Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Hey guys, sorry for the delay. I have been debating whether to continue any conversation or not.

From my experience, whether talking to someone caught up in Catholicism, jehovah witnessism, Mormonism, Buddhism or evolutionism, it Can be a gross waste of time.... however, I will say from discussions with such people over the years it has sharpened my knowledge of the truth:) And of course by myself sharing truth, there has been and there is potential for good things to happen👍I have hope for u guys:)

This is partly why God allows deceptions in the world, like evolution.
Just as gods people in ancient Israel had foes, so do we in this day in age.(The enemy being moreso the lie of evolutionism vs the evolutionist themselves, like the old me)

Keep in mind whether it be a human being or an angelic being, being so terribly deceived no amount of logic or truth will persuade them.(as it has been revealed some angelic beings actually believe they can overthrow God) bahahahaha right?!
Jeremiah wrote that those who seek the truth will find the truth when sought with all their heart.(not when people are forcefully told)
So I believe I may throw a few more Nuggets of truth your way😀

Stick around?

Sooooooo, I would like to build on establishing the fact of adaptation within the Genesis ‘kinds’(dog kind, Cat kind etc) Some people use the term or phrase micro evolution.(small minor changes of rearranged DNA, but NO NEW DNA or information)
As I mentioned above, genesis 3:18’ thorns and thistles will begin to appear’....although thorns were new, the information/DNA was not! The same thing applies to other physical changes we observe in life forms.

Like any good lie, mixing some truth in with the false information is the way to go. And this is exactly what happens when Macroevolution is introduced along with micro evolution/adaptation.
The teaching that once upon a time millions of years ago whales had legs, reptiles grew feathers, and monkey... well, you know the story.
You would expect to find some of these mutated lifeforms kicking around somewhere on this planet currently right?And of course we do not, why?

This kind of teaching implies that new DNA can arise without intelligence.
Maybe the prime example is single celled organisms.
Evolutionism teaches that such sophisticated DNA programming/coding can arise from chemical soups.... an unintelligent designer/god.
Do you suppose computer programmers would raise an eyebrow or two if you said the same thing about their programming and coding?

Here is a one of the leaders of evolutionism trying to answer(and is stumped) the question of new DNA evidence.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

thoughts so far?

Next I would like to address more deeply is your belief that flesh eating has always existed.(this is what evolutionIsm promotes as true)
Genesis chapter 1, Genesis chapter 9, and other verses reveal that the original creation was vegetarian.
Vegetarian mosquitoes woot woot! God so loves ppl, not even a mosquito was intended to harm!

But for now, New DNA, thoughts, evidence?

Finally! After 5 pages, an irrefutably true statement!

looks like everybody got home from summer in one piece.

Sorry my sight locked you up. It needs work and I will have to do it someday. I failed to include chemistry because that is my weakness and everything takes time. The physics and math I do truly understand. I thank you for the education in biology and genetics.

.

I am showing that there is a pattern involved that is always followed when complexity is introduced into the universe. I believe it can be proven that it is always introduced by a person with a mind.



What proof do we have that supernovae create atoms? Isn't that pure speculation? We have very little proof of when anything happened before life appeared on earth. I do not disagree with the age of life as mainstream science is projecting. There calculations of the age of the universe and the volume of the initial universe before the Big Bang is very suspect though. I believe the evidence is supported by the BVG theorem that the volume of the universe before the Big Bang was considerable, and the Big Bang is just a transition to more compact and perfect universe to our inflated dying universe.

There is no such thing as a purely scientific understanding. Everything must be put into the context of the person establishing the complexity, and why they did it for it to truly to be understood. My ideas as a whole are probably for another blog but there are things in them relevant to this one.

I sure need an education in geography.

Why do you keep say Christianity is 2000 years old when Jesus himself said He created the heavens and the earth. He said he was the words that stored God's ideas in the atoms of the universe in the beginning. Christ the word became flesh and dwelt among us to provide the final revelation of that thruth. That makes Christ and Christianity older than the universe itself. The final revelation to the current era of civilazation came 2,000 years ago, but that is not when the initial revelation began. That began when man was created and God told him his purpose, "to care for then garden (universe)".

Sorry, my mistake. The Bible makes earth 6000 years old.
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/

We do not have indesputable proof , but we do have some powerful evidence. If we look at the spectr of really old stars that are supernovae or red giants and even brown outs, we can see their spectra gradually trend toward heavy elements.

A young star is burning hydrogen fuel which was easiest to create in the big band and we can see young stars with their spectra of mostly hydrogen and increasing amount of helium and some slightly heavier elements, (Nothing like iron or nickel)

The Bible up to the flood is measuring a year as it was measured according to Seth and his descendants. These men were obviously different than us because of the longevity of their lives. I suspect their year was much longer than a solar year.

e were talking about some of the Hubble photoson another thread and I mentioned the M16 nebula (called the Eagle nebula). It contains a segment called the "Pillars of Creation which is a 11 light year (long) mass of ionized hydrogen that glows under a long wave UV detector. It looks like a great statue of godzilla to me. It is a heap of ionized hydrogen and is referred to as an H II region because of the emission spectrum of ionized hydrogen. It hs amassed a collection of hot, bright O and B stars at its center which provide the ultraviolet ionizing radiation which causes the hydrogen to be luminous in the uv.

IS THIS NOT SO COOL ??? Its the Pillar of Creation in the Eagle nebula

Let me try this again, Heres a resize I hope



Look up Hertzsprung Russell Diagrams which show the stars by luminosity wavelength, size and you can see the patterns of star luminosity versus their spectra

Hey guys, still looking for a response to my last post regarding DNA. Not sure if you watch the two minute video clip of Richard Dawkins Who could not give an example of a mutation leading to more complex/new DNA....
Keep in mind, if evolutionism Were to be true, we should expect to find and observe countless mutations leading to increased complexity in DNA....countless.....and yet not one example?! Irrrefutable proof Macroevolution can only be found in the textbooks!

The only thing scientific observation has revealed is that DNA sequences can only be rearranged, confirming the Genesis account that God created them according to their ‘kinds’, the dog kind, Cat kind, whale kind etc.

This is how we know as well that when evolutionists are interpreting fossils, they’re coming to the wrong conclusion. (Just as when they interpret dating techniques)
This also explains why there are no whales with legs, half monkey man creatures, reptiles with feathers etc. living today😉

It. Is. That. Simple

That aint how its done . The question is irrelevant .
Evolution has three parts, mutation (qnd severl other mens in the genomic level) provide a "recipe for phenotypic varieties. The DNA codes for somatic cell changes and, then Natural selection preserves the form most able to reproduce in that environment,

To be perfectly precise (so many scientists have had a field day with parsing out definitions), Natural selection merely preseves the changes presented while changes in the genotype (including mutation), provides the new material.

It appearw that one is random and the other is not.
SO many Creationists hve jumped on these definitions so as to make it appear that science is befuddled.

Not the case.

DAwkins is on his own if he failed to provide an answer.(I submit that hes just fed up with scientistic BULLSHIT from Creationists ).
YOU FIT THE MOLD

So, yourself, like Dawkins, have no observable, repeatable, demonstratable exanple for me?
You just summed up Genesis 3:18, adaptation/microevolution that’s all.

Just acknowledge an intelligent designer if anything? Forget the God if Israel for now....forget the scripture examples I give...could u do that? Are you open to that much?

Once again you just have your head comfortably up your ass ,Ive been giving evidence with everything I say. You just babble Creationist tripe which is always evidence-free. Yours is the only side where you guys have nothing to present except to try to (and fail to) argue away real science.
However, I think most people are smart enough to be able to recognize that youre without any clothing.

I will consider anything that has some semblance of evidence supporting it. Where is this evidence of "intelligence" ?
Weve been waiting for almost 20 years since the lrgest US "ID" organization (the Discovery Institute), PROMISED US all kinds of research and techy papers about "Intelliegence ".

Please, Why dont you just present "Genesis 3:18 and explain why you feel this sums up your belief and please supply any real evidence behind it. (Maybe I can be swayed if theres some some reaally good science there)

You must have mistaken me for someone else. Dawkins does not have enough credibility on the Evolution/Religion question for me to bother refuting.

That does bring up one obvious problem. If you ask reproductive ability to shoulder that much credit in evolution, cancer (or something akin to it) should be the dominant life form.

yeah, He certainly has no credentials against something as compelling as the BIBLE. Dawkins only has 2 PhD's in biology and ethology and about 40 years experience. Hes certainly not qualified to even express an opinion as an expert against someone as renowned as "Dr Dino"

The spectra tells us what elements are possibly making up the super novae. Is that considered evidence that the super novae is creating the heavy elements?

There is a new potential source of heavy elements other than super novae. The recently detected collision of 2 neutron stars showed evidence of that. But it does not seem unreasonable that super novae would produce them as well. Regular old stars create He from H and then on up the chart to Fe so even heavier stuff from the supers does not seem unreasonable.

It does seem odd that physicists don't wonder why they weren't made in the even more violent Big Bang though. Maybe they get disintegrated at that extreme.