• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Online Reference: Selected Sites Denying the Theory of Evolution

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I have read about the evolution myth.
It was weird.
0ver two hundred years of the work and research of the best scientist in the world have established evolution is the only explanation for the available physical existence.

Can you provide evidence for your version without making phony references to loose sediment for the Grand Canyon when the basalt, metamorphic rock and limestone of the canyon have always been solid rock.

NO ASSUMPTIONS just go and look at the Grand Canyon and see the solid rock and the alluvial solid gravel and boulders eroded from the solid rock in the river valley and in the Colorado River deltas where it entered the ocean and bays
 
Last edited:

Lisa Sims

Not BORN AGAIN Yet, But I'm On My WAY!
Hello All,
I am new to this site and not so scientifically minded as you all seem to be. I know this is not what you asked for but I'm not really that interested in either evolutionist or creationist arguments having spent most of my school years hearing about them. I've always felt there was some outside tinkering going on, especially in the quick jump from Neanderthal to Homo sapiens.

My new religion is God's Love Christianity based on Jesus' Second Coming Message Series (1914 to present) aka "The Padgett Messages." The message in a nutshell is: God is Love, and His Love is something we can pray for every day and it will flow into us, transform us and make us ONE with him. Jesus says it was his only message at his first coming and he called it the re-birth. He taught it and showed the example of it in his own person. Because he knew most would not understand the re-birth and pursue it, he also taught moral precepts of Godly behavior. Here is the best that my new religion has to offer on the subject of evolution/creation to date. I hope some find it a worthwhile contribution to the debate.

Note 1. Six messages were channeled in error by James Padgett. They are Aman, Aman, Amon, John, Jesus and Luke. (all pre-1923)
AuthorTitleDate of Message
MaryMary: Why did God create us?December 10th, 1998
JesusThe Evolution of the Physical Body and the Padgett Messages.January 20th, 2007
JesusWhat is the Truth about Evolution?February 5th, 2008
JesusWhat is the Truth about Evolution - 2February 5th, 2008
JesusWhat is the Truth about Evolution - 3February 6th, 2008
JesusWhat is the Truth about Evolution - 4February 6th, 2008
OrionCreation, Evolution.January 9th, 2010
OrionCreation and Evolution Revisited.August 6, 2012
Teacher ProlotheosEvolution.March 3rd, 2013
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
Hello All,
I am new to this site and not so scientifically minded as you all seem to be. I know this is not what you asked for but I'm not really that interested in either evolutionist or creationist arguments having spent most of my school years hearing about them. I've always felt there was some outside tinkering going on, especially in the quick jump from Neanderthal to Homosapien.

My new religion is God's Love Christianity based on Jesus' Second Coming Message Series (1914 to present) aka "The Padgett Messages." The message in a nutshell is: God is Love, and His Love is something we can pray for every day and it will flow into us, transform us and make us ONE with him. Jesus says it was his only message at his first coming and he called it the re-birth. He taught it and showed the example of it in his own person. Because he knew most would not understand the re-birth and pursue it, he also taught moral precepts of Godly behavior. Here is the best that my new religion has to offer on the subject of evolution/creation to date. I hope some find it a worthwhile contribution to the debate.

Note 1. Six messages were channeled in error by James Padgett. They are Aman, Aman, Amon, John, Jesus and Luke. (all pre-1923)
AuthorTitleDate of Message
MaryMary: Why did God create us?December 10th, 1998
JesusThe Evolution of the Physical Body and the Padgett Messages.January 20th, 2007
JesusWhat is the Truth about Evolution?February 5th, 2008
JesusWhat is the Truth about Evolution - 2February 5th, 2008
JesusWhat is the Truth about Evolution - 3February 6th, 2008
JesusWhat is the Truth about Evolution - 4February 6th, 2008
OrionCreation, Evolution.January 9th, 2010
OrionCreation and Evolution Revisited.August 6, 2012
Teacher ProlotheosEvolution.March 3rd, 2013
Maybe if you paid more attention you'd have
known its " Homo sapiens".

And that there was no " jump" quick or slow.
There never is. Evolution does not do " jumps"

H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens co- existed for tens
of thousands of years.

And btw, someone who loves
reality, call it god if you will,
doesn't go about denying "His"
works.
And promoting silly halfbaked nonsense.
 
Last edited:

Astrophile

Active Member
Yes. An example is a Precambrian Bunny Rabbit. Finding an animal severely out of order would show that all of our thinking in that regard was wrong. And it could happen , but it never has. There are other ways that it could be tested as well, but that is the classic.
A Devonian ichthyosaur would be just as good.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Apologetics Press

Take a look at many articles. Pick the one that interest you most and you feel you can disprove so we can discuss.

I can pick one I like from this and do the same. Have you try to disprove the one I pick.

You will also notice this link has a topic list at the top which has list of many articles per topic you can read any you might like to see what it says.

I thought you might enjoy this site.
Not really.

The case for creationism is totally unsupported by examinable evidence and is no more difficult to refute than any other folktale of magic.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Hello All,
I am new to this site and not so scientifically minded as you all seem to be. I know this is not what you asked for but I'm not really that interested in either evolutionist or creationist arguments having spent most of my school years hearing about them. I've always felt there was some outside tinkering going on, especially in the quick jump from Neanderthal to Homo sapiens.
Homo sapiens and Neanderthals is not a big jump they are closely related and interbred like many related subspecies in the evolution of life
My new religion is God's Love Christianity based on Jesus' Second Coming Message Series (1914 to present) aka "The Padgett Messages." The message in a nutshell is: God is Love, and His Love is something we can pray for every day and it will flow into us, transform us and make us ONE with him. Jesus says it was his only message at his first coming and he called it the re-birth. He taught it and showed the example of it in his own person. Because he knew most would not understand the re-birth and pursue it, he also taught moral precepts of Godly behavior. Here is the best that my new religion has to offer on the subject of evolution/creation to date. I hope some find it a worthwhile contribution to the debate.
OK, this is your statement of belief
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Not really.

The case for creationism is totally unsupported by examinable evidence and is no more difficult to refute than any other folktale of magic.
The problem I now see with this, although I believe there is a God over all now (I did not always, just to make it clear and I absolutely cannot explain every detail of creation, that is for sure...), is that the theory of evolution, while some do proclaim that it is fact and not theory any more, it really IS a theory with many m-a-n-y questions that cannot be answered. One might think that may be one day these questions, such as how did consciousness develop by physical forces rather than from a divine source. It does not really matter what someone may say as if it is no longer a theory but an established fact simply because reason shows that it is still a theory. And that along with abiogenesis. Which most evolutionists shove aside as if it does not pertain to the theory of evolution.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The problem I now see with this, although I believe there is a God over all now (I did not always, just to make it clear and I absolutely cannot explain every detail of creation, that is for sure...), is that the theory of evolution, while some do proclaim that it is fact and not theory any more, it really IS a theory with many m-a-n-y questions that cannot be answered. One might think that may be one day these questions, such as how did consciousness develop by physical forces rather than from a divine source. It does not really matter what someone may say as if it is no longer a theory but an established fact simply because reason shows that it is still a theory. And that along with abiogenesis. Which most evolutionists shove aside as if it does not pertain to the theory of evolution.
Here is the repeated problem rising it ugly ignorance head with the intentional ignorance of science and terminology. The following has been repeated many times, but nonetheless here goes again. . .

Careful of your misuse of "some do proclaim . . . " It is a layman terminology to call the science of evolution a "fact" is anecdotal and NOT what facts are in science and what the definition of how theories are falsified by Methodological Naturalism and nothing is proven in science. The knowledge of science with new knowledge, and evolves and changes. It is not literally a fact. Facts in science are the objective predictable verifiable evidence science is based on.

Is this clear yet after being repeated many many times.

Yes, the case for any version of the interpretation of Genesis is "totally unsupported by examinable evidence." You do not need to know every detal, but you indeed know the text of the Bible and believe it and reject science.
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The problem I now see with this, although I believe there is a God over all now (I did not always, just to make it clear and I absolutely cannot explain every detail of creation, that is for sure...), is that the theory of evolution, while some do proclaim that it is fact and not theory any more, it really IS a theory with many m-a-n-y questions that cannot be answered.
First, like the whole of science, the mapping of evolution is a work in progress. Science doesn't make absolute statements. But its statements from time to time are backed by examinable evidence, and explicit reasoning from that evidence.

Second, the alternative to science is magic ─ the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality ─ a phenomenon with no known demonstrated examples, and no testable-theory-of-magic ─ no substantial theory of any kind, that I'm aware of ─ to explain how it might work. (A miracle is magic performed by a god.)

Third, creationism involves the willing suspension of disbelief so as to allow one to think that the authors of the bible were somehow speaking for an unreal, undescribed superbeing, instead of writing down the creation tales of the Sumerians and their pupils the Semites of Mesopotamia. (For instance, you may already know that the bible's Flood story is a version of a Sumerian tale evidenced some 4500 years ago, a polished version of which is the Epic of Gilgamesh. If not, may I recommend Andrew George's fine translation and notes, Penguin 1999, to you?) And as you very likely know, virtually all tribes and races have origin myths, part of the human desire to make sense of our surroundings and our reality.
One might think that may be one day these questions, such as how did consciousness develop by physical forces rather than from a divine source.
But that leads to an infinite regression, no? We got our consciousness from God, and God got [his] consciousness from X, and X got [his] consciousness from X2, and X2 got [his] consciousness from X3 and ... In other words, if we are conscious because God is conscious, how come God is conscious?
It does not really matter what someone may say as if it is no longer a theory but an established fact simply because reason shows that it is still a theory. And that along with abiogenesis. Which most evolutionists shove aside as if it does not pertain to the theory of evolution.
And if and when science finds a real path from non-life to life, and makes a self-replicating cell in a laboratory, will that alter your view?

The evidence tells science that the universe was already more than 9 billion years old before our solar system formed, and a further 4.6 billion years have elapsed since then. Life on earth appears within the first billion of those years. Complex creatures begin to appear some 540 million years ago (the 'Cambrian explosion'). Humans appear by or before say 200,000 years ago ─ so we've been here maybe one seventy-thousandth of the age of the universe. There are hypotheses about human gods that might date them to quite early in human times, there is evidence of gods not less than 12,000 years ago, there are known and named gods from Mesopotamia and Egypt from not less than 5000 years ago, and the god of the bible appears in history about 3,500 years ago. So we've been around a lot longer than [he] has.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Here is the repeated problem rising it ugly ignorance head with the intentional ignorance of science and terminology. The following has been repeated many times, but nonetheless here goes again. . .

Careful of your misuse of "some do proclaim . . . " It is a layman terminology to call the science of evolution a "fact" is anecdotal and NOT what facts are in science and what the definition of how theories are falsified by Methodological Naturalism and nothing is proven in science. The knowledge of science with new knowledge, and evolves and changes. It is not literally a fact. Facts in science are the objective predictable verifiable evidence science is based on.

Is this clear yet after being repeated many many times.
You may say (proclaim) that ugly ignorance raises its head, but really you do not KNOW how things like Tiktaalik evolved. Scientists obviously surmise. But if you say they KNOW, -- that's a problem.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
....
And if and when science finds a real path from non-life to life, and makes a self-replicating cell in a laboratory, will that alter your view?
Do you really believe that science will find a "real" path from non-life to life? :) I go no further with that now, leaving the matter not in my hands or scientists' hands.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
You may say (proclaim) that ugly ignorance raises its head, but really you do not KNOW how things like Tiktaalik evolved. Scientists obviously surmise. But if you say they KNOW, -- that's a problem.
No that is not the problem. You are believing in ancient mythology of Genesis and rejecting the science. You perpetually make false statements about science.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No that is not the problem. You are believing in ancient mythology of Genesis and rejecting the science. You perpetually make false statements about science.
Let's be honest and I realize you are a confirmed devout evolutionist. If you could prove, and by prove I don't mean taking chemicals in a laboratory and creating life which evolves (which has not been done), but just SHOW for r-e-a-l and not conjecture how life (1) came about and (2) evolved, that could be helpful. By real I mean with actual circumstances showing or replicating the evolution of life from the beginning. And if not, why not?
Viruses that change or mutate == yes! -- they still remain as viruses. Has any scientist seen a virus change to something other than a virus? Maybe they have, you after all know more than I do about the theory.
If you want to say something else with actual circumstances, such as finches evolve to something other than finches, go for it. I am speaking of actual circumstances, not inferences. Thanks.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No that is not the problem. You are believing in ancient mythology of Genesis and rejecting the science. You perpetually make false statements about science.
You are making a false statement about me. I don't "reject science," as you claim. For instance, I take vaccines when I want to. I did not look up the statistics but I do think vaccinations (made by science and scientists) reduce illnesses caused by viruses. I appreciate things like x-ray machines as well as polio vaccines. I do not "reject science" as you mistakenly proclaim about me.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
You are making a false statement about me. I don't "reject science," as you claim. For instance, I take vaccines when I want to. I did not look up the statistics but I do think vaccinations (made by science and scientists) reduce illnesses caused by viruses. I appreciate things like x-ray machines as well as polio vaccines. I do not "reject science" as you mistakenly proclaim about me.
Accepting some science and rejecting science selectively based on an ancient religious mythical agenda is rejecting science. Also making arrogant foolish statements about Fact and Theory compounds your intentional ignorance in science.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Accepting some science and rejecting science selectively based on an ancient religious mythical agenda is rejecting science. Also making arrogant foolish statements about Fact and Theory compounds your intentional ignorance in science.
Once again -- to say I reject science is a misnomer. I am glad God set me free from the bondage of slavery I consider some to be in that put their trust in science without qualification.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Once again -- to say I reject science is a misnomer. I am glad God set me free from the bondage of slavery I consider some to be in that put their trust in science without qualification.
Once again you are not remotely honest about science.

Accepting some science and rejecting science selectively based on an ancient religious mythical agenda is rejecting science. Also making arrogant foolish statements about Fact and Theory compounds your intentional ignorance in science.
 
Top