Online Reference: Selected Sites Denying the Theory of Evolution

[YoursTrue]

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.

So sorry, but what you call "ancient religious mythical agenda," etc. has nothing to do with the sheer fact that science cannot say exactly how life started on the earth and where living matter came from.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

But now that you mention it, I have a question of you. Do you believe everything a scientist may say presently and has said in the past?

 

[blü 2]

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.

We know such a path exists ─ you and I are proof of it.

 

[YoursTrue]

We know such a path exists ─ you and I are proof of it.

I don't think that was my question. Nevertheless, I "believe" in the procreative process and DNA. I do not believe we evolved by magic or what some might call natural physical forces (where they come from anyway) stemming from one cell in the long distant past which supposedly evolved to become plants and animals any more. I used to believe that. I see no proof or signal of that. Do I believe humans did not always exist? Yes, I do. Do I believe that there was very, very early plant life? Yes, I do. Anyway, take it from there. Do I believe I may need to go to sleep soon? (You may have guessed it...)

 

[shunyadragon]

But now that you mention it, I have a question of you. Do you believe everything a scientist may say presently and has said in the past?

No of course not. The knowledge of science changes and advances over time with new discoveries. Today's sciences of evolution are on a sound foundation of all the basic sciences, and all major academic universities believe the sciences of evolution have been demonstrate beyond any doubt.

At one time scientists believed in a geocentric universe based on the Bible. today no, except for a few that believe in a literal Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

all major academic universities believe the sciences of evolution have been demonstrate beyond any doubt.

I believe that may be true as to what many academic universities believe. That still does not make the theory true or -- a fact beyond doubt as it stands. No matter how you pose it right now, because of the lack of precise and exact evidence showing transitional changes from one form to another as well as exact and precise knowledge as to what the first living matter that began supposedly evolving on the earth was, I no longer believe the theoretical viewpoint as it stands. If I don't keep answering you now, perhaps I will get to your posts another time because -- it is getting late.

 

[McBell]

I believe that may be true as to what many academic universities believe. That still does not make the theory true or -- a fact beyond doubt as it stands. No matter how you pose it right now, because of the lack of precise and exact evidence showing transitional changes from one form to another as well as exact and precise knowledge as to what the first living matter that began supposedly evolving on the earth was, I no longer believe the theoretical viewpoint as it stands. If I don't keep answering you now, perhaps I will get to your posts another time because -- it is getting late.

"precise and exact ... exact and precise"

Please show the "precise and exact evidence" as well as the "exact and precise knowledge" as to creation.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe that may be true as to what many academic universities believe. That still does not make the theory true or -- a fact beyond doubt as it stands. No matter how you pose it right now, because of the lack of precise and exact evidence showing transitional changes from one form to another as well as exact and precise knowledge as to what the first living matter that began supposedly evolving on the earth was, I no longer believe the theoretical viewpoint as it stands. If I don't keep answering you now, perhaps I will get to your posts another time because -- it is getting late.

Yes it is getting late, the above remains a problem of the misuse of terminology and deliberate misrepresentation of how Methodological Naturalism and knowledge of the physical work in science. Terrible misuse of "exact and precise" work in science. They are standards in measurement in terms of scientific methods.

 

[Lisa Sims]

Homo sapiens and Neanderthals is not a big jump they are closely related and interbred like many related subspecies in the evolution of life

Hello S__

I was mistaken in my citing of the Second Coming Messages From Spirit when I referred to Neanderthals and Homo sapiens as two distinct species, they are both humans (creatures with souls).
Ramapithecus. ...
Australopithecus. ...
Homo Erectus. ...
Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. ...
Homo Sapiens Sapiens
and other forms of what science deems pre-human ancestors all represent a devolution of man from the state of the perfect man (the first creatures with souls) some 70 million years ago. There were many stages of devolution and evolution between the incarnation into animal fetuses of the souls (God created souls in His own image) of the first parents and the beginning of the discovered fossil record by paleo-anthropologists of "pre-humans."

It is the presence or absence of a soul, and that soul's purity or lack thereof that makes the difference between beauty and brutishness.

I cited all the applicable Messages in my first post (#202) but this one:

Jesus: Annual Trance Message June 1999
Doug: Yes, thank you. I’m now going to ask a question from Jimmy which is probably entirely inappropriate (giggles) in view of what you just said. But we’re all here, we all have a burning desire to know the truth and though it’s not critical to our divine progression, we are often asked and we are often curious about the ancient history of humanity, that period of time between Amon and Aman and the earliest recorded traces of humankind and, at some point in the course of eternity, we’d of course be interested in having those spaces filled in. Jimmy asks specifically whether the difference between homo erectus and homosapien was that the homosapien had the soul implanted and the homo erectus didn’t. And, of course, any information you would like to volunteer, we have confusion about where in the time-line of humanity the continent of Atlantis occurred? Whether the fall of humankind occurred quickly, in the course of a generation or two, or whether it went on for millions of years? All of these things we’re still kind of in the dark about.

Jesus: The first parents lived millions and millions of years ago. The planet supported life at such time that God deemed it suitable for the souls to be implanted in the beings that inhabited the planet at that time. It was prior to what scientists have found evidence of. Does this answer your question?

Doug: Jimmy’s specific question about this, I guess the scientists have found that homo erectus lived 3 to 8 million years ago.

Jesus: It was prior.

Doug: Oh, so the soul of … the human soul was implanted into bodies prior to that time?

Jesus: Yes, many, many years prior.

Doug: My, my.

Jesus: Millions of years prior.

Doug: More than 8 million?

Jesus: Yes.

Arthur: Wow.

Doug: Michael’s eyebrows are raised here. Would it be possible to give us a specific number of millions of years that Amon and Aman lived, and then I’ll shut up.

Jesus: More than 70. (Doug opens his mouth, wanting to speak. Carolyn interjects, “Keep your word.”

Many blessings...
Lisa

1 Message For All Correspondence

 

[Argentbear]

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.

Some other things that are only theories:
Theory of Gravity
Atomic theory
Plate Tectonics
Quantum mechanics
Oxygen theory of combustion:
and the very strange idea that diseases are caused by organisms that are to small to be seen .. Some people call it "germ theory"

 

[Argentbear]

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.

Has anyone ever witnessed any sort of new living thing spontaneously appear? I'm talking about actual observation not inferences

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

I accept what makes sense to me.

 

[shunyadragon]

I accept what makes sense to me.

Classical self-justified circular reasoning.

 

[YoursTrue]

Classical self-justified circular reasoning.

OK, so you accept what doesn't make sense to you? Besides, scientists, as you well know, argue amongst themselves regarding their own ideas. So please, it would look better on your part to not say what you want to justify your own unfounded way of looking at things. If you want to have a discussion, insulting might not be the better way...You were doing better for a while which is why I even answered some of your posts.

 

[McBell]

"precise and exact ... exact and precise"

Please show the "precise and exact evidence" as well as the "exact and precise knowledge" as to creation.

**crickets chirping**