and what experts in science report. Creationists like yourself don't understand the science, and just reject it because you adopted a fraudulent religious belief. You should know better, but you have been indoctrinated and duped by Christian frauds.

 

[F1fan]

You are supporting your arguments with things that can't be proven. But you refuse to admit it.

Is he claiming a God exists? Is he claiming a certain interpretation of Genesis is true?

Your post is ironic, and you aren't savvy enough to realize it before you posted.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

why should anyone value your non-expert belief either?

He isn't the one in this conversation claiming that all the experts are wrong while he as a non-expert knows better then them.....................

 

[TrueBeliever37]

He couldn’t even say what animals He created. It’s just “flying and swimming and crawling things.” That attention to detail would explain why basic biology eluded Him so much.

And so you believe a fable because they make unsubstantiated claims which can't be proven and use words you can't understand.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are supporting your arguments with things that can't be proven. But you refuse to admit it.

He's supporting his arguments with evidence, which is the best one can do.

There is no such thing as "proof". Not in the technical sense anyway.
In the colloquial sense, evolution could very much be said to be "proven".

Technically, that means that it is supported by mountains of evidence and contradicted by none.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And so you believe a fable because they make unsubstantiated claims which can't be proven and use words you can't understand.

A "fable of unsubstantiated claims"?

There are literally over 300.000 peer reviewed scientific papers concerning evolutionary biology.

Do you think these are 300.000 scientific papers with nothing but unsubstantiated claims, that do not argue their case at all, which detail no evidence at all?

Do you have the slightest clue of the criteria that a scientific paper must meet before journal editors will even only consider publishing them?

Sounds like you don't.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

It did not have to be laid by something, there are not just reptiles and reptile eggs? All reproduction has extra cells around the birth.
Pre-cursors to reptiles still gave non-egg birth but slowly over time they evolved a stronger group of cells for the young to remain dry, inside the parent. At some point this harder group of cells continues after the actual birth, giving protection to the young.
Why would you think an earlier creature would need a fully formed egg? It might have been in the womb first only, evolution takes many paths.

And all of this has evidence. You just won't look at it.










Pond eggs became small pond creatures.
Dinosaurs are far down the evolutionary tree. Why are your questions like 3rd grader questions?







Mammals were derived in the Triassic Period (about 252 million to 201 million years ago) from members of the reptilian order Therapsida.

So yes, over millions, even billions of years of gradual change you can go from reptiles to mammals. At this point you are starting to sound like a troll. You cannot be serious with the level of mis-understanding of these questions?

I've been looking at some of your so called evidence. Scientists claiming to be able to tell us what happened 350 millions of years ago and longer - I don't believe your evidence.

When someone believe reptiles can become mammals , you kind of have to deal with them on a 3rd grade level.

You don't believe those reptiles also evolved into trees do you?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

He's supporting his arguments with evidence, which is the best one can do.

There is no such thing as "proof". Not in the technical sense anyway.
In the colloquial sense, evolution could very much be said to be "proven".

Technically, that means that it is supported by mountains of evidence and contradicted by none.

It is contradicted by common sense. Evidence has to be properly evaluated. When someone claims to know what happened millions of years ago, that is enough to let me know they don't know. They are only speculating.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Usually some type of natural selection or environmental pressure is involved in the switching. Which is evolution. Maybe live baby snakes were being eaten and only types who laid eggs survived in one place? There are usually answers to evolutionary questions is you want them.

I can believe in that TYPE of evolution. An environment that only allowed a certain species to survive in a particular location.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've been looking at some of your so called evidence. Scientists claiming to be able to tell us what happened 350 millions of years ago and longer - I don't believe your evidence.

This is what we call the argument from incredulity.

ie: my objection to your evidence is that I don't believe it

Pretty weak off course.

You need to actually deal with the evidence. If you think there is a problem with it, you need to actually address it and explain / demonstrate the problem.
This handwaving denial is not enough.

When someone believe reptiles can become mammals , you kind of have to deal with them on a 3rd grade level.

When someone refuses to deal with the evidence... there is nothing you can do really.
It's the old story of bringing a horse to water. You can't make it drink.

All the information explaining evolutionary history and evolutionary process, supported with mountains of evidence, is out there. Rather easily accessible since it is so well understood and so well documented.

Off course, it is clear you aren't interested in learning. This is why you only handwave, argue strawmen and act like this:

Try actually dealing with the evidence for a change.
Try actually learning something.

You don't believe those reptiles also evolved into trees do you?

See, this is what your willful ignorance and trippling down on strawmen will do to you.... you'll end up asking dumb questions like that.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

This is what we call the argument from incredulity.

ie: my objection to your evidence is that I don't believe it

Pretty weak off course.

You need to actually deal with the evidence. If you think there is a problem with it, you need to actually address it and explain / demonstrate the problem.
This handwaving denial is not enough.



When someone refuses to deal with the evidence... there is nothing you can do really.
It's the old story of bringing a horse to water. You can't make it drink.

All the information explaining evolutionary history and evolutionary process, supported with mountains of evidence, is out there. Rather easily accessible since it is so well understood and so well documented.

Off course, it is clear you aren't interested in learning. This is why you only handwave, argue strawmen and act like this:

View attachment 88652


Try actually dealing with the evidence for a change.
Try actually learning something.



See, this is what your willful ignorance and trippling down on strawmen will do to you.... you'll end up asking dumb questions like that.

Fact - They CANNOT prove what happened millions of years ago. Thinking reptiles ever give birth to mammals is dumb.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fact - They CANNOT prove what happened millions of years ago. Thinking reptiles ever give birth to mammals is dumb.

What makes you say that? Denial is not a refutation. Are you totally unaware of the fact that we have endless scientific evidence for evolution and that there is no scientific evidence at all for creationism?