The Resurrection and the Death of Atheism

Other belief systems don't talk about the holiness of God and His love for His creation. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/hell_inside_the_earth.htm

https://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/bibleallah.htm

 

1) Yes they do - but your belief system doesn't - That nasty YHWH fellow didn't like his creation much.
2) who cares .. what good is God's love - if not exercised ?
3) You have no idea who the one True God is ..

 

There is a hell, because God is love, but He is also just. Even the most fair judge has to give consequences if someone does the wrong thing. God exercised His love when He died for everyone. The God of the Bible is the God who wants all of his creation saved, not the God of certain religions who favors certain groups of people. https://www.answering-islam.org/Women/in-hell.html

 

Darwin knew exactly what was required to prove his theory true, and he was honest enough to say so. He also recognized that there were numerous valid objections against the theory, one of which was the lack of transitional forms. There should be millions upon millions of fossils in intermediate stages if evolution were true. The problem, Darwin proposed, was that we just have not seen enough of the fossil record yet. Well, that has now been remedied with modern geology.

Almost 150 years after Darwin, what do we find in the fossil record? We find fossils of fully formed woolly mammoths, whole fish, whole reptiles, and so on. Everything in the fossil record appears fully formed and true to its own kind. There are no creatures with partially formed skeletons, or partial fins or beaks. Among the billions of fossils found, we don't see one single example of the transitional forms Darwin said must exist if his theory of evolution were true.

What does that tell us? That there is something very wrong with his theory.

The fossil record should show gradual transition from lesser forms to the more complex forms for this theory to be true.

 

You don't know the one True God . is this why you worship the Gods of the underworld ?

 

You have yet to understand what a mutation is - so no point in continuing until you do.

 

Creating a God in our own image is idolatry. https://creation.com/only-god

 

Atheism continues to grow, while christianity continues its relentless decline.

More and more people realize that being a sap is no way to go thru life...

 

Take a look at what the experts say:

George Gaylord Simpson https://www.grisda.org/conflict-between-darwinian-evolution-and-fossil-record

The regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists.

A.J. Marshall http://www1.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e36_talk/challenge.html

The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.

H.W. Smith of NYU, speaking of the lack of fossils that should exist for the vertebrates, wrote: https://sites.google.com/a/georgias...system/app/templates/print/&showPrintDialog=1

The gap remains unbridged and the best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is in the imagination.

 

Being a Christian is not boring. https://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-boring.html

 

Are you howlingwolf500 or are you plagiarizing again, do you have no shame?

https://historum.com/threads/why-ar...can-civilizations.188704/page-16#post-3447694

 

What part of - "I use the ability of organisms to mutate in my work" did you miss on the first go around .. so I AM an Expert

Mutations happen - which over time - can result in a small change in characteristic of a species .. green eyes instead of blue .. longer toenails .. these changes happen

and we have many precursors - intermediaries - so don't let folks calling themselves experts and spouting lies fool you.

Do we have one higher order species changing to another in the same geographic location in a few thousand years ? Of course not .. and only an idiot would call themselves an expert and suggest such a thing .. as that is not what you would expect to happen .. why would you expect this same group of monkeys to be inhabiting that space 1000 years from now .. chances are some major climate shift has happened .. or some predator ate them - such that you can see these monkeys going from some with red beards and some with blue .. as that is the kind of change that happens over 1000 years. Now go 10,000 years .. you still think these monkeys are living there ? - and still no big change .. certainly can still recognize each others as distant cousins on the street .. now go 100,000 .. still think these monkeys are living there ? .. perhaps you have groups that have separated .. now one living in a different area .. another group separated by a enough geography that they don't interbreed .. and give it 100,000 years ... now you have some major differences .. now go 1 million years .. and repeat

We see evolution all the time .. its all around us .. it is how God has constructed the Universe - you just have not figured out who God is - and so you don't understand .. or rather .. refuse to understand .. refusing to let go of the man made dogma of the dark side.

whereas all the time we have lower order organisms changing species in the same geographic location in a relatively short period of time.

 

Then why do you worship these created idols ?

 

The Bible's morality is about respecting yourself and others. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/hell_inside_the_earth.htm

Christianity is a relationship, not a religion. Religion is manmade. https://www.gotquestions.org/Christianity-religion-relationship.html

 

"Then why do you worship these created idols ?"

What an absurd answer .. you don't follow the Bible - so what to the morals in the Bible have to do with these created idols you worship ?

What does Christianity have to do with the man made idols you worship ?

and Yes - I already understand that your religion - and the idols you worship are man made.

 

After spending forty years searching for evidence of evolution, and failing to find any, Nils Heribert-Nilsson wrote https://sites.google.com/a/georgias...r-evolution-scientists-research-and-darwinism

The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled.

It is conclusive: There is no evidence in the fossil record for macroevolution-that is, for one species changing to another. Evolutionists try to defend the lack of transitional forms by claiming that species evolved so rapidly that they left no fossil record. But they also tell us that no one can see evolution taking place today because it occurs too slowly.

So, in reality-whether it is supposedly too fast or too slow to notice-there is no fossil evidence of macroevolution. So no one can actually see any evidence of evolution anywhere!

Can we call it the "fact" of evolution with no evidence to back it up? That doesn't even make for a good theory.

In the Journal Evolution, David Kitts reminded his fellow evolutionists:

Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them. https://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/fossils/missing-links/gaps/

What the fossil record shows instead is not gradual change but sudden appearance and stability: most fossil species appear all at once, fully formed.

According to paleontologist Robert Carroll:

The most striking features of large-scale evolution are the extremely rapid divergence of lineages near the time of their origin, followed by long periods in which basic body plans and ways of life are retained. https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/comments/S0169-5347(99)01743-7

 

I don't believe in worshiping anything or anyone other than God. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/catholic_idols.htm

 

You have to figure out what mutation is first - then be able to use logic and reason to figure out a few more things.

Since you have yet to figure out what a mutation is - no point in going further.

 

No, we have miniscule amounts of fossil material. Just think about how much life has existed over the last millions of years.

Also, you're missing that every life form IS a transition. Microevolution is the basis by which evolution occurs, and it takes baby steps. Speciation is merely the collection of microevolutionary change over longer periods of time.

We don't see that smooth continuum, because we have such a miniscule number of samples.

 

Robert Carroll said, "What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin. https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/comments/S0169-5347(99)01743-7

In the period that paleontologists call "the Cambrian explosion," virtually every major animal group appears suddenly from nowhere, with no transitional forms preceding them. So, instead of animals diverging from a common parent, what the fossil record shows is that all the major groups arose abruptly at one time. Think about that. Does this evidence support the theory that life evolved gradually by accident-or does it point to a Creator?

Evolutionists usually argue that the necessary transitional fossils are there but they haven't been found yet, or that they've been destroyed. When you believe something without having any proof, does that fall within the realm of science-or is it faith?

Why would someone chose to believe by faith in evolution, which has no evidential proof-and which, in fact, the evidence disproves-but not believe by faith in a Creator for whom we do have evidence?

 

No there not ! Mutations Happen.

 

According to Dr. Kent Hovind, the test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Scientists want to convince us that new body plans and complex organs-with all their interrelated functions-simply appeared in order to meet a creature's new need. But when you stop to consider it logically, it just isn't possible. Natural selection is fine for explaining certain small-scale changes in organisms, like the beaks of birds adapting to small environmental changes. It can take existing structures and refine them. But it can't explain how you get complex structures in the first place.

We also need to follow the idea of transitional forms to its logical conclusion: Can a fish survive with a partial gill? No, it would die. Can a bird survive with half a wing? No, it would be lunch for some other animal! Could we digest food with an incomplete digestive system? Or see with an underdeveloped eyeball? Could a cheetah run without fully formed legs? Common sense tells us the answer.

 

Mutations happen and this is easily tested -

 

Why are you persisting with the lie that Kent Hovind is a doctor, wont your god be ashamed of you telling untruths? Shame on you and your god.

 

If humans evolved from apes, the fossil record should reveal a multitude of transitional forms. And because humans are said to have evolved relatively recently, the fossils would have had less time to decay and should therefore be plentiful.

So what have scientists found? Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Java Man, Peking Man, Neanderthal Man, and Lucy are all supposed to be "missing links." But did you know that every single one of these has been disproved scientifically? Yet they were included in my school books, and-though scientifically disproved-many can still be seen in textbooks today.

Let's take a look at the evidence:

Nebraska Man was created from a single tooth discovered in Nebraska. Based on only one tooth (and a lot of imagination), Nebraska Man was sketched complete with a skull, skeleton, tools, and even a family. The only problem is that the tooth was later found to have come from an extinct pig!