ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Does Pope Embrace Evolution

Is the Pope wrong to embrace Evolution and Global Warming Theories?

Join Our Christian Singles and Take The Evolution Bible Quiz
 ---Jerry6593 on 11/15/16
     Helpful Blog Vote (4)

Post a New Blog



Jerry6593:

You wrote: axster: Just kidding. Guess you lefties have no sense of humor. Merry Christmas anyway.

Thank you. And a Merry Christmas to you too.

I have a very expansive sense of humor. Once again, you over-generalize, painting an entire population (about half of all people) with a broad brush. You really should learn how not to do that. It's not fair to the people you cast aspersions at, and ultimately, it hurts only you, undermining your own credibility when you make otherwise sound arguments.
---StrongAxe on 12/24/16


axster: Just kidding. Guess you lefties have no sense of humor.

Merry Christmas anyway.



---Jerry6593 on 12/24/16


Jerry6593:

You wrote: ax: There you go again, you silly pinko commie.

I am NOT, and NEVER HAVE been a communist. That is slander and violates "Thou shalt not bear false witness", from a list of commandments you claim to consider important.

I am not offended, just disappointed. I see no reason to continue discussing with one who wastes so much time on personal attacks.

Will you stay in America now that we will finally have an American president, or will you go back to Canada?

Obama IS an American president, in case you hadn't noticed, but I don't expect one who appears to live by "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts" to allow inconvenient facts to dissuade him.
---StrongAxe on 12/23/16


ax: There you go again, you silly pinko commie. I give you scripture defining the Creation days as ordinary weekdays, and you look for something wrong with the work required. That's always the way of lefties - find a supposed flaw so that you can throw the whole thing out, as if that would assuage your guilt. Do you really believe that God is impressed with your clever avoidance of His direct Commandments?

Will you stay in America now that we will finally have an American president, or will you go back to Canada?



---Jerry6593 on 12/23/16


Jerry6593:

No. It is the motto of close-minded people of ANY persuasion. Neither left nor right has a monopoly on wisdom or blindness. The kind of thinking that says "all of us are always right and all of you are always wrong" is the very epitome of the closed-mindedness I am talking about.

"Heaven and Earth declare the glory of God." Why don't you listen to what their records show?

Does the commandment mean "you are permitted work" or "you are REQUIRED to work"? It doesn't say. But if it's the latter, ANYONE who takes a vacation, or retires, or even gets sick for two days violates it. But this has nothing to do with either Pope OR Evolution.
---StrongAxe on 12/22/16




ax: "my mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts" is the motto of the LEFT - not the RIGHT. Right is RIGHT, Left is WRONG! Leftists use emotion, speculation and intimidation rather than scientific reasoning from cause to effect. Evolution and Global warming are good examples of such twisted thinking.

Since we agree that Creation was indeed a supernatural event(s), why don't you rely on the most reliable record of this event - the Bible - rather than the silly theories of atheist college professors?

"Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work" is not ambiguous at all to the sane, conservative mind. But to you it is.


---Jerry6593 on 12/22/16


Jerry6593:

Painting with a wide brush again? Many (not all) rightists I talk to have an attitude of "my mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts".

Creation was supernatural, but disagree on the details.

Supernatural events originate outside nature and operate within nature (e.g. God saying "let there be light", miracles, etc.). They invoke natural events that operate by natural law (e.g. raining fire and brimstone on Sodom would be meaningless unless they inflicted their natural properties - destruction).

Genesis indicates that the creation occurred in several supernatural events, but doesn't really get into specific details of them.
---StrongAxe on 12/20/16


ax: It is clear to me that, like most leftists, you don't know what you believe. That makes you agnostic. You seem to prefer confusing the issue rather than clarifying it.

So let's start with basics. Do you believe that the Creation of earth and all life on it was supernatural or not?


---Jerry6593 on 12/20/16


Jerry6593:

You wrote: So you believe that God is no better than Darwin? And you call yourself a Christian?

Stop putting your own words in my mouth and then condemning me for them! I never said GOD is imperfect - just that the THEORIES are imperfect. Creationist THEORY is a large complicated theory based on a very small number of biblical verses. I said the Flood story has problems, not that it is false.

Cluny wrote: Mankind was not given a blessing to eat animals by God until AFTER the flood.

You wrote: And your point is .....?

Probably that eating of clean animals might solve the problem of how carnivorous animals and humans survived AFTER the flood, but not DURING the flood.
---StrongAxe on 12/15/16


ax: "Both theories are imperfect"

So you believe that God is no better than Darwin? And you call yourself a Christian?


cluny: "Mankind was not given a blessing to eat animals by God until AFTER the flood."

And your point is .....?



---Jerry6593 on 12/15/16




If only you would study the Bible more closely, and question the Evolutionary hypothesis with as much vigor as you do the Biblical account, you would find the answers.

Both theories are imperfect, but Evolution doesn't claim perfection, while Biblical Creationists who disparage Evolution claim that the biblical theory IS perfect.

The Bible only says so much. No matter how hard you study it, if you want more answers about Creation and the Flood, you have to read between the lines.

clean animals were taken by sevens rather than by twos (to provide food).

How long can 7 sheep feed 2 hungry young lions, before the sheep are extinct and the lions starve?
---StrongAxe on 12/14/16


\\ and that the clean animals were taken by sevens rather than by twos (to provide food).\\

Mankind was not given a blessing to eat animals by God until AFTER the flood.

Did you know that, Jerry? Maybe if you studied the Bible as vigorously as you studied arguments against evolution, you would.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/14/16


ax: I understand your questions about Creation, but you won't find satisfying answers in academia. If only you would study the Bible more closely, and question the Evolutionary hypothesis with as much vigor as you do the Biblical account, you would find the answers.

For example, you question the food provisioning on the Ark. Did you take into account that the animals may have been youths, and that the clean animals were taken by sevens rather than by twos (to provide food).

How does the recent discovery of soft tissue inside dinosaur bones comport with the long-age evolutionary theory?


---Jerry6593 on 12/14/16


//What kind of church do you attend now, and how are its leaders chosen?//
Body of Christ ministries, our assemblies are ran by the members of the congregation
---michael_e on 12/13/16


Jerry6593:

In the past, I had long arguments with Warwick about this subject. He kept insisting that Genesis explicitly states that the creation days were 24 hours long. I argued that it doesn't ACTUALLY say that anywhere - because it doesn't. I can't say how long they were, because I don't know. All I can say with certainty is that Genesis never ACTUALLY says how long they were.

As far as incongruent beliefs, Genesis also has its own problems. What did animals on the ark eat for a year? Maybe they hibernated. But what did they eat after? How long could carnivores live without meat - which wouldn't be there until herbivores had young? Even herbivores would have problems - most plants would not have survived under miles of water.
---StrongAxe on 12/13/16


ax: "Please take issue with what I ACTUALLY SAY, not what you happen to think in your own mind that I believe."

It is a fact that you argue in favor of Evolution, knowing full well that that theory runs counter to the Biblical account of Creation. It is also a fact that Evolution (in theory) requires enormous amounts of time to accomplish. Why else would you argue about the length of a day in Genesis? I think that you are afraid to face the consequences of your own incongruent beliefs. So tell me where I'm wrong.



---Jerry6593 on 12/13/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes


micha9344:

Genesis defines day as from evening to evening, but what, exactly, does "evening" ACTUALLY mean? Jewish tradition means sunset to sunset. Unfortunately, that definition cannot adequately explain days 1-3, as there was not even a sun to set. You can't explain it by periods of light and darkness either, because those weren't defined until the sun was. You can't even say 24 hours, because our days now are defined by the sun and not 24 hours (they get slightly longer every year, as the earth rotation slows), and Joshua's Long Day was MUCH longer, because God stopped the sun - and thus altered the day's length.

Can you come up with an adequate, biblical definition of day that handles all of these cases?
---StrongAxe on 12/13/16


/Genesis says "days", but does not DEFINE what "day" actually means.\
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
-1 span of daylight (day), 1 span of darkness (night), 1 evening, 1 morning: 1 day.
-Looks like a definition to me.
-Day 1 He made the day and defined it.
-Day 4 He made the things to measure it. (and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:)
-Day 6 He made the measurer, man.
-Days 1-3 have no difference in time span than days 4-6 just because the sun isn't there.
-The measuring tool does not affect the item measured.
---micha9344 on 12/12/16


Jerry6593:

You wrote: Did you ever read this? Exo 20:11 ...

The fact that Genesis says this does not alter the fact that *I* have not said it necessarily took millenia.

Please take issue with what I ACTUALLY SAY, not what you happen to think in your own mind that I believe.

However, Genesis says "days", but does not DEFINE what "day" actually means. We have had this discussion on these blogs before, ad nauseam. In one place, it says that a day to God is like a thousand years, and vice versa. "sunset to sunset" is not totally adequate, since there was no sun to measure by during the first three days.
---StrongAxe on 12/12/16


ax: "I have always maintained that scripture DOESN'T SAY how long it took, NOT that it took millenia."

Did you ever read this?

Exo 20:11 For in SIX DAYS the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Evolutionists insist that the earth took millennia to form - not DAYS. Stop the tap-dance! You believe the word of heathen academics above the Word of God. Admit it.



---Jerry6593 on 12/12/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


michael_e:

You wrote: I attended one "denominational" church early in life, where the pastor was assigned by "headquarters" never again.

I don't think you'll find any in the New Testament who were chosen by democratic election either.
What kind of church do you attend now, and how are its leaders chosen?
---StrongAxe on 12/11/16


//None - the college of cardinals does, just like the electoral college votes for president,//
Thank you for the info, I figured the pope and Obama are both nothing more than political leaders. I attended one "denominational" church early in life, where the pastor was assigned by "headquarters" never again.
---michael_e on 12/10/16


michael_e:

None - the college of cardinals does, just like the electoral college votes for president, NOT citizens. Also, look at any other denominations (e.g. Baptist, Presbyterian, etc.). How many of those elect their leaders by popular vote? None that I am aware of.


Jerry6593:

I have always maintained that scripture DOESN'T SAY how long it took, NOT that it took millenia.

The $1 bill has George Washington's image. Was he 2" tall and green? Images are similar in substance, NOT form. Learn the difference.

I NEVER said Mendelian genetics add out-of-species information.

I don't have antipathy to God's word, only to things people read between the lines.
---StrongAxe on 12/10/16


//He is elected, NOT self-proclaimed. None, because AT THAT TIME, he was talking about politics and not religion. On April 15, do you mail your 1040 form, or a tract?//
How many pew sitters voted for him?
For someone who claims apostolic authority from Christ, and claims to be his vicar on earth, the Pope missed his chance
When Peter spoke at Pentecost he testified to the religious and political leaders in Israel of the need for faith in Jesus Christ as King.
(Acts 4:12)
I mention this because the Catholic church teaches Peter was the first Pope, and they assume authority from the keys the Lord gave to him.
---michael_e on 12/10/16


Shop For Church Bulletins & Supplies


ax: You are free to believe "evolved over millennia", but scripture does not say that. Scripture does say that they were made in God's image - is He a child? It also says that they were to have dominion over and subdue the earth, be fruitful and multiply (sex), etc. - Does that sound like God was speaking to children?

Your education seems to have some holes in it. Mendelian genetics does not add out-of-species information to the genome - NOTHING does. There exists nothing in all of science or mathematics that supports Evolution. Why do you have such antipathy to God's word, and His explanation of Creation?



---Jerry6593 on 12/10/16


//I am saying your false statement that the speech is a speech of 'doctrine of works salvation'- ME

**Go back and pull out where I said the pope spoke about works salvation.//

***When Jorge Mario Bergoglio known by the faithful to the DOCTRINE of WORKS SALVATION as Pope Francis SPOKE to our legislative leaders.---michael_e on 12/8/16

Please answer my question. NOW Pull your words out from the speech

//Btw did you check Paul's gospel?--michael_e

I will answer you AGAIN. I saw Paul use those words in his Epistle.

EPISTLE epistle. NOUN 1. formal A LETTER.
a book of the New Testament in the form of a letter from an Apostle:

"St. Paul's epistle to the Romans" - Oxford Dictionary
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/10/16


Jerry6593:

You are free to believe "adult", but scripture does not say that. It says God created animals. It does NOT say at what age they were. It does not say Adam and Eve were adults either. They may just as well have been children or adolescents.

You still are merely describing Mendelian genetics.

Yes, exactly - yet you earlier accused me of Lamarckian rather than Mendelian genetics. Please make up your mind.


michael_e wrote: What kind of message of salvation was presented by the self proclaimed head of the church?

He is elected, NOT self-proclaimed. None, because AT THAT TIME, he was talking about politics and not religion. On April 15, do you mail your 1040 form, or a tract?
---StrongAxe on 12/9/16


//I am saying your false statement that the speech is a speech of 'doctrine of works salvation'//
Go back and pull out where I said the pope spoke about works salvation.
What this religious leader spoke about was nothing about salvation, it was no more than a political speech.
Btw did you check Paul's gospel?
---michael_e on 12/9/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


//The pope's political speech to the U.S. congress Sept. 2015 look it up---michael_e on

I am saying your false statement that the speech is a speech of 'doctrine of works salvation'

Pull out the EXACT statement of the that speech WHERE he speaks of 'doctrine of works salvation'.

That is what I am saying that TOPIC NEVER OCCURRED. Not that a speech occurred.

**"Speaking to a joint meeting of Congress on Thursday, Pope Francis urged COMPASSION for the POOR AND FOR THE IMMIGRANTS By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS on Publish Date September 24, 2015. Photo by Doug Mills/The New York Times. Watch in Times Video

That's right there is a VIDEO.

Watch it again!
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/9/16


//That BECAUSE the WHOLE Speech never happened.//
The pope's political speech to the U.S. congress Sept. 2015 look it up
The Church isn't Israel and Peter wasn't ordained the apostle to the Gentiles (Gal 2:7-9, Rom 11:13), but why quibble over right division.
//I believe you are the same One on CN who made up a gospel and named it the 'gospel of Paul'?//
Try reading
Pauls gospel made no distinction between Jew or Gentile. All are counted in unbelief as sinners, and are judged by God without respect of persons whether given the law or not.
my gospel. (Rom 2:16, 16:25)
Paul say this? "according to my gospel 2 Timothy 2:8
No one else in scripture could claim my gospel,
---michael_e on 12/9/16


//doctrine of works salvation as Pope Francis spoke to our legislative leaders.//

If you are trying to promote this strange doctrine, go ahead and do so.

But why lie on another man?

No one has heard of that doctrine.

You made it up as usual.

I believe you are the same One on CN who made up a gospel and named it the 'gospel of Paul'?

//You would search in vain in his transcript for any mention of the Lord Jesus Christ.//

That BECAUSE the WHOLE Speech never happened.

//Maybe he was speaking om subjects he knows best.---michael_e on 12/8/16

Like your made up 'gospel of Paul'?
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/9/16


ax: "God spoke, but THEN what?"

You weren't paying attention. "For he spake, and it was done"

Instantaneous, supernatural Creation of complete, adult life forms is what God created. Adam and Eve were created as adults in one ordinary day. They did not "evolve" over millions of years according to the Bible.

You still are merely describing Mendelian genetics. No new genome information is generated by a fit specimen. A body builder can still have scrawny children.



michael: The current pope is a Communist. He has apparently adopted their atheistic creation philosophy.



---Jerry6593 on 12/9/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


When Jorge Mario Bergoglio known by the faithful to the doctrine of works salvation as Pope Francis spoke to our legislative leaders. You would search in vain in his transcript for any mention of the Lord Jesus Christ. What kind of message of salvation was presented by the self proclaimed head of the church? None, unless salvation comes from more policies, politics, and less pollution.
Maybe he was speaking om subjects he knows best.
---michael_e on 12/8/16


How God speaking in eternity and how it is revealed in and affects the temporal physical universe is a mystery beyond my comprehension.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/8/16


Jerry6593:

God spoke, but THEN what? Did they appear fully formed, or did skeletons appear first, then the muscles and skin? Did Adam and Eve have navels? The Bible does not get into such details.

Survival of the fittest is NOT about creatures acquiring new charcteristics (Lamarckianism). It is about a population that ALREADY has a few individuals who ALREADY have the ability to deal with new conditions, and when they occur, THEY survive while most others do not, so afterwards, the majority of the group has the characteristic. MRSA and DDT-resistant bugs are perfect examples of this.

I NEVER said I prefer random choice as my god. YET AGAIN, you create a straw man, burn it down, and dance on the ashes.
---StrongAxe on 12/7/16


ax: "Genesis ... does not say HOW he did it"

The Bible says:

Psa 33:9 For he spake, and it was done, he commanded, and it stood fast.

Heb 11:3 ... the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.


"Natural selection is a process we can observe during our lifetimes."

All that can be observed is Mendelian genetics - not the Lamarckian acquiring of inherited characteristics through the survival of the fittest. This garbage was discredited years ago.

The only reason you prefer Random Chance as your god is that the Creator God requires obedience to His Commandments, and you feel threatened by that.


---Jerry6593 on 12/7/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


Jerry6593:

How so? It provides a mechanism for how one species can evolve into another. It says absolutely nothing about how the first species itself occurred - whether it happened by itself, or whether it was guided by the hand of God. The only reason you think it supplants God is that it removes God from the equation entirely (and puts him ouside of it), and you feel personally threatened by that.

There are many Christians wbo believe in evolution - that is, God created the laws of nature, and via those very laws that he created, life evolved. Genesis said God created plants and animals, but does not say HOW he did it.

Natural selection is a process we can observe during our lifetimes. How about that?
---StrongAxe on 12/6/16


ax: "Evolution says absolutely nothing about God"

How utterly naive! Evolution supplants God. It is the atheist's creator. It is as vapid scientifically as Astrology. It substitutes blind Random Chance for an active Creator, and Charles Darwin for its prophet. It is a house of cards propped up with conjecture, lies and hoaxes. It is not science, but the religion of fools.


"People who are secure in their faith have nothing to fear from others"

Evolution is perpetuated only by forced indoctrination in government schools, while prohibiting the truth of Creationism. So who are the insecure ones?

Can you name a single thing about Evolution that you know to be true?



---Jerry6593 on 12/6/16


Jerry6593:

Evolution says absolutely nothing about God, neither for NOR against. It is only Chrisitans who are insecure about thier faith who FEAR that Evolution might God unnecessary, so they see it as a threat to their insecure faith. This is why they have such opposition to it. I don't see such venomous opposition to non-scientific theories (like astrology, quack medicine) that don't seem to be a threat to their faith. So it isn't about science, but rather about fear.

People who are secure in their faith have nothing to fear from others who believe differently than they do.
---StrongAxe on 12/5/16


ax: "let us not delude ourselves and others and call it science."

That is exactly what you are doing when you call Evolution science. It is a false religion at best, and an anti-God deception at worst. It is the root cause of the barbarous ethnic cleansings of Britain, Nazi's, Stalin and Mao.

Rom 1:20, 22 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, ... so that they are without excuse: ... Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools

1Ti 6:20 O [Axster], keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:



---Jerry6593 on 12/5/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


//willing to accept God's claim of where he came from without question,//

I did asked and got the answer.

NO beginning with God.

//yet you demand a much stricter standard from evolutionists.//

No, just explain or tell me what is the starting point.

I can understanding you might not be able to say the finishing point because it is still evolving.
But you would be able to give the staring point.

//to hold scientists to a HIGHER standard than you hold God? That is not science. It is religion.//

Exactly Scientists must understand that Evolution is a Religion and the Evolutionists are priests.

//but let us not delude ourselves and others and call it science.---StrongAxe

agree
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/4/16


Because you do have an ANSWER to WHERE does God come from.

You are totally willing to accept God's claim of where he came from without question, yet you demand a much stricter standard from evolutionists. How is is "scientific" to hold scientists to a different standard than you hold God? And how is is FAIR to hold scientists to a HIGHER standard than you hold God? That is not science. It is religion.

This is not to say that faith and belief are bad, but let us not delude ourselves and others and call it science.
---StrongAxe on 12/4/16


//By the exact same logic, how can you claim God created anything if you won't look at WHERE God came from?//


YES EXACTLY!

Because you do have an ANSWER to WHERE does God come from.

We say He didn't because HE is the ALPHA. The Beginning.

Now you may NOT Accept that answer, but it is an answer.

Unlike you with no answer at how by saying "We don't know" or ignoring the question.

//You obviously don't have any problem with this,---StrongAxe on 12/3/16


No because I already knew the answer.

---Nicole_Lacey on 12/4/16


Nicole_Lacey wrote: Besides, how can you prove it evolved from anything if you won't look at WHERE it came from?

By the exact same logic, how can you claim God created anything if you won't look at WHERE God came from? You obviously don't have any problem with this, however.


Jerry6593:

If my statement that "life could just as easily use right-handed chemicals" is unsubstantiated conjecture, your statement that "life could not use right-handed chemicals" is JUST as unsubstantiated, since you can't prove that by lack of examples. All you can say is "no examples of that are known", not "it's impossible".
---StrongAxe on 12/3/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


//Evolution deals with how complex forms evolved from simpler ones, NOT how chemicals nor planets nor stars were formed. That is cosmology, a totally different science---StrongAxe

WHAT?

You can't speak of evolution which means evolving all the time.

If they are claiming it evolves into something else, they HAVE to ADDRESS from where or what it evolved from as well.

Besides, how can you prove it evolved from anything if you won't look at WHERE it came from?

You can't tell me 'B' turned into 'C' because I will tell you NO 'C' is on it's own as 'B' is on it's own.

You can't try to point out 'B' as 'C's origin or prove 'C' came from 'B' because I will ask you about 'A' since you INTEND on going backwards.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/3/16


ax: "A system using only right-handed forms would be equally viable. Whichever one formed first would tend to predominate."

You demonstrate the foundation of the religion of Darwinism - CHILDISH CONJECTURE. I speak of true science, and you speak of what might be - the essence of science fiction.


"Evolution deals with how complex forms evolved from simpler ones, NOT how chemicals nor planets nor stars were formed."

Duh... You were just speculating how life self-evolved from chemicals. Strange!


---Jerry6593 on 12/3/16


Jerry6593:

Do you never tire of such juvenile ad-hominem attacks? These are typically used when one does not have more compelling evidence to present.

Only left-handed ones can support life.

Not true. The life that is predominant on this planet uses only left-handed forms. A system using only right-handed forms would be equally viable. Whichever one formed first would tend to predominate.

Chemical Evolution has been abandoned even by experts who once taught it.

Maybe some. Not most.


Nicole_Lacey:

Not at all. Evolution deals with how complex forms evolved from simpler ones, NOT how chemicals nor planets nor stars were formed. That is cosmology, a totally different science.
---StrongAxe on 12/2/16


ax: You are as pathetic as a scientist as you are a Christian. The chemical evolution experiments to which you refer were conducted by Miller in the 1950's. They produced some simple amino acids in a reducing atmosphere (in which no life form could survive) of both left- and right-hand configurations. Only left-handed ones can support life.

Chemical Evolution has been abandoned even by experts who once taught it. It simply doesn't work. Chemicals don't self-assemble into life forms.

You are a victim of Darwinian/Communist indoctrination.


---Jerry6593 on 12/2/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


StrongAxe, I understand what you are saying.

But you are overlooking the one simple fact that each ingredient you named had to be made FIRST.

The Scientists didn't create the gases, bunch of primordial gases (e.g. methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, water BEFORE, so they can be apply all together to have something develop.

How is that DIFFERENT if I put a male and female dog together in a sealed dog house and later on the female dog has 5 puppies?

Did I create the puppies or proved evolution?

When you put certain things together you WILL get certain results.

You can't put 2 male dogs together HOPING for puppies. br>
I don't care HOW LONG they stay together.

NO Puppies are coming.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/1/16


Nicole_Lacey:

There was one experiment where scientists put a bunch of primordial gases (e.g. methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, oxygen, water, etc.) into a sealed chamber and exposed it to the same kinds of energies present in a primordial earth (lightning, UV radiation, etc.). After a long time, the water was found to contain many more complex organic substances, including amino acids, and even nucleic acids, which form the basis for RNA and DNA. These all self-assembled over time.

(Again, my initial response to this was about twice what the blogs allow, so I have to gut half of it. Sigh.)
---StrongAxe on 12/1/16


//Many experiments validate small pieces of the evolutionary model//

Name them.

None them have panned out.

Because they all had to START from something.

They can NEVER figure out starting point?

//Some scientists cooked basic chemicals in primordial environments and produced complex organic compounds found in life.//

So are you claiming the Scientists are the Creators, but they deny a Higher Creator?

//Even if you can't call evolution Science, doesn't mean it's OK to call creation Science.---StrongAxe

I agree, but you all say the opposite all the time.

You claim creation isn't science but say evolution is science.

If any, creation is closer than evolution to science
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/1/16


Nicole_Lacey:

Many experiments validate small pieces of the evolutionary model. Some scientists cooked basic chemicals in primordial environments and produced complex organic compounds found in life. Unfortunately, one cannot perform experiments to validate pieces of the creation model.

Even if you can't call evolution Science, doesn't mean it's OK to call creation Science.

It was renamed to avoid confusing the uneducated. Many deniers say "It's colder in XYZ so it must be false!". E.g. Gulf Stream moves, so areas it used to warm are now colder. Some areas may get colder, but the world as a whole is getting warmer.

Proved false? How? By whom? Most scientists believe in it.
---StrongAxe on 11/30/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


//Science is based on objective evidence (verifiable by anyone), not subjective evidence (subject to the biases and whims of the scientist).//

That is what the Pope Emeritus said!

Evolution isn't Science.

But Secular people and Democrats WANTS to treat it as Science while they LOVE to say Creation isn't Science using the SAME SANDARDS!

//One cannot falsify Creation by scientific methods, but one cannot verify it by them either.--StrongAxe on 11/29/16

The same for Evolution.

Global Warming has been proving wrong!

So they changed the name to Climate Change.

Why change the name if you believe it is true?
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/30/16


ax: "Science is based on objective evidence (verifiable by anyone), not subjective evidence (subject to the biases and whims of the scientist)."

True! So why are you an Evolutionist when there is zero objective evidence supporting it? There is much evidence supporting Creation. If you were interested in truth, you would look for it. Don't you realize that to be anti-Creation is to be anti-God? I can understand an atheist pushing Evolution - it's all he's got, but you claim to be a Christian.

And your claim that the sun causes Evolution by warming eggs is a real hoot. Got any more jokes?
---Jerry6593 on 11/30/16


Nicole_Lacey:

A laboratory is a place where a specific experiment can be performed, that can provide a verification or falsification of a hypothesis. It can be a room in a building, but does not have to be. For example, an experiment to verify Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was performed by observing the lensing effect of the sun during a solar eclipse. The laboratory was the sky, but the conditions of the experiment were established beforehand, and the results observed afterwards.

Science is based on objective evidence (verifiable by anyone), not subjective evidence (subject to the biases and whims of the scientist).

One cannot falsify Creation by scientific methods, but one cannot verify it by them either.
---StrongAxe on 11/29/16


//How is "Creation Science" science, as it can't be reproduced in a laboratory - something you youuself claim is necessary for "science"?---StrongAxe

I and Pope Emeritus Benedict and I said that not Jerry

But, the word 'laboratory' is meant as 'Subjective' Data I believe

I am not a Scientist, but if something is expanding and Scientists can't use subjective data to explain how, why, or for how long, and what's it's origin it may mean their 'subjective' measure is unattainable.

If subjective measure is unattainable then they shouldn't discount objective data as the answer.

Since Creation has NOT been discredited by them.
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/29/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause


Jerry6593:

Energy is not order, but its addition to a system can increase order locally. One egg can hatch and replicate millions of individuals (e.g. insects) given time and a sufficient influx of external energy, in apparent violation of entropy - but it isn't, because the energy comes from the outside. This is high school physics. I am totally astounded a physicist would not know this.

How is "Creation Science" science, as it can't be reproduced in a laboratory - something you youuself claim is necessary for "science"?

99.9999% (say) of dead creatures decompose. Only very rarely are they fossilized. Only forms that live long and abundantly are likely to produce fossils - transitionals are unlikely to.
---StrongAxe on 11/28/16


ax: "Entropy say [sic] disorder increases in a closed system. Ours it NOT closed - we get energy from the sun."

Energy is not order. The earth IS a closed system to information. Sunlight does not increase genetic information. Besides, the Solar System IS a closed system.

Creation Science - like all real science - is the study of God's handiwork in nature. It is an honest assessment of the evidence available.

Evolution is the childish attempt at a Creation Story for atheists which relies on conjecture and hoaxes.

Evolutionists have no explanation for abiogenesis, the Cambrian explosion, the absence of transitional forms or the young C14 age of dinosaur fossils and diamonds.
---Jerry6593 on 11/28/16


//Science cannot prove Evolution - all it ever offered was conjecture and hoaxes.//

Pope Emeritus Benedict agrees and said as much.

//Evolution violates proven scientific principles (e.g., entropy and genetics), and theories such as Lamarckism and beneficial mutation have been thoroughly discredited. In fact, all scientific attempts to prove Evolution by experimentation using mutations, etc. have been a dismal failure.---Jerry6593 on 11/26/16

StrongAxe, are you listening?

Jerry, the Catholic Church totally agrees with you.
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/26/16


Nicole_Lacey:

Christians who slip creationism into school disguised as science made up "Creation Science". Google it.


Jerry6593:

Entropy say disorder increases in a closed system. Ours it NOT closed - we get energy from the sun.

Disprove genetics? Humans have 23 chromosome pairs. Apes have 24. One human chromosome has an end-of-sequence marker in the middle, suggesting it may have once been two separate chromosomes that somehow got spliced together.

Lack of fossils doesn't prove forms didn't exist, just that they didn't get get fossilized. Fossils only occur in rare circumstances - most creatures die and decompose and get recycled without leaving any lasting remains.
---StrongAxe on 11/26/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


Nicole: As a physicist who also studied historical geology, I would like to offer a few observations. First, Science cannot prove Evolution - all it ever offered was conjecture and hoaxes. Evolution violates proven scientific principles (e.g., entropy and genetics), and theories such as Lamarckism and beneficial mutation have been thoroughly discredited. In fact, all scientific attempts to prove Evolution by experimentation using mutations, etc. have been a dismal failure.

Since one of the tenets of Evolution is that all life forms derive from precursor forms, the Cambrian Explosion of myriad life forms in the Cambrian Layer, and the total absence of precursors in the Pre-Cambrian is a MYSTERY to Evolutionists.
---Jerry6593 on 11/26/16


//By the very same criteria, creationist theory can't be proven either, since it can't be reproduced in a laboratory, so "Creation Science" is on just as shaky ground as evolution.---StrongAxe on 11/25/16

No such thing as 'Creation Science'.

You made that up.

Science deals with Objective data NOT Subjective data.

The Catholic Church DOESN'T claim you can PROVE creation.

It's Faith.

Science states Evolution can be proven.

So the Catholic Church states to Scientist: "Prove it, then."

We admit, you have to have FAITH to believe in creation because we can't prove their is a Creator satisfy most Scientist criteria.

Now the other side has to admit it as well.
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/25/16


Nicole_Lacey:

"Darwinist theory of evolution is NOT completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory."

By the very same criteria, creationist theory can't be proven either, since it can't be reproduced in a laboratory, so "Creation Science" is on just as shaky ground as evolution.
---StrongAxe on 11/25/16


//The ONLY means Scientist have to prove Evolution.- Nicole//

That's their standards, their rules.

We are playing by their rules not our rules.

Pope Emeritus Benedict told own standards you STILL can't prove Evolution

//By the very same standards, Creation is not provable,//

We are claiming you CAN prove it. It's in the Bible. Only by Faith can you believe in creation.

//If you throw out evolution as unprovable on that account, you must throw out creation for the same reason.---StrongAxe

No because using our own standards of Faith you can believe in creation.

If you don't believe, we claim you don't have faith.

StrongAxe, we are respecting each other's 'SAID RULES.'
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/25/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


Nicole_Lacey:

You wrote: The ONLY means Scientist have to prove Evolution.

By the very same standards, Creation is not provable, because we cannot witness it personally. If you throw out evolution as unprovable on that account, you must throw out creation for the same reason.
---StrongAxe on 11/25/16


//Nicole: "theory of evolution is NOT completely provable"
It is completely DISprovable!-- Jerry

Emeritus Benedict agrees by using Scientist's own terminology.

A thing has to 'proven' to be true to Scientist

You can PROVE 2+2=4.

Can't prove 2+3=4 no matter what.

Thus 'theory' is used.

Break down his statement

They keep saying it's provable. The Pope said NOT by a long shot.

Then he pours water on a smoking log by finishing it with this statement:

"Darwinist theory of evolution is NOT completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory."

The ONLY means Scientist have to prove Evolution.
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/19/16


Karen: "I think evolution and global warming are figment of someone's imagination."

I agree. But whose? Note that one theory diminishes God's ability to create the world, and the other, His ability to sustain it.

Here's another clue. It is a little known fact that Darwin attended a witchcraft ceremony in South America (which made him quite ill) just before his epiphany on the Galapagos Islands.



Nicole: "theory of evolution is NOT completely provable"

It is completely DISprovable! To accept it in even small doses runs counter to the Word of God by which you and I hold our faith.


---Jerry6593 on 11/19/16


//read that this pope plus the one before last also embraced Evolution as a viable theory worthy of study.//

Emeritus Benedict made a statement that was cut off.

**(In)Paris Pope Benedict, elaborating his views on evolution for the first time as Pontiff, says science has narrowed the way lifes origins are understood and Christians should take a broader approach to the question.

The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is NOT completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory--Tom Heneghan

//Isn't the current pope in favor of climate change accords--Jerry6593

Not as the crazy Leftist sees climate change.

But reasonable clean water.
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/18/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


Jerry6593...I think evolution and global warming are figment of someone's imagination.
---KarenD on 11/17/16


Nicole: Thanks. That helps somewhat. But, I have read that this pope plus the one before last also embraced Evolution as a viable theory worthy of study. Do you?

Isn't the current pope in favor of climate change accords?



Bill: "If all was acting according to physical and predictable principles"

Neither the BB theory, Nebular Hypothesis, abiogenesis or Evolution follow known physical laws. In fact they violate them!



---Jerry6593 on 11/18/16


I don't think that the universe just started with a big bang. If all was acting according to physical and predictable principles, how come those principles did not produce a big bang sooner in all past eternity, or later? I understand that God has all the control, whatever has happened.

And our Apostle Paul says God's ways are "past finding out", in Romans 11:33. His ways are working in physical creation, and so therefore humans can not figure things out, even with physical things. We see this, for example, with ones trying to understand the human body (c:
---Bill on 11/17/16


No Jerry.

The Left started making statements even before they read his encyclical Laudato Si (Be praised or Praise be to you)

Then, when it came out they took out small statements and ran with it.

You have to read the encyclical about the Environment if you really want to know what he said.

First the Pope said the world was made with us People, not the people for the world.

2nd he stress keeping the earth clean for future generations.

3rd he said NEVER does an environment issue or animal comes BEFORE the need of a person.

The Pope is praising God for the wonder earth He made just for us human beings made in His Image.

Not praising the earth
---Nicole_Lacey on 11/17/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


As has been pointed out earlier, papal infallibility is limited to doctrinal and moral definitions issued ex-cathedra and directed to be embraced by all the faithful.

Neither his statements on evolution nor on global warming meet these criteria.

Global warming IS happening--but it's happening on Mars, too, where there are no people on whom to blame it.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/17/16


Karen: "Who really cares what the pope does?"

Lots of folks, mainly Catholics. What do you think about Evolution and Global Warming Theories?



---Jerry6593 on 11/17/16


Who really cares what the pope does?
---KarenD on 11/16/16


Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.