• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

The "miracle" of evolution is a myth - part 1

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
What's actually mind boggling is that you think that an amoeba can turn into a man by accumulating mistakes.
That would indeed be mind boggling if that's what I actually thought. It isn't. By any stretch. Any more bizarre suppositions that you want to declare?
 

Right Divider

Body part
That would indeed be mind boggling if that's what I actually thought. It isn't. By any stretch. Any more bizarre suppositions that you want to declare?
That's the GTY ToE.
Random mutations that can create men from a single celled first ancestor.
If you have a better version of the "theory", please do let us know.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
That's the GTY ToE.
Random mutations that can create men from a single celled first ancestor.
If you have a better version of the "theory", please do let us know.
You can avail yourself by having a better understanding of it. It's not like you haven't been provided with enough aid as it is. Still, your call.
 

Right Divider

Body part
You can avail yourself by having a better understanding of it. It's not like you haven't been provided with enough aid as it is. Still, your call.
  • I've studied the topic for many, many years. So your claim that I lack knowledge about it is false.
  • The "theory" has many versions that are sometimes competing and contradictory in many ways. So don't expect me to know exactly which one you prefer.
  • It's often a great irony when competing "evolutionary" proponents explain why the other's view of "evolution" is incorrect. The truth is that they are all right about the fact that others view of evolution is wrong!
 
Last edited:

Derf

Well-known member
Um, no. It doesn't, at all. You're incredibly ignorant on the matter in actual fact if you think that the ToE begins with such a notion...

It's actually mind boggling how you even conceived such.
Show me where there’s a place for God.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Arthur has been removed from this thread. Four pages and not once has he discussed evidence nor the thread topic, merely waffled on as if he had already disproven it.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Kinds are clearly much broader then species.
Species diverge from kinds.
We can easily see some kinds, like the cat kind or the dog kind.
But it is also clear that lion is not a tiger and Great Dane is not a chihuahua.
Would you like to argue that lions and tigers are not both a cat kind? Are they the same species?
Or that a Great Dane and a chihuahua are not a dog kind? Are they the same species?
Do you really think anyone in the Bible would have referred to a lion and a tiger as the same "kind"? There's plenty of discussion on the difference between sheep and goats in the Bible despite the fact they can occasionally produce offspring together. They're not the same kind.
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
From Alate_One:

When evolutionists see the world, they see it through "evolution colored glasses". They are so blinded by their own belief system, that all things must conform to that belief system. It's called confirmation bias and they have it big time.


Do they have any actual evidence that this "evolutionary story" is true? No, but they believe it anyway.
You didn't actually address my evidence. It's not that modern whales have legs, but ancient whales like Dorudon do. Full legs, femur, fibula, tibia and patella. Why would a whale have this?

7282107938_e31856d35f_b.jpg
 

Right Divider

Body part
Do you really think anyone in the Bible would have referred to a lion and a tiger as the same "kind"?
Anyone with eyes can see that they are both of the "cat" kind.
There's plenty of discussion on the difference between sheep and goats in the Bible despite the fact they can occasionally produce offspring together. They're not the same kind.
They also did not evolve from single celled life forms.
 
Last edited:

Alate_One

Well-known member
Perhaps it's mis-classified. Evolutionists make lots of mistakes because everything must be forced to prove "evolution".
It's clearly an oceangoing animal with back legs. Explain. There's a modern cetacean skeleton behind/below it for comparison.
4260291731_a15c1b28b8_b.jpg
 

Alate_One

Well-known member
Anyone with eyes can see that they are both of the "cat" kind.
Meaning anyone with eyes can see they evolved from a common ancestor. :p Calling it a "cat kind" is just stating what you want to believe as truth. There's no support for what you're saying in the Bible. That anyone called any group of species as a "kind". Kind as used in the Bible isn't a technical term, it's a common reference to a type or species of animal. Species is a close modern analog or literally just saying a kind of animal. That's all it appears to mean in any context in the Bible. Making it into some kind of taxonomic designation is pure creationist post flood hyperevolutionary fantasy.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Meaning anyone with eyes can see they evolved from a common ancestor. :p
Once again, this is not a problem for the creation model. All animal life are descendants of the originally created kinds. They are not all descendants of a mythological "single common ancestor".
Calling it a "cat kind" is just stating what you want to believe as truth.
I'm making a logical deduction from observation.
There's no support for what you're saying in the Bible. That anyone called any group of species as a "kind". Kind as used in the Bible isn't a technical term, it's a common reference to a type or species of animal. Species is a close modern analog or literally just saying a kind of animal. That's all it appears to mean in any context in the Bible. Making it into some kind of taxonomic designation is pure creationist post flood hyperevolutionary fantasy.
😂🤣
 

marke

Well-known member
Temp Banned
I wouldn't expect you to classify AO's posts as anything other than 'evolutionist rhetoric' anyway RD. You're convinced that YEC is correct so it wouldn't matter what the evidence provided, it would never be enough to convince you anyway really. Thankfully, some have thrown away the shackles but unfortunately many are mired in it and will remain so.
Anyone who imagines life on earth began slowly from abiogenesis and then grew through evolution is duped by lies.
 
Top