User Tag List

Page 4 of 36 FirstFirst 123456714 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 540

Thread: The fossil record shows there never was evolution.

  1. #46
    Over 4000 post club Jose Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,252
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 611 Times in 440 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    196957
    Quote Originally Posted by Elia View Post
    Evolutionist experts on the fossil record tell me so.
    You mean like S. Gould who said that any creationist who tried to quote him as saying there are no transitional fossils is either stupid or dishonest? Or how he said in the same essay "transitions are often found in the fossil record" and then described a few of his favorite transitions (reptilian-mammal, and A. afarensis)?

    So if you're being honest and really are going with what the experts say, then on that basis it's been established that transitional fossils do indeed exist.

    For the finer details look here: https://sites.google.com/site/777mountzion/fossiles
    Let's be clear here....whether transitional fossils exist or not is a scientific question, and in science quotes are pretty much meaningless. What matters is the data. So along those lines, let's look at some actual data and see what we find.

    First, let's pick a couple of taxa that are claimed to be evolutionarily related. Let's use dinosaurs and birds. Now, if birds are evolved descendants of dinosaurs, we would expect to find fossil specimens that show this transition. Specifically, we would expect to find specimens that show a mixture of dino-like and bird-like features.

    Do you agree with that?
    "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Jose Fly For Your Post:

    commonsense (May 8th, 2016)

  3. #47
    LIFETIME MEMBER
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,190
    Thanks
    566
    Thanked 927 Times in 774 Posts

    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    122526
    Quote Originally Posted by WonderfulLordJesus View Post
    Note that verse 10 goes great with your post. So, what cult are you? A JW, or are you just a trolling, independent contractor here, trying to deceive people? Do you guys never see clear scripture leaves you with your pants down? Do the dumber lies never make you feel ridiculous? Can't you find some antichrist site that will pay any attention to you?

    John 1

    1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    2 The same was in the beginning with God.
    3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
    4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
    5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
    6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
    7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
    8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
    9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
    10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
    11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
    12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
    13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

    Colossians 1

    12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
    13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
    14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
    15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
    16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
    17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

    Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
    Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
    Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

    All the religious bigshots who learn from man , talk without understanding like you.

    You do not even understand those passages.

    Rev 4:10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
    Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.


    Rev 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
    Rev 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
    Rev 5:7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

    Rev 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne,[U] and unto [/U]the Lamb for ever and ever.

    Joh 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
    Joh 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
    Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
    Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

    Maybe if you paid attention to what the scripture really says then you would know the truth.

    LA

  4. #48
    Over 6000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,017
    Thanks
    1,086
    Thanked 4,115 Times in 2,442 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1833089
    Quote Originally Posted by Lazy afternoon View Post
    Jesus is not the creator.

    Read Rev.chs 4 and 5

    LA
    WonderfulLordJesus answered you....But, adding to that, you seem to follow a religion that can't distinguish a difference between the man Jesus... and "the Word" or the "first born over all creation". Jesus, the first born over all creation...the Word who became flesh is our Creator.
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    Tambora (May 10th, 2016)

  6. #49
    Over 6000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,017
    Thanks
    1,086
    Thanked 4,115 Times in 2,442 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1833089
    Quote Originally Posted by Elia View Post
    Bs"d

    The fossil record shows STASIS, non-change, non-evolution, ....

    This is all totally in agreement with creation, and it refutes evolution.
    Good post Elia... Thanks.
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    Tambora (May 10th, 2016)

  8. #50
    Over 6000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,017
    Thanks
    1,086
    Thanked 4,115 Times in 2,442 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1833089
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonahdog View Post
    Evolutionist experts on the fossil record tell me so
    WIKI..."Confirmation bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    Tambora (May 10th, 2016)

  10. #51
    Over 6000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,017
    Thanks
    1,086
    Thanked 4,115 Times in 2,442 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1833089
    Quote Originally Posted by SonOfCaleb View Post
    As i said initially the theme of the Bible is the vindication of Jehovahs soveringty which is WHY God has tolerated the existence of Satan and his demons as Satan challenged Gods soverignty in Eden.
    What you said, and I is poorly worded (or heretical) was "... the overall message and theme of the scriptures which is the vindication of Gods name and his reestablishment as the sole universal soverign."

    God always has been the universal Soveriegn. God does not need His name or sovereignty to be reestablished.

    Quote Originally Posted by SonOfCaleb View Post

    The scripture is plain in its statement. It says "[Jesus] is the first born of creation". Therefore God directly made Jesus himself.
    What religion teaches that type of logic?? Where in scripture do you see "first born" means something was made or created? We can see in scripture that "first born" was a title given to David even though he was not the first born.

    Furthermore, If Jesus was "made" as you claim, then scripture verses like John 1:3 become illogical " All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    Tambora (May 10th, 2016)

  12. #52
    Over 6000 post club 6days's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    6,017
    Thanks
    1,086
    Thanked 4,115 Times in 2,442 Posts

    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    1833089
    Quote Originally Posted by SonOfCaleb View Post
    Each creative 'day' or epoch
    'Epoch' is a compromise between what God says and secularists say.

    God defines the word days in context in Gen. 1:5 "God called the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day."..... 24 hour days.

    From the straight forward reading of Gods Word, how can Christians fit millions of years into the Bible? Here are a few answers as to why "epochs" contradicts scripture.

    A Theologian Answers
    Dr Peter Barnes, lecturer in church history at the Presbyterian Theological Centre in Sydney. He wrote: “…if God wanted us to understand the creation week as a literal week, He could hardly have made the point any clearer…. The theological argument is also compelling. According to the Bible, there was no death until there was sin. The creation is cursed only after Adam sinned (cf. Genesis 3; Romans 5:12–21; 8:19–25). This implies that all the fossils of dead animals must date from after Adam’s fall. If there was blood and violence in the creation before Adam sinned, the theological structure of the biblical message would appear to suffer considerable dislocation"

    A Hebrew Scholar Answers
    (who does not believe Genesis)
    James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.
    "Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".

    A Christian Apologist Answers
    Joe Boot, President of Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

    “Since the doctrines of Creation, the Fall and Redemption stand in an absolute historical continuum, we get a distorted worldview when we play games with Genesis.

    “The apologist seeks to present biblical truth with coherence. In my experience, one cannot even formulate a compelling response to classic questions like the problem of evil and pain without a clear stand with Scripture on the creation issue.

    “I have never been able to see how anyone who wants to defend the faith and proclaim the Gospel can compromise the foundation stones of that defence and then expect clear-thinking people to find a proclamation of salvation in Christ compelling.”

    Our Creator Answers

    JESUS speaking*"Haven't you read the Scriptures?They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'"

    So, again the question is, how can you (why would you?) squeeze millions of years into Gods Word without compromising the Gospel?

    Quote Originally Posted by SonOfCaleb View Post
    Genesis does not detail nor include the creation of the Universe or in fact the Earth (other than acknowledging their creation presuambly in the distant past but no more detail is provided) as part of the Creation account.
    What religion teaches you that....It is false. You seemingly reject the very first words of scripture..."In the beginning...". So you think God should have called it 'one of the beginnings'?

    You also seemingly reject the words that follow 'In the beginning'.... "God created the heavens and the earth".
    Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to 6days For Your Post:

    Tambora (May 10th, 2016)

  14. #53
    Over 1500 post club Elia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Judean desert
    Posts
    1,831
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 76 Times in 72 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    22711
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    Good post Elia... Thanks.
    Bs"d

    You're welcome.
    Please be advised that everywhere in your translation of your OT when it is written "the LORD" with all capitals, then in the original Hebrew it says the four lettered name of God: Y-H-W-H. That name appears almost 7000 times in the Hebrew Bible.

  15. #54
    Over 3000 post club
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    3,521
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1,169 Times in 821 Posts

    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    278344
    Quote Originally Posted by Elia View Post
    Bs"d

    Again: Evolution is totally lacking in the fossil record.
    This kind of blind fundamentalism is pathetic, and in this case, also embarrassing.

  16. #55
    Over 1500 post club Elia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Judean desert
    Posts
    1,831
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 76 Times in 72 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    22711
    Quote Originally Posted by Jose Fly View Post
    You mean like S. Gould who said that any creationist who tried to quote him as saying there are no transitional fossils is either stupid or dishonest? Or how he said in the same essay "transitions are often found in the fossil record" and then described a few of his favorite transitions (reptilian-mammal, and A. afarensis)?
    Bs"d

    I mean the Gould who says this:

    “Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution)."

    Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15

    Stephen J Gould was on of the most well known evolutionists and the inventor of the “punctuated equilibrium” theory, and professor geology en zoology at Harvard university.

    And also this:

    Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
    1. Stasis.Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless.
    2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.


    Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182

    And this:

    "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

    Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," 1982, p. 140

    And also this:

    "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record."

    Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p.189


    And I mean the other experts who say this:

    Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ... That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ... prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
    The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.

    Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46

    Niles Eldredge is an evolutionist en co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory

    And this:


    "...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."

    Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44


    And this:

    "The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change."

    Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163

    And this:


    "Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species."

    Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.

    Schwartz, Jeffrey H is professor anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh and also evolutionist, writer of boek about evolution: “Sudden Origins”, a provocative new theory on how evolution works by sudden leaps and bounds:
    http://www.post-gazette.com/books/reviews/19991212review395.asp

    And this:


    "Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."

    Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95, speaking about the Bighorn basin in Wyoming USA.
    S.M. Stanley is an evolutionist and professor at the John Hopkins university in Baltimore.
    He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory.
    One of his articles is “Paleontology and earth system history in the new millennium” which has been published in “Geological Society of America”

    For more info about prof Stanley look here: http://www.jhu.edu/~eps/faculty/stan....html#research

    And this:

    "The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form."

    Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40

    S.M. Stanley is an evolutionist and professor at the John Hopkins university in Baltimore.
    He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory.
    One of his articles is “Paleontology and earth system history in the new millennium” which has been published in “Geological Society of America”

    For more info about prof Stanley look here: http://www.jhu.edu/~eps/faculty/stan....html#research

    And this:



    "Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin’s post ulate of gradualism...and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."

    Mayr, E., One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138

    Ernst Mayer was one of the leading evolutionistic biologists of the 20th century, see here: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Ernst_Mayr

    And this:



    "The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time.
    On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type."


    Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187

    Peter J. Bowler, a scholar of Darwin and evolution, is a prolific author and professor of the history and philosophy of science at Queens University of Belfast.
    http://www.americanscientist.org/authors/detail/peter-bowler

    And this:

    "Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks...One of the ironies of the creation evolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood."

    Raup, David, "Geology" New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832,1981

    David Raub is an evolutionist, and professor emeritus (former Sewell L. Avery Distinguished Service Professor) in Geophysical Sciences and former curator Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History at the University van Chicago. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Raup

    And many others.


    So if you're being honest and really are going with what the experts say, then on that basis it's been established that transitional fossils do indeed exist.
    As Gould says very clearly: Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

    So it is clear enough that between species, there are no transitional forms.

    He claims that there are between larger groups, but that is reasoning like: "Here we have a mouse, there we have a horse, and the dog is the transitional form in between them."

    Again: Evolution is totally lacking in the fossil record.

    Let's be clear here....whether transitional fossils exist or not is a scientific question, and in science quotes are pretty much meaningless.
    From where do you get that utterly crazy idea that "in science quotes are pretty much meaningless"???

    It is very VERY important what the evolutionst experts say on the matter.

    What matters is the data. So along those lines, let's look at some actual data and see what we find.
    What we don't find, is transitional fossils. What we do find is everywhere gaps between the species, as also Gould admits. So we don't find evolution. We find STASIS, non-change, non-evolution.

    Get these simple facts into your head.

    First, let's pick a couple of taxa that are claimed to be evolutionarily related. Let's use dinosaurs and birds. Now, if birds are evolved descendants of dinosaurs, we would expect to find fossil specimens that show this transition. Specifically, we would expect to find specimens that show a mixture of dino-like and bird-like features.

    Do you agree with that?
    Do you agree with the fact that if the dinosaurs gradually evolved into birds,that the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on the earth, must be truly enormous, and that then every geological formation and every stratum must be full of such intermediate links between dino's and birds?


    "But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

    Charles Darwin, Origin of Species
    Please be advised that everywhere in your translation of your OT when it is written "the LORD" with all capitals, then in the original Hebrew it says the four lettered name of God: Y-H-W-H. That name appears almost 7000 times in the Hebrew Bible.

  17. #56
    Over 1500 post club Elia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Judean desert
    Posts
    1,831
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 76 Times in 72 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    22711
    Quote Originally Posted by chair View Post
    This kind of blind fundamentalism is pathetic, and in this case, also embarrassing.
    Bs"d

    I call it realism. It's pathetic when people cannot accept the fact that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, even though scores of evolutionist experts say so in unison.

    That's what is called cognitive dissonance.
    Please be advised that everywhere in your translation of your OT when it is written "the LORD" with all capitals, then in the original Hebrew it says the four lettered name of God: Y-H-W-H. That name appears almost 7000 times in the Hebrew Bible.

  18. #57
    Over 1500 post club Elia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Judean desert
    Posts
    1,831
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 76 Times in 72 Posts

    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    22711
    Quote Originally Posted by 6days View Post
    WIKI..."Confirmation bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses
    Bs"d

    WIKI "In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas, or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values."

    That's what we see when evo's cannot accept the statements of scores of evolutionist experts who all in unison proclaim that the fossil record shows STASIS, non-change, = non-evolution.
    Please be advised that everywhere in your translation of your OT when it is written "the LORD" with all capitals, then in the original Hebrew it says the four lettered name of God: Y-H-W-H. That name appears almost 7000 times in the Hebrew Bible.

  19. #58
    Over 3000 post club Sonnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,223
    Thanks
    146
    Thanked 773 Times in 664 Posts

    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    55658
    Quote Originally Posted by SonOfCaleb View Post
    I've not worded anything poorly. As i said initially the theme of the Bible is the vindication of Jehovahs soveringty which is WHY God has tolerated the existence of Satan and his demons as Satan challenged Gods soverignty in Eden. I never once said Satan was soverign. So lets stick top what i said rather than what you think i said or think i have inferred.



    I've not 'couched' anything. The scripture is plain in its statement. It says "[Jesus] is the first born of creation". Therefore God directly made Jesus himself. That's a pretty easy concept to accept and understand unless of course you believe in the Trinity which is a discussion im not interested in getting into.
    John 1:3
    Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

    First born of creation would be in terms of inheritance status.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Sonnet For Your Post:

    6days (April 27th, 2016)

  21. #59
    Over 3000 post club Sonnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,223
    Thanks
    146
    Thanked 773 Times in 664 Posts

    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    55658
    Quote Originally Posted by Lazy afternoon View Post
    Jesus is not the creator.

    Read Rev.chs 4 and 5

    LA
    Specifically?

  22. #60
    Over 3000 post club Sonnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,223
    Thanks
    146
    Thanked 773 Times in 664 Posts

    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    55658
    Quote Originally Posted by Lazy afternoon View Post
    Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
    Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
    Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

    All the religious bigshots who learn from man , talk without understanding like you.

    You do not even understand those passages.

    Rev 4:10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
    Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.


    Rev 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
    Rev 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
    Rev 5:7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

    Rev 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne,[U] and unto [/U]the Lamb for ever and ever.

    Joh 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
    Joh 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
    Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
    Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

    Maybe if you paid attention to what the scripture really says then you would know the truth.

    LA
    Revelation 4:11 (regarding God)
    Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

    John 1:3 (regarding Jesus)
    Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

    Therefore, in terms of Creation at least, there is an equivalence between Christ and God.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us