Cults

[Alfie]

What is TLIG?

I disagree that the New Testament contradicts the Old.

The Bible if studied correctly will iron out any contradictions that people thinks that it has......

"True Life In God" - Jesus coming through the handwritings of Vassula Ryden, in our very times, current now:

http://www.tlig.org/en/messages/

The Old Testament was all about strict following of the Law of Moses (re keeping Shabbat and all); The New Testament allows a more "human" approach (It's ok to not keep Shabbat...)... It's not so much contradiction as it is that in time we develop to a point whereby we can change our way because we have matured enough to know better. Following our sense of Love from the heart can replace following Laws set in stone...
And so now, it could be that we have matured enough to embrace the next new way? And i think that is what "Conversations with God" is for. In the same way that the New Testament doesn't really contradict The Old (it just looks like it does), so C.withGod doesn't really contradict The Bible (it just looks like it does). It does very much revere Jesus, too.

[KeithD]

God told George Bush to go to war ...he said that on TV ....obviosuly wanted a few thousand troops to get through the enlightenment part more quickly.....

[Eljohno]

Evolution is NOT a theory....do you not understand what archeology is? Microchondrial DNA? The divergence of the human species? Try keeping up with science before trying to put a point forward.

Answer me this. In Genesis it says "and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground". No argument about that bit of the fairy tale.

So why does he not include whales & dolphins? I tell you shall I. Because they were thought to be fish 2000 years ago.......God made a mistake defining his own creations!!

God is perfect and does not make mistakes!!!!!!!!!

Genesis 1 v 20-21
"Then God said "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens"
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded"

Evidence #1

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.
Evidence #2

Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
Evidence #3

Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.
Evidence #4

The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
Evidence #5

Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.
Evidence #6

The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.
Evidence #7

Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.
Evidence #8

Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.
Evidence #9

The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

Evolutionists often have come forth and admitted their own and their colleagues' extreme degree of bias in this matter. Some have admitted that their approach has not been scientific or objective at all. Many admit to the severe lack of evidence for evolution and that they have accepted their conclusions only because they are unwilling to accept that evolution never occurred. (And other final considerations.)
Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."

[KeithD]

God is perfect and does not make mistakes!!!!!!!!!

You haven't explained the whales & dolphins....that is a mistake...it is not in the list....did God have amnesia then?

You obviosuly have no idea of science do you...never mind....stay dumb and blind to it, no bother to me . You even have to cut'n'paste those bits, and obviosuly don't understand them.

Here we go......

Evidence #1


There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

The term "transitional form" as used by creationists is ill-defined. The general definition is that a transitional form is a species which is "between" two other species or groups. "Between" seems to refer to physical characteristics; a true "transitional" form by this definition has some characteristics of the earlier group and some characteristics of the later group.

Any form held up by an evolutionist as "transitional" can be shot down by a Creationist as a discrete species, rather than a halfway mark. This is well and good, because all species ARE discrete. But though it is a species fully adapted to its environment, it still may be the ancestor to another species.
"Transitional," or obvious ancestor, species are rare in the fossil record for two major reasons:

1. The fossil record is spotty. Nature is not kind enough to preserve all sepcies which ever existed. Many ancestor species may never be found because no fossils exist anywhere on (or in) the earth -- but we know they existed because their descendants exist.
2. Evolution does not proceed in a particularly linear manner. The "family tree" of life on earth would look like a bush with many, many short branches and only a few main trunks. Most species go extinct before giving rise to new species. Therefore, the chance that any species we find will be an ancestor to any other species is small.

Even so, some transitional species have been found. The premiere example is Archaeopterix, which displays unmistakable features of birds (such as feathers) but lacks other features of modern birds, such as a keel on the breastbone for attachment of flight muscles, a toothless beak, and elimination of wing claws in the adult (one species of modern bird does have wing claws in the juvenile). Another well documented example is the transition of pelycosaurs (sail-backed reptiles) to therapsids to mammals. The evolution of the mammalian jaw bone is preserved spectacularly in the fossil record. (See Eight Little Piggies by Stephen Jay Gould for a description of the evolution of the mammalian jaw.)

The contention that no transitional forms exist in the fossil record is both misleading (in that the rarity of transitional forms is to be expected and false (in that transitional forms, while rare, are present).

Evidence #2


Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".
This claim is somewhat ambiguous, as the term "higher-order" is not defined. For the sake of this argument, the term will be assumed to mean "new species." A species as defined by Ernst Mayr is a population of individuals which is capable of interbreeding. If two populations are separated and brought together again later, and they are able to interbreed, then no speciation has taken place; these two populations belong to the same species.

In the most common occurrence of speciation, two species are separated, usually by geography (an uncrossable barrier such as a mountain range or ocean separates them). Each population is then in a different environment. Natural selection is the primary mode of differentiation, but other factors are involved too, such as random genetic drift (which is especially relevant in small populations). Each population follows an evolutionary pathway that is independent of the other population's pathway.
If the two species are brought together after sufficient differentiation has taken place, they may be unable to mate and produce viable offspring. (The differences that prevent interbreeding may include physical, behavioral, biochemical, or other characteristics.) In this case, the two populations are considered separate species; it is "too late" to ever unite the species again, since evolution cannot "backtrack."

Thus, speciation does not involve a species moving to a "higher order." It involves a branching of lineages. The mechanisms of evolution, including natural selection, are capable of causing change, which by the process outlined above is capable of causing speciation. Therefore the contention that natural selection is incapable of causing speciation is false.

Evidence #3


Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

These three contentions are separate and must be treated separately.

1. The argument that life resulting from non-life is an impossibility refers to Louis Pasteur's crushing of the concept of abiogenesis. Pasteur proved that organisms do not arise from simple dead matter, but rather from other organisms.
   This principle was formed long before modern knowledge of biochemistry. Modern biochemistry has shown that it is conceivable that under very specific conditions, life (referring to self-replicating molecules) CAN arise from non-life (molecules without the capacity to reproduce themselves). While this process has not been reproduced in the laboratory yet, it is a hypothesis which is fully based upon modern scientific knowledge, and is therefore not known to be an impossibility.
2. The argument over the origin of matter has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution refers to living organisms, not to the origin of the universe. Therefore the contention that matter resulting from nothing is scientifically impossible is not germane to the argument and merits no more discussion.
3. The argument over the "animal" origin of humans requires a good deal of definition. By the definition implied above, a member of the kingdom Animalia is either "animal" or "human," but not both. It implies a superiority of form of humans. Often this argument holds up the existence of "moral sense" in humans as proof that humans are "superior" to animals. "Moral sense" is also described as non-adaptive. Since it is non-adaptive, it cannot have arisen by natural selection, according to this argument. But "moral sense" is adaptive; an individual who has no "moral sense" is rejected by society; society may kill the individual, or make him or her into an outcast, reducing the chances for reproduction. Therefore, as an adaptive behavior, its origin can be explained by natural selection.

Evidence #4


The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.
Human evolution is actually very well-documented. A number of fossils displaying unmistakable human characteristics but lacking all the characteristics found in modern humans have been found.

This argument goes on to say:
"Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist of only a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint. On this alone, they have considered it to be a hominid. They even name it, reconstruct what it looked like, and present it to the public as a fact. Some of these finds have turned out to be those of a pig, donkey, or the result of a hoax. One hoax consisted of someone placing a human skull with an ape's jaw."

The identification of a species based on a small fragment is common procedure in paleontology. Paleontologists have a sophisticated knowledge of anatomy, and any good anatomist can human characteristics in a jaw or hip.

The existence of hoaxes should be expected in an operation with such a high-minded goal as discovering human origins. The stakes are high, and is irresistible to con artists and pranksters. Certainly a hoax "fossil" is no evidence that the real fossils don't exist.
This argument, therefore, consists of false information.

Evidence #5


Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.
This argument contains some false information; but even if all the information were true, the argument contains no evidence that evolution did not occur. Even if no fossilize human ancestors had ever been discovered, the theory of evolution is not disproven. The fossil record is fickle, and does not preserve every species.

Evidence #6


The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

No evolutionary biologist will ever contend that man evolved from monkeys and apes. They state that they evolved from the same ancestors. This often-overlooked distinction is crucial! It means that no human fossil will display characteristics associated only with apes. The only characteristics that these fossils will have in common with apes are those characteristics which are common to both humans and apes. This type of characteristic, belonging to the common ancestor of two groups as well as to both groups, is called a symplesiomorphy. (See "Cladistic Classification and its Applications in Dinosaur Paleontology" by Robyn Conder Broyles for an explanation of synapomorphies and symplesiomorphies.) Groups are defined only by synapomorphies, which are characteristics which are unique to that group. Any creature which displays symplesiomorphies that are common between apes and humans (and therefore which must have been present in the common ancestor), but also some synapomorphies associated only with humans, can be concluded to belong to the human lineage. Therefore the statement made in this article which implies that evolutionists consider human ancestors to be "something in between" modern apes and modern humans is false.

The remainder of this argument can be refuted by the same refutation given for Evidence #5 above.

Evidence #7


Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.
This argument is elaborated into two main contentions, which will be treated separately. The first argument:
"Socially, natural selection argues that the best and fittest society would be one where its individuals look out only for themselves and would advance themselves, if possible, at the expense of others. It would even destroy others if possible. Thus barbarianism is demanded by natural selection and even the destruction of the weak and the free domain of the powerful. It demands total annihilation of anything weaker than necessary and the ruling of anything more powerful than others. People exhibit mercy, pity, morality, and socialality, all of which inhibit natural selection."

This is a misrepresentation of the theory of natural selection. Natural selection is far more complicated than simply allowing the most barbaric to survive. Natural selection does allow only the fittest organisms to survive, but "barbaric" behavior does not necessarily make an organism more fit. In a species with complex social behavior, such as humans, qualities such as "mercy" and "morality" make individuals MORE fit because they become prominent members of the society. See the third argument for Evidence #3.

The second argument:
"Practically, natural selection has the following and many other inconsistencies: (a.) The natural selection process could not have the forethought to allow an organism to become worse temporarily in order to ultimately form an eye, for example. (b.) Natural selection requires that organisms began as crude, yet an organism could not have survived without basic intricate functions such as respiration and reproduction. These had to exist from the beginning of the organism. (c.) Our bodies depend on systems that run according to intricate order such as from DNA. A system dependent on order cannot be created by disorder."
This argument is divided into three parts which will be refuted separately.

Argument (a.) says that complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye, cannot arise because not every stage leading up to the eye is adaptive. The argument says that natural selection cannot have the "forethought" to make the organism "worse" in order to eventually make it "better." The argument is correct in that natural selection has no "forethought." Evolution proceeds without a goal. Every step in an evolutionary process is adaptive in itself, and of course no regard can be paid to what could come later. The argument's flaw lies in the assumption that in order to evolve a complex adaptation, an organism must become temporarily "worse," or more poorly adapted. This is untrue. The eye, used in this example, is a complicated organ, and in its modern form the elimination of one part will cause the dysfunction of the whole organ. But these parts have become highly specialized and dependent upon each other, and in the past this was not so. Intermediate stages leading up to the modern eye design (which evolved twice, once in mollusks and once in vertebrates, in a case of convergent evolution) which are all adaptive can be found in the modern world. (See The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins for an explanation of a possible evolutionary pathway, in which every step is an adaptive improvement over the previous one, for the evolution of the eye.)

Argument (b.) is vague, but seems to assume that "primitive" organisms were so crude that they could not reproduce or respirate. The point at which the first life was defined as life was the point at which it acquired the ability to self-replicate. Reproduction defines life, so by definition all life (as populations, if not as individuals) is able to reproduce. By definition, it must have existed at the "beginning" of life on earth. As for respiration, this may refer to the exchange of gases or to cellular respiration, in which organisms make use of stored chemical energy neither of which isnecessarily needed for self-replication. Self-replication had to come first; this is the only thing which life "has" to have in order to live. Anything which came afterward and improved an organism's ability to replicate itself would be preserved by natural selection, once self-replication is present. Therefore, the "survivability" of the first simple organisms is not in doubt because they lacked modern systems.

Argument (c.) contains a very fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection, specifically that it allows order to arise from disorder. Natural selection is a very orderly process: only the most fit is kept from each generation. Natural selection is a gradual building process. It does not propose that organisms arise, fully formed and complex, in a generation, like a working engine jumping from a pile of parts in a junkyard. The adaptations accumulate slowly, over generations, and natural selection is the mechanism which allows that to take place by eliminating the harmful. (See The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins for an in-depth explanation of cumulative selection.) Since natural selection does not propose that order arose from disorder, this argument is false because its premise is false.

Evidence #8


Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.
This argument goes on to say:
"Natural selection has these and many other logical inconsistencies: (a.) Although evolutionists say that organisms are suited for their environment because they evolved into it, being suited for the environment is much better explained by the fact that they were created for the environment rather than that they evolved into it. (b.) The fact that living things have similar patterns and design points to a common designer better than to a common ancestor. In fact, such variety in the world could not have been produced if we all come from the same ancestor. (c.) If we all come from the same ancestor, we would all be murderers and cannibals by the simple act of killing a cow. (d.) While small and undeveloped things do become grown and developed (a baby to an adult, a seed to a tree) it is also true that the small and undeveloped first come from the developed (a baby from its parents, a seed from a tree). The pattern of growth is circular not simply from the crude to the developed as natural selection proposes. (e.) Our needs exceed those of survival. Needs for love and friendship, for example, cannot be explained if all that we do is for survival. (f.) Order and interdependence in the world argues for a designer and against chance."

Each point of this argument will be treated separately.
Argument (a.) claims that since divine creation is a simpler process for adaptation than evolution, evolution is logically invalid. But either process could result in organisms adapted to their environment, so there is no argument against evolution.

Argument (b.) makes two statements. The first, that common design can be explained by a Divine Creator better than by a common ancestor, like argument (a.), makes no argument that precludes evolution and can be ignored. The second is a far-reaching statement without any support, that all the variety in the world could not be achieved if all organisms have a common ancestor. Since no evidence is given to show that organisms are too diverse to have a common ancestor, this statement can also be ignored.

Argument (c.) consists of a moral judgment that is irrelevant to whether or not evolution takes place.

Argument (d.) relates ontogeny to evolution. These two processes are fundamentally different, in that evolution involves many generations and natural selection, while ontogeny lacks those quality. The comparison is invalid.

Argument (e.) claims that the human need for social interaction cannot have arisen by natural selection. This is untrue; see the refutation for the third argument given in Evidence #3.

Argument (f.) claims that chance as a force is not strong enough to create order. But natural selection does not proceed according to mere chance; rather it proceeds according to selection. See the refutation for point (c.) given in Evidence #7.

Evidence #9


The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

This argument goes on to explain:
"The Rock Strata is better explained by a universal flood than by gradual normal death of organisms over millions of years recorded in the rock as evolutionists assert. A large flood is necessary for the formation of fossils in the first place. Fossils require quick and tremendous pressure to be formed. Without this, a carcass not only could not form a fossil over time but would be eaten by scavengers or destroyed by bacteria. The circulating water of a flood (along with gravity) would cause smaller organisms to naturally bury lower and more mobile organisms, with ability to temporarily avoid the flood, would be buried close to the top for this reason. Such things as fish, which are already low in the sea, would also naturally be buried low."

This argument can only be made based on a near-complete lack of knowledge of the patterns of fossilization. First, it assumes that all fossils were formed in a Universal Flood, since "a large flood is necessary for the formation of fossils in the first place." One of the conditions under which fossils may form involves rapid burial, which may be caused by a flood, but local floods are common, common occurrences. Organisms may also be fossilized by other forms of rapid burial. The organisms in the Burgess shale, which consists solely of marine forms, were buried in undersea mudslides. (See Wonderful Life by Stephen Jay Gould for an in-depth study of the specifics and implications of this find.) Organisms in deserts may be buried by sandstorms. Fossil leaves found in Idaho were preserved when they fell into a stagnant, oxygen-deficient swamp, and were preserved with their original fall colors intact. (See Dinosaur in a Haystack by Stephen Jay Gould for a description of this find.)

Second, it explains that the fact that animals such as fishes are found on the "bottom" strata is due to their underwater lifestyle, rather than their earlier evolutionary origins. By this argument, the expected pattern would place all aquatic animals -- sea-going worms, mollusks and arthropods, all fishes, aquatic reptiles (such as ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, and modern sea snakes), cetaceans (whales), and sirenians (sea cows) -- in a pile among the bottom layers. The smallest would presumably settle to the bottom, leaving large sharks, whales, ichthyosaurs, and plesiosaurs at the top of the aquatic layer. Above that would be found all terrestrial burrowing animals, topped by surface-dwelling animals, again sorted from smallest to largest. On the very top would be the flying animals, which would drop one by one into the sea as their endurance failed.

The actual pattern of fossilization is absolutely different. Arthropods are some of the lowest-strata animals found, as well as a number of phyla with no representatives in any later strata. (See Wonderful Life by Stephen Jay Gould.) The next rock layers include all modern phyla but virtually no extinct phyla. Among the chordates, fishes arise. These fishes are nothing like modern fishes, which are as different from their ancestors as mammals and birds and which are only found in the top strata. By the "universal flood" theory of fossilization, no fishes should be found in these top strata! The next strata include primitive amphibians and reptiles (to concentrate on the chordate phylum), followed by more derived amphibians and reptiles, followed by mammals and then dinosaurs. In the same strata as the huge dinosaurs, tiny mammals and insects are preserved -- despite the size discrepancies! Also in the same strata as dinosaurs are found aquatic reptiles and sharks, as well as aquatic invertebrates -- which according to the universal flood theory should be found below terrestrial animals. Only in the uppermost strata are modern forms found, such as flowering plants and teleost fishes and humans. The rock strata clearly show that fossils are being formed continuously throughout life's history, not all at once in a single event. This argument is based on absolutely false information.

[Eljohno]

I was enjoying our debate but there is no reason to call me dumb keith

We will agree to disagree...

[KeithD]

You are talking about a science you know nothing about, that makes you dumb to it....the same as I am dumb to geanacology....although I'll have a good look

[KeithD]

....now my speller checker must sleep.....good night

[Eljohno]

You are talking about a science you know nothing about, that makes you dumb to it....the same as I am dumb to geanacology....although I'll have a good look

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

[walesrob]

Wow that was heavy reading Too many long words for my liking

[russ01539]

You should all watch the Guiness advert. That PROVES evolution exists. lol

[KeithD]

Evolution is simple.

We are on this forum because for Filipino folk....take a look at the missus....different colour...different culture....different type of hair....different bone structure...that is evolution.....Genesis does not state "God man man....then woman.....and decided he'd like on in every color, a few with slanting eyes.....and then decided a few with big lips wouldn't go a miss!!"

Dogs - Used to be known as wolves during Jesus time....and yet now we have 100's of breeds.....that is evolution....same with domestic cats

Wheat - We have wheat now we never had 50 years ago

Flowers - Roses are evolving every year

Humans - Western folk have evolved only the last few decades to become susceptible to things like peanuts, etc, that is evolution.

Religeon - Evolves.....now gays are OK.....child abuse has obviosuly been fine for centuries with the church......now woman are allowed....that SUB SPECIES!!!!

Cows - The Ark must have been bigger than our biggest super tanker just to alone fit every species of pig & cow on it. No room for anything else....plenty of good wholesome manure though!!!

Evoultion is happening NOW. You can't deny it, you only need a few live years now to prove it, not millions of years.

We also do not need fossils to prove evolution, we use real bones we have found, millions of them. Dating can not be fiddled, as God provided Carbon-14 for us to do this. They go back tens of thousands of years, and can be connected through DNA.

......and finally, with the statistical mass of the universe and time, we are existing now, so no reason why we have not existed before as we are, and will again, but we will never know that.

[Yossarian]

Presumably, according to creation, the chicken came first? But according to evolution it was the egg?

Neither explain why it crossed the road though

[russ01539]

It was the egg first. It never crossed the road cos it evolved before roads did !!!!!!!

ANd the chicken never made it cos it tried to cross Locsin Avenue and never made it. The tryke driver who grabbed it isnt questioning that though. lol

[Eljohno]

You keep quoting things about the church like they allow being gay as ok and child abuse. The bible clearly states that being gay is wrong and as the bible is meant to be the final authority for Christians then if someone who calls themselves a minister or priest but is either gay or abusing children then they are not truelly bible believing christians.

Keith as i have said you have a free will given to you and if you choice to follow your theory of evolution then thats fine but i will always believe we have been created by God and no where on my family tree is there a monkey hanging on one of the branches.

And you were right before i do not know enough about evolution but i know of one guy who if you can prove evolution to him he will give you 25,000. But no doubt you will make light of this post like you have done the others.

Even though i disagree 100% with what you believe i will still respect your views.

[baboyako]

The chicken didn't cross the road. Locsin av is too busy.

The chicked would have gone up the escalators & into greenbelt 4 & across the walkway into the landmark

[KeithD]

and no where on my family tree is there a monkey hanging on one of the branches.

Go and have a DNA check, and they'll show you;
A) Your ancestory going back to over 4000BC
B) That 99%+ of your DNA matches that of an ape

These are not my views, they are fact, rather than some ranted writings in a book.

You prove to me God exists! I already told you, evolution is going on in front of your eyes today, so you can't deny it!!

Two last questions then;

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Explain.....I thought God lived in Heaven...so if he created it, where was he before then, and what was he doing there?

It says in Genesis "On the 7th day God created man......"
So who actually wrote Genesis, as they never existed till day 7, so how would he know what happened on the first 6 days?

[Eljohno]

Go and have a DNA check, and they'll show you;
A) Your ancestory going back to over 4000BC
B) That 99%+ of your DNA matches that of an ape

These are not my views, they are fact, rather than some ranted writings in a book.

You prove to me God exists! I already told you, evolution is going on in front of your eyes today, so you can't deny it!!

Two last questions then;

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Explain.....I thought God lived in Heaven...so if he created it, where was he before then, and what was he doing there?

It says in Genesis "On the 7th day God created man......"
So who actually wrote Genesis, as they never existed till day 7, so how would he know what happened on the first 6 days?

There is more than one heaven......

All the bible was wrote on the influence and direction of the Holy Spirit....

Sorry but you will NEVER convince me that i came from a monkey...

Monkeys are still giving birth to monkeys, dogs are still giving birth to dogs and so on and so forth.....

If man through DNA tells me i came from a monkey then man is wrong...

You can call the bible a simple book all you want but to me it is the word of the living God who created all things.

I am not trying to convert you, its your choice to be an atheist. I am just trying to get you to open up to the possibility of Creation.

Read Ken Ham and Ken Hoven and if either of these men do not open your thoughts to the possibility fair enough....

[KeithD]

I am not an atheist, but creation is ruled out due to excessive burden of proof weighed up against a story.

As for evolution.......Wolves gave birth to dogs...that is where they come from, the change is well documented through time.

...and you don't come from a monkey, it's an ape....different evolutionary path, but we all have the same % of 'Y' chromosome in place.


As evolution obviosuly doesn't exist, then all these breeds of dog that never existed a few hundred years ago are in my, and everyone else's imagination. God must keep us all drugged up to the eyeballs.......

I'm 40, spent the first 16 years of my life in church, choir, CLB, bible school etc, and have never met anyone who denies the obvious before, not even the folk in skirts who run the church.

Maybe in my next life I'll get in the Guides

[Eljohno]

I am not an atheist, but creation is ruled out due to excessive burden of proof weighed up against a story.

As for evolution.......Wolves gave birth to dogs...that is where they come from, the change is well documented through time.

...and you don't come from a monkey, it's an ape....different evolutionary path, but we all have the same % of 'Y' chromosome in place.

Keith i am not sure wfrom apes.


As evolution obviosuly doesn't exist, then all these breeds of dog that never existed a few hundred years ago are in my, and everyone else's imagination. God must keep us all drugged up to the eyeballs.......

I'm 40, spent the first 16 years of my life in church, choir, CLB, bible school etc, and have never met anyone who denies the obvious before, not even the folk in skirts who run the church.

Maybe in my next life I'll get in the Guides

Hi Keith i do not know enough about the church you came from so its unfair for me to make an decisions.

All i ask is that you at least open your eyes to the reality that we were created....

I truely believe that creation if you give it time will be able to answer all your questions...

Thank you for giving me the chance to at least put my point accross..

[KeithD]

Some strange Google ads popping up on this page

I think we'll have a simple poll to conclude..........

[baboyako]

Its all down to interpretation.

Genesis actually says something like "and he made the animals in their own kind".

Which could easily be interpreted as the animals are like the kind of their parents. i.e. will not procreate. A pig will give birth to piglets, a sheep lambs, etc..

So is not making an statement related to evolution at all.

[robeth]

Filipino's are religious only because the West slaughtered those that did not convert......

I agree with u..

[russ01539]

The chicken didn't cross the road. Locsin av is too busy.

The chicked would have gone up the escalators & into greenbelt 4 & across the walkway into the landmark

Is that what happens when they get flu. How marvellously intelligent of them. Maybe I will bring a few back for the British chickens to learn from.