Evolution is a Lie

[BaronVonBongo]

Lol, no you did not show any such proof. You just showed your subjective veiw on the subject.
Er what is a rock? It is a deposite of crystaline minerals composed of elements. Those same elements compose us and natual life,most significantly Carbon, essential for all life as we know it due to its chemical nature.
Where did these elements come from? They come from the nuclear funaces of extinct suns where fission of hydrogen and latterly helium produces the heavy elements. When a star then goes nova these elements are scattered throughout space. We are quite literally star dust.
Openning a textbook on science should not hurt your religious faith please stop doing your faith and mine a disservice by making religious peoplelook stupid and willfullly ignorant. If your faith is based on the material , the earthly, the transient then yes it can be shaken by the knowledge of such things. If focus on God in all his ineffibleness your faith can not be so hurt.

im just gonna give you the first few verses of Genesis to show how you can read it in light of God and modern knowledge.
Genesis 1:1
1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Now people of this age had no concept of the astronomical and geological realities of earth so the idea of earth encompassed the universe in entirty. I would aliken the hebrew here (and correct me if you can) to the word seclorum in Latin which means of the world or material, we like to see this as specifically pertaining to just the physical earth in the phrase Novus Ordo Seclorum, whereas in fact it relates to the material universe.So substitute earth for the material world.

Now the waters. I know that ancient people used to see the earth as suround by water below as well as above, how else did they account for the blue sky and the water that fell from it? They fell into the easy notion as so would a follower of the ancient mysteries 'as above so below'..e-e wrong! So upon the face of the waters means the sky or the universe. God was encompassing his creation.

First there was the void without form (how could physical earth be without form), i.e. after big bang from which something came of nothing (now that is God like!!), or at least nothing we can concieve due to the laws of the universe only coming into existence the masses of hydrogen-the most simple atom, no stars, no light. It was only after eons that the gravitational attratction of these atom to each other (and the much sort after dark matter interactions with matter) that brought about sufficient density for nuclear fussion to kick start and stars to therefore be born.

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

 These in turn actractted by physical laws formed galaxies and galactic clusters in the ever expanding universe.

1:4 And God seeth the light that it is good, and God separateth between the light and the darkness,

These islands of light in the vastness of space are being separated further and further even today. We know this through observing the red shift which is similar to the doppler effect but with light rather than sound.

This is also the origin of the biblical association between light representing good and dark separation from good/God or evil. This association comes from the human expirience of having to protect oneself from the dangers of nightfall.

1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so

Now this is where the 'earth' as we know it comes in. Earth is not just what we walk on it is our physical surroundings the atmoshphere included.

 This firment means the sky, the atmosphere. This arch divided the waters above it, i.e. space from the waters below, seas and freshwater.

The earth to begin with had no water or atmosphere as such whilst molten after its impact with another planet sized object.  After it settled down  and cooled and we got a larger mass and a moon to boot (vital for tidal systems) then the atmosphere and hydrosphere began to condense. Thus we get water on the firmament and the 'waters' of the heavens.

1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven (sky). And the evening and the morning were the second day.

1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Now here we have the initial land mass of Pangea from which the continents drifted apart from by plate tectonics.
Amzing how we wernt either completely covered in water like Europa is or have a scarcity like mars. Its just right for a decent amount of habitible land.

1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Thats correct plants first of the eukaryotes.

1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

So laid down reproduction through more complex processes than simple vegetative growth and mitosis.

1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day

Now this next one is somewhat difficult.

1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

On a plain veiwing it would say that the stars came after the earth. How to explain that they didnt withotu reference to what they are? No. But God is ordaining here that these should be used by humans to keep a notion of time. The is specifically giving them a utiliterian pupose here, expressly not any higher purpose than that as the mystery schools at the time would have them. Gods pretty much. Pyramids and obelisk were seen as star seeders for the dead royalty of Egypt for instance. Astrotheology played heavy with these people and still does through the NWOs New Age agenda.

1:15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to be the ruler of the day, and the smaller light to be the ruler of the night: and he made the stars.
1:17 And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth.
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.
1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

Again the sun and moon is to give light on the earth not be worshipped as he created them.





I could go on, and I will do if I have to. But this is how to read genesis. Its about the message. God is our creator, and loves us. He created us for himself to love him back freely. He is the only one worthy of worship and our pride in our own magnificence has lead us away from him into the darness out of Eden. This is the sin of our race, we are great and we know it. God other sentient creations, the angels were so jealous of what we we were given by God the third that rebelled realising their own magnificence too, were punished ny eternity here with us and themselves cut off from Gods light. They want to bring us away from grace too

[LoveToGod]

I did, now can you prove we all came from a rock?

That is exactly what they believe.

The thing is we believe in the beginning God, and we don't know where God came from, but they believe in the beginning the matter for the Big Bang came from.

So we believe in the beginning God, and they believe in the beginning Dirt!

[NinjaPatriot]

That is exactly what they believe.

The thing is we believe in the beginning God, and we don't know where God came from, but they believe in the beginning the matter for the Big Bang came from.

So we believe in the beginning God, and they believe in the beginning Dirt!

I think that's a mischaracterization.  Dirt or dust, same difference.  Anyways it wasn't just a rainwater and a rock according to some abiogenesis papers i've read.  Anyways, I don't believe the big bang happened, there's too much wrong with the theories that encompass it.  Look into plasma cosmology.  Furthermore if the big bang is correct it implies common ancestry not biblical creationism.  Also it would imply that we are more than likely alone in the universe, and I believe that would contradict scripture.

[Aerioch]

That is exactly what they believe.

The thing is we believe in the beginning God, and we don't know where God came from, but they believe in the beginning the matter for the Big Bang came from.

So we believe in the beginning God, and they believe in the beginning Dirt!

Actually evolution holds the verifiable fact that all life was formed from water and dust clouds containing various elements.  It is now common knowledge that every element found on earth, and on other bodies in space is a product of a star's life cycle; birth, life, death, and rebirth.   Water, Gold, Dirt, Zinc, Iron, Natural Uranium, and any other naturally occurring element are all produced via this observable process.

I suggest you actually take the time to learn, and understand the details of a theory before you sheepishly proclaim it to be false.   

[EarthAngel_2012]

"If we have a philosophy like our founding fathers had, a belief in creation, If folks start believing in creation like our founding fathers they don't make good slaves. The declaration of independence says "we hold these truth to be self-evident that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator". If you get a bunch of men and women together who believe they have rights that come from the creator, those guys don't make good slaves. Their gonna throw the tea in the harbor and start a big war. And their are some folks who would like everybody to believe in evolution because that's a major part of a plan toward a new world order"

Creation Notes,  Evolution & Communism,  Evolution & Christianity

Creation Minute,  CSETV, ofcours it is... evolution was only crafted to defy and debunk the Almight God and religion. Kent Hovind

[Aerioch]

I did, now can you prove we all came from a rock?

Anyone who takes the time to read this thread can tell you are lying.  Doesn't your imaginary god consider bearing false witness a sin?

You have yet to actually prove anything other then you believe a few verses in a man-made book, makes your god real.

[Aerioch]

"If we have a philosophy like our founding fathers had, a belief in creation, If folks start believing in creation like our founding fathers they don't make good slaves. The declaration of independence says "we hold these truth to be self-evident that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator". If you get a bunch of men and women together who believe they have rights that come from the creator, those guys don't make good slaves. Their gonna throw the tea in the harbor and start a big war. And their are some folks who would like everybody to believe in evolution because that's a major part of a plan toward a new world order"

These men also believed that bloodletting cured all common diseases.  George Washington actually died from this procedure.

[NinjaPatriot]

Actually evolution holds the verifiable fact that all life was formed from water and dust clouds containing various elements.  It is now common knowledge that every element found on earth, and on other bodies in space is a product of a star's life cycle; birth, life, death, and rebirth.   Water, Gold, Dirt, Zinc, Iron, Natural Uranium, and any other naturally occurring element are all produced via this observable process.

I suggest you actually take the time to learn, and understand the details of a theory before you sheepishly proclaim it to be false.   

How is that a verifiable fact when it was an isolated incident and not repeatable or demonstrable?  Claiming it's common knowledge is proof by assertion.  I think that is also an extreme overstatement when the common belief isn't common descent.

It's proof by analogy if your suggesting that the product of stars is similar to that of the earth.  Also I've never seen any proof of a star forming.  I would like to see this observable process that allows me to verify the life cycle of a star and how it evolves into incredibly intelligent beings.  More likely reality has a source of all intelligence as logic demands especially in light of discovering the importance information plays in reality in recent years in science.

[LoveToGod]

That isn't an established fact, in fact complexity of bio systems is why the theory of evolution exists.

This work for Micro-Evolution and that is it. Micro-Evolution exists, but it has limits

Incorrect.  Evolutionists DO in fact very much so use the scientific method, to suggest otherwise is preposterous.  Do not use this in any debate please, my response is mild compared to those who would look to exploit weakness in your logic.  The assumptions and conclusions are what in contention.  There certainly is evidence for evolution.

Maybe an example would help: I will give you a quote

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately." -O'Rourke, J.E.

"Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." -O'Rourke, J.E. American Journal of Science, vol. 276 Jan 1976, p. 54

There are many quotes like this:  See when it comes to dating the age of things they use circular reasoning.  The talk about layers in the Geologic column as being millions of years old because they assume that evolution has happened.

Don't use in a debate?  I would, because it clearly shows that they are using circular reasoning. There are many more quotes like the ones posted here.

Those aren't really well defined terms in the scientific community.  Because there is no one "kind" to another since evolution is viewed linearly.  And there is significant debate on individual change.

It is true that not all Scientist agree on this.  I am going off of the way it is being taught in Earth Science and Biology text books in public schools at tax payer's expense.

I don't think so.  Scientific philosophy is materialistic because it must be to be accurate.  Edit:  And of course testable.  Testability puts the blinders on big to the assumptions of scientists.
I think that's equivocation. 

I would not agree with this statement.  Suppose I told you that I wanted you to tell me how a Seiko watch came into existence, but you can only talk about it by natural means.  You can not talk about the makers of the watch themselves.

This is what secular science does, because it does not want to believe that there is a God.  They say when it comes to the origins of things that you can only answer the question by means of natural processes.  Well, there are off base already, because you can talk about the Maker of heaven and Earth.

If we are not too complex to have evolved by chance, then how did the human eye evolve?  Will the eye work bit by bit while it is evolving.  Even Darwin said he did not know how this happened.

I believe that the original scrolls are accurate, not so much in the bible.

I agree that the original scrolls are accurate but I have a promise in my Bible.  It says:

"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth purified seven times.  Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."  Psalm 12:6-7

In other words, God promised to preserve his word from corruption and destruction through out time so that we could have it today.  Therefore, based on this I believe that a loving God wants us to know what he expects from us so he preserved his word for us.

I would go further and say look at the NWO.  It is Satanically motivated.  Look at when Alex Jones infiltrated the Bohemiean (sp?) grove, and showed how they worshiped this owl and did mock human sacrifices.  That is Satan worship.  

The Bible talks about the NWO, and idol or Satan Worship.  The actions of people history is validating the Bible all the time.

I brought up Revelation 13 because it talks about the one world government, one world currency, and one world religion in that chapter, and is that not our governments are trying to pull off...

Just some thoughts.

Mr. J

[LoveToGod]

Actually evolution holds the verifiable fact that all life was formed from water and dust clouds containing various elements.  It is now common knowledge that every element found on earth, and on other bodies in space is a product of a star's life cycle; birth, life, death, and rebirth.   Water, Gold, Dirt, Zinc, Iron, Natural Uranium, and any other naturally occurring element are all produced via this observable process.

I suggest you actually take the time to learn, and understand the details of a theory before you sheepishly proclaim it to be false.   

I am aware of this.  Maybe I should have been more specific.  I know they believe that year of torrential rains created great oceans and live evolved on Earth, but I am referring to the very beginning with the Big Bang that at least as is listed in the textbooks claims to explain the origin of time, space, matter.  that would include our stars, planets, the sun, etc.

Before you can talk about the water dust clouds, you have to talk about how the solar system came to be. 

[LoveToGod]

One final note on this.  Going through the replies someone said this does not help the Infowar.  I should point out that Evolution is the foundations for Eugenics and Adolph Hitler certainly made use of it.

Evolution does not just affect the science community; it also has many social implications too.  After all if the abrgionies haven't evolved as far and they are just animals than that can be used as justification to kill them. 

Evolution is also the foundation for communism.  When the government changed to communism in China it did not start out by teaching communism.  It started by teaching evolution. 

If you see the Endgame documentary there is one place were Alex Jones alludes to Charles Darwin and his book the origin of species.  What he says is exactly correct. 

So there for I say don't just look at Evolution from a science standpoint, but look at is social implications. 

We did not evolve.  We were specially created in the image of God.  The evolution that has ever been observed are changes within species.  I know there are some questionable species, but most are discernible in the general sense.

[NinjaPatriot]

This work for Micro-Evolution and that is it. Micro-Evolution exists, but it has limits

Like I said, there aren't workable definitions for these labels in any published journal.  So if you were debate an evolutionary biologist or even a paleontologist they would reject them.  Even though the creationist community uses these to support their arguments, they are too ambiguous to be useful in specified debate.

Maybe an example would help: I will give you a quote

"The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately." -O'Rourke, J.E.

"Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." -O'Rourke, J.E. American Journal of Science, vol. 276 Jan 1976, p. 54

There are many quotes like this:  See when it comes to dating the age of things they use circular reasoning.  The talk about layers in the Geologic column as being millions of years old because they assume that evolution has happened.

Don't use in a debate?  I would, because it clearly shows that they are using circular reasoning. There are many more quotes like the ones posted here.

First, Biological evolution and Geology are two exclusive fields.  Even though they are used to support the theory as a whole.  And again, it comes down to a priori assumptions and epistemology. 

Second, quote mining is fallacious as any quote can be made to say anything depending on the context.  Just look at schizms in christianity.

It is true that not all Scientist agree on this.  I am going off of the way it is being taught in Earth Science and Biology text books in public schools at tax payer's expense.

It isn't the fault of Science that it is taught in public schools.  How is scientific philosophy to allow any notion of supernaturalism?  It is very necessary that it doesn't, it's gone a long way to dispel many myths.

I would not agree with this statement.  Suppose I told you that I wanted you to tell me how a Seiko watch came into existence, but you can only talk about it by natural means.  You can not talk about the makers of the watch themselves.

The conclusions are based on the philosophy and the assumptions.  Science doesn't say, it merely suggests what the evidence says based on the confines of the philosophy. 

This is what secular science does, because it does not want to believe that there is a God.  They say when it comes to the origins of things that you can only answer the question by means of natural processes.  Well, there are off base already, because you can talk about the Maker of heaven and Earth.

It's not a desire to reject any deity, there is in fact many scientists that believe in a personal deity.  It isn't an opinion of scientists, it's a restraint of the philosophy, what else would they say?   And Science isn't secular because it's their perogative, rather and Diety so far has been unable to be tested. 

If we are not too complex to have evolved by chance, then how did the human eye evolve?  Will the eye work bit by bit while it is evolving.  Even Darwin said he did not know how this happened.

The TOE explains the complexity it doesn't try to deny it.  Darwin did say he knows how the eye evolved, if you read the origins of the species instead of quote mining it from creationist sites you would have read the subsequent sentences where he explains how based on his ideas.  I hope that isn't the case anyways.

I agree that the original scrolls are accurate but I have a promise in my Bible.  It says:

"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth purified seven times.  Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."  Psalm 12:6-7

In other words, God promised to preserve his word from corruption and destruction through out time so that we could have it today.  Therefore, based on this I believe that a loving God wants us to know what he expects from us so he preserved his word for us.

So the words of Ba'al are pure?  He certainly preserved them, but not in the bible.  If his pure words are preserved in the bible, why is christianity a pagan religion?  If christians held on to the pure scriptures it wouldn't have become a den of vipers.  Just read some of the posts by christians on this site.  You should trust Yahweh not god/fortune.  There are pure scriptures out there, and it's no secret that septuagint is different than any modern english translations as an example.

   

I would go further and say look at the NWO.  It is Satanically motivated.  Look at when Alex Jones infiltrated the Bohemiean (sp?) grove, and showed how they worshiped this owl and did mock human sacrifices.  That is Satan worship.  

The Bible talks about the NWO, and idol or Satan Worship.  The actions of people history is validating the Bible all the time.

I brought up Revelation 13 because it talks about the one world government, one world currency, and one world religion in that chapter, and is that not our governments are trying to pull off...

Just some thoughts.

Mr. J

Even if claims in the bible are true, it doesn't invalidate evolution.

[LoveToGod]

 

It isn't the fault of Science that it is taught in public schools.  How is scientific philosophy to allow any notion of supernaturalism?  It is very necessary that it doesn't, it's gone a long way to dispel many myths.

Well, the school system is where up and coming scientist come from, and the same information in the high school text books is also in the college textbooks, and the scientific community can't be entirely divorced from the content that is found in the books.

The conclusions are based on the philosophy and the assumptions.  Science doesn't say, it merely suggests what the evidence says based on the confines of the philosophy. 
It's not a desire to reject any deity, there is in fact many scientists that believe in a personal deity.  It isn't an opinion of scientists, it's a restraint of the philosophy, what else would they say?   And Science isn't secular because it's their perogative, rather and Diety so far has been unable to be tested. 
 

If the scientific community would take a neutral approach, that would be fine.  It would be better to just not talk about origins in the science class say that that question falls outside the realm of science, but since the Big Bang theory as taught in the schools requires you to have faith in the "nothing" that exploded it is a religion".  It is a religion because you have believe that it took place.  There is no way to test or demonstrate the big bang, and no one would have been there in the beginning to witness it.

The TOE explains the complexity it doesn't try to deny it.  Darwin did say he knows how the eye evolved, if you read the origins of the species instead of quote mining it from creationist sites you would have read the subsequent sentences where he explains how based on his ideas.  I hope that isn't the case anyways.

It is true that Darwin goes on to explain it anyway, but not very well. The eye could not have evolved.  It had to be created.

So the words of Ba'al are pure?  He certainly preserved them, but not in the bible.  If his pure words are preserved in the bible, why is christianity a pagan religion?  If christians held on to the pure scriptures it wouldn't have become a den of vipers.  Just read some of the posts by christians on this site.  You should trust Yahweh not god/fortune.  There are pure scriptures out there, and it's no secret that septuagint is different than any modern english translations as an example.

Ba'al was a false prophet.  So you would not want to follow any of his teachings, but besides spiritual truths, incidents and mistakes that people make are preserved for us to see and learn from.  God destroyed Ba'al.  That is in there to show us that God did not approve of what Ba'al did.

Idol worship is in the Old Testament, but no so that we can do it, but so that we can learn that God does not
want us to do that.  It is not an error to have that in there, because it is for our learning.

Not everything in the scriptures is to be taken up for doctrine.

   

Even if claims in the bible are true, it doesn't invalidate evolution.

The problem here is that Jesus quoted Genesis many times in the book of Matthew, and he revered to Adam and Eve as real people.  There is a direct conflict between Evolution and the Creation account in the Bible.  For one thing the order of events is backward between Evolution and Creation.

If Evolution is true and Creation is not true, would that make Jesus a liar?  See they are polar opposites.  Some try to reconcile the two and believe in Theistic Evolution, where God aided evolution along, but God is not a God of blind random chance. 

When you see the creation story everything is created in a fully matured state.  Adam & Eve did not grow up.  They were placed in the garden as adults. 

Of'course if you believe in Evolution then you don't believe this.  One would then believe that humans probably evolved from bacteria that live more than 3.5 billion years ago [HBJ Earth Science 1989].

This is America still, and one is free to believe what ever they want, but the two are not compatible.

If I have to chose whether to believe God is right or the scientist who say evolution is true is right, I am going to go with God.

With out typing 10 pages of information, science supports the Bible and not evolution.

See the following link: http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=csetv&v=17

[Aerioch]

Before you can talk about the water dust clouds, you have to talk about how the solar system came to be. 

I am actually ... and again I will repeat:

"I suggest you actually take the time to learn, and understand the details of a theory before you sheepishly proclaim it to be false.'

The Solar System formed from the gravitational collapse of a giant molecular cloud 4.6 billion years ago. This initial cloud was likely several light-years across and probably birthed several stars.[95]

As the region that would become the Solar System, known as the pre-solar nebula,[96] collapsed, conservation of angular momentum made it rotate faster. The centre, where most of the mass collected, became increasingly hotter than the surrounding disc.[95] As the contracting nebula rotated, it began to flatten into a spinning protoplanetary disc with a diameter of roughly 200 AU[95] and a hot, dense protostar at the centre.[97][98] At this point in its evolution, the Sun is believed to have been a T Tauri star. Studies of T Tauri stars show that they are often accompanied by discs of pre-planetary matter with masses of 0.001–0.1 solar masses, with the vast majority of the mass of the nebula in the star itself.[99] The planets formed by accretion from this disk.[100]

Within 50 million years, the pressure and density of hydrogen in the centre of the protostar became great enough for it to begin thermonuclear fusion.[101] The temperature, reaction rate, pressure, and density increased until hydrostatic equilibrium was achieved, with the thermal energy countering the force of gravitational contraction. At this point the Sun became a full-fledged main sequence star.[102]
Artist's conception of the future evolution of our Sun. Left: main sequence; middle: red giant; right: white dwarf

The Solar System as we know it today will last until the Sun begins its evolution off of the main sequence of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. As the Sun burns through its supply of hydrogen fuel, the energy output supporting the core tends to decrease, causing it to collapse in on itself. This increase in pressure heats the core, so it burns even faster. As a result, the Sun is growing brighter at a rate of roughly ten percent every 1.1 billion years.[103]

Around 5.4 billion years from now, the hydrogen in the core of the Sun will have been entirely converted to helium, ending the main sequence phase. At this time, the outer layers of the Sun will expand to roughly up to 260 times its current diameter; the Sun will become a red giant. Because of its vastly increased surface area, the surface of the Sun will be considerably cooler than it is on the main sequence (2600 K at the coolest).[104]

Eventually, the Sun's outer layers will fall away, leaving a white dwarf, an extraordinarily dense object, half the original mass of the Sun but only the size of the Earth.[105] The ejected outer layers will form what is known as a planetary nebula, returning some of the material that formed the Sun to the interstellar medium.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_system

Formed from a "Dust" cloud consisting of material ejected from a previous star cycles.


Formation and evolution of the Solar System
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

[Dok]

Lol, no you did not show any such proof. You just showed your subjective veiw on the subject.
Er what is a rock? It is a deposite of crystaline minerals composed of elements. Those same elements compose us and natual life,most significantly Carbon, essential for all life as we know it due to its chemical nature.
Where did these elements come from? They come from the nuclear funaces of extinct suns where fission of hydrogen and latterly helium produces the heavy elements. When a star then goes nova these elements are scattered throughout space. We are quite literally star dust.
Openning a textbook on science should not hurt your religious faith please stop doing your faith and mine a disservice by making religious peoplelook stupid and willfullly ignorant. If your faith is based on the material , the earthly, the transient then yes it can be shaken by the knowledge of such things. If focus on God in all his ineffibleness your faith can not be so hurt.

im just gonna give you the first few verses of Genesis to show how you can read it in light of God and modern knowledge.
Genesis 1:1
1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Now people of this age had no concept of the astronomical and geological realities of earth so the idea of earth encompassed the universe in entirty. I would aliken the hebrew here (and correct me if you can) to the word seclorum in Latin which means of the world or material, we like to see this as specifically pertaining to just the physical earth in the phrase Novus Ordo Seclorum, whereas in fact it relates to the material universe.So substitute earth for the material world.

Now the waters. I know that ancient people used to see the earth as suround by water below as well as above, how else did they account for the blue sky and the water that fell from it? They fell into the easy notion as so would a follower of the ancient mysteries 'as above so below'..e-e wrong! So upon the face of the waters means the sky or the universe. God was encompassing his creation.

First there was the void without form (how could physical earth be without form), i.e. after big bang from which something came of nothing (now that is God like!!), or at least nothing we can concieve due to the laws of the universe only coming into existence the masses of hydrogen-the most simple atom, no stars, no light. It was only after eons that the gravitational attratction of these atom to each other (and the much sort after dark matter interactions with matter) that brought about sufficient density for nuclear fussion to kick start and stars to therefore be born.

1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

 These in turn actractted by physical laws formed galaxies and galactic clusters in the ever expanding universe.

1:4 And God seeth the light that it is good, and God separateth between the light and the darkness,

These islands of light in the vastness of space are being separated further and further even today. We know this through observing the red shift which is similar to the doppler effect but with light rather than sound.

This is also the origin of the biblical association between light representing good and dark separation from good/God or evil. This association comes from the human expirience of having to protect oneself from the dangers of nightfall.

1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so

Now this is where the 'earth' as we know it comes in. Earth is not just what we walk on it is our physical surroundings the atmoshphere included.

 This firment means the sky, the atmosphere. This arch divided the waters above it, i.e. space from the waters below, seas and freshwater.

The earth to begin with had no water or atmosphere as such whilst molten after its impact with another planet sized object.  After it settled down  and cooled and we got a larger mass and a moon to boot (vital for tidal systems) then the atmosphere and hydrosphere began to condense. Thus we get water on the firmament and the 'waters' of the heavens.

1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven (sky). And the evening and the morning were the second day.

1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Now here we have the initial land mass of Pangea from which the continents drifted apart from by plate tectonics.
Amzing how we wernt either completely covered in water like Europa is or have a scarcity like mars. Its just right for a decent amount of habitible land.

1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Thats correct plants first of the eukaryotes.

1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

So laid down reproduction through more complex processes than simple vegetative growth and mitosis.

1:13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day

Now this next one is somewhat difficult.

1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

On a plain veiwing it would say that the stars came after the earth. How to explain that they didnt withotu reference to what they are? No. But God is ordaining here that these should be used by humans to keep a notion of time. The is specifically giving them a utiliterian pupose here, expressly not any higher purpose than that as the mystery schools at the time would have them. Gods pretty much. Pyramids and obelisk were seen as star seeders for the dead royalty of Egypt for instance. Astrotheology played heavy with these people and still does through the NWOs New Age agenda.

1:15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
1:16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to be the ruler of the day, and the smaller light to be the ruler of the night: and he made the stars.
1:17 And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth.
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.
1:19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

Again the sun and moon is to give light on the earth not be worshipped as he created them.





I could go on, and I will do if I have to. But this is how to read genesis. Its about the message. God is our creator, and loves us. He created us for himself to love him back freely. He is the only one worthy of worship and our pride in our own magnificence has lead us away from him into the darness out of Eden. This is the sin of our race, we are great and we know it. God other sentient creations, the angels were so jealous of what we we were given by God the third that rebelled realising their own magnificence too, were punished ny eternity here with us and themselves cut off from Gods light. They want to bring us away from grace too

you keep believing that, as for me ill follow the Lord.

[Dok]

Actually evolution holds the verifiable fact that all life was formed from water and dust clouds containing various elements.  It is now common knowledge that every element found on earth, and on other bodies in space is a product of a star's life cycle; birth, life, death, and rebirth.   Water, Gold, Dirt, Zinc, Iron, Natural Uranium, and any other naturally occurring element are all produced via this observable process.

I suggest you actually take the time to learn, and understand the details of a theory before you sheepishly proclaim it to be false.   

Lets see here, the earth was a hot molten rock, it cooled down, then it started to rain on the rocks, and "poof" life came about. This is how it is taught world over in schools, strting in kindergarten. See it rained on a rock and life appeared, why did this stop?? Was it plant life or biological life? which came first?  Also you have a little problem of O2. If there was any present what so ever it would have killed off any emerging life form, sorry.  Second if there was no O2 then their was no ozone layer, then the suns radiation would have killed of any newley formed life. sorry  .

So to paraphrase here, I believe in the begining God created, You believe in the begining it rained on a rock. hmmm, I wonder which one requires more assumption, ie, faith.

[Dok]

Anyone who takes the time to read this thread can tell you are lying.  Doesn't your imaginary god consider bearing false witness a sin?

You have yet to actually prove anything other then you believe a few verses in a man-made book, makes your god real.

uhm, i havent lied at all, all ive done is shown that you believe a lie, set in place by the UN, to be taught to every person on the planet through the schools, and child programming. Please look into just who Robert Muller is and why they need people to believe in evolution.

You have yet to actually prove anything other then you believe a few verses in a man-made book, makes your god real.

I believe the Whole book, and one day rather you like it or not, you will to.

[Dok]

One final note on this.  Going through the replies someone said this does not help the Infowar.  I should point out that Evolution is the foundations for Eugenics and Adolph Hitler certainly made use of it.

Evolution does not just affect the science community; it also has many social implications too.  After all if the abrgionies haven't evolved as far and they are just animals than that can be used as justification to kill them. 

Evolution is also the foundation for communism.  When the government changed to communism in China it did not start out by teaching communism.  It started by teaching evolution. 

If you see the Endgame documentary there is one place were Alex Jones alludes to Charles Darwin and his book the origin of species.  What he says is exactly correct. 

So there for I say don't just look at Evolution from a science standpoint, but look at is social implications. 

We did not evolve.  We were specially created in the image of God.  The evolution that has ever been observed are changes within species.  I know there are some questionable species, but most are discernible in the general sense.

great post. +1

[Dok]

Quote from: Aerioch Today at 06:24:44 AM

As the region that would become the Solar System, known as the pre-solar nebula,[96] collapsed, conservation of angular momentum made it rotate faster. The centre, where most of the mass collected, became increasingly hotter than the surrounding disc.[95] As the contracting nebula rotated, it began to flatten into a spinning protoplanetary disc with a diameter of roughly 200 AU[95] and a hot, dense protostar at the centre.[97][98] At this point in its evolution, the Sun is believed to have been a T Tauri star. Studies of T Tauri stars show that they are often accompanied by discs of pre-planetary matter with masses of 0.001–0.1 solar masses, with the vast majority of the mass of the nebula in the star itself.[99] The planets formed by accretion from this disk.[100]

well if everything was spinning in the same way from the conservation of angular momentum, then how come not everything is spinning the same way?

We have 3 planets that spin backwards. Hmmm. wonder why?? Your same theory applies to planets and their respected moons, Heck we have a lot of moons that spin backwards from their parent planet, sadly ours dosnt spin at all. 

As you posted, conservation of angular momentum.

[BaronVonBongo]

Wow I don't think Im gonna post any more on this subject with the amount of uninformed willfull ignorance displayed on this subject. Its like trying to take down a brick wall with your head.

It is only a Fundamentalist approach to the reading of the bible that rejects the evidence of observation. Do you think God created the genetic code which is the same for every earthly creature in order to decieve us?

Do you think he placed fossil sea life at the tops of mountains to jerk us around? No!

THE BIBLE DOES NOT TALK ABOUT THE FACTS OF THE NATURAL WORLD OR THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD!!!!!!!!

When the bible was written there was no science and it was not God's will to give us worldly knowledge. Satan is quite happy to if asked, but always with a price. That of your soul.

If you are a Christian and see this problem in your church may I suggest that the Catholic church so often rebuked for its stiffling of science in the early days of the method, is correct in its reading of scriptures on this point at least. There is no contradiction present.




All of you Christians arguing against scientific method really do make yourselves and your churches look silly. Talk on the level of the bible. The human relationship with God, not God's relationship with the rest of the created universe.


There is no dichotomy between evolution and the bible. You're free to believe as you will but if you are at all interested in the scientific method you can see how the theory of evolution has evolved substantially since the time of Darwin so much so we can class it with as much certainty as the fact that the earth is non flat.
Darwin also who as we know was not the only one to postulate such an idea.

As I previously posted and LoveToGod seems ready to acknowledge is that the problem is not the science the problem is trying to create a philosophy from it and applying it to humans. That is wrong and I would suggest that if you are incapable orr unwilling to rationally explore the evidence then just back off and keep your critisim to the fallacious moral interpretations of evolution, responsible for the doctorines of Race Hygine of the Nazis and the coming New World Order. Soviet relience on their equally faulty interpretation and application was a major factor in some of the terrible famines there.

[LoveToGod]

Lets see here, the earth was a hot molten rock, it cooled down, then it started to rain on the rocks, and "poof" life came about. This is how it is taught world over in schools, strting in kindergarten. See it rained on a rock and life appeared, why did this stop?? Was it plant life or biological life? which came first?  Also you have a little problem of O2. If there was any present what so ever it would have killed off any emerging life form, sorry.  Second if there was no O2 then their was no ozone layer, then the suns radiation would have killed of any newley formed life. sorry  .

So to paraphrase here, I believe in the begining God created, You believe in the begining it rained on a rock. hmmm, I wonder which one requires more assumption, ie, faith.

That is what I have been saying.

[Novus Ordo]

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/inside-natures-giants/4od#2926454

Pay particular attention to the wiring from the brain to the voice box

Proof of evolution, or a very silly designer.

[akston]

Lets see here, the earth was a hot molten rock, it cooled down, then it started to rain on the rocks, and "poof" life came about. This is how it is taught world over in schools, strting in kindergarten. See it rained on a rock and life appeared, why did this stop?? Was it plant life or biological life? which came first?  Also you have a little problem of O2. If there was any present what so ever it would have killed off any emerging life form, sorry.  Second if there was no O2 then their was no ozone layer, then the suns radiation would have killed of any newley formed life. sorry  .

So to paraphrase here, I believe in the begining God created, You believe in the begining it rained on a rock. hmmm, I wonder which one requires more assumption, ie, faith.

  It would take so long to untangle the fallacies here it's really not worth the time. Get a basic book on evolution. Seriously.

[akston]

Quote from: Aerioch Today at 06:24:44 AM
well if everything was spinning in the same way from the conservation of angular momentum, then how come not everything is spinning the same way?

We have 3 planets that spin backwards. Hmmm. wonder why?? Your same theory applies to planets and their respected moons, Heck we have a lot of moons that spin backwards from their parent planet, sadly ours dosnt spin at all. 

As you posted, conservation of angular momentum.

There's a little thing called gravitational drag, and things called collisions, for crying out loud.

[LoveToGod]

Wow I don't think Im gonna post any more on this subject with the amount of uninformed willfull ignorance displayed on this subject. Its like trying to take down a brick wall with your head.

It is only a Fundamentalist approach to the reading of the bible that rejects the evidence of observation. Do you think God created the genetic code which is the same for every earthly creature in order to decieve us?

Woah!  Well, I am a fundamentalist, so I guess I am "one of those", but surveys have been done by Gallup and even MSNBC in 2005 showed that slightly more than half of the American population believed that God had created and did not believe in Darwin evolution.

It is true that 55% of scientist believe in Darwinian Evolution.


God did not create every single variation of livings things that we see today.  That doctrine was know as the fixinity of species.  It taught that if there are 500 different varieties of dogs that God must have made 500 different types of dogs.

This is where Micro-Evolution comes in.  There are 6 different definitions and branches of Evolution.  The only one that does hold true is Micro-Evolution.  Micro-Evolution explains why you can cross breed dogs and produce different breeds of dogs, but that is not really evolution.  It is just a variation.

In other words:  You started with a dog, and it is still a dog. The dog did not become a human or some kind of other animal.  That would be Evolution. No one has ever observed a dog turning into a human, or a rock turning into a human, although you used to  be able to buy the action figures that did...

Do you think he placed fossil sea life at the tops of mountains to jerk us around? No!

Your right, be we are probably not thinking the same thing.  The Bible says that after the flood where it rained for 40 days and 40 nights that the fountains of the great deep broke up.  So when the mountains raised up they took with them some of the sea life.  The fact that you find sea life on mountains through the world points to a global flood.

Finding sea life there makes sense if there was a global flood like talked about in Genesis.

There is no dichotomy between evolution and the bible. You're free to believe as you will but if you are at all interested in the scientific method you can see how the theory of evolution has evolved substantially since the time of Darwin so much so we can class it with as much certainty as the fact that the earth is non flat.
Darwin also who as we know was not the only one to postulate such an idea.

The dichotomy is that if we accept Evolution then we can't go with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Sir Aurthur Keith wrote the forward to Darwin's book at the 100 year anniversary in 1959.  He said "the law of Christ is incompatible with the Law of evolution".  Later he said "the two laws are at war with each other..."

As I previously posted and LoveToGod seems ready to acknowledge is that the problem is not the science the problem is trying to create a philosophy from it and applying it to humans. That is wrong and I would suggest that if you are incapable orr unwilling to rationally explore the evidence then just back off and keep your critisim to the fallacious moral interpretations of evolution, responsible for the doctorines of Race Hygine of the Nazis and the coming New World Order. Soviet relience on their equally faulty interpretation and application was a major factor in some of the terrible famines there.

While I had said that the teaching of evolution has resulted in the fallacious thinking of Eugencist like Margaret Sanger and The Nazis, I want to make it clear that evolution itself was the foundation for it.

Evolution is a dangerous theory.  

[Novus Ordo]

you sure your not a danger to yourself?

[akston]

you sure your not a danger to yourself?

This morning I misapplied the 'theory of toasting' by bringing the toaster into the bathtub with me. I guess I learned my lesson - toasters are evil.

[Novus Ordo]

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/inside-natures-giants/4od#2926454

Pay particular attention to the wiring from the brain to the voice box

Proof of evolution, or a very silly designer.

I'd love one of these...............................................people to explain to me why their so called designer didn't do a quick re-wiring job here.

[Dok]

It would take so long to untangle the fallacies here it's really not worth the time. Get a basic book on evolution. Seriously.

i have thats the problem.    its called 8th grade science.   

[Dok]

There's a little thing called gravitational drag, and things called collisions, for crying out loud.

how does that stop the LAW od angular momentum??  whole planets and moons spin back wards. Our moon dosent spin at all. Get over your self. Evolution falls apart under science. 

[Novus Ordo]

eh I thought The rate of its spin almost exactly equals the time of its orbit around Earth so that's why we always see one face.
you live & learn...
maybe the earth is flat after all

[LoveToGod]

you sure your not a danger to yourself?

OMG.

Is that a roast or an Ad Homien attack,....

[LoveToGod]

This morning I misapplied the 'theory of toasting' by bringing the toaster into the bathtub with me. I guess I learned my lesson - toasters are evil.

No just that one...

Actually though this is what happens when it comes to the topic of origins.  Scientist will have good information and then come to an awkward conclusion in order avoid admitting that there is a God.

[LoveToGod]

Quote from: Aerioch Today at 06:24:44 AM
well if everything was spinning in the same way from the conservation of angular momentum, then how come not everything is spinning the same way?

We have 3 planets that spin backwards. Hmmm. wonder why?? Your same theory applies to planets and their respected moons, Heck we have a lot of moons that spin backwards from their parent planet, sadly ours dosnt spin at all. 

As you posted, conservation of angular momentum.

Ditto.  Correct!

[LoveToGod]

I'd love one of these...............................................people to explain to me why their so called designer didn't do a quick re-wiring job here.

Is that to say that since you don't agree with the way it was created, that therefore it must have evolved?

[Novus Ordo]

OMG.

Is that a roast or an Ad Homien attack,....

Aren’t they kinda’ the same thing?

At any rate I do apologise its not like me really it isn’t .

I will not be confrontational
I will not be confrontational
I will not be confrontational
I will not be confrontational
I will not be confrontational

Am I forgiven?

[Novus Ordo]

Is that to say that since you don't agree with the way it was created, that therefore it must have evolved?

It’s clear observational evidence that it evolved!
Would you care to explain (for those who cant be bothered to watch it) what exactly it is we’re talking about?

[ex_nihilo]

I think it can be summed up this way:

Natural Selection= Real Observable process

Evolution= Non-Real Non-Observable process

[LoveToGod]

I think it can be summed up this way:

Natural Selection= Real Observable process

Evolution= Non-Real Non-Observable process

Yes and Natural Selection, selects.  That is all it can do. It will keep a species strong but natural selection does not provide the raw material for evolution.

Natural Selection is like Quality Control.

[Novus Ordo]

Yes and Natural Selection, selects.  That is all it can do. It will keep a species strong but natural selection does not provide the raw material for evolution.

Natural Selection is like Quality Control.

raw material for evolution?
you sure your on the right subject?