Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2

TOPIC: Religion & School

Religion & School 10 years 3 months ago #119

  • Bluechemistry
  • Bluechemistry's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • For me, the soul of music is the violin.
  • Posts: 17
  • Thank you received: 6
Hello, Rich! ;)

How can America call themselves "the land of the free" if you're not even allowed to pray in public school?
"I hope that you will rely on God's love to help you turn large problems into little ones and little ones into nothing at all."
The topic has been locked.

Re: Religion & School 10 years 3 months ago #131

  • Violingirl1
  • Violingirl1's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • I love music and sports
  • Posts: 84
  • Thank you received: 98
You can pray in public school. The teachers can't have worship, but you can pray silently to yourself. :)
~Violingirl1
The topic has been locked.
The following user(s) said Thank You: purple_A, shaday, endershadow112

Re: Religion & School 10 years 3 months ago #135

  • Daze
  • Daze's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • In posts I am a Supercentenarian
  • Posts: 253
  • Thank you received: 308
I believe america is a good country but not as good as they say or claim to be.Anyway they answer in your question is that the american government doesn't want to seem bias or for any religion so they prohibit any religious practice in school and try to keep a secular theme. I remember that our church was having a seminar in the library about smoking and we had to address god as the "Supreme Being" which me and my sibling found pretty funny.But yeah I really get your drift because even though american schools claim to be secular they teach that there is no god witch is piratically a religion as well "the religion of no God" so if i would suggest something to public school is that they teach science as it should be taught:not disapproving the fact that there is a god or approving that there isn't. Or in other I don't think that science in schools should taught in school without any of those made up theories about how the world came about.Then in that way students are able to make an unbiased opinion in their minds whether there is a god or not.
The law of God, enshrined within the ark, was the great rule of righteousness and judgment. That law pronounced death upon the transgressor; but above the law was the mercy seat, upon which the presence of God was revealed, and from which, by virtue of the atonement, pardon was granted to the...
The topic has been locked.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Bluechemistry, Quirky, Skite, Going4God

Re: Religion & School 10 years 3 months ago #309

Just depends on how you look at "land of the free". You are free to do whatever you want, sometime it's actually TOO much freedom because things get worse when people don't have at least SOME boundaries. This means schools don't want to "push" any religious beliefs on anyone so they took all that out of the schools. The ironic part is that evolution, which is taught in school as "science", is actually a religion too. It has never been observed, and there are no experiments that can prove it happened, yet it is taught out of FAITH that it happened. Believing in something out of faith is religion.
The topic has been locked.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Marme101, Bluechemistry, Godsadvicegiver12, Quirky, Skite, Going4God, Pyrrhic

Re: Religion & School 10 years 3 months ago #541

I pray in school all thetime. I used to get teased about it. people would steal my lunche and do horrid things. But I just kept praying and eventually people started to respect that. My friends are totally cool with me praying, sometimes they even want to know what I was praying about. That way I have an oppurtunity to tell them about God.
The topic has been locked.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Bluechemistry, Godsadvicegiver12, Quirky, dancer4god, Skite, Going4God, Pyrrhic, im a beekeeper

Re: Religion & School 5 years 8 months ago #62010

  • Servant
  • Servant's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • #buildthatwall
  • Posts: 163
  • Thank you received: 87
There was an idea of resurrecting old topics. This one seemed worthy of resurrecting.

If someone wants to pray in school then he or she should. Rich, The schools seem to force people to not pray in school, bring their Bible to school and other things. These are facts.
Go Trump, go Trump, no commies, no pedophiles in the USA.
.
The topic has been locked.

Re: Religion & School 5 years 8 months ago #62016

Hi! You can bring your Bible and pray in school all you want, but the teachers can't pray as part of their class.
The topic has been locked.
The following user(s) said Thank You: endershadow112

Re: Religion & School 5 years 8 months ago #62017

  • Servant
  • Servant's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • #buildthatwall
  • Posts: 163
  • Thank you received: 87
richaguilera wrote:
Hi! You can bring your Bible and pray in school all you want, but the teachers can't pray as part of their class.
There was this book I read that mentioned that a boy brought his Bible to school and read it to himself. The teacher told that he couldn't do that. So the next day he brought his Bible to school but didn't read it. The teacher took it from him anyway. Then there was the time a boy couldn't pass out Bible verses to his classmates, those who wanted them, at school.
Go Trump, go Trump, no commies, no pedophiles in the USA.
.
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 5 years 8 months ago #62027

@Servant sometimes in some areas, usually in ones that are more "liberal" Teachers and other staff are either personally offended, or don't want someone else to be, so they do things like that even though its against US law, because they are not aware, (now on some occasions they are, but they just want to make a statement or something) anyway, this goes out to all guidesters in the USA, if you encounter something like this, don't be silent, the law is on your side, and don't be afraid to stand up to anyone who would do that, the rights of Christians matter just as much as anyone else's.
Also, i would like to urge anyone who goes to school to participate in the next Bring Your Bible to School Day, if you are a Christian, don't be afraid to show it "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 10:32 KJV
"Some wish to live within the sound of a chapel bell, I wish to run a rescue mission within a yard of hell." -- C.T Studd 20th century missionary
The topic has been locked.
The following user(s) said Thank You: richaguilera, Quirky, Skite, Servant

Religion & School 5 years 8 months ago #62040

  • Servant
  • Servant's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • #buildthatwall
  • Posts: 163
  • Thank you received: 87
notturningaside, Thank you for that. I thought it went for all schools.
Go Trump, go Trump, no commies, no pedophiles in the USA.
.
The topic has been locked.
The following user(s) said Thank You: notturningaside

Re: Religion & School 5 years 8 months ago #62055

  • InspiredThinker
  • InspiredThinker's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • He changed my life and now I'm free
  • Posts: 1450
  • Thank you received: 1278
Servant wrote:
There was an idea of resurrecting old topics. This one seemed worthy of resurrecting.

If someone wants to pray in school then he or she should. Rich, The schools seem to force people to not pray in school, bring their Bible to school and other things. These are facts.

Before 1967, public schools led their students in prayer every day. In 1967, the Supreme Court found that state-sponsored public-school prayer was the same as establishing a religion, which the Constitution does not allow. Students can still pray freely, but teachers, who are state employees, cannot lead their students in prayer. Because there are laws that are supposed to protect everyone from religious persecution, teachers cannot prohibit their students from reading their Bibles.
Speak up, judge righteously, and defend the cause of the needy and oppressed.
-Proverbs 31:6

#LetUsBeDissatisfied
#BlackLivesMatter
The topic has been locked.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Quirky, endershadow112

Religion & School 5 years 8 months ago #62122

just a footnote to inspired thinker, they cannot prohibit you from being open about your faith, or praying either
"Some wish to live within the sound of a chapel bell, I wish to run a rescue mission within a yard of hell." -- C.T Studd 20th century missionary
The topic has been locked.

Re: Religion & School 3 years 8 months ago #93930

richaguilera wrote:
Just depends on how you look at "land of the free". You are free to do whatever you want, sometime it's actually TOO much freedom because things get worse when people don't have at least SOME boundaries. This means schools don't want to "push" any religious beliefs on anyone so they took all that out of the schools. The ironic part is that evolution, which is taught in school as "science", is actually a religion too. It has never been observed, and there are no experiments that can prove it happened, yet it is taught out of FAITH that it happened. Believing in something out of faith is religion.

Evolution is not a religion, and it is not based on faith. Thing like abiogenesis or the big bang are a bit more dependent on faith, but there is lots of proof for evolution. It has definetely been observed, in small organisms like the flu virus and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and it can be seen in large organisms through the fossil record and other evidence. For example, there are fossils showing the evolution of whales from four-legged land animals, to sea creatures with vestigial back legs, to the whales we know now. If you really believe there's no evidence for evolution, then you're very misinformed.
The topic has been locked.

Re: Religion & School 3 years 8 months ago #93972

  • archicastor1
  • archicastor1's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Software engineering student
  • Posts: 31
  • Thank you received: 14
endershadow112 wrote:
richaguilera wrote:
Just depends on how you look at "land of the free". You are free to do whatever you want, sometime it's actually TOO much freedom because things get worse when people don't have at least SOME boundaries. This means schools don't want to "push" any religious beliefs on anyone so they took all that out of the schools. The ironic part is that evolution, which is taught in school as "science", is actually a religion too. It has never been observed, and there are no experiments that can prove it happened, yet it is taught out of FAITH that it happened. Believing in something out of faith is religion.

Evolution is not a religion, and it is not based on faith. Thing like abiogenesis or the big bang are a bit more dependent on faith, but there is lots of proof for evolution. It has definetely been observed, in small organisms like the flu virus and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and it can be seen in large organisms through the fossil record and other evidence. For example, there are fossils showing the evolution of whales from four-legged land animals, to sea creatures with vestigial back legs, to the whales we know now. If you really believe there's no evidence for evolution, then you're very misinformed.

Well, we also have evidence for the Big Bang.
1) Redshift
2) The cosmic microwave background radiation
3) Singularity theorems
4) Predictions made by Einstein's theory of general relativity
And many more.
Of course, the fact that we have evidence does not mean that the Big Bang model is perfect. It has problems, like this one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem
My Discord: archicastor1#6847
The topic has been locked.
The following user(s) said Thank You: endershadow112

Re: Religion & School 3 years 8 months ago #93985

archicastor1 wrote:
endershadow112 wrote:
richaguilera wrote:
Just depends on how you look at "land of the free". You are free to do whatever you want, sometime it's actually TOO much freedom because things get worse when people don't have at least SOME boundaries. This means schools don't want to "push" any religious beliefs on anyone so they took all that out of the schools. The ironic part is that evolution, which is taught in school as "science", is actually a religion too. It has never been observed, and there are no experiments that can prove it happened, yet it is taught out of FAITH that it happened. Believing in something out of faith is religion.

Evolution is not a religion, and it is not based on faith. Thing like abiogenesis or the big bang are a bit more dependent on faith, but there is lots of proof for evolution. It has definetely been observed, in small organisms like the flu virus and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and it can be seen in large organisms through the fossil record and other evidence. For example, there are fossils showing the evolution of whales from four-legged land animals, to sea creatures with vestigial back legs, to the whales we know now. If you really believe there's no evidence for evolution, then you're very misinformed.

Well, we also have evidence for the Big Bang.
1) Redshift
2) The cosmic microwave background radiation
3) Singularity theorems
4) Predictions made by Einstein's theory of general relativity
And many more.
Of course, the fact that we have evidence does not mean that the Big Bang model is perfect. It has problems, like this one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem

Yeah, it's not perfect, but it has more evidence than creation, which is why it's taught in schools.
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 3 years 8 months ago #94028

  • tasha1507
  • tasha1507's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • God, Jesus, Cats, Music, Pink = Me
  • Posts: 225
  • Thank you received: 143
The most probable reason for why schools teach it is because it promotes that there is no creation, so then there is no God, then no laws, and therefore people are free to do whatever they want. Evolution throws the Bible away, as well as any love, selflessness, purity, obedience, and many other things. Of course it's "science" but at the same time, it promotes a system of morals completely contrary to the Bible.

Social impacts of evolution

There is plenty of evidence out there to disprove evolution and the idea of a universe that is billions of years old. And evidence supporting creation and a young universe is out there too. One great site is www.creationscience.com/ It's written by a creationist, but the interesting thing is that almost all the evidence/quotes he uses are from the studies, research, and books of evolutionists. It's facinating to read and I suggest that anyone who wants to understand the evidence and what scientists are saying. It also dives deep into how the flood happened and the effects on our world. There are pages and pages of quote from scientists saying that based on their research, so many things in nature cannot be explained by evolution, only design by an intelligent being.

There may be evidence out there "proving" evolution, but please understand that scientists make conclusion based on evidence. Evidence is raw evidence, and it can be twisted to support ideas that scientists want it to support. Considering the billions of dollars that are put into the research for evolution, by private and governments, but somewhat little funding into creationism, one can understand why a majority of scientists would favor evolution.
Funding of evolution research

Everyone is free to make their own decisions based on the evidence given. Personally, I believe in Creation and what the Bible says, because firstly the Bible is truth, and secondly, there is evidence out there to support it.Below is only a tiny fraction of the issues out there of creation vs evolution, and I wouldn't be able to post it all up here. I hope you take some time to read the site and to see the evidence out there and then come to your own conclusion.

<3 Tasha

~
Quotes about the evolution of the eye from above link:
" It is hard to accept the evolution of the human eye as a product of chance; it is even harder to accept the evolution of human intelligence as the product of random disruptions in the brain cells of our ancestors." Robert Jastrow, “Evolution: Selection for Perfection,” Science Digest, December 1981, p. 87.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179.

“It’s one of the oldest riddles in evolutionary biology: How does natural selection gradually create an eye, or any complex organ for that matter? The puzzle troubled Charles Darwin, who nevertheless gamely nailed together a ladder of how it might have happened—from photoreceptor cells to highly refined orbits—by drawing examples from living organisms such as mollusks and arthropods. But holes in this progression have persistently bothered evolutionary biologists and left openings that creationists have been only too happy to exploit.” Virginia Morell, “Placentas May Nourish Complexity Studies,” Science, Vol. 298, 1 November 2002, p. 945.

Quotes about similar ancestors:

"Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation.” Austin H. Clark, “Animal Evolution,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, December 1928, p. 539.

“By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship ... it is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units, ...”  Nilsson, p. 1143.

 “But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous [similar] structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design.” Jonathan Wells, “Survival of the Fakest,” The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, p. 22.

Quotes about human language:
"Many other attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary origin of language, and all have failed. ... Even the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers. ... The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view.”  George Gaylord Simpson, “The Biological Nature of Man,” Science, Vol. 152, 22 April 1966, p. 477.

"Noam Chomsky ... has firmly established his point that grammar, and in particular syntax, is innate. Interested linguistics people ... are busily speculating on how the language function could have evolved ... Derek Bickerton (Univ. Hawaii) insists that this faculty must have come into being all at once.”  John Maddox, “The Price of Language?” Nature, Vol. 388, 31 July 1997, p. 424.

About DNA:
"This analysis gives us a reason to believe that the A–T and G-C choice forms the best pairs that are the most different from each other, so that their ubiquitous use in living things represents an efficient and successful choice rather than an accident of evolution.” [emphasis added] Larry Liebovitch, as quoted by David Bradley, “The Genome Chose Its Alphabet with Care,” Science, Vol. 297, 13 September 2002, p. 1790.

"Genes and enzymes are linked together in a living cell—two interlocked systems, each supporting the other. It is difficult to see how either could manage alone. Yet if we are to avoid invoking either a Creator or a very large improbability, we must accept that one occurred before the other in the origin of life. But which one was it? We are left with the ancient riddle: Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” Shapiro, p. 135.
~
The topic has been locked.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Skite

Religion & School 3 years 8 months ago #94030

  • tasha1507
  • tasha1507's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • God, Jesus, Cats, Music, Pink = Me
  • Posts: 225
  • Thank you received: 143
One little note - There is a difference in evolution. Macro evolution is a change of species, ex. they say birds evolved from lizards, no real evidence anywhere (above website has info on that) Microevolution is a change <em>within</em> the species, which happens and can be observed in evidence and around us. For example, wolfs into our modern day dog breeds, such as the golden retriever or Chihuahua.
The topic has been locked.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Skite

Religion & School 3 years 8 months ago #94061

  • jGod8865
  • jGod8865's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • BRUH
  • Posts: 1621
  • Thank you received: 547
When I went to public schools I prayed before I ate and before I took tests and quizzes and people were okay with it. Now I go to a SDA Academy
Communism is the best way to go.
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 3 years 8 months ago #94072

  • pathfinder4ever
  • pathfinder4ever's Avatar
  • NOW ONLINE
  • don’t click my profile.. Philippians 4:13
  • Posts: 2061
  • Thank you received: 632
jGod8865 wrote:
When I went to public schools I prayed before I ate and before I took tests and quizzes and people were okay with it. Now I go to a SDA Academy
Speak for those who have no voice.
Red and yellow...black and white.... We're all precious in His sight....❤️
Any questions? Ask!
-kash (aka pathfinder4ever)
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 3 years 7 months ago #94136

tasha1507 wrote:
One little note - There is a difference in evolution. Macro evolution is a change of species, ex. they say birds evolved from lizards, no real evidence anywhere (above website has info on that) Microevolution is a change <em>within</em> the species, which happens and can be observed in evidence and around us. For example, wolfs into our modern day dog breeds, such as the golden retriever or Chihuahua.

The main problem with the macroevolution argument is that there's no difference between micro and macro evolution, it's the exact same process but over longer periods of time. Also, it's a term created by people defending Creation, not actual scientists. But, there is evidence of macroevolution.

Just to be clear, species means animals that can't produce fertile offspring with animals of different species. That makes dogs all the same species (because all dog breeds can interbreed) but birds different species.

There actually is proof of a change between species. A different species was created in rabbits, and there's a bird species that was observed to have evolved into two different species.

Warning: Spoiler! [ Click to expand ]


There's also evidence of macroevolution in the fossil record. There are fossils that show land mammals evolving into whales. They show their back legs becoming smaller and smaller, and you can see the nostril move up their head to become a blowhole.

Also, something to note: Lizards turning into birds is a huge evolutionary change. That would be a lot more than a change in species. Also, you should note that dogs are kind of exception in species, because all dog breeds are the same species, yet they look so different. But in others (and probably most) animals, like elephants, you have two different species that look very similar.
Last Edit: 3 years 7 months ago by endershadow112.
The topic has been locked.

Religion & School 3 years 7 months ago #94364

  • tasha1507
  • tasha1507's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • God, Jesus, Cats, Music, Pink = Me
  • Posts: 225
  • Thank you received: 143
I noticed your new signature so I hope I can give you a look at some better arguments against evolution and for the Bible. I'm not an expert, like Rich and others, and this is mostly based on my own research. I had the chance to be able to study both the evolution and creation views of science during my school years, and I understand some don't have that opportunity. But there are plenty of resources for everyone to check out.

A great scientist I've always enjoyed watching is Prof. Walter Vieth and his Genesis Conflict series - Here. He was a professor of zoology and an evolutionist before he became an Adventist and creationist. It's amazing stuff and because he was an evolutionist, he's really great at his counterarguments against evolution. His site is amazingdiscoveries.org. Anyway, I've given it a go to reply to your post and it's pretty long. I've done my best to explain it in a way for younger kids to understand too :)

I went and did some more research, and I should have used the word "kind" instead of "species" as it is more accurate. Also natural selection would be a better phrase to use as both evolutionists and creationists agree with it. Natural selection is, of course, the natural process of the population of species adapting to the environment around it, based on the elimination of individuals who are almost similar, except they don't possess the traits to survive in that particular environment. Or in the case of domestic dogs, humans selecting the traits they want. Mircoevolution is basically the same thing.

This happens all the time, and can be seen around us. One of the key factors of evolution is the increase in information. But the result of nattual selection is an overall decrease in information in the population, and it uses info that was/is already present in its DNA involving genes turning on or turning off. Nothing new has been added to the DNA and no new information besides the genes it contains is passed on, unlike what evolution promotes.

Your examples are very good examples of natural selection. One thing to note is that those birds are still birds, and the rabbits? Still rabbits. Yes, it's not a change over supposed "millions" of years, but there's still no major change towards becoming a completely different kind.

Now with macro... Would millions of years change one kind into another? Let's look at some "living" fossils and the ages evolutionists give them in the fossil record. The Nautilus is alive today and supposedly existed 500 million years ago. The horseshoe crab, 450 million years ago. Elephant sharks, 420 million years ago (almost 0 change in DNA). The hagfish, 350 million years ago. Coelacanths (the supposed "pre-walking" fish), 80 millions years ago and, true to being a fish, it still swims around the oceans and doesn't walk on dry land.

All of these creatures appear exactly as how they are found in the fossil record. Scientists have also found insects and plant life fossilised in amber and they appear exactly the same as those existing today. No change at all.

One difference in some of them? They were huge! A dragonfly wingspan was 3 feet! Evolution promotes small creatures to big, which that's rarely the case in fossils but that's another topic.

If "millions" of years are needed for a kind to change into another kind, then why haven't these creatures changed? Some say "Oh they didn't need to evolve, as they were already perfect." So not everything goes through evolution? Hmm, that's a big hole there in the theory.

The land mammal to whale transition fossils... When they've found "transition" whales in the fossil record, they are either exactly like our modern day whales, or it's one part of a fossil... that turns out to have nothing to do with whales or transitions in any way.
You may look at these links to have a read on these "transition" fossils.

answersingenesis.org/aquatic-animals/fos...-of-whale-evolution/
creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud

Reptile to birds... It would require a lot of faith to even think it could be possible. Like I said, DNA has no capability to add new information, even gradually over time, to become a completely different kind and to be perfectly functional in every way. Reptile scales are used for protection unlike the perfectly aerodynamic feathers of a flying bird. Reptile bones are extremely dense compared to the lightweight bones of birds. Reptile limbs are totally different from bird wings and feet. There are countless other major differences that would have to be totally changed in order for a reptile to evolve into a bird. Again, the supposed feathered flying transition fossils found turn out to be complete dinos/lizards or complete birds, or another creature that is extinct.
A couple links on this below.

creation.com/living-dinosaurs-or-just-birds
answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/feathers/...urs-turn-into-birds/

Even if it could have happened (if you want to disregard the Bible and listen to men), where are these complete "transition" fossils? How come we have complete fossils of perfectly formed creatures - land mammals, whales, reptiles, birds, dinosaurs, etc - but no fossils that everyone can say, without any doubt, that they are truly transition fossils? Evolutionists say that they are yet to be found, after 150+ years of exploring all over the world. But since just about everything we see in nature supposedly went through evolution, why aren't transition fossils even more abundant than fully formed and perfect fossils?

Evolutionists continually jump to conclusions based on a tooth/skull/partial fossil, only to be repeatedly proven wrong. One problem is that evolutionists base most of their guesses on the nature alive today. The problem is that fossils that have been found fit into over 50 phyla (next level below kingdom in science) but we have only 38 currently living on Earth. So we don't know all the species that have existed in the past to be able to correctly identify them. That is one of the mistakes evolutionists constantly make. They keep trying to fit fossils to modern nature to prove their theory right, instead of investigating the fossils to find out if they are something we don't have today and leaving it at that.

The fossil record isn't a linear "record" of Earth's history, starting from the beginning to now. There are massive chunks of "time" layers missing all over the place and there are major problems with calling it a historical record (normal sediments don't form fossils, erosion, trees "growing" through layers, etc.) Instead, it is more like an encyclopedia of everything that has lived on Earth, but not in time order, because they all existed at the same time. There is evidence in the rocks and fossils that support the existence of a worldwide catastrophic Flood, definitely the Biblical flood of Noah and his ark. (Fossilied jellyfish, trees with no bark and no roots, creatures buried while giving birth/eating, water sorted fossils, rapid water marks, etc.) You can find more evidence and explanations at the sites I've linked above and the link in my first post.

Just about every time they find something, the theory changes drastically. How can you trust a theory that is changing all over the place? Evolutionists say "Give us more time, then we'll have the answers." In 150+ years, they have only found more questions that shake their theory's core beliefs than proper answers. God never changes and the Bible never changes so the literal story of Creation never changes. Man's science is never above the Bible. Our lives and beliefs should be based on the Bible and the Bible only. Satan has invented evolution to corrupt the world, destory faith in the Bible, and to promote atheism and the new age religion (because that is what evolution leads to). The leading evolutionist are staunch atheists and hate Christians and the Bible. Why would any Christian want to support a theory so vile and which openly denies God?

Evolution is based on man's opinion of science, Creation is based on God's account in the Bible. Evolutionists base their science on a man made belief, Creationists base their science on the Bible. Evolution promotes no God/no law just follow your "animal instincts" and truth is relative, while Creation promotes God's love and His wonderful law.

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Evolution can be considered a religion as one needs a lot of faith to fill in all these gaping holes (and many more) in their theory. On the other hand, there is solid evidence for the Bible, the flood, and a young universe. Sometimes it's the only thing people have known and they believe evolution is true because it's popular but that doesn't make it truth. Man is sinful and lies for his own benefit. The Bible is truth and never lies. Everyone in the end will have to decide to believe either man's word or God's word. And I pray we all make the right choice with our eternal destiny in mind.
The topic has been locked.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Skite

Religion & School 3 years 7 months ago #94372

  • LolingforJesus
  • LolingforJesus's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • DONT GET INNIPROPRIT
  • Posts: 1479
  • Thank you received: 686
tasha1507 wrote:
I noticed your new signature so I hope I can give you a look at some better arguments against evolution and for the Bible. I'm not an expert, like Rich and others, and this is mostly based on my own research. I had the chance to be able to study both the evolution and creation views of science during my school years, and I understand some don't have that opportunity. But there are plenty of resources for everyone to check out.

A great scientist I've always enjoyed watching is Prof. Walter Vieth and his Genesis Conflict series - Here. He was a professor of zoology and an evolutionist before he became an Adventist and creationist. It's amazing stuff and because he was an evolutionist, he's really great at his counterarguments against evolution. His site is amazingdiscoveries.org. Anyway, I've given it a go to reply to your post and it's pretty long. I've done my best to explain it in a way for younger kids to understand too :)

I went and did some more research, and I should have used the word "kind" instead of "species" as it is more accurate. Also natural selection would be a better phrase to use as both evolutionists and creationists agree with it. Natural selection is, of course, the natural process of the population of species adapting to the environment around it, based on the elimination of individuals who are almost similar, except they don't possess the traits to survive in that particular environment. Or in the case of domestic dogs, humans selecting the traits they want. Mircoevolution is basically the same thing.

This happens all the time, and can be seen around us. One of the key factors of evolution is the increase in information. But the result of nattual selection is an overall decrease in information in the population, and it uses info that was/is already present in its DNA involving genes turning on or turning off. Nothing new has been added to the DNA and no new information besides the genes it contains is passed on, unlike what evolution promotes.

Your examples are very good examples of natural selection. One thing to note is that those birds are still birds, and the rabbits? Still rabbits. Yes, it's not a change over supposed "millions" of years, but there's still no major change towards becoming a completely different kind.

Now with macro... Would millions of years change one kind into another? Let's look at some "living" fossils and the ages evolutionists give them in the fossil record. The Nautilus is alive today and supposedly existed 500 million years ago. The horseshoe crab, 450 million years ago. Elephant sharks, 420 million years ago (almost 0 change in DNA). The hagfish, 350 million years ago. Coelacanths (the supposed "pre-walking" fish), 80 millions years ago and, true to being a fish, it still swims around the oceans and doesn't walk on dry land.

All of these creatures appear exactly as how they are found in the fossil record. Scientists have also found insects and plant life fossilised in amber and they appear exactly the same as those existing today. No change at all.

One difference in some of them? They were huge! A dragonfly wingspan was 3 feet! Evolution promotes small creatures to big, which that's rarely the case in fossils but that's another topic.

If "millions" of years are needed for a kind to change into another kind, then why haven't these creatures changed? Some say "Oh they didn't need to evolve, as they were already perfect." So not everything goes through evolution? Hmm, that's a big hole there in the theory.

The land mammal to whale transition fossils... When they've found "transition" whales in the fossil record, they are either exactly like our modern day whales, or it's one part of a fossil... that turns out to have nothing to do with whales or transitions in any way.
You may look at these links to have a read on these "transition" fossils.

answersingenesis.org/aquatic-animals/fos...-of-whale-evolution/
creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud

Reptile to birds... It would require a lot of faith to even think it could be possible. Like I said, DNA has no capability to add new information, even gradually over time, to become a completely different kind and to be perfectly functional in every way. Reptile scales are used for protection unlike the perfectly aerodynamic feathers of a flying bird. Reptile bones are extremely dense compared to the lightweight bones of birds. Reptile limbs are totally different from bird wings and feet. There are countless other major differences that would have to be totally changed in order for a reptile to evolve into a bird. Again, the supposed feathered flying transition fossils found turn out to be complete dinos/lizards or complete birds, or another creature that is extinct.
A couple links on this below.

creation.com/living-dinosaurs-or-just-birds
answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/feathers/...urs-turn-into-birds/

Even if it could have happened (if you want to disregard the Bible and listen to men), where are these complete "transition" fossils? How come we have complete fossils of perfectly formed creatures - land mammals, whales, reptiles, birds, dinosaurs, etc - but no fossils that everyone can say, without any doubt, that they are truly transition fossils? Evolutionists say that they are yet to be found, after 150+ years of exploring all over the world. But since just about everything we see in nature supposedly went through evolution, why aren't transition fossils even more abundant than fully formed and perfect fossils?

Evolutionists continually jump to conclusions based on a tooth/skull/partial fossil, only to be repeatedly proven wrong. One problem is that evolutionists base most of their guesses on the nature alive today. The problem is that fossils that have been found fit into over 50 phyla (next level below kingdom in science) but we have only 38 currently living on Earth. So we don't know all the species that have existed in the past to be able to correctly identify them. That is one of the mistakes evolutionists constantly make. They keep trying to fit fossils to modern nature to prove their theory right, instead of investigating the fossils to find out if they are something we don't have today and leaving it at that.

The fossil record isn't a linear "record" of Earth's history, starting from the beginning to now. There are massive chunks of "time" layers missing all over the place and there are major problems with calling it a historical record (normal sediments don't form fossils, erosion, trees "growing" through layers, etc.) Instead, it is more like an encyclopedia of everything that has lived on Earth, but not in time order, because they all existed at the same time. There is evidence in the rocks and fossils that support the existence of a worldwide catastrophic Flood, definitely the Biblical flood of Noah and his ark. (Fossilied jellyfish, trees with no bark and no roots, creatures buried while giving birth/eating, water sorted fossils, rapid water marks, etc.) You can find more evidence and explanations at the sites I've linked above and the link in my first post.

Just about every time they find something, the theory changes drastically. How can you trust a theory that is changing all over the place? Evolutionists say "Give us more time, then we'll have the answers." In 150+ years, they have only found more questions that shake their theory's core beliefs than proper answers. God never changes and the Bible never changes so the literal story of Creation never changes. Man's science is never above the Bible. Our lives and beliefs should be based on the Bible and the Bible only. Satan has invented evolution to corrupt the world, destory faith in the Bible, and to promote atheism and the new age religion (because that is what evolution leads to). The leading evolutionist are staunch atheists and hate Christians and the Bible. Why would any Christian want to support a theory so vile and which openly denies God?

Evolution is based on man's opinion of science, Creation is based on God's account in the Bible. Evolutionists base their science on a man made belief, Creationists base their science on the Bible. Evolution promotes no God/no law just follow your "animal instincts" and truth is relative, while Creation promotes God's love and His wonderful law.

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Evolution can be considered a religion as one needs a lot of faith to fill in all these gaping holes (and many more) in their theory. On the other hand, there is solid evidence for the Bible, the flood, and a young universe. Sometimes it's the only thing people have known and they believe evolution is true because it's popular but that doesn't make it truth. Man is sinful and lies for his own benefit. The Bible is truth and never lies. Everyone in the end will have to decide to believe either man's word or God's word. And I pray we all make the right choice with our eternal destiny in mind.
I got scared by this big paragraph lol
oof
baby crawdaddy's are literally the cutest thing ever
The topic has been locked.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Skite

Religion & School 3 years 7 months ago #94394

  • LEMONwizard
  • LEMONwizard's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • I am an eternal flame, baby
  • Posts: 641
  • Thank you received: 255
LolingforJesus wrote:
tasha1507 wrote:
I noticed your new signature so I hope I can give you a look at some better arguments against evolution and for the Bible. I'm not an expert, like Rich and others, and this is mostly based on my own research. I had the chance to be able to study both the evolution and creation views of science during my school years, and I understand some don't have that opportunity. But there are plenty of resources for everyone to check out.

A great scientist I've always enjoyed watching is Prof. Walter Vieth and his Genesis Conflict series - Here. He was a professor of zoology and an evolutionist before he became an Adventist and creationist. It's amazing stuff and because he was an evolutionist, he's really great at his counterarguments against evolution. His site is amazingdiscoveries.org. Anyway, I've given it a go to reply to your post and it's pretty long. I've done my best to explain it in a way for younger kids to understand too :)

I went and did some more research, and I should have used the word "kind" instead of "species" as it is more accurate. Also natural selection would be a better phrase to use as both evolutionists and creationists agree with it. Natural selection is, of course, the natural process of the population of species adapting to the environment around it, based on the elimination of individuals who are almost similar, except they don't possess the traits to survive in that particular environment. Or in the case of domestic dogs, humans selecting the traits they want. Mircoevolution is basically the same thing.

This happens all the time, and can be seen around us. One of the key factors of evolution is the increase in information. But the result of nattual selection is an overall decrease in information in the population, and it uses info that was/is already present in its DNA involving genes turning on or turning off. Nothing new has been added to the DNA and no new information besides the genes it contains is passed on, unlike what evolution promotes.

Your examples are very good examples of natural selection. One thing to note is that those birds are still birds, and the rabbits? Still rabbits. Yes, it's not a change over supposed "millions" of years, but there's still no major change towards becoming a completely different kind.

Now with macro... Would millions of years change one kind into another? Let's look at some "living" fossils and the ages evolutionists give them in the fossil record. The Nautilus is alive today and supposedly existed 500 million years ago. The horseshoe crab, 450 million years ago. Elephant sharks, 420 million years ago (almost 0 change in DNA). The hagfish, 350 million years ago. Coelacanths (the supposed "pre-walking" fish), 80 millions years ago and, true to being a fish, it still swims around the oceans and doesn't walk on dry land.

All of these creatures appear exactly as how they are found in the fossil record. Scientists have also found insects and plant life fossilised in amber and they appear exactly the same as those existing today. No change at all.

One difference in some of them? They were huge! A dragonfly wingspan was 3 feet! Evolution promotes small creatures to big, which that's rarely the case in fossils but that's another topic.

If "millions" of years are needed for a kind to change into another kind, then why haven't these creatures changed? Some say "Oh they didn't need to evolve, as they were already perfect." So not everything goes through evolution? Hmm, that's a big hole there in the theory.

The land mammal to whale transition fossils... When they've found "transition" whales in the fossil record, they are either exactly like our modern day whales, or it's one part of a fossil... that turns out to have nothing to do with whales or transitions in any way.
You may look at these links to have a read on these "transition" fossils.

answersingenesis.org/aquatic-animals/fos...-of-whale-evolution/
creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud

Reptile to birds... It would require a lot of faith to even think it could be possible. Like I said, DNA has no capability to add new information, even gradually over time, to become a completely different kind and to be perfectly functional in every way. Reptile scales are used for protection unlike the perfectly aerodynamic feathers of a flying bird. Reptile bones are extremely dense compared to the lightweight bones of birds. Reptile limbs are totally different from bird wings and feet. There are countless other major differences that would have to be totally changed in order for a reptile to evolve into a bird. Again, the supposed feathered flying transition fossils found turn out to be complete dinos/lizards or complete birds, or another creature that is extinct.
A couple links on this below.

creation.com/living-dinosaurs-or-just-birds
answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/feathers/...urs-turn-into-birds/

Even if it could have happened (if you want to disregard the Bible and listen to men), where are these complete "transition" fossils? How come we have complete fossils of perfectly formed creatures - land mammals, whales, reptiles, birds, dinosaurs, etc - but no fossils that everyone can say, without any doubt, that they are truly transition fossils? Evolutionists say that they are yet to be found, after 150+ years of exploring all over the world. But since just about everything we see in nature supposedly went through evolution, why aren't transition fossils even more abundant than fully formed and perfect fossils?

Evolutionists continually jump to conclusions based on a tooth/skull/partial fossil, only to be repeatedly proven wrong. One problem is that evolutionists base most of their guesses on the nature alive today. The problem is that fossils that have been found fit into over 50 phyla (next level below kingdom in science) but we have only 38 currently living on Earth. So we don't know all the species that have existed in the past to be able to correctly identify them. That is one of the mistakes evolutionists constantly make. They keep trying to fit fossils to modern nature to prove their theory right, instead of investigating the fossils to find out if they are something we don't have today and leaving it at that.

The fossil record isn't a linear "record" of Earth's history, starting from the beginning to now. There are massive chunks of "time" layers missing all over the place and there are major problems with calling it a historical record (normal sediments don't form fossils, erosion, trees "growing" through layers, etc.) Instead, it is more like an encyclopedia of everything that has lived on Earth, but not in time order, because they all existed at the same time. There is evidence in the rocks and fossils that support the existence of a worldwide catastrophic Flood, definitely the Biblical flood of Noah and his ark. (Fossilied jellyfish, trees with no bark and no roots, creatures buried while giving birth/eating, water sorted fossils, rapid water marks, etc.) You can find more evidence and explanations at the sites I've linked above and the link in my first post.

Just about every time they find something, the theory changes drastically. How can you trust a theory that is changing all over the place? Evolutionists say "Give us more time, then we'll have the answers." In 150+ years, they have only found more questions that shake their theory's core beliefs than proper answers. God never changes and the Bible never changes so the literal story of Creation never changes. Man's science is never above the Bible. Our lives and beliefs should be based on the Bible and the Bible only. Satan has invented evolution to corrupt the world, destory faith in the Bible, and to promote atheism and the new age religion (because that is what evolution leads to). The leading evolutionist are staunch atheists and hate Christians and the Bible. Why would any Christian want to support a theory so vile and which openly denies God?

Evolution is based on man's opinion of science, Creation is based on God's account in the Bible. Evolutionists base their science on a man made belief, Creationists base their science on the Bible. Evolution promotes no God/no law just follow your "animal instincts" and truth is relative, while Creation promotes God's love and His wonderful law.

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Evolution can be considered a religion as one needs a lot of faith to fill in all these gaping holes (and many more) in their theory. On the other hand, there is solid evidence for the Bible, the flood, and a young universe. Sometimes it's the only thing people have known and they believe evolution is true because it's popular but that doesn't make it truth. Man is sinful and lies for his own benefit. The Bible is truth and never lies. Everyone in the end will have to decide to believe either man's word or God's word. And I pray we all make the right choice with our eternal destiny in mind.
I got scared by this big paragraph lol
oof
Woah... I’m not gonna read this, but... it’s massive... I didn’t even know anyone COULD post anything this long... to get to the end of the quote I had to swipe fourteen times... Guidesters, I DARE you to find a longer post than this
Yo, I‘m not really on this site much any more. I miss y’all and I’ll hopefully be more active some day.
The topic has been locked.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Skite

Religion & School 3 years 7 months ago #94395

Responses in bold. Also, I didn't address all the points because I'm not an expert and don't know about some of those things, but I tried to respond to most of them.tasha1507 wrote:
I noticed your new signature so I hope I can give you a look at some better arguments against evolution and for the Bible. I'm not an expert, like Rich and others, and this is mostly based on my own research. I had the chance to be able to study both the evolution and creation views of science during my school years, and I understand some don't have that opportunity. But there are plenty of resources for everyone to check out.

A great scientist I've always enjoyed watching is Prof. Walter Vieth and his Genesis Conflict series - Here. He was a professor of zoology and an evolutionist before he became an Adventist and creationist. It's amazing stuff and because he was an evolutionist, he's really great at his counterarguments against evolution. His site is amazingdiscoveries.org. Anyway, I've given it a go to reply to your post and it's pretty long. I've done my best to explain it in a way for younger kids to understand too :)

It's not really related to evolution, but I would like to point out that the website promotes geocentrism, which means that they believe the earth is at the center of the universe, which is a very unscientific opinion.

I went and did some more research, and I should have used the word "kind" instead of "species" as it is more accurate. Also natural selection would be a better phrase to use as both evolutionists and creationists agree with it. Natural selection is, of course, the natural process of the population of species adapting to the environment around it, based on the elimination of individuals who are almost similar, except they don't possess the traits to survive in that particular environment. Or in the case of domestic dogs, humans selecting the traits they want. Mircoevolution is basically the same thing.

Actually, "kind" is a worse choice, because it's not a scientific term. Also, kind doesn't really seem to have a concrete deifinition, so it's not really useful. Plus, it's often used as a way to get out of a tight spot in an argument by changing its meaning, for example identifying dogs as one "kind" and all birds also being identified as a "kind", which is a problem because those are very different categories.

This happens all the time, and can be seen around us. One of the key factors of evolution is the increase in information. But the result of nattual selection is an overall decrease in information in the population, and it uses info that was/is already present in its DNA involving genes turning on or turning off. Nothing new has been added to the DNA and no new information besides the genes it contains is passed on, unlike what evolution promotes.

Actually, new genetic material can be created. This happens with a simple gene duplication mutation, which then creates more gentic material that can be altered to produce more traits.

Your examples are very good examples of natural selection. One thing to note is that those birds are still birds, and the rabbits? Still rabbits. Yes, it's not a change over supposed "millions" of years, but there's still no major change towards becoming a completely different kind.

Yes, because that much evolution takes very long periods of time, and it's probably not something we're ever gonna be able to observe in our lifetimes. Arguing that is like saying that because you don't see a redwood sapling making a lot of progress, it must not be able to turn into a tree.

Now with macro... Would millions of years change one kind into another? Let's look at some "living" fossils and the ages evolutionists give them in the fossil record. The Nautilus is alive today and supposedly existed 500 million years ago. The horseshoe crab, 450 million years ago. Elephant sharks, 420 million years ago (almost 0 change in DNA). The hagfish, 350 million years ago. Coelacanths (the supposed "pre-walking" fish), 80 millions years ago and, true to being a fish, it still swims around the oceans and doesn't walk on dry land.

Evolution/natural selection occurs when there are selection pressures, or things that will only allow "the fittest" to survive. So it's not disproving of evolution that some species stayed the same. Also, the whole species doesn't necessarily evolve together. For example, one group of coelacanths could've migrated to a new area. Over time, this group evolves to walk on land, while the group they left remains the same. I don't know if this is how it happened, since I haven't researched the coelacanth, but it's an example of how it might've happened.

All of these creatures appear exactly as how they are found in the fossil record. Scientists have also found insects and plant life fossilised in amber and they appear exactly the same as those existing today. No change at all.

One difference in some of them? They were huge! A dragonfly wingspan was 3 feet! Evolution promotes small creatures to big, which that's rarely the case in fossils but that's another topic.

Evolution doesn't necessarily promote small creatures to big. Size will change based on whether it helps the organism survive. For example, a massive squirrel might be slower and too heavy to run across certain tree branches. In this case, a smaller squirrel would be better at surviving, and would survive longer to pass on its genes. In this case, natural selection/evolution would keep the squirrels the size which enables them to survive the best.

If "millions" of years are needed for a kind to change into another kind, then why haven't these creatures changed? Some say "Oh they didn't need to evolve, as they were already perfect." So not everything goes through evolution? Hmm, that's a big hole there in the theory.

I already addressed this point, but not everything will go through evolution, and there's a reason for it. Selection pressures cause species to evolve, meaning in the case where a creature is well suited to their environment, they will remain relatively the same.

The land mammal to whale transition fossils... When they've found "transition" whales in the fossil record, they are either exactly like our modern day whales, or it's one part of a fossil... that turns out to have nothing to do with whales or transitions in any way.
You may look at these links to have a read on these "transition" fossils.

answersingenesis.org/aquatic-animals/fos...-of-whale-evolution/
creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud

Reptile to birds... It would require a lot of faith to even think it could be possible. Like I said, DNA has no capability to add new information, even gradually over time, to become a completely different kind and to be perfectly functional in every way. Reptile scales are used for protection unlike the perfectly aerodynamic feathers of a flying bird. Reptile bones are extremely dense compared to the lightweight bones of birds. Reptile limbs are totally different from bird wings and feet. There are countless other major differences that would have to be totally changed in order for a reptile to evolve into a bird. Again, the supposed feathered flying transition fossils found turn out to be complete dinos/lizards or complete birds, or another creature that is extinct.
A couple links on this below.

As previously stated, new genetic information can be added through a gene duplication mutation. Birds also don't need to directly transition to flying. Feather could've first developed for warmth. Flightless bird's wings could be useful for gliding short distances, and lighter bones would also be useful for gliding. Natural selection could favor individuals who are better at gliding, meaning they get smaller/lighter, and feathers become more aerodynamic. Eventually, gliding becomes short flight, and then becomes longer flights and the birds we know today.

Also, here's an actual source on the evolution of dinosaurs to birds: www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-d...nk-and-became-birds/


creation.com/living-dinosaurs-or-just-birds
answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/feathers/...urs-turn-into-birds/

Even if it could have happened (if you want to disregard the Bible and listen to men), where are these complete "transition" fossils? How come we have complete fossils of perfectly formed creatures - land mammals, whales, reptiles, birds, dinosaurs, etc - but no fossils that everyone can say, without any doubt, that they are truly transition fossils? Evolutionists say that they are yet to be found, after 150+ years of exploring all over the world. But since just about everything we see in nature supposedly went through evolution, why aren't transition fossils even more abundant than fully formed and perfect fossils?

Technically, all fossils of creatures that don't exist today could be considered transition fossils. Dinosaur fossils could be considered transition fossils of birds and crocodiles, and you could consider mammoths transition fossils of elephants. Also, all fossils of earlier versions of the horse could be considered transition fossils, as well as fossils of earlier whales. It seems like your being very picky on what you consider a transition fossil.

Evolutionists continually jump to conclusions based on a tooth/skull/partial fossil, only to be repeatedly proven wrong. One problem is that evolutionists base most of their guesses on the nature alive today. The problem is that fossils that have been found fit into over 50 phyla (next level below kingdom in science) but we have only 38 currently living on Earth. So we don't know all the species that have existed in the past to be able to correctly identify them. That is one of the mistakes evolutionists constantly make. They keep trying to fit fossils to modern nature to prove their theory right, instead of investigating the fossils to find out if they are something we don't have today and leaving it at that.

The fossil record isn't a linear "record" of Earth's history, starting from the beginning to now. There are massive chunks of "time" layers missing all over the place and there are major problems with calling it a historical record (normal sediments don't form fossils, erosion, trees "growing" through layers, etc.) Instead, it is more like an encyclopedia of everything that has lived on Earth, but not in time order, because they all existed at the same time. There is evidence in the rocks and fossils that support the existence of a worldwide catastrophic Flood, definitely the Biblical flood of Noah and his ark. (Fossilied jellyfish, trees with no bark and no roots, creatures buried while giving birth/eating, water sorted fossils, rapid water marks, etc.) You can find more evidence and explanations at the sites I've linked above and the link in my first post.

Fossils actually do appear only in "organized" layers, with the exception of trees who can remain standing while multiple layers form. Also, evidence of a flood does not necessarily indicate a worldwide flood. Local floods are a thing too. Also, if there was a worldwide flood of that scale, there would be a layer covering the whole world showing it, which there isn't. Also, I think fossils of dinosaurs eating would not be evidence of a flood, because if it was flooding these creatures would have time to stop what they're doing. They would have died drowning, and not be fossilized while eating. Giving birth is possible, but that just indicates a quick death, not necessarily a flood.

Just about every time they find something, the theory changes drastically. How can you trust a theory that is changing all over the place? Evolutionists say "Give us more time, then we'll have the answers." In 150+ years, they have only found more questions that shake their theory's core beliefs than proper answers. God never changes and the Bible never changes so the literal story of Creation never changes. Man's science is never above the Bible. Our lives and beliefs should be based on the Bible and the Bible only. Satan has invented evolution to corrupt the world, destory faith in the Bible, and to promote atheism and the new age religion (because that is what evolution leads to). The leading evolutionist are staunch atheists and hate Christians and the Bible. Why would any Christian want to support a theory so vile and which openly denies God?

The fact that the theory of evolution changes is more reason to believe it if you ask me. That means it accounts for all new evidence, and is the most accurate to what we know. Arguing that evolution shouldn't be trusted because it changes is like saying physics shouldn't be trusted because of the changes (discoveries) that have been made to it. Also, creationists are the only ones saying evolution is getting weakened, most scientists say that evidence for evolution is growing stronger.

Evolution is based on man's opinion of science, Creation is based on God's account in the Bible. Evolutionists base their science on a man made belief, Creationists base their science on the Bible. Evolution promotes no God/no law just follow your "animal instincts" and truth is relative, while Creation promotes God's love and His wonderful law.

And, the bible is written by man. It claims to be inspired by God, but how do you know that's true? This is circular reasoning. You could replace "bible" with Quran and "God" with Allah, and it would be just as valid an argument. (Not really valid) Also, evolution doesn't promote following your animal instincts, it just states that that's part of the reason we're here today.

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

The Quran also says this about non-Muslims, so what makes the bible's word superior to the Quran's?

Evolution can be considered a religion as one needs a lot of faith to fill in all these gaping holes (and many more) in their theory. On the other hand, there is solid evidence for the Bible, the flood, and a young universe. Sometimes it's the only thing people have known and they believe evolution is true because it's popular but that doesn't make it truth. Man is sinful and lies for his own benefit. The Bible is truth and never lies. Everyone in the end will have to decide to believe either man's word or God's word. And I pray we all make the right choice with our eternal destiny in mind.

Evolution is not a religion. Whether something is a religion is not determined by how much faith you need, and religions also have specific moral systems, which evolution doesn't. Again, you don't prove the bible is always true, the only proof offered is circular reasoning. There's also people who argue that the bible does lie and has internal contradictions, which would make the bible fallible.

Also, there is proof that the earth and universe is much older than young earth creationists claim. For example, how can we see stars that are millions of lightyears away if the earth is only a few thousand years old? There is also the issue that rocks are dated to be much older than would be possible in a young earth. There's two arguments I've heard against that, the main one is that the dating in inaccurate, though I find it to be a flimsy response. A common claim of the argument is that nuclear half-lives are not constant, which is ridiculous because they are constant, and the whole reason they're used for dating is because they're constant. (The other counter argument that the mass of the earth was there before God molded it into our earth, but then why would there be fossils inside them, before God even created animals?) As stated before, there's also little proof that the flood happened, which would have had to happen if the bible account was true.

Creation also leaves a gaping hole of what happened to the dinosaurs. People claim that they were destroyed in the flood, but God told noah to take two of every creature, which I'm sure would include dinosaurs. The other arguments I've heard is that dinosaurs were too dangerous, and God had to destroy them, or that dinosaurs were created by pre-flood people. But, not all dinosaurs are carnivorous, and why would God not let dinosaurs but still take creatures like rats, or preserve microorganisms which cause diseases like the black plague or smallpox? And if dinosaurs were created by pre-flood people, wouldn't that mean macroevolution is possible?
The topic has been locked.
The following user(s) said Thank You: ken10wil

Religion & School 3 years 1 month ago #95450

  • ken10wil
  • ken10wil's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • bossome
  • Posts: 186
  • Thank you received: 161
tasha1507 wrote:
I noticed your new signature so I hope I can give you a look at some better arguments against evolution and for the Bible. I'm not an expert, like Rich and others, and this is mostly based on my own research. I had the chance to be able to study both the evolution and creation views of science during my school years, and I understand some don't have that opportunity. But there are plenty of resources for everyone to check out.

A great scientist I've always enjoyed watching is Prof. Walter Vieth and his Genesis Conflict series - Here. He was a professor of zoology and an evolutionist before he became an Adventist and creationist. It's amazing stuff and because he was an evolutionist, he's really great at his counterarguments against evolution. His site is amazingdiscoveries.org. Anyway, I've given it a go to reply to your post and it's pretty long. I've done my best to explain it in a way for younger kids to understand too :)

I went and did some more research, and I should have used the word "kind" instead of "species" as it is more accurate. Also natural selection would be a better phrase to use as both evolutionists and creationists agree with it. Natural selection is, of course, the natural process of the population of species adapting to the environment around it, based on the elimination of individuals who are almost similar, except they don't possess the traits to survive in that particular environment. Or in the case of domestic dogs, humans selecting the traits they want. Mircoevolution is basically the same thing.

This happens all the time, and can be seen around us. One of the key factors of evolution is the increase in information. But the result of nattual selection is an overall decrease in information in the population, and it uses info that was/is already present in its DNA involving genes turning on or turning off. Nothing new has been added to the DNA and no new information besides the genes it contains is passed on, unlike what evolution promotes.

Your examples are very good examples of natural selection. One thing to note is that those birds are still birds, and the rabbits? Still rabbits. Yes, it's not a change over supposed "millions" of years, but there's still no major change towards becoming a completely different kind.

Now with macro... Would millions of years change one kind into another? Let's look at some "living" fossils and the ages evolutionists give them in the fossil record. The Nautilus is alive today and supposedly existed 500 million years ago. The horseshoe crab, 450 million years ago. Elephant sharks, 420 million years ago (almost 0 change in DNA). The hagfish, 350 million years ago. Coelacanths (the supposed "pre-walking" fish), 80 millions years ago and, true to being a fish, it still swims around the oceans and doesn't walk on dry land.

All of these creatures appear exactly as how they are found in the fossil record. Scientists have also found insects and plant life fossilised in amber and they appear exactly the same as those existing today. No change at all.

One difference in some of them? They were huge! A dragonfly wingspan was 3 feet! Evolution promotes small creatures to big, which that's rarely the case in fossils but that's another topic.

If "millions" of years are needed for a kind to change into another kind, then why haven't these creatures changed? Some say "Oh they didn't need to evolve, as they were already perfect." So not everything goes through evolution? Hmm, that's a big hole there in the theory.

The land mammal to whale transition fossils... When they've found "transition" whales in the fossil record, they are either exactly like our modern day whales, or it's one part of a fossil... that turns out to have nothing to do with whales or transitions in any way.
You may look at these links to have a read on these "transition" fossils.

answersingenesis.org/aquatic-animals/fos...-of-whale-evolution/
creation.com/whale-evolution-fraud

Reptile to birds... It would require a lot of faith to even think it could be possible. Like I said, DNA has no capability to add new information, even gradually over time, to become a completely different kind and to be perfectly functional in every way. Reptile scales are used for protection unlike the perfectly aerodynamic feathers of a flying bird. Reptile bones are extremely dense compared to the lightweight bones of birds. Reptile limbs are totally different from bird wings and feet. There are countless other major differences that would have to be totally changed in order for a reptile to evolve into a bird. Again, the supposed feathered flying transition fossils found turn out to be complete dinos/lizards or complete birds, or another creature that is extinct.
A couple links on this below.

creation.com/living-dinosaurs-or-just-birds
answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/feathers/...urs-turn-into-birds/

Even if it could have happened (if you want to disregard the Bible and listen to men), where are these complete "transition" fossils? How come we have complete fossils of perfectly formed creatures - land mammals, whales, reptiles, birds, dinosaurs, etc - but no fossils that everyone can say, without any doubt, that they are truly transition fossils? Evolutionists say that they are yet to be found, after 150+ years of exploring all over the world. But since just about everything we see in nature supposedly went through evolution, why aren't transition fossils even more abundant than fully formed and perfect fossils?

Evolutionists continually jump to conclusions based on a tooth/skull/partial fossil, only to be repeatedly proven wrong. One problem is that evolutionists base most of their guesses on the nature alive today. The problem is that fossils that have been found fit into over 50 phyla (next level below kingdom in science) but we have only 38 currently living on Earth. So we don't know all the species that have existed in the past to be able to correctly identify them. That is one of the mistakes evolutionists constantly make. They keep trying to fit fossils to modern nature to prove their theory right, instead of investigating the fossils to find out if they are something we don't have today and leaving it at that.

The fossil record isn't a linear "record" of Earth's history, starting from the beginning to now. There are massive chunks of "time" layers missing all over the place and there are major problems with calling it a historical record (normal sediments don't form fossils, erosion, trees "growing" through layers, etc.) Instead, it is more like an encyclopedia of everything that has lived on Earth, but not in time order, because they all existed at the same time. There is evidence in the rocks and fossils that support the existence of a worldwide catastrophic Flood, definitely the Biblical flood of Noah and his ark. (Fossilied jellyfish, trees with no bark and no roots, creatures buried while giving birth/eating, water sorted fossils, rapid water marks, etc.) You can find more evidence and explanations at the sites I've linked above and the link in my first post.

Just about every time they find something, the theory changes drastically. How can you trust a theory that is changing all over the place? Evolutionists say "Give us more time, then we'll have the answers." In 150+ years, they have only found more questions that shake their theory's core beliefs than proper answers. God never changes and the Bible never changes so the literal story of Creation never changes. Man's science is never above the Bible. Our lives and beliefs should be based on the Bible and the Bible only. Satan has invented evolution to corrupt the world, destory faith in the Bible, and to promote atheism and the new age religion (because that is what evolution leads to). The leading evolutionist are staunch atheists and hate Christians and the Bible. Why would any Christian want to support a theory so vile and which openly denies God?

Evolution is based on man's opinion of science, Creation is based on God's account in the Bible. Evolutionists base their science on a man made belief, Creationists base their science on the Bible. Evolution promotes no God/no law just follow your "animal instincts" and truth is relative, while Creation promotes God's love and His wonderful law.

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Evolution can be considered a religion as one needs a lot of faith to fill in all these gaping holes (and many more) in their theory. On the other hand, there is solid evidence for the Bible, the flood, and a young universe. Sometimes it's the only thing people have known and they believe evolution is true because it's popular but that doesn't make it truth. Man is sinful and lies for his own benefit. The Bible is truth and never lies. Everyone in the end will have to decide to believe either man's word or God's word. And I pray we all make the right choice with our eternal destiny in mind.
DNA does have the capability to change. Otherwise we wouldn't have cancer. Cell division is not a perfect process, leading to changes in DNA during cell replication. Over time a person's body may hold millions of randomly mutated cells, none of which really affect the individual since humans don't regrow limbs (which would require reading said mutated DNA). Cancer occurs when individual cells have damaged cell mechanism or genetic code that causes them to act on their own, forming tumors. When mutated DNA is used to make gametes (sex cells), these traits can be passed off to offspring, who then may express these traits. Some traits aren't expressed at all. Some are overridden by genes from the other parent. Some are expressed but have no effect on the child's survival, and are therefore passed on by chance, not due to natural selection. If however, an external situation causes a trait to increase an individual's chances of survival, that individual is more likely to reproduce and pass on said traits to their children, who are now more likely to survive. A real world example of this is sickle-cell disease, which predominantly affects Central, West and East Africans and their descendants around the globe (Caribbean, Americas). The rise of malaria in the mosquito population led to the deaths of large numbers of mammals especially humans. Individuals who had the trait for sickle cell, develop a number of red blood cells shaped like sickles. While these blood cells are functionally worse than their healthy counterparts, they are resistant to malaria infection, making someone with a sickle cell trait more likely to survive. As more and more people in the trait entered the gene pool, people who had the trait had children who had 2 alleles for the sickle cell trait, leading to them having sickle cell disease (sins of our for-fathers), in which most if not all of their red blood cells were deformed. While they wouldn't die to malaria they would die to other diseases, or anemia, leading to shorter lives. This led to a reduction in sickle cell carriers, leading to the present day situation. Two medical volunteers in Kenya worked their for several decades, and recorded the number of patients they had with sickle cell anemia, in conjunction with the location and population of local mosquitoes. When mosquitoes were in an area and numerous, sickle cell anemia was common, whereas areas where mosquitoes were not as common had less cases of sickle cell anemia as the trait was not as necessary for survival, allowing more people without the trait to live and have children. This is also the same guiding principle behind dog breeding, but instead of nature providing the external stimuli it's humans. We breed dogs that both have the trait we want in the puppy together, continuing the process until a new breed is formed. This can even change species, and is how humans domesticate animals. It's why many species of domesticated sheep can't rub their wool off on rocks and trees, and rely on humans for shearing, while also seeming to maximize wool growth. We bred sheeps that were the most productive, and with humans regularly shearing the animals, there was no need for these species of sheep to shed their wool to survive, allowing the trait to all but disappear in the gene pool, but still be present in some species of sheep and their "cousins", goats. Another example is the domestication of wolves, which has been replicated with foxes. Wolves less aggressive towards humans were much more willing to approach human camps and scavenge scraps of food. Humans probably took advantage of this and allowed the behavior. Wolves already territorial in nature, began to see humans as a reliable source of food, actively rewarding wolves with pacifist genes with an easier way to survive. It's also assumable that humans began domesticating these "tame" wolves, in the same way they did sheep and horses, using their territorial behavior and hunting abilities to make good companions. Scientists have replicated this with foxes, merely breeding wild foxes for one trait, domesticity. In doing so they produced a whole host of other changes, as genes no one was looking for were passed on, leading to the development of visual variations similar to dog breeds. Like most natural processes, humans have replicated and exploited evolution for their own gains, now more commonly known as "artificial selection".DNA changing is at the heart of many ecological processes and humans have clearly used it themselves.
video games are awesome, Politics is just making me sad at this point
favorite text:
12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Matthew 5:12
The topic has been locked.
The following user(s) said Thank You: endershadow112
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2
Moderators: richaguilera
Time to create page: 0.416 seconds