How about this one?

[metalman]

I apologize but I didn't see it. Can you tell me what evidence is there for Creation by a God? Again, I'm not debating you or attacking you...just asking because I don't know. Later, QD.

You ask for proof of creation...where is the proof for evolution? It is only a theory.


The evidence for Intelligent design, or creation by God is all around us.
Our world contains billions of systems and subsystems which are all balanced (except where man has screwed them up) and work in harmony. I am expected to believe this perfect balance all came about by accident?? Chance? Just the overwhelming detail alone would cause me to seriously doubt that. Please refer back up to my Rolex watch theory. That is what evolutionists would have me believe...only MUCH more detailed and far fetched.

Study of the human body will show that even that multiple/hundreds perhaps thousands of systems and subsystems. Our life is very delicate. Much too much so for it to be accidental, not to mention the procreation man particpates in, which itself is miraculous in nature and is repeated throughout all the mammals and other species as well. Thats just a couple things for starters.

[quickdodge®]

You ask for proof of creation...where is the proof for evolution?

Here, below, was a comment I made just a little bit ago:

There's no set proof of where we came from, on either side. I find both sides fascinating as hail, though, lolol. Later, QD.

As you can see, I stated that there isn't proof of either side. I'm not siding with one or the other. You see? I'm just reading, asking and learning. Later, QD.

[metalman]

if you believe in just creation then you can't believe in evolution b/c everything is the way it is b/c of its creator... kinda defeats the point of life, life is predestined for what it is created for. there is no purpose.

Ahhh this is where you are incorrect. There is a purpose. Because you may have not figured out what it is doesnt mean there isnt.
Man invokes choice in his life each and everyday. Man was created to live forever but his choices dictated to following generations that would not be so. If youre saying we are "predestined" to live about 100 yrs give or take, youre correct at this point. Thats in the Bible too.

i still disagree, humans are formed from single cells that is what the basis of evolution speaks of everything is made up of. i don't see that to be any different. we can grow you in a test tube what do you call that?

Let me see, can you make a human from nothing...or from mud, or even a chimp?
Can't be done UNLESS you have a human CELL to start with.
Like I said, believe what you wish but its a HUGE leap of faith to assume since man PROCREATES HIMSELF from a cell to mankind evolves from NOTHING.

[metalman]

Here, below, was a comment I made just a little bit ago:



As you can see, I stated that there isn't proof of either side. I'm not siding with one or the other. You see? I'm just reading, asking and learning. Later, QD.

I would put it this way, the proof of creation is all around us, its there for the discerning human eye. The proof of man evolving from nothing is non existent. But youre at least half right....

[quickdodge®]

I would put it this way, the proof of creation is all around us, its there for the discerning human eye.

So, If I choose to see it, it is? I mean, I don't get it. I look outside and see trees and sky and shit like that and it's all God's doing? I mean it sounds cool and all and I don't have a problem believing that, but how is it definitive proof that He did it? There's no receipts, nothing tangible like a signature from Him saying He did it. Later, QD.

[4dmin]

Ahhh this is where you are incorrect. There is a purpose. Because you may have not figured out what it is doesnt mean there isnt.
Man invokes choice in his life each and everyday. Man was created to live forever but his choices dictated to following generations that would not be so. If youre saying we are "predestined" to live about 100 yrs give or take, youre correct at this point. Thats in the Bible too.



Let me see, can you make a human from nothing...or from mud, or even a chimp?
Can't be done UNLESS you have a human CELL to start with.
Like I said, believe what you wish but its a HUGE leap of faith to assume since man PROCREATES HIMSELF from a cell to mankind evolves from NOTHING.

ok explain purpose of life since you have it figured out? seriously, sounds like you believe this is nothing more than a game and we are pons and your using the bible for your basis of thought... that in itself if funny.

funny you use the word FAITH when speaking of evolution; that is what you are basing your Creation Theory on. what is the difference?

well in evolution a single cell is the smallest form of life, so yes it is possibly that man could evolve from a chimp considering the dna is very similar; who says it can't be done? just b/c it hasn't yet doesn't mean it won't. we can clone humans/animals, why don't evolve chimp dna into a man?

and since your so hell bent on disproving evolution, please show me right now how creation is creating a human... it is far more in the hands of evolution than GOD.

[metalman]

ok explain purpose of life since you have it figured out? seriously, sounds like you believe this is nothing more than a game and we are pons and your using the bible for your basis of thought... that in itself if funny.

People almost always laugh at what they don't understand.
I don't think this is a game either.
If you come to a greater understanding of whats going on in the big picture regarding good and evil the creation of earth and subsequent human events make alot of sense. If thats not something familiar to you then its not hard for me to understand why you'd laugh.

funny you use the word FAITH when speaking of evolution; that is what you are basing your Creation Theory on. what is the difference?

I have already explained it several times in several ways. What are you basing your belief in evolution on? So far I hear nothing...which is about right given thats amount of available proof for it.

well in evolution a single cell is the smallest form of life, so yes it is possibly that man could evolve from a chimp considering the dna is very similar; who says it can't be done? just b/c it hasn't yet doesn't mean it won't. we can clone humans/animals, why don't evolve chimp dna into a man?

Talk about faith! LOL Again NO PROOF!!! Just a theory.
Unlike the complex systems which are all around us, which comprise us, which are PROOF of some sort of intelligent design.

and since your so hell bent on disproving evolution, please show me right now how creation is creating a human... it is far more in the hands of evolution than GOD.

Already explained this one too....and I am not hell bent on anything. I am only calling to attention the lack of proof for evolution and what nonsense it is if one actually thinks about it, logically, or otherwise. Ya know...the empty box turns into Rolex watch theory.

Everytime we humans proCREATE we take part in creation...if but in a small way. The fact we all have a concience is proof of something...and thats damn sure not evolution. No specie needs a concience to survive. Animals prove this each day. In evolutionary theory the strongest survive...not the kindest. Humans are the only specie with a concience....which makes perfect sense IF you subscribe to creation.

I might ask, what is the real objection to creation if neither is truly "unprovable"? You know what I think it is? Accountability. Man doesnt want it. Man really doesnt want to reconcile his thinking to any concept of punishment or reward or anything of that nature. He prefers the predestination of evolution...which offers nothing more then eventual extinction to make way for another lifeform....death.....if man is evolved his future is indeed predestined....he has no choice but to follow that destiny. If there is a God, then there is choice, AND there is oh so much more then evolution offers. Just something to think about.

[4dmin]

People almost always laugh at what they don't understand.
I don't think this is a game either.
If you come to a greater understanding of whats going on in the big picture regarding good and evil the creation of earth and subsequent human events make alot of sense. If thats not something familiar to you then its not hard for me to understand why you'd laugh.



I have already explained it several times in several ways. What are you basing your belief in evolution on? So far I hear nothing...which is about right given thats amount of available proof for it.




Talk about faith! LOL Again NO PROOF!!! Just a theory.
Unlike the complex systems which are all around us, which comprise us, which are PROOF of some sort of intelligent design.



Already explained this one too....and I am not hell bent on anything. I am only calling to attention the lack of proof for evolution and what nonsense it is if one actually thinks about it, logically, or otherwise. Ya know...the empty box turns into Rolex watch theory.

Everytime we humans proCREATE we take part in creation...if but in a small way. The fact we all have a concience is proof of something...and thats damn sure not evolution. No specie needs a concience to survive. Animals prove this each day. In evolutionary theory the strongest survive...not the kindest. Humans are the only specie with a concience....which makes perfect sense IF you subscribe to creation.

I might ask, what is the real objection to creation if neither is truly "unprovable"? You know what I think it is? Accountability. Man doesnt want it. Man really doesnt want to reconcile his thinking to any concept of punishment or reward or anything of that nature. He prefers the predestination of evolution...which offers nothing more then eventual extinction to make way for another lifeform....death.....if man is evolved his future is indeed predestined....he has no choice but to follow that destiny. If there is a God, then there is choice, AND there is oh so much more then evolution offers. Just something to think about.

i gave you a few examples of evolution, any birth(child/whatever), butteryfly, sex changing frogs, & cloning... all examples of. that is what i'm basing my support for evolution.

you said we as humans breeding is creation? how are we creating something from nothing? we aren't we are merely taking single cells and they are evolving inside a womb into a fetus which will grow into a man. if it was any other way then pregnacy would be no issue or work.

i don't have any objections to creation other then thinking that is the only way of thinking... i believe the cycle must be started by creation but after that evolution is the form of which life will sustain. if that is incorrect then why are we not all asexual?

[b@d @pple]

i gave you a few examples of evolution, any birth(child/whatever), butteryfly, sex changing frogs, & cloning... all examples of. that is what i'm basing my support for evolution.

you said we as humans breeding is creation? how are we creating something from nothing? we aren't we are merely taking single cells and they are evolving inside a womb into a fetus which will grow into a man. if it was any other way then pregnacy would be no issue or work.

i don't have any objections to creation other then thinking that is the only way of thinking... i believe the cycle must be started by creation but after that evolution is the form of which life will sustain. if that is incorrect then why are we not all asexual?

werd ,,,reps nigga

[metalman]

i gave you a few examples of evolution, any birth(child/whatever), butteryfly, sex changing frogs, & cloning... all examples of. that is what i'm basing my support for evolution.

That kind of "evolution" is COMPLETELY different then the type where MANKIND COMES FROM NOTHING! So...again...no proof my friend.
If thats your 'support' its extremely weak indeed.

[metalman]

i don't have any objections to creation other then thinking that is the only way of thinking... i believe the cycle must be started by creation but after that evolution is the form of which life will sustain. if that is incorrect then why are we not all asexual?

The "cyle"?? What cylce? Life? The earth? Human life?
If so, yes I agree...human life was created then we adapted to our enviroment. This type of "evolutuon" has its limits. Mankind doesnt evolve from nothing and plants dont become mammals.

If I moved to the desert of arabia its fair to say that in time my decendants would develop darker skin and wider nostrils due to the climate BUT they will NEVER turn into camels.

Thats the difference in one kind of evolution and the BIG one many would have us believe.

[4dmin]

That kind of "evolution" is COMPLETELY different then the type where MANKIND COMES FROM NOTHING! So...again...no proof my friend.
If thats your 'support' its extremely weak indeed.

evolution is evolution... the basis is evolve from single cell organisms...

humans breeding is such that, it is far from creation.

creation = something from nothing; if that is true then there is no need for breeding we would be asexual

evolution is taking a single cell and evolving it into a man

you still haven't answered me on... if creation exsist why is there breeding? why aren't we asexual? there is no need for breeding if creation exsist, we all could be the virgin mary.

[metalman]

Even Darwin admitted....

"There are two or three million species on earth. A sufficient field one might think for observation; but it must be said today that in spite of all the evidence of trained observers, not one change of the species to another is on record."

[4dmin]

Even Darwin admitted....

"There are two or three million species on earth. A sufficient field one might think for observation; but it must be said today that in spite of all the evidence of trained observers, not one change of the species to another is on record."

ok.

you still haven't answered me about asexual. here is a diagram for life of a frog... this i guess is what you would call creation? please explain to me where the creation is in this on a daily process?

[metalman]

ok.

you still haven't answered me about asexual. here is a diagram for life of a frog... this i guess is what you would call creation? please explain to me where the creation is in this on a daily process?

Youve shown the answer to your own question.
The only purpose to any of that is to make MORE frogs of the same kind....which is the purpose of proCREATION.
There is no evolution in the major sense. Adaptation to preserve SAME species? Yes.
Change to make NEW species? NOPE!

[metalman]

Perhaps you'd (or anyone) care to explain one....

The Cambrian is the last stratum of the descending levels of earth that has any fossils in it. All strata below the Cambrian have absolutely no fossil record of life other than some single-celled types such as bacteria and algae. WHY?????
Bacteria suddenly turned into animals???????
The Cambrian layer is full of all the major kinds of animals found today except the vertebrates. In other words, there is nothing primitive about the structure of these most ancient fossils known to man. Essentially, they compare with the complexity of current living creatures. The real question is: Where are their ancestors????

If all life came about suddenly then....hmmmmmmmm....not evolution. Even Darwin knew this was a huge problem to the theory.... He said..."To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system I can give no satisfactory answer...the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a VALID ARGUMENT AGAINST the views here entertained" (evolution)

[4dmin]

Youve shown the answer to your own question.
The only purpose to any of that is to make MORE frogs of the same kind....which is the purpose of proCREATION.
There is no evolution in the major sense. Adaptation to preserve SAME species? Yes.
Change to make NEW species? NOPE!

WTF are we looking at the same pic? i certainly see single cell evole into a full blown adult frog

what is it adapting to? single cell can remain single cell, but it doesn't it grows a tail, from a tail to legs, to no tail... the enviroment is the same. and adaptation is a form of evolution.

[metalman]

where did the cell come from??????? a frog!!!
youre really not that dense are you?

[4dmin]

where did the cell come from??????? a frog!!!
youre really not that dense are you?

GOD? you got to be kidding me... of course a frog, how do you think the cycle of life works, how do you think you were made?

let me guess GOD came down and banged your mom and she woke up pregnant?


fine your still disputing evolution exsist explain WHAT IS A MULE?

[metalman]

GOD? you got to be kidding me... of course a frog, how do you think the cycle of life works, how do you think you were made?

let me guess GOD came down and banged your mom and she woke up pregnant?


fine your still disputing evolution exsist explain WHAT IS A MULE?

Have you carefully read my answers in this forum??


I have already acknowledged THAT type of "evolution". Its the "man came from monkeys, which came from NOTHING" which I dispute. There is NO PROOF for that type in terms of ORIGIN OF MAN. There is NOT ONE example of ANY specie ever becoming another. There is no fern becoming a frog.

You confuse micro-evolution (adaptation, crossbreeding etc)with macro-evolution (orgins of life from nothing) There is no doubt frogs make frogs, people make people, sheep make sheep, elephants make elephants etc etc etc.....in addition we know that crossbreeding of many specie is possible. (MULES etc) We also know that if you put a man in the desert for centuries he will develop darker skin and larger nostrils BUT he will never become a scorpion!

However, to jump from THAT to a theory that maintains man came from NOTHING, remember... "The rolex from empty box theory" is a leap of immense faith based on NO PROOF.

In fact the fossil proof indicates life SUDDENLY appeared. NOT gradually.

[4dmin]

However, to jump from THAT to a theory that maintains man came from NOTHING, remember... "The rolex from empty box theory" is a leap of immense faith based on NO PROOF.

In fact the fossil proof indicates life SUDDENLY appeared. NOT gradually.

you keep trying to put words in my mouth that i disagree that man came from nothing, i stated the cycle starts w/ creation, but you are trying to complicate the fact tha evolution exsist. i don't give a shit if its adaptation, macro, micro, its still evolution at work... you can call an apple an orange but its still and apple.

[metalman]

you keep trying to put words in my mouth that i disagree that man came from nothing, i stated the cycle starts w/ creation, but you are trying to complicate the fact tha evolution exsist. i don't give a shit if its adaptation, macro, micro, its still evolution at work... you can call an apple an orange but its still and apple.

Yes indeed what you described can be called "evolution" but not in the larger sense in terms of what "science" tends to teach and mankind tends to accept.

Here's the issue that I was discussing....frogs come from frogs, whether it require a single frog or two is beside the point. Evolution in its largest sense the theory that the first frog came from nothing OR another lifeform.
That theory HAS NO PROOF, on the contrary, the proof would indicate instant creation by intellligent design, ORIGIN of life by creation of a God or super intelligent being far surpasing anything known in humans.

Somewhere along the line I guess you mistook the objection I have to this ultimate theory of evolution, which is the very heart and soul of it, for something else.

I glad you concur that LIFE started by creation, that is certainly what makes the most sense to me given the evidence. I might add...so far the evidence does not contradict the Bible account of creation. In particular the fossil record is in complete harmony with that account.

[ISAtlanta300]

I believe that what Metalman is referring to with evolution is for example, mokeys banging each other and one day a human thinking baby plops out. Or the notion that Dolphins grew legs and started walking on land and became dogs. Thus evolving into something else. By that definition you believe that humans "evolved" from Animals, which are two different species.

That is the "hard to believe part". A cat is a cat, and was a cat thousand of years ago (Egypt times). A wolf is a wolf and is still one from tens of thousand of years ago. A fish is a fish still from millions of years ago. A cat did not become a dog. A wolf did not become a bird. And a monkey did not become a man.

What is more, how come we had to evolve from a monkey? I know of better candidates (smarter animals) for our "evolution", with a more advanced brain and of a higher intelligence, like dolphins, or a pig. Surely these animals would be talking to us by now, if they were evolving?

[David88vert]

Damn, I see this and it has already eroded from dinosuars to evolution!

Back to the original topic: Dinosaurs.

In the book of Job, it talks of the behemoth with a tail like a cedar. Cedars are huge trees in the Lebanon area. They are many times larger than an elephant or giraffes tail. In fact, there is no animal alive on earth today that could be mistake for having a tail like a cedar. Job is generally recognized as the oldest written book of the Bible. Job would not have had the scientific capabilites that we have today, so he would have had to observe it. The behemoth ate grass, and had large haunches, and a big belly. Sounds like a dinosaur to me.
It also speaks of a leviathan, that man cannot fish with hooks or spears. This creature has scales, like a reptile. This creature is more in line with an ancient dragon, but swims in the ocean, rather than flies, and there is no mention of wings.

Outside of the Bible, there is another compelling piece of physical evidence of dinosaurs and humans living together, but evolutionists remain quiet on this. It does not fit into the grand scheme that dinosuars died 1 million years or more before the first cavemen.
Do a little research on the Ica Stones. My question for you, "How could an ancient Peruvian civilization known what dinosaurs were if dinosaurs died out millions of years before them?".

[{X}Echo419]

^good point^

WTF are we looking at the same pic? i certainly see single cell evole into a full blown adult frog

what is it adapting to? single cell can remain single cell, but it doesn't it grows a tail, from a tail to legs, to no tail... the enviroment is the same. and adaptation is a form of evolution.

the frog didn't evolve "from" a single cell organism. the frogs got busy and a baby frog "GREW".
I didn't evolve from a 8lbs baby to and adult I(just an example we all did...well most of us) GREW.
go shit in 1 hand and wait for a univerxe to bang into exsistence in the other and we'll see which 1 gets full 1st

[David88vert]

fine your still disputing evolution exsist explain WHAT IS A MULE?

BTW - a mule is a terrible way to try to prove evolution. Mules are sterile. It is a mating of a horse and a donkey.

HorseA + HorseB = HorseC
HorseC + HorseD = HorseE

DonkeyA + DonkeyB = DonkeyC
DonkeyC + DonkeyD = DonkeyE

HorseA + DonkeyA = MuleA (sterile hybrid)
HorseB + DonkeyB = MuleB (sterile hybrid)
MuleA + MuleB != MuleC (no evolution of a new species)

[Z33_kid]

hmmm