Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

New Truths Belie Evolution Even More

Bendido
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 4:22:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
To belie is to fail to fulfill or justify a claim or expectation; to betray.

What"s wrong with a purposeful start for man with a creator? Upon what principle is evolution based, that one should believe this senseless development of man from animal or non-life? Yet, many hold on to this false belief as obstinate proud intellectuals who cannot see reason. Fortunately, God has made sure his words would be preserved to guide man in his thinking.

After the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Codex Sinaiticus, I will mention about new research on Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal as created in Animal Creation Time way ahead of Man Creation Time, the DNA difference in human and chimpanzees to belie evolutionary relationship, the Piltdown man revealed as a hoax. I will also mention the 24-hour day counting to gauge earth age as error, the found limitation of carbon dating, and the discovery of giant sea grass in the Mediterranean Sea as up to 200,000 years old. Finally, I will present solution to this insistent belief that man came from animals: the absence of cross-breeding between these two.

On the part of the Bible, to prove that man could not have evolve from the animal kingdom but created with a purpose, I will present the command of circumcision due to the role of vitamin K in the body, the reality of Jesus and his baptism in the world"s lowest of all rivers and why it had to be so, the existence of antipodes pointing that the earth is round but that truth is suppressed in the politics of the power club, the components of the human body attesting to earth as its source, the principle of "first man" creation, and about virus and bacteria as part of God"s creation for a purpose.

False beliefs have bred the lot of atheists who now cling to Charles Darwin"s Theory of Evolution and reject God"s word. Let us look into this in detail as they can guide us in our choice of belief: in senseless evolution or in purposeful creation.

The Bible is a book preserved by human effort and seemingly with the help of natural conditions. The Dead Sea scrolls have withstood the harsh weather conditions outside the cave of Qumran; but my faith in the power of the Almighty God convinces my conscience and mental faculties that it is God Himself who caused the preservation of manuscripts dating back to as early as the second and the third century of our Common Era (CE).

PSALMS 12:6

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

PSALMS 12:7

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, the Codex Sinaiticus and other codices which now are more than 2000 and 1700 years old respectively are physical evidences of what God has done to preserve His words. According to the Bible, man is a created being made in the image and likeness of his Creator. Comparatively speaking, books that say and teach that man evolved from simpler forms of life, Origin of Species, Natural Selection and the like, were written very recently and date back only in the early 19th century! What is interesting is that as recent as they are, there have been many revisions of statements proving that former information is inaccurate.

Let us look into research first on Cro-Magnons and then on Neanderthals. The first account expressed a loss of confidence on early classifications systems developed more than a century ago. Moreover, the term Cro-Magnons has now lost its meaning as an effect of that development. The term now used is "Anatomically Modern or Early Modern Humans."

What Are Cro-Magnons?

skull

Early Modern Human Skull from Qazfeh Cave in Israel

So Why Don"t We Still Call Them Cro-Magnon?

The more we learn about early modern humans, the less we feel confident about the early classification systems we developed more than 130 years ago. The term Cro-Magnon doesn"t refer to a particular taxonomy or even a particular group located in a particular place. The word is not precise enough, and so most paleontologists prefer to use Anatomically Modern or Early Modern Humans. (http://archaeology.about.com...) [Underscoring ours].

As for Neanderthals, scientists with the U.S. Department of Energy"s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the Joint Genome Institute (JGI) have sequenced genomic DNA from fossilized Neanderthal bones. Their results show that the genomes of modern humans and Neanderthals are at least 99.5-percent identical, but despite this genetic similarity, and despite the two species having cohabitated the same geographic region for thousands of years, there is no evidence of any significant crossbreeding between the two. (http://www2.lbl.gov...)

In the paper published in the November 17, 2006 issue of the journal Science, a team of researchers led by Edward Rubin reported the development of a "Neanderthal metagenomic library," which they used to characterize more than 65,000 DNA base pairs of Neanderthal origin. Comparing Neanderthal to human and chimpanzee genomes, they found that at multiple locations, the Neanderthal DNA sequences matched chimpanzee DNA but not human.

What about evolutionary relationship between primates and humans?

Harrub and Thompson did a very comprehensive report on researches done from the very beginning and traced the changes and disagreements. From those disagreements, it was said that NewScientist.com reported the event as follows:

It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-gold increase in the variation between us and chimps.

Harrub and Thompson consider the very little difference of 1-2% between primates and humans as very great. To make this be understood, they said, in terms of money, the difference could be worth the weight of $800,000 in importance. Here"s an excerpt:

Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
by Brad Harrub, Ph.D. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

The truth is, if we consider the absolute amount of genetic material when comparing primates and humans, the 1-2% difference in DNA represents approximately 80 million different nucleotides (compared to the 3-4 billion nucleotides that make up the entire human genome). To help make this number understandable, consider the fact that if evolutionists had to pay you one penny for every nucleotide in that 1-2% difference between the human and the chimp, you would walk away with $800,000. Given those proportions, 1-2% does not appear so small, does it? ("The Molecular Evidence of Human Origins." Creation Vs. Evolution. Paleontology. http://espanol.apologeticspress.org...)

These two researchers concluded that homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. Further, the concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down, they said. Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical and stop from there.

Meanwhile, Time Magazine revealed that one of the top crimes of the Century is the making of the Ape-Man, filling up the third slot of 25 crimes. Another Charles was said to be featuring here. Records have it that Dawson, an Anthropologist, discovered this Ape-Man and it was called the Piltdown Man. Whatever was the intention, the hoax was uncovered and discovered to be a 10-year old Orangutan, fixed with chemical wash to sport an aged look.

THE TOP 25 CRIMES OF THE CENTURY
Bendido
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 4:23:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
3. THE FAKE APE-MAN, 1912

Eoanthropus dawsoni was the scientific name of this alleged missing link, and it would have been an extremely early example of a creature showing both human and apelike qualities. At 375,000 years old, it put England in contention for a cradle of humankind, being found in the Sussex town of Piltdown. The "first Englishman" he was proudly called when the anthropologist Charles Dawson found him in 1911. For decades, Piltdown Man was cited along with Neanderthal man and Heidelberg man as an example of early hominid life in Europe. Then in 1953, the fragments, including a jawbone, were tested: they did not contain enough fluorine to be the age that Dawson claimed; worse, the jawbone was that of a 10-year-old orangutan, its teeth ground down to simulate age, and a crude chemical wash applied to the bone to make it appear ancient. No one knows who perpetrated the hoax: Dawson had died in 1916. Very quickly, however, Piltdown became a synonym for phony; and England"s claim to antiquity was cut short by several hundred thousand years. (http://www.time.com... "http://www.time.com... "http://www.time.com... "http://www.time.com... "http://www.time.com...)

Are Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons humans that existed before the time of Adam and Eve?

There is no doubt that they existed; their fossils and skeletons are physical evidences that we must not doubt. When did they exist? And when did they become extinct? What caused their extinction? Several confusing dates were given in alleged science books.

No scientist now has seen the actual face and body contour of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons (All they offer is calculations and imaginations) but fossils, skeletons and human character and the science of microbiology can prove that they are not humans!

Neanderthals Were Not Human

Jerzy Kijewski of New York claims Neanderthals were not human. They were hominid-scavengers and had twice bigger skulls than those of human beings. Writing for antiques, prehistory, anthropology and archaeology, he said the dubious theory ascribing thinking and speech for Neanderthals is just about anthropologists looking for evidence to support the Out of Africa Theory. Because they cannot find, they create mystifications and hoaxes " like composite tools, stone spearheads, clothing, bone flutes, and huts of mammoth bones. The following is from Jerzy Kijewski (http://cro-magnons.com...).

skeleton

In 1997, geneticists were able to extract a short sequence of DNA from Neanderthal bones from 30,000 years ago. The extraction of mtDNA from a second specimen was reported in 2000, and showed no sign of modern human descent from Neanderthals. (http://en.wikipedia.org... "http://en.wikipedia.org...)

Looking at the Bible as exact science, we can sense some purpose in God"s instructions.

Biblical science is an exact science.

The reason why God commanded Abraham to circumcise a male child on the 8th day after birth is amazingly an evidence of the exactness of biblical science. Why not immediately after birth or on the 5th day after birth? There is a purpose.

We now know vitamin K is responsible for the production (by the liver) of the element known as prothrombin. If vitamin K is deficient, there will be a prothrombin deficiency and hemorrhaging may occur. Oddly, it is only on the fifth through the seventh days of the newborn male"s life that vitamin K (produced by bacteria in the intestinal tract) is present in adequate quantities. Vitamin K, coupled with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, which is important in any surgical procedure. Holt and McIntosh, in their classic work, Holt Pediatrics, observed that a newborn infant has "peculiar susceptibility to bleeding between the second and fifth days of life". Hemorrhages at this time, though often inconsequential, are sometimes extensive; they may produce serious damage to internal organs, especially to the brain, and cause death from shock and exsanguination" (1953, pp. 125-126). (http://www.apologeticspress.org... "http://www.apologeticspress.org...)

To explain, what is happening, we look to the lowly Jordan River for a lesson. In times when there were no modern equipment for geologists and oceanographers nobody will know the significance why the Lord Jesus Christ was baptized in the River Jordan. The Bible tells us that he who descended to the lowest part of the earth ascended to a height higher than the highest heaven.

EPHESIANS 4:9

(Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

HEBREWS 7:26

For such a high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

The act of the Lord submitting himself to baptism officiated by a mortal and was done in the lowest river of the world is surely an act of humiliating oneself to serve as an example to everyone.

Jordan, river, c.200 mi (320 km) long, formed in the Hula basin, N Israel, by the confluence of three headwater streams and meandering S through the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea; the region of Palestine"s longest and most important river and the world"s lowest river below sea level. (http://www.answers.com...).

LUKE 14:11

For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

There is also the role of evil trying to suppress truth as long as it can. Before being discovered by human science, it is well documented in the Bible that the earth is spherical in shape. Consider this account by Balian. According to him, Pope Zachary used his influence to threaten Vergilius for teaching that antipodes exist. The powers of the Catholic Church then dictated what was supposed to be science.

The Unintended Disservice of Young Earth Science
Bendido
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 4:24:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
By Andrew S. Balian

R1

If the Catholics are holding on to their doctrine that the pope in Rome is infallible speaking ex-cathedra then it was not Vergilius that must be considered a heretic but Pope Zachary who is obviously ignorant of the Bible and true Science

R2

The Buddhist Universe

Ancient Buddhists imagined the universe as essentially flat, with Mount Meru at the center of all things. Surrounding this universe was a vast expanse of water, and surrounding the water was a vast expanse of wind.

"The current Dalai Lama, who has flown about the round world several times, seems to have put an end to flat earthism among Tibetans by saying the historical Buddha was wrong about the shape of the earth. However, "The purpose of the Buddha coming to this world was not to measure the circumference of the world and the distance between the earth and the moon, but rather to teach the Dharma, to liberate sentient beings, to relieve sentient beings of their sufferings." (http://buddhism.about.com...)

I TIMOTHY 1:7

Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

Even before the birth of Pope Zachary and Buddha the Bible tells us that the Earth is spherical in shape therefore round!

ISAIAH 40:22

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth"

Regarding human beings

The information in the Bible that God created man out of the dust of the ground is undeniably scientific!

GENESIS 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Elements and minerals found in our body is exactly what are stated in the Bible that we came from the dust (crust) of the earth. Compare this composition of minerals of the earth"s crust and the human body.

Minerals on Earth"s Crust and in Human Body

R3

(http://wps.prenhall.com...)

Who was the first human?

According to Moses in the Genesis account, (Genesis from Greek = origin) the first human being was Adam. This information was corroborated by another biblical authority in the person of the Apostle Paul.

I CORINTHIANS 15:45

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

The next human being who existed in this planet is Eve, Adam"s God given "help".

I TIMOTHY 2:13

For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Eve was the mother of all living humans.

GENESIS 3:20

And Adam called his wife"s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

To believe that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons existed before Adam and Eve is simply to ignore the truthful and scientific information in the Bible. There is a possibility, biblical and otherwise, that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons existed before the time of Adam and Eve; and that "only" possibility is that animals were made before the creation of Adam and Eve.

GENESIS 1:24

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

GENESIS 1:25

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

GENESIS 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Notice that the creation of all animals and beasts happened on the early part of the "sixth day" of creation and man was created at the later part of the same day. Reckless Bible preachers interpret that each day of the six days of creation is a literal 24-hour day. Thus, they conclude that the creation of Adam up to our present time is only about six thousand years! This is where so-called scientists disagree with so-called bible scholars! Now we come to the following declarations masquerading as Bible science.
Bendido
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 4:25:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
R4

R5

This miscalculation caused the advent of agnostics and atheists that reject the belief in creation and cling to the theory of evolution, totally denying God"s word in the Holy Bible.

No open-minded scientist will readily accept that the earth and humans are only six thousand years in existence! There are physical evidences that will prove scientifically that the earth have existed billions of years ago. Carbon dating is not exactly reliable.

Willard F. Libby was the man who first developed the idea and procedure for Carbon dating. He measured the half-life of Carbon-14 to be about 5,568 years. However after about 50,000 years there is so little Carbon-14 left in the specimen that it is very hard, almost impossible, to calculate its age. (Van Der Merwe) Libby ran many tests on items where the age was known, or estimated by other means. His test results came rather close, to within plus or minus a few hundred years. (Poole) http://www.chem.uwec.edu... "http://www.chem.uwec.edu... "http://www.chem.uwec.edu... "http://www.chem.uwec.edu... "http://www.chem.uwec.edu...

But though carbon dating cannot be a solid proof of the antiquity of the earth, there are living things on earth (if not fossils and skeletons) that can prove that the earth is not just six thousand years old and that the human race is not just six thousand years in existence! The giant seagrass in the Mediterranean Sea is an example.

R6

"Oldest living thing on earth" discovered

Jonathan Pearlman
TheHYPERLINK "http://www.telegraph.co.uk...; Telegraph
Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:26 CST

Ancient patches of a giant seagrass in the Mediterranean Sea are now considered the oldest living organism on Earth after scientists dated them as up to 200,000 years old.

Scientists say a patch of ancient seagrass in the Mediterranean is up to 200,000 years and could be the oldest known living thing on Earth. Australian researchers, who genetically sampled the seagrass covering 40 sites from Spain to Cyprus, say it is one of the world"s most resilient organisms " but it has now begun to decline due to global warming.

Australian scientists sequenced the DNA of samples of the giant seagrass, Posidonia oceanic, from 40 underwater meadows in an area spanning more than 2,000 miles, from Spain to Cyprus. (http://www.sott.net... "http://www.sott.net... "http://www.sott.net...)

The testimony being offered by these living things that now exist in this planet cannot be denied by scientists or they are fools! How can a six-thousand year-old planet have a two hundred thousand year-old living organism?

PSALMS 53:1

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

Those foisting on people their lie about 24-hour days are not biblical scholars. They are simply ignorant of the bible! But how can the earth and some living things in it be as old as billions and hundreds of thousands years old? Let us look closer on biblical accounts.

A day in the creation is a יום y"m which can mean a day, literally to be hot (as warm hours) or an age, an indefinite period of time.

H3117

יום

y"m

yome

From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially): " age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever (-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (. . . live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year (-ly), + younger. (James Strong, "A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Hebrew Bible, 1890." NJ: Madison)

To claim that such a y"m or day is a 24-hour day is not exactly what the word implies! A 24-hour day period cannot be literally (warm). Another consideration is that in the bible a day may contain seasons and ages.

II TIMOTHY 3:1

This know also, that in the last "days" perilous times shall come.

Another consideration is that a day on earth is not as it is day in heaven.

DEUTERONOMY 11:21

That your days may be multiplied, and the days of your children, in the land which the LORD swore unto your fathers to give them, as the days of heaven upon the earth.

The days in heaven are much longer than the days on earth. This can scientifically be understood by the following information. (http://www.enchantedlearning.com...).

Planets Length of Day (Earth day)
Mercury 58.65 earth days
Venus 243 earth days
Mars 24 hours, 39 minutes
Jupiter 9 Hours, 56 minutes
Saturn 10 hours, 39 minutes
Uranus 17 hours, 14 minutes
Neptune 16 hours, 7 minutes

Hence, the first day in Genesis is not an earth day, not twenty-four hours! Days on earth began when God created two great lights that will rule the day and night on earth and this happened on the fourth day of creation!

GENESIS 1:17

And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

GENESIS 1:18

And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

GENESIS 1:19

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Notice that during the fourth day of creation the 24-hour period day started its reckoning on earth, thus, proving that all the six days of creation is different from a 24-hour day on earth.

A yom can be an age, an indefinite period or space of time, can be millions or billions of years. Dinosaurs existed millions of years ahead of the human race. Biblical science allows this. Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons (granting they existed 800,000 years ago) may belong to the animal kingdom that existed millions of years before the creation of man, which both happened on the sixth day of creation.

To go back to Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, there are scientific proofs that these existed both on the same period. If they were humans, why is there no proof that cross breeding happened between Neanderthals and modern humans? Rubin and his team of researchers as earlier pointed out said "

"While unable to definitively conclude that interbreeding between the two species of humans did not occur, analysis of the nuclear DNA from the Neanderthal suggests the low likelihood of it having occurred at any appreciable level. (http://en.wikipedia.org... "http://en.wikipedia.org...).

There is a simple and realistic solution to this question. Humans normally are not attracted sexually to animals and vice versa. The conclusion is no significant evidence of cross breeding was found! I will forever hate my mother if she fell in love with an ape! I thank my God and my mother that she fell in love with my father which gave way to the existence of Brother Eli.
Bendido
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 4:26:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Another important factor to consider is the "slight" difference in genome. Because of the slight difference of genetic materials some reckless scientists (Pardon me if I call them fools!) concluded that we descended from apes. Human and Chimpanzee DNA so far do not indicate an evolutionary relationship according to Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson. "The 1-2% difference in DNA represents approximately 80 million different nucleotides (compared to the 3-4 billion nucleotides that make up the entire human genome)." (http://espanol.apologeticspress.org...)

Three hundred generations of humans in a span of 9,000 years will not produce a considerable 80 million different nucleotides compared to the 3-4 billion nucleotides that make up the entire human genome.

What about this claim?

Guinness World Records 2005

R7

But as it is, apes will always be apes and will produce their kind, as proven by the new science of microbiology that deals with DNA, genes, and chromosomes of living organisms. Humans will always be humans as dictated by transfer of characteristics physical and mental through DNA and genomes, the blue print of our being! The word used in the KJV is "after its kind" or species.

GENESIS 1:25

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Beasts and cattle were created after their kind. Humans were created after all species of animals were created! And much more so!

GENESIS 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

We could go on and on and on. But why are there such manipulations, miscalculations and misrepresentations in books of alleged scientific findings during this very short span of time since they were written up to our time which is barely 200 years? Which should we believe?

The power to choose intelligently or foolishly which to believe is one of the greatest freedoms given to us by our Creator.

DEUTERONOMY 30:19

I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

JOHN 3:19

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

JOHN 3:20

For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

That is to choose wisely and foolishly. It is wise to choose to believe in the Bible. Which are we to believe? The Bible tells us that everything that exists in heaven and earth were created by God.

THE ACTS 17:24

God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

R8

Take note of this Turkey Vulture.

Nature"s Garbage Men: Turkey Vultures are able to eat carrion and contaminated meat due to specialized digestive enzymes and bacteria in their systems. These enzymes destroy hog cholera, rabies, and other contagious diseases in their digestive system that would be spread if another animal ate the contaminated carcass. For this reason, farmers will often drag an animal that died for an unknown reason (or just because he does not want to dig a hole) out into a field and allow the vultures to pick the bones clean. The extent of the useful life of this unique germ-fighting enzyme, the Turkey Vulture will allow its feces to drop straight down onto it own legs and coat them with the enzyme. This prevents the bird from contracting diseases through cuts on its legs and feet while standing in a carcass. The white coating is also believed to help cool the legs of the Turkey Vulture. (http://www.raptorrehab.org...)

Even the minutest of viruses and bacteria were part of God"s creation! The enzyme that can kill the anthrax bacteria and rabies virus was provided by the Creator to the vultures, acting like garbage collectors in the jungle to prevent the spread of diseases. Nature has its own garbage, for example, as a way to keep things in order.

Isn"t that life with a purpose?

The wise God, the creator, most probably has meant man to be what he is: Homo sapiens. Wise Man. This is in contrast to just springing up from nothing or surviving dependent on fitness that evolution professes to teach.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 4:52:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 4:22:34 AM, Bendido wrote:
To belie is to fail to fulfill or justify a claim or expectation; to betray.

What"s wrong with a purposeful start for man with a creator?
Only that it's not true.

Upon what principle is evolution based
Reality...demonstrated reality. (You know, that thing creationism lacks).

that one should believe this senseless development of man from animal or non-life?
No no, the emergence of life from non-life is not evolution, it's abiogenesis. This is a mistake it seems almost all creationists make because they rarely have the slightest clue what they're talking about. Evolution and abiogenesis are unrelated processes. They're completely independent. Abiogenesis addresses the origin of life. Evolution addresses the origin of species, and is demonstrated, observed, documented, and used regularly in multiple forms of medical industries.

Yet, many hold on to this false belief as obstinate proud intellectuals who cannot see reason. Fortunately, God has made sure his words would be preserved to guide man in his thinking.
Well then; obviously you're not talking about the Bible. We have not a single preserved original manuscript. What we do know from examining the multiple copies of the manuscripts, is that all of them have been altered. So obviously, the original words were not preserved. But to know that you'd have to be interested in reality.

After the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Codex Sinaiticus, I will mention about new research on Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal as created in Animal Creation Time way ahead of Man Creation Time, the DNA difference in human and chimpanzees to belie evolutionary relationship, the Piltdown man revealed as a hoax.
Piltdown man is one of the most common hoaxes discussed by creationists. This is despite the fact that it was exposed over 60-years ago. Don't forget Nebraska Man and the Pepper Moth. You can count the actual hoaxes and errors on your fingers. Yet there are tens of thousands of irrefutable pieces of evidence for evolution.

I will also mention the 24-hour day counting to gauge earth age as error, the found limitation of carbon dating, and the discovery of giant sea grass in the Mediterranean Sea as up to 200,000 years old.
Of course, if you actually knew anything about carbon-14 dating, you'd realize that anyone attempting to date a sample from the oceans is already perpetrating a hoax. It's well known that ocean marine samples can't be dated via carbon-14 dating, due to the substantial limestone deposits in the ocean, which alter the results. Anyone utilizing actual research criteria knows this.

Finally, I will present solution to this insistent belief that man came from animals: the absence of cross-breeding between these two.
There is no scientific belief that man "came from animals". Man is an animal - PERIOD! There are three primary kingdoms in biological classification; Plants, Protists and Animals. Human beings are animals and it doesn't belittle them one bit. If you would rather consider yourself to be a plant or a protist, we'll see if we can get one of those human animals to water you regularly so that you won't dry out.

On the part of the Bible, to prove that man could not have evolve from the animal kingdom but created with a purpose, I will present the command of circumcision due to the role of vitamin K in the body, the reality of Jesus and his baptism in the world"s lowest of all rivers and why it had to be so, the existence of antipodes pointing that the earth is round but that truth is suppressed in the politics of the power club, the components of the human body attesting to earth as its source, the principle of "first man" creation, and about virus and bacteria as part of God"s creation for a purpose.
The Bible is simply a collection of writings. Anyone can write anything they choose. The men who decided which writings should be in the Bible had absolutely no credible criteria upon which to operate. So the Bible has no authority for anything. By the way, nothing in the Bible came from Jesus, or even from anyone who ever met or knew Jesus.

False beliefs have bred the lot of atheists who now cling to Charles Darwin"s Theory of Evolution and reject God"s word. Let us look into this in detail as they can guide us in our choice of belief: in senseless evolution or in purposeful creation.
Sorry. Although science doesn't subscribe to the concept of "facts", evolution is as much of a "fact" as is gravity". Actually, I take that back. There is more evidence confirming evolution than there is for gravity.

Your arguments are stale. Your platform is ignorance, and your conclusions are laughable and beyond. If you really want to try to drive these arguments home, then learn something about evolution. Of course, once you understand it, you'll realize that it's true.

As for the rest of your postS here, it's a debate site. Not a soapbox for wannabe preachers.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Bendido
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 5:07:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
For over a hundred years, the link between apes and man, popularly known as the "missing link", has been the subject of research among the best scientists of the human race. The discovery of "one unique" evidence placed Britain to be a contender as the cradle of humanity.

This discovery was for decades trusted by respected evolutionists as a concrete evidence to prove that their theory of evolution is a fact until another discovery was made public and was tagged as one of the worst crime of the 20thcentury. The link of England to antiquity, and its contention for being a cradle of human kind, and the link between humans and apes was cut by the alleged link turned scissors.

.

THE FAKE APE-MAN, 1912

piltdown_man

Eoanthropus dawsoni was the scientific name of this alleged missing link, and it would have been an extremely early example of a creature showing both human and apelike qualities. At 375,000 years old, it put England in contention for a cradle of humankind, being found in the Sussex town of Piltdown. The "first Englishman" he was proudly called when the anthropologist Charles Dawson found him in 1911. For decades, Piltdown Man was cited along with Neanderthal man and Heidelberg man as an example of early hominid life in Europe. Then in 1953, the fragments, including a jawbone, were tested: they did not contain enough fluorine to be the age that Dawson claimed; worse, the jawbone was that of a 10-year-old orangutan, its teeth ground down to simulate age, and a crude chemical wash applied to the bone to make it appear ancient. No one knows who perpetrated the hoax: Dawson had died in 1916. Very quickly, however, Piltdown became a synonym for phony; and England"s claim to antiquity was cut short by several hundred thousand years.

The link between the numbers 1 and 3 is 2 or sometimes may include its fraction like 1" and 2". The link of a child to its parents can be numbered! 23 pairs of chromosomes from the father and 23 pairs from the mother.

The allegations of evolutionists that complex forms of life came from the most simple single-celled plants and animals have no scientific evidence! Protozoa and amoeba are up to now protozoa and amoeba, still single-celled! We cannot find any living creature which is one and a half, two, and two and a half celled plants and animals. The only scientific link of protozoa and amoeba to more complex organisms is their parasitic characteristics.

Protozoa have known simple arithmetic for its existence by not clinging to a one and a half and a two and a half organism but unto multi-cellular ones. Maybe they have searched for such but found none.

Protozoa and amoeba which existed billions of years ago have managed to exist until now as protozoa and amoeba. Protozoa will always be protozoa and amoeba will always be amoeba.

Ecclesiastes 3:14

I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

Protozoa exists as a single-celled creature, and have existed billions of years ago, but no single human cell can exist for a day independent of other cells in the tissues of a human body. If protozoan and amoeba have evolved into multi-cellular organisms due to natural selection and the principle of "survival of the fittest and the elimination of the unfit", why cannot our human cells product of such evolution, exist independently like protozoan?

The fact is protozoan are protozoan and humans are humans!

To prove evolution really happened there must be a link! But what is the "missing link"? The link that evolutionists must explain scientifically beyond the shadow of a doubt. This link must not be the link being sought for by most evolutionists. The link between man and apes must not be the intelligent priority! The link must start from the origin of life. How can inorganic matters like soil and water evolve into an amoeba or protozoa?

Let evolutionists answer this!
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 5:47:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/7/2014 5:07:55 AM, Bendido wrote:
For over a hundred years, the link between apes and man, popularly known as the "missing link", has been the subject of research among the best scientists of the human race. The discovery of "one unique" evidence placed Britain to be a contender as the cradle of humanity.

This discovery was for decades trusted by respected evolutionists as a concrete evidence to prove that their theory of evolution is a fact until another discovery was made public and was tagged as one of the worst crime of the 20thcentury. The link of England to antiquity, and its contention for being a cradle of human kind, and the link between humans and apes was cut by the alleged link turned scissors.

.

THE FAKE APE-MAN, 1912



piltdown_man

Eoanthropus dawsoni was the scientific name of this alleged missing link, and it would have been an extremely early example of a creature showing both human and apelike qualities. At 375,000 years old, it put England in contention for a cradle of humankind, being found in the Sussex town of Piltdown. The "first Englishman" he was proudly called when the anthropologist Charles Dawson found him in 1911. For decades, Piltdown Man was cited along with Neanderthal man and Heidelberg man as an example of early hominid life in Europe. Then in 1953, the fragments, including a jawbone, were tested: they did not contain enough fluorine to be the age that Dawson claimed; worse, the jawbone was that of a 10-year-old orangutan, its teeth ground down to simulate age, and a crude chemical wash applied to the bone to make it appear ancient. No one knows who perpetrated the hoax: Dawson had died in 1916. Very quickly, however, Piltdown became a synonym for phony; and England"s claim to antiquity was cut short by several hundred thousand years.

The link between the numbers 1 and 3 is 2 or sometimes may include its fraction like 1" and 2". The link of a child to its parents can be numbered! 23 pairs of chromosomes from the father and 23 pairs from the mother.



The allegations of evolutionists that complex forms of life came from the most simple single-celled plants and animals have no scientific evidence! Protozoa and amoeba are up to now protozoa and amoeba, still single-celled! We cannot find any living creature which is one and a half, two, and two and a half celled plants and animals. The only scientific link of protozoa and amoeba to more complex organisms is their parasitic characteristics.

Protozoa have known simple arithmetic for its existence by not clinging to a one and a half and a two and a half organism but unto multi-cellular ones. Maybe they have searched for such but found none.

Protozoa and amoeba which existed billions of years ago have managed to exist until now as protozoa and amoeba. Protozoa will always be protozoa and amoeba will always be amoeba.

Ecclesiastes 3:14



I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be forever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

Protozoa exists as a single-celled creature, and have existed billions of years ago, but no single human cell can exist for a day independent of other cells in the tissues of a human body. If protozoan and amoeba have evolved into multi-cellular organisms due to natural selection and the principle of "survival of the fittest and the elimination of the unfit", why cannot our human cells product of such evolution, exist independently like protozoan?

The fact is protozoan are protozoan and humans are humans!

To prove evolution really happened there must be a link! But what is the "missing link"? The link that evolutionists must explain scientifically beyond the shadow of a doubt. This link must not be the link being sought for by most evolutionists. The link between man and apes must not be the intelligent priority! The link must start from the origin of life. How can inorganic matters like soil and water evolve into an amoeba or protozoa?

Let evolutionists answer this!

The part that really tickles me are the various obvious historical/fossil records that easily demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt how the various species progress, and that however does not demonstrate evidence

BUT

a written record of unknown author from an indeterminate time detailing select incidents in history and claiming an entity of which modern day observance have never seen is real speaks for itself, despite its obvious short comings to modern day record and science.

How many strawmen would you like to erect to in hopes of erasing the various other identifiable-by-the-layman examples of the theory of evolution?

Walls of text are very interesting, but the current library in favor of evolution speaks volumes more than the highly subjective verse of the Bible. An origin of the specie is nearly self evident. The Bible is self referencing. Its very easy to make up the rules as you go, that is exactly what creationism does and organized religion exploits.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2014 7:22:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Someone knows how to copy-pasta creationist 'literature'. For his next trick he will demonstrate how to think for himself. Maybe.