skysaintj

Leaky was the cream of the crop, the top of the heap, and he pulled a scam on the whole world. Soon soon something like : NEWS TODAY !! - A group of philosophers, professors and kickass scientists who has been a leading champions of atheism and evilution on Dropzone.com for more than a few years has changed their minds. They now believe in God -- more or less -- based on scientific evidence. After decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Evilutionists has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature Speakers Corner Evilutionists said . They came to the conclusion as a group and said they are best labeled as deists now like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives , thus not to admit defeat to clearly. We now think of a God not very different from the God of the Christian but far away from the God of Islam "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose." Over the years, these DZ.Com locals proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while shooting down and criticizing any belief that conflicts with their evilution theory.. There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for them, … biologists' investigations of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Speakers on DZ.Com now have new threads relating to subjects like "Has Science Discovered God?" The first hint of Evilutionists’ turn was when one of their locals on the forum and sect leaders posted and wrote “it has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," DZ.Com Evilutionists said the debate over God (since they accepted Him has to exist) will start a million new threads on DZ.com and keep them busy as they have a lot to learn…. Free busy ... If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

As I recall this whole story was front and center for years as the find of the century as proof of evolution. I didn't see anyone saying, "Hold your horses, this is only one little piece of bone." Once again, this is one of my biggest complaints about theory that is fed to us as fact. The material is made to fit the agenda, and it seems to be a pattern across the board. This is, in turn, fed to the gullible minds of young children as fact, not theory. However, an almost complete A. Afarensis skull (and most of the rest of the skeleton) that is even older than Lucy thas now been discovered at Dikika, which rather spoils your argument. Nope .. like all macro-evolution theories it's evidence of something that was discovered - fair enough and congratulations , but then they bring on the icing sugar to spice it up and present as fact of evolution ~!! .. this whole macro-evolution theory is a timebomb ticking ... so get that popcorn and coke cause seriously it's gonna be a awesome show when this bull blows Getting back to that "evidence of evolution" "There seem to be a lot of guessing.......The conclusions of the adaptations, or lack thereof, were fascinating, but too open to conjecture. The overall appeal of the article for a layperson was quite informative, while being a bit understated for those with superior knowledge. In fact, this reporting is more about the discovery than the science of how the 3.3 million year old baby girl who fits into the evolution scale than documenting the actual science. " If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

So can me and my dog. Nothing new there. Water is a hostile environment for any land based mammal. No matter how well they can swim, if left there long enough, it will kill them. They were simply designed to do what they do. They look rather awkward on land. I doubt if those lumbering sea cows ever walked on land. They are designed to float and consume water plants so that boaters don't get all of those weeds in their props. Their body design was designed for thirty mph sprints. On the west coast of Fl. I got to watch three dolphins herd mullet into a shallow cove, hold them there, and decimate them. Pretty cool. They are obviously intelligent. Too intellegent to want to do it on land. The picture that you present is that everything at one time was some bumbling creature that couldn't get out of its own way until suddenly, by some stroke of luck, it finally hit its stride. An architect doesn't, with intention, start out to design a bungalow and wind up with a skyscraper, nor does he design a functioning community and winds up with a mud hut. The whole, everything used to be something else, mentality flies in the face of common sense, logic, and reasoning. Just to back that up Basically there is no creation evidence and no evolution evidence. Everyone should understand that both creationism and evolutionism are forensic models of history. Creationists and evolutionists both have the same evidences at their disposal; the same fossils, the same rocks, the same trees, and the same strata layers. The question is which model best fits the existing evidence....so yet again a few things to consider 10 MAJOR FLAWS OF EVOLUTION 1.The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created. A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created. 2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence. Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. This is at the core of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). DNA is by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive. Ironically, evolutionists scan the heavens using massive radio telescopes hoping for relatively simple signal patterns that might have originated in outer space, all the while ignoring the incredibly complex evidence of superior intelligence built into every human's DNA. While we're waiting to hear signs of intelligence behind interstellar communication, we're ignoring those built into us. 3. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered. Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory. 4. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state"). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy. 5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be true. Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds." Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven't been. 6. Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived. The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be "reconstructed" a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed "ape-men" are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called "ape-men" would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the "missing link" (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn't come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone's eyes based on a few old bones. 7. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions. Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such dating methods also assume a closed system—that no isotopes were gained or lost by the rock since it formed. It's common knowledge that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees Centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals move easily from one rock system to another. In fact, this process is one of the excuses used by evolutionists to reject dates that don't fit their expectations. What's not commonly known is that the majority of dates are not even consistent for the same rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often register dates in the millions to billions of years. There are many different ways of dating the earth, and many of them point to an earth much too young for evolution to have had a chance. All age-dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions. 8. Uses continue to be found for supposedly "leftover" body structures. Evolutionists point to useless and vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of evolution. However, it's impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there's always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. That's been the case for over 100 supposedly useless organs which are now known to be essential. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs. It's worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. The evolutionary hypothesis needs to find examples of developing organs—those that are increasing in complexity. 9. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology. When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called "spontaneous generation." Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). "Chemical Evolution" is just another way of saying "spontaneous generation"—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible. Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive. 10. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins. Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn't mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible's teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God's revealed Word. If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Good explanation brother

i wish i was soup If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Yaaaawn phew aargg fokkiT ! how low does one have to go ...Macro-Evolution Has Never Been Proven: Macro-evolution (major changes within kinds) teaches that species can produce a different kind of species, such as a monkey producing a human, or a reptile producing a mammal. Macro-evolution has never been observed in nature, the laboratory, or the fossil record, and therefore is believed by faith, not science. Micro-evolution (minor variations within kinds) teaches that humans produce a variety of humans, and dogs produce a variety of dogs. This is factual science because it has been tested and observed several times. Textbooks give examples of micro-evolution and say it will eventually add up to macro-evolutionary results. No evidence supports this. Mutations do not produce any kind of evolution because they don’t produce a new species. There is no new information added to a mutation, only scrambled information that already exists in the gene code. Example: You can scramble up the letters of the word CHRISTMAS and get all sorts of new words. But you are never going to get XEROX, ZEBRA or QUEEN out of CHRISTMAS because the letters aren’t available. Real mutations would give new information, not just reshuffling existing information. There hasn’t been one beneficial mutation ever discovered. Similarities do not prove common ancestors. Textbooks say monkeys and humans have 97% similar DNA, then come to a conclusion that monkeys and humans have a common ancestor. This conclusion is not scientific, but a belief that promotes the evolution theory. This could be evidence that God created different life forms to have similarities, just like a carpenter creates different houses with similar structures. To say similarities between different species is evidence of evolution is faulty logic. Anything can be related depending on what you want to compare! Fossils Are Not Evidence Of Evolution: The very existence of thousands of fossils found in all parts of the world more likely indicates that there was a worldwide flood. Animals and plants that die today do not become fossils unless they are buried rapidly under layers of mud. Textbooks often state that “fossil evidence shows that organisms have been changing continuously since life first apperared on earth.” Statements like this are not scientifically valid. Nobody can know this as a fact of science since no one observed the formation of life or new life forms. No one has ever documented a genuine transitional fossil linking different kinds of animals. If the fossil remains of an animal are found in the ground, there is no way to know if it had any descendants! Many textbooks claim that missing links have been found. This is not true! Many so-called missing links such as “Piltdown Man,” “Nebraska Man,” “Neanderthal Man,” and “Lucy” have been proven to be frauds or misidentified. No missing links exist between different kinds of animals, as many evolutionists have admitted. Not only can the intermediates (link between 2 different kinds of animals) not be found, they cannot even be imagined! How can an animal with half wing and half leg survive? It couldn’t fly and it couldn’t run! In addition, who would it marry? And who would its offspring marry? The evolutionists must imagine that these same changes happened to two individuals of the opposite sex, at the same time, in the same location! Nobody has ever observed any animal change into any other kind of animal. The so-called fossil record doesn’t exist! Bottom line buddy now have one If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

read (posted earlier) as well : this as an interesting view relating to your question : http://www.vanderbilt.edu/~postjf/mcich4int.htm If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Prove it. Can you produce any evidence at all in favor of supernatural intervention in the origin of species? Open your eyes and smile If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

bhwahahahhehehehe ok that's it then ! If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

theory to what it might have been crap ! there are not one fossil that beyond a shadow of a doubt prove macro-evolution ... if there is atteach now please If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Evolution exists ! for sure and i believe in it to a certain extent , but my dad was no ape were yours ? ...so i'll brake it down how i perceive it ...Macro-evolution : we were nothing really maybe a little grain of sand but then spontaneously evolved over billions of years into a amino acid and then millions later into a 1 celled organism which then started to devide became a fish and then this and then some freak and then some freak and then an ape which then opened a lucky packet and got himself a soul and called himself HUMAN ! Micro-evolution : slowly adapting to your current environment but never becoming another species like freakshow on cable that ate to much uranium ! so am i still a creationist ? or how would you label me If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

.....send me 1000 transition fossil pics of human evolution from being a fish apparently to what we are today and i'll buy into your macro-evolution theory cause surely if dinosaurs bones could have stood the test of time some of my dads dads dad Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads Dads dads dads dads dads dads whatever he was etc..'s bones should have been found somewhere ..?? ...well at least one then ? No ? How is that possible !!! ....................................micro evolution is possible and i'd rather believe i was created by a divine creative loving energy than the evolved from soup that got wacked by lightning and eureka ! there we were bullshit theory If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Interesting view @ : http://www.vanderbilt.edu/~postjf/mcich4int.htm Debating whether there is Creator or not or anything closely related is most of the time some of the longest threads around here That question will be asked until we find out or like dust blow away with no purpose to our existence It's the question of questions - and there has been two sides right through .....be it a spiritual experience validating one's own connection to the divine or a ongoing scientific theories and investigations trying to find that complete and outright answer , almost like evidence to make up your mind for you - You will find out that all you get left with for now is a CHOICE and you've made it years ago " ..We have been tracing the traditional theist's answer to the question of why anything at all exists. The sum-total of contingently existing things exists ultimately because of God's free creative activity, and God exists by a necessity of God's own nature. Asking why God exists is like asking why a plenum is full: asking just shows that you don't understand the concept, either of a plenum or of God. Furthermore, theists will claim that there is a bonus in their answer to the question of why anything at all exists. It also answers the question in its other sense or senses, when it is about the meaning of life and the purpose or purposes for which we exist. The meaning and the purpose are contained in God's reasons for creating a universe and the beings in it, reasons that are the subject of divine revelation. " If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

...exactly ! Satan will try and keep all from the truth and there are so many thoughts that might seem like logic when he takes you by the hand - I HATE SATAN !! ... "Even with the intellect God has given me I can realize IF there was creator so divine he could speak the world into existence, I'm not going to fully comprehend him - SteveO" If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

....Cats are my favorite and definitely therapeutic in a way , don't know exactly how it works but after a hectic day in South Africa my cats relieve my stress and make me laugh ... brilliant affectionate animals ! If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Happy Birthday bro !!!!! Really good to know you If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

...If you can blame the church for aids you should blame pacman and mario bros. for drug abuse I stay in Africa and the work with alot of people from different races etc.... the pope is not the cause of the aids epidemic in africa but poverty and lack of knowledge , education and skydiving and alot of other things that go with developing countries. If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Even if it were unedited, unaltered that would not in any way make it true. Correct - i never said that The Bible may have things that do not not correspond 100% and translation etc..might have something to do with that but the Bible as a whole spells the Gospel and that Jesus came in love for you. It's the good news salvation for those who believe by just accepting God's love not joining some church or movement to prove it ....it's just asking forgiveness and asking God into your life ...that's it it's actually so simple

I read quite a lot of that and - what a load of tenuous nonsense. I could go through Lord of the Rings and find as many parallels to things happening in real life if i looked hard enough. This is where use of the bible becomes dangerous where people try and make out that it is something its not. Moral guidelines and to help people understand their being? Fine if you need a book to help you understand right and wrong. Predicting the future down to the last individual event?? I think not. Another poster who has "Studied the bible for many years " and "really knows the truth" unlike all us unbelievers says the bible predicts without a shadow of a doubt that the end of the civilised world as we know it is this year (or something like that). If he's right I apologise profusely!!! Ok he was an idiot to think he knows when the world will end but he's not the only one that have made such predictions ... i have made no prediction at all i'm just saying that there are certain views that point to end times scripture and i find very interesting. I love The Lord of the Rings - one of my favourites .. as it's quite a good metaphor for society and life. No apology accepted If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

When it comes to quantum mechanics/physics , i have come to one conclusion - The crust of the earth is very very very hard .....I don't agree with so many different churches and their customs and yes i feel sad because they have put their customs and their way of believing on a higher priority than their personal relationship with their creator and it's the people who suffer. If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Dig dig dig dig dig dig.... ahhhhhhhaaaa here's an excuse ! No wait that's not it ... ! Ok i'll look for another one hang on ..dig dig dig dig dig ...to infinity and beyond !! Phew ! ..................... ...The Bible was tested as 97 % unedited or unadjusted (search) No book as old as it carries that status and no book has been printed more throughout time There will also be a another book soon enough that explains why this and why that and counters all the theories authenticity ,ins and outs in "Misquoting Jesus" .. you'll see it's always like that The fact is the Prophecies within the Bible are real and are being fulfilled as i'm typing this and that's what matters , not who the priest was or his brother was not his father's brother but the brother of the priest etc..of course translations through 1000's of years would have had a effect on wording sentences...don't base your belief on something so variable...I'll say it again the Bible is a guide to the nature of your creator and his love that he has for all - people really think it's such a big thing to follow God but it's not i do almost all the things that i used to there's just more joy now. Anyway ..my interest now is looking at how these play off in the future - see this link for a few very interesting views : http://www.evenmore.co.uk/prophecy/ If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

...I have thought about exactly the same things as you and have doubted God for a very big part of my life but something inside me investigated and tested the posibilty that He might exist ..like i said there are so many things that never happened until i asked for God . He works for me .. if it does not work for you or anybody else then so be it ..i'm not trying to convert anyone here but i'm only sharing my experience and know i'm not alone I believe in God ,Christ and the Holy Spirit as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Write my own book ?! i'll need truckloads full of Ritalin If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

I'm no American ..actually from South Africa and yes we would like someone to please come and build a nice kick ass windtunnel for us as we really need one otherwise i need to spend millions traveling to go train in one elsewhere....i'll swap whoever for a few lions Getting back to the "wrong church" thing ... i'll be honest , i have not been in a church for the last 4 years but still pray and ask the Holy Spirit(God) to guide me and help me on life's bumpy roads etc... From my experience ... i have strayed from a good life and was down and out many times and everytime i prayed to God and asked for his help and forgiveness down in my little black hole He did help me straight away in such a way that it can only be seen as a miracle , this happened over and over for years until i realised that He is real. So what different churches believe and when it comes to their customs etc...and and how certain people interpret the Bible is but detail to a much bigger picture and it is this detail that people try and figure out everyday and prove right and prove wrong and in their confusion miss the point ..Yes the Bible is there as a guide for us and but once you have experienced God in your life personally nothing else really matters If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

..Murder seem worse if i think about it but i believe that you are looking at this from one side only as you are asking me to answer the question from a more physical-human and more emotional perspective.Why would Jesus rate this sin as he does ? I don't know and i don't know the importance and overall effect of it ...all i know He does not want us to curse the Holy Spirit and that's why we should not do it ... for example you do not know or know God for that matter and you kill someone the Bible says that God offers forgiveness if you truly repent from that sin , it makes sense to me .. now on the other hand if you don't know anything about God or the Holy Spirit etc.. why would you reject them anyway ? It has to be deliberate from my point of view . I believe that the Bible refers to blashphemy as deliberately rejecting by cursing the Holy Spirit from your life , basically total rejection not just unbelief as is your case ..you're still OK bro If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it