I have said in other posts that we came from the earth so i wasnt wrong there. And if a christian says we dont go to heaven then he obviously has over looked much of the Bible, then he doesnt know what he is talking about.
Giving worship to a GOD one must fear. Love cannot come out of fear.
Jesus spoke of it some here in Luke 22:28 “However, YOU are the ones that have stuck with me in my trials; 29 and I make a covenant with YOU, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, 30 that YOU may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.
If those who go to Heaven with Jesus will be Kings along with him to judge Tribes of Israel, who is the tribes? Kings have subjects to rule over. But if everyone goes to heaven, there would effectively be no one to rule over, as all the bad people are in hell supposedly.
But a simple way to rationally look at it is this way.
God told Adam and Eve that if they ate from the tree, they would postively die. Now what God did not say was even more important, as a person with discernment would clearly see that if Adam and Eve would have never eaten from the tree, they would postively what? LIVE!!!
God did not set an ending to Adam and Eve's lives unless they ate from the tree. So logic has it, had they never eaten, they would have lived forever. Plus, all of God's purposes for Adam and Eve had to do with the earth.
Gen 1:27 And God proceeded to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. 28 Further, God blessed them and God said to them: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and every living creature that is moving upon the earth.”
Be fruitful-translation, make babies, enough to fill and even subue the entire EARTH. Notice, earth not HEAVEN. And all animals will be in subjection to humans, and where do animals live? Earth.
So nowhere in the plan for the first parents was heaven in view for them. God also says whatever he utters must come forth. here look.
Isaiah 55:11 so my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results, but it will certainly do that in which I have delighted, and it will have certain success in that for which I have sent it.
That implies that whatever God's purpose is he fulfills it. It appears that he purposed for mankind to live on the earth, and nowhere else. In fact, here is another...
Isaiah 45:18 For this is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the heavens, He the [true] God, the Former of the earth and the Maker of it, He the One who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited: “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.
It appears that Jehovah created the earth to be inhabited. Gosh darnit, there are people on earth! Even animals! Heck organisms we have not even discovered yet! It appears he purposes life to inhabit the earth!
This begs a serious question then. If all the Good people go to heaven, and all the bad people to hell, who or what then inhabits the earth? Could one argue if what I just mentioned happens, God is a liar since he said he did not create the earth for nothing?
How would one who who hopes in heaven rationally explain why the Psalmist said in 37:29 the righteous themselves will inherit the earth, and reside forever upon it? Would not all righteous people expect a heavenly reward instead?
That is not true. You can have Godly fear which is not fear in agitation or danger. Look.
This is a healthy fear, a loving fear.
- A feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger.
- A state or condition marked by this feeling: living in fear.
- A feeling of disquiet or apprehension: a fear of looking foolish.
- Extreme reverence or awe, as toward a supreme power.
But I always like to consult the scriptures. After God flooded the earth he once made this promise.
Gen 8: 20 And Noah began to build an altar to Jehovah and to take some of all the clean beasts and of all the clean flying creatures and to offer burnt offerings upon the altar. 21 And Jehovah began to smell a restful odor, and so Jehovah said in his heart: “Never again shall I call down evil upon the ground on man’s account, because the inclination of the heart of man is bad from his youth up; and never again shall I deal every living thing a blow just as I have done.22 For all the days the earth continues, seed sowing and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, will never cease.”
Now I don't know about you, but if God destroys the earth, he would certainly appear to be going against his own heart according to that scripture. And he said this after the deluge. How much more damage would be done if he destroyed the Universe? And why would he destroy the Universe on Man's account? What purpose would that serve logically?
So logically, when it says "For all the days the earth continues" that would have to mean the earth will be here forever, because before sin, that seemed to be his plan anyways.
But other scriptures that help.
Psalms 119:90 Your faithfulness is for generation after generation.
You have solidly fixed the earth, that it may keep standing.
Ecc 1: 4 A generation is going, and a generation is coming; but the earth is standing even to time indefinite.
Isa 45:18 For this is what Jehovah has said, the Creator of the heavens, He the [true] God, the Former of the earth and the Maker of it, He the One who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who
formed it even to be inhabited: “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.
None of these can apply logically to a NEW EARTH in the sense you mean, because it does not say NEW EARTH for one, and also because it speaks of an earth that is already in existence, not one forthcoming.
However, the bible does speak of a new Heavens and a new earth. But I will just try and clear up the New Earth part. If it is God's plan to have the righteous inherit the earth as he says it is in pslams 37:29, would he not have to rid the earth of WICKEDNESS in order for that to take place? If God rid the earth of wicked people, and only righteous people lived here, could that be constituted as a NEW EARTH in a way? If God fixes all the wrongs ecological wrongs with the world, renews the ozone and such, could it be said that the earth is RENEWED? If you take an older model car, and renew every nuke and cranny from the body to the smallest screw, would your car be considered NEW?
I ask all of that because it appears God plans to do that very same thing concerning the earth.
10 And just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more;
And you will certainly give attention to his place, and he will not be.
11 But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth,
And they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace.
That sounds like God is evicting certain unruly tenants, but allowing others to stay. And if that's the case, the earth will SURELY be new! There will be abundant peace! THAT'S VERY NEW!
Job 1:6 Now it came to be the day when the sons of the [true] God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and even Satan proceeded to enter right among them.
7 Then Jehovah said to Satan: “Where do you come from?” At that Satan answered Jehovah and said: “From roving about in the earth and from walking about in it.” So it is possible for angels to go from heaven to earth.
The Anti Christ is all around you. What do you think the beast is? And when does armegeddon happen?
First argument...Lets first discuss the destruction of the old earth and universe to make a new one.
Isiah 65:17 "I create new heavens and a new earth and the form of things that shall not be remebered or come to mind."
Isiah 66:22 "For just as the new heavens and the new earth which I make will endure before me," declares the Lord.
Peter sums it up quite nicely...you'll read that in a second.
The purpose of this to happen (the destruction) is because evil will be so bad that he will have to come and when he arrives on the Mount of Olive in Israel, the mountain will split and from that point the entire earth and heaven will be cleansed of evil and sin and as the Bible says an evil and adultrous world. A world of sin.
Let's see destory and destruction: 2nd Peter 3:7 "But the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgement, and destruction of ungodly men"
In 2nd Peter chapter 3 verse 10; "But the day of the Lord will come like a theaf, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the Earth and it's works will be burned up.
Also in 2nd Peter, FYI, he answers your entire argument Knick4lyfe.
After verse 10, 2nd Peter 3:11-13 says "Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives." 12 then says "as you look forward to the day of God and speed it's coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in heat." Then 13 says: "But keeping with his promise we are lookin forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness."
When he says "Heavens" its plural which is the Universe and it's Galaxies.
2nd argument...I meant that access to both heaven and earth "sounds crazy" to an un-believer since i was talking to an unbeliever in the argument. Because an un-believer would look at that statement as nonsense or "crazy."
3rd argument...the word RAPTURE not in the Bible...the event is still mentioned and will happen.
This arguement was answered by doctors/scholars, H.L Willmington, Valvoord and Dwight Penticost when the same question was asked to them in a letter one day. They said "In answering this letter I agreed that he was indeed correct, inasmuch as the word rapture is nowhere to be found among the 774,747 words in the King James Version of the Bible. But I then pointed out that neither are the words Trinity, demon, Bible, or grandfather mentioned in that version of the Word of God. But there is a Trinity, there are demons, grandfathers do exist, and the rapture is a reality! Actually the word rapture is from rapere, found in the expression "caught up" in the Latin translation of 1 Thessalonians 4:17. However, if on so desires, the rapture could be scripturally referred to as the harpazo, which is the Greek word translated "caught up" in 1 Thessalonians 4:1. The identical phrase found in Acts 8:39, where Phillip was caught away by the Holy Spirit, and in 2 Corinthians 12:2,4, when Paul was caught up into the third heaven. Or, if you'd rather, the rapture could be known as the allasso, from the Greek translated "changed" in 1 Corinthians 15:51,52. Allasso is also used in describing the final renewal and transofrmation of the heavens and the earth(see Hebrews 1:12). So then, use whatever name suits your fancy. Ofcourse, the important thing is not what you name it, but rather, can you claim it? That is, will you participate in it? Thus, the next scheduled event predicted in the Bible will take place when the Savior himself appears in the air to catch up His own!"
4th argument...there is a reward system...not everyone will have the same rewards.....
since my computer was freezing i will send this part now and i will continue this with another post.
Before i get to the 4th argument, you tried to prove me wrong by saying that logically Isiah never talks about a NEW EARTH. Sir dont stop your reading because in the start of the last post, i mentioned in Isiah chapters 65 and 66 he said that there will be a new Heaven and Earth so to use Isiah against my argument is very unwise. Isiah 45:18, which you mentioned talks about Earth as of this one as it is and as we know it now, in Isiah's time. He then later talks about the future becuase Isiah is a prophetic prophet, in chapters 65 and 66 as i metnioned just read what i wrote you in my last post you'll understand.
Also the first thing you argued to me about, the very first thing, when you said that I'm appearing to say that God made "flawed creations". I said that God knew every thing would happen from DAY ONE you said you disagree because of his "flawed creations". You mentioned Satan as an example?....GOD GAVE LUCIFER FREE WILL. Lucifer wanted to be like god, Ezekial 28:13 and forward....and Isiah 14:12 and forward, discuss Lucifer. God made Lucifer the highest angel, the most beautiful angel, made Lucifer second to God. BUT Lucifer HAD PRIDE which created his downfall.
I am amazed that you can put God in a box.
To show God's fore knowledge, Romans 8:28-31 explains it, just read it. It is the doctrine of fore knowledge and pre-destination. The Bible said it and I believe it.
On to the 4th argument...the reward system...not everyone gets the same rewards.
The Bible is clear that the believers works, since salavation(not his sins), will be judged at the judgement seat of Christ. Which is refered to many times in the Bible; its mainly mentioned in Second Cornthians 5:10. Every member will have to go before the Bemacy for the purpose of examining each person and giving the proper reward to each. That means that me and you might not have the same reward.
Look at 1 Corinthians 3:8-15 it shows that there is a reward system and what i mentioned before, 2 Corinthians 5:10.
Example of the different rewards: There are different crowns which is the incurruptable crown, the crown of rejoicing, the crown of life, crown of righteousness, crown of glory, and many more which you can gain. Also rewards can be taken away which is in, 1 Corinthians 3:15, which i mentioend before.
Another argument...You also mentioned the cutting short of the Tribulation. I will answer your quesion.
you asked :"Why if he plans to just destroy the earth and bring all the holy ones to heaven anyways? Be the point in saving any flesh?" MY ANSWER: Becuase it is God's purpose to rescue Israel. Revelation is the revealing of Jesus as the Messiah to the Jew.
Your other question about who the Beast is and when Armageddon is. MY ANSWER: About Armageddon... The tribulation period is 7 years long and will commense after the rapture. The first 3 1/2 years will be a false peace that the Anti-Christ will make with Israel. During this false peace many or most of the nations surrounding Israel will look to destroy Israel. The Anti-Christ will then come to rescue Israel at the 3 1/2 period of the Tribulation, the half way point. And will proclaim himself as God, the so-called, Abomination of Desolation. And Israel will know they have been betrayed by a false treaty. Then proceeds 3 1/2 years of the Great Tribulation which is manifested by immense horror, destruction and death such as no man has ever seen. This will eventually lead to the armies of Satan, Anti-Christ, and the False Prophet that will gather in Megeddo with the armies from all nations to be gathering against Israel. Then Jesus will come on a white horse and appear with his army. The armies of heaven will follow Jesus also riding on white horses. Out of the mouth of Jesus came a sharp sword which he will defeat all the nations.
The Beasts are many but the one i refered to is the mark of the Beast 666 which will be Satan in the form of a human just like Jesus, this shows that Satan tries to be like God..refer to the Isiah 14, how Satan always tries to be like Jesus.
What you have done on Earth will pass, only what you have done for Jesus will last.
To be correct, the explanation of these verses must agree with the context and with the rest of the Bible
If these texts (2 Peter 3:7, 10 and Revelation 21:1) mean that the literal planet Earth is to be consumed by fire, then the literal heavens (the stars and other heavenly bodies) are also to be destroyed by fire. Such a literal view, however, conflicts with the assurance contained in such texts as Matthew 6:10-Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.Note that, in the context, at 2 Peter 3:5, 6 (also 2:5, 9), a parallel is drawn with the Flood of Noah’s day, in which wicked human society was destroyed, but Noah and his household, as well as the globe itself, were preserved. Likewise, at 2 Peter 3:7 it says that the ones to be destroyed are "ungodly men." The view that "the earth" here refers to wicked human society fully agrees with the rest of the Bible, as is illustrated by the texts cited above. It is that symbolic "earth," or wicked human society, that is "discovered"; that is, Jehovah will sear away as by fire all disguise, exposing the wickedness of ungodly human society and showing it to be worthy of complete destruction. That wicked society of humans is also "the first earth," referred to at Revelation 21:1 (KJ).
Psalm 37:29 and 104:5 He has founded the earth upon its established places;
It will not be made to totter to time indefinite, or forever.
Proverbs 2:21 For the upright are the ones that will reside in the earth, and the blameless are the ones that will be left over in it. 22 As regards the wicked, they will be cut off from the very earth; and as for the treacherous, they will be torn away from it.
Furthermore, what effect would fire have on the already intensely hot sun and stars?
So the term "earth" in the above-quoted texts must be understood in a different sense.
At Genesis 11:1, we read - Now all the earth continued to be of one language and of one set of words.
First Kings 2:1 and 2 we read,-1 And the days of David gradually drew near for him to die; and he proceeded to command Sol´o·mon his son, saying: 2 “I am going in the way of all the earth( he is dying like all men do ), and you must be strong and prove yourself to be a man.
First Chronicles 16:31 reads Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be joyful,
And let them say among the nations, ‘Jehovah himself has become king!’
Psalm 96:1, etc., the term "earth" is used in a figurative sense, referring to mankind, to human society. Might that be the case at 2 Peter 3:7, 10 and Revelation 21:1?
Whenthe apostle Paul said that Christians would be "caught up" to be with the Lord, what subject was being discussed?
1 Thess. 4:13-18, RS: "We would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning those who are asleep ["those who sleep in death," NE; "those who have died," TEV, JB], that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first; then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words."
(Evidently some members of the Christian congregation in Thessalonica had died. Paul encouraged the survivors to comfort one another with the resurrection hope. He reminded them that Jesus was resurrected after his death; so, too, at the coming of the Lord, those faithful Christians among them who had died would be raised to be with Christ.)
Whoare the ones that will be ‘caught up in the clouds,’ as stated at 1 Thessalonians 4:17?
Verse 15 explains that they are faithful ones "who are left until the coming of the Lord," that is, they are still living at the time of Christ’s coming. Will they ever die? According to Romans 6:3-5 and 1 Corinthians 15:35, 36, 44 they must die before they can gain heavenly life. But there is no need for them to remain in the death state awaiting Christ’s return. They will instantly be "caught up," "in the twinkling of an eye," to be with the Lord.—1 Cor. 15:51, 52, RS; also Revelation 14:13.
WillChrist appear visibly on a cloud and then take away faithful Christians into the heavens while the world looks on?
DidJesus say whether the world would see him again with their physical eyes?
John 14:19, RS: "Yet a little while, and the world will see me no more, but you [his faithful disciples] will see me; because I live, you will live also."(Compare 1 Timothy 6:16.)
Whatis the meaning of the Lord’s ‘descending from heaven’?
Could the Lord "descend from heaven," as stated at 1 Thessalonians 4:16, without being visible to physical eyes? In the days of ancient Sodom and Gomorrah, Jehovah said that he was going to "go down to see" what the people were doing. (Gen. 18:21,) But when Jehovah made that inspection, no human saw him, although they did see the angelic representatives that he sent. (John 1:18) Similarly, without having to return in the flesh, Jesus could turn his attention to his faithful followers on earth to reward them.
Inwhat sense, then, will humans "see" the Lord "coming in a cloud"?
Jesus foretold: "Then they will see the Son of man [Jesus Christ] coming in a cloud with power and great glory." (Luke 21:27, RS) In no way does this statement or similar ones in other texts contradict what Jesus said as recorded at John 14:19. Consider: At Mount Sinai, what occurred when God ‘came to the people in a thick cloud,’ as stated at Exodus 19:9? (RS) God was invisibly present; the people of Israel saw visible evidence of his presence, but none of them actually saw God with their eyes. So, too, when Jesus said that he would come "in a cloud," he must have meant that he would be invisible to human eyes but that humans would be aware of his presence. They would "see" him with their mental eyes, discerning the fact that he was present. THAT IS THE SOLE REASON HIS DISCIPLES ASKED WHAT THE SIGN OF HIS PRESENCE WOULD BE, BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY WOULD NOT LITERALLY SEE HIM WITH THEIR PHYSICAL EYES[/quote]
You just shot yourself in the foot with that 1st paragraph of your, pal. "Somehow, Jehovah is different". Let's see you believe GOD created the universe, yet it's impossible for you to believe a second more powerful being created GOD?
So let me get this straight in mathematical terms...
As an atheist I believe in 1 less GOD than you...do..meaning 0. You as a person for faith believe in 1 GOD as the creator of everything...yet the notion of their being just 1 more GOD above the one you call Jehovah is too much to grasp??
This is ****ing classic. The bible negates itself, it's not the truth of any GOD or higher principles. The same book that preaches love, truth, and honesty also preaches violence, rape, slavery, murder, and bans interracial marriage. And you want me to concede that it's been a great building block for society because it's old? So I guess in another 2000 years society's can build on PLAYBOY and HUSTLER magazine right?
You religious fools that have been ruining mankind since the inception of whence we split from cromag's and neaderthal's....have had a strangehold on ideas and thought. Scientific analysis and fact has been your worst enemy to date. Only a dishonest person would claim a books of collaborations and scriptures as proof of anything It would be the equivalent of thinking DC and Marvel comics are actual historical representations.
I'm going to try and explain EVOLUTION to you one last time, after that I quit. Because I've never known stupidity to deserve equal footing as intelligence.
EVOLUTION has more than one meaning. Biologically, it means "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable and observable fact.
Most people(RELIGIOUS FOOLS) seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too.
However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.
Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. There is a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage, and in a scientific context.
THIS IS IMPORTANT AGAIN!!!!
A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena".
The term does not imply 'tentativeness' or 'lack of certainty'. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more compactly. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness.
ANOTHER KNOWLEDGE NUGGET.....!!!
(Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for predicting anything. When it does make predictions, they prove to be false.)
Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming that conclusions are infallible is ridiculous, as has been shown by the past several centuries of scientific reasoning. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain, or fully understood.
IM REALLY MAKING THIS TOO EASY FOR YOU!!!!
Many non-scientists(THAT WOULD BE YOU) don't understand this; creationists use it as an argument against the 'theory' of evolution, which is ridiculous ... you might as well argue that gravity is a theory (it is far from being completely understood), and that we can't assume objects will always fall to the ground.
It is a FACT that the earth, with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period, and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living.
There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from non-birds and humans from non-humans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. There is evidence in the ground, and in cave paintings, and in our own DNA.
Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution - that 'all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history'. Indeed, 'all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time'.
Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution, has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.
What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, cellular biology, and others.
There is the agreement among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time; for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology. These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates.
If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant, or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.
Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time.
PROOF EVOLUTION IS A FACT!!!!! NULLIFYING U 100%
One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor!
Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.
Consider first how evolutionists interpret similarities between species living today. Present-day humans and chimpanzees, despite obvious external and behavioral differences, have extremely similar internal organs and physiological functions; indeed their genes are more than 98% identical. Just as the resemblance between two siblings suggests a common parentage, resemblance between species suggests common ancestors.
Evolutionists believe that humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor: an ape-like creature that lived perhaps five to ten million years ago, rather recently on the geological time scale. Species less similar to humans than are apes--mice, for example--are believed to have branched off millions of years earlier from a common primitive mammalian ancestor.
Evolutionary family tree diagrams that express such relationships between species have been constructed by evolutionary biologists by analyzing similarities of present-day organisms. In many cases, fossilized remains of extinct species can be used to support the features of such evolutionary trees.
WHAT HAS NOT HAPPENED!!!!!
What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.
Now I am about to terminate all of your major arguments here and now for the last time...let's GO!!!!
2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS....
The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of 'unusable' energy, and often (but not always!) corresponds to what we might think of as disorder or randomness.
Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder, and never the reverse.However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still?
THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE DOING!!!
Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order.
In any system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere. If 'order from disorder' is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why does it happen so often in nature?
AND THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING!!!
The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument.
Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations. For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for 'differential reproductive success'. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than the others. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.
NEXT THING...TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS...
A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two different creatures. To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable.
Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils millions of years later goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.
The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is aggravated by the way we think about species. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category. Actually, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and doesn't.
AND THE LAST THING...EVOLUTION IS NOT CHANCE!!! THIS AIN'T MONOPOLY!!!
There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out.
When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are 'selected' (ie: those with the variation succeed in reproducing more often than those without it), leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.
Nor was the origin of the very first 'life' due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators.
The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex at all. Moreover, the molecules build on one another; life didn't spring into being overnight, but was the end result of millions of years of chemical bonding that created, one after the other, larger and more complicated molecules.
But I'm ask one short question...
Have you ever read Darwin's Origin of the Species???
Personally, I would describe myself as an agnostic and I very much value the comforting effect religion can have on individual people and a society as a whole. However, trying to compete with scientific theories that have proven helpful again and again, can ultimately only harm Christianity and any other religion trying to castrate free thinking. The only way postmodern Christianity is thinkable is not as an alternative to science but as an alternative -- mythological -- explanation of the same processes. The example of quantum physics given above, and the piece on thermodynamics by KnicksFan4Realz only exemplify the kind of problems any religion has to face in the long run, if offered as an competitive alternative to evolutionary theory and not as a man-made mythological explanation of evolutionary processes which are -- taking into consideration the multiversum-theory -- not unlikely at all.
And just because Darwin is slightly outdated and I find the somewhat dated language slightly annoying, I would very much recommend Stephen Jay Gould's The Richness of Life: The Essential Stephen Jay Gould and as far as the relation of science and religion is concerned
"Hedgehog, the Fox and the Magister's Pox: Mending and Minding the Misconceived Gap Between Science and the Humanities."
Let me ask you something. It appears that you seem to believe you have a higher sense of ingtelligence than most people on earth, for reasons personal to you, I am not even willing to challenge.
But if I am right, why is it necessary for others to be labled Morons, and fools, and Idiots when you converse with them.
Moron from answers.com
Since I have not proven myself to be under neither of these discriptions, why do you apply this to me, and others who simply disagree with what you believe?
- A stupid person; a dolt.
- Psychology. A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
If anyone in the whole thread has fit this discription even a little bit, it has been you. Everyone else has seemed to chime in in a forceul, but respectful manner.
Please, if you can just somehow muster the inner strength, grow up a little bit, and join the rest of the mature adults in this discussion without the name calling.
God's book has never preached unrighteousness! So you are way off. Now his book has murder, violence, rape and slavery in it, but it does not PREACH those things. Those things are in their for the specific reason to show contrast of what he actually wants to take place.
- To proclaim or put forth in a sermon: preached the gospel.
- To advocate, especially to urge acceptance of or compliance with: preached tolerance and peaceful coexistence.
Show me in the bible where God bans interacial marriage, and I'll show you the actual footage of the big bang in blu ray high def. Please do, ye of vast knowledge of the word of a God who does not exist to you. I bet you don't even understand what you are reading.
Maybe that is why I stopped reading Comic books. Because I'd rather read about fantasy and science fiction the Bible offers. Men able to climb walls, and deflect bullets with their eyes is old news. I see that everytime I turn on the news! Did you see on CNN the other day, Han**** saved that man stuck in his car from an oncoming train? And professor x came by my house the other day, because he want me to come train at his school for gifted youngsters so I can learn to harness my vast mutant ability of sarcasm!!! SWEET RIGHT!!!
Silly guy :)
No Transitional Features
28 Another difficulty for evolution is the fact that nowhere in the fossil record are found partially formed bones or organs that could be taken for the beginning of a new feature. For instance, there are fossils of various types of flying creatures—birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According to evolutionary theory, they must have evolved from transitional ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have been found. There is not a hint of them. Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks two thirds or three quarters as long as at present? Are there any fossils of birds evolving a beak from a reptile jaw? Is there any fossil evidence of fish developing an amphibian pelvis, or of fish fins turning into amphibian legs, feet and toes? The fact is, looking for such developing features in the fossil record has proved to be a fruitless quest.
29 New Scientist noted that evolution “predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” But it admitted: “Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by known intermediate forms. . . . known fossil species do indeed appear not to evolve even over millions of years.”31 And geneticist Stebbins writes: “No transitional forms are known between any of the major phyla of animals or plants.” He speaks of “the large gaps which exist between many major categories of organisms.”32 “In fact,” The New Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.”33—Italics added.
30 This agrees with the extensive study made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Professor of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: “Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.” Moore added: “No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred.”34
31 Thus, what was true in Darwin’s day is just as true today. The evidence of the fossil record is still as zoologist D’Arcy Thompson said some years ago in his book On Growth and Form: “Darwinian evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals from earlier quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock. . . . to seek for stepping-stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever.”35
BUT THERE IS MORE!!!
What the Fossil Record Really Says
36 When we let the fossil record speak, its testimony is not evolution-oriented. Instead, the testimony of the fossil record is creation-oriented. It shows that many different kinds of living things suddenly appeared. While there was great variety within each kind, these had no links to evolutionary ancestors before them. Nor did they have any evolutionary links to different kinds of living things that came after them. Various kinds of living things persisted with little change for long periods of time before some of them became extinct, while others survive down to this day.
37 “The concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explanation for the presence of the diverse forms of life,” concludes (((((((((((evolutionist)))))))))))) Edmund Samuel in his book Order: In Life. Why not? He adds: “No fine analysis of biogeographic distribution or of the fossil record can directly support evolution.”40
38 Clearly, the impartial inquirer would be led to conclude that fossils do not support the theory of evolution. On the other hand, fossil evidence does lend strong weight to the arguments for creation. As zoologist Coffin stated: “To secular scientists, the fossils, evidences of the life of the past, constitute the ultimate and final court of appeal, because the fossil record is the only authentic history of life available to science. If this fossil history does not agree with evolutionary theory—and we have seen that it does not—what does it teach? It tells us that plants and animals were created in their basic forms. The basic facts of the fossil record support creation, not evolution.”41 Astronomer Carl Sagan candidly acknowledged in his book Cosmos: “The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer.”