First Prev
of 3
Next Last

“Jesus Is Returning Sooner Than”

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Avondale, AZ

#1 Jun 21, 2013
Dear ALL,

I'm going to tell you what I can and I am not going to reveal my source, but my facts. This earth has been here for over a million years old. Some of you seem to think that just by gradual changing, different species 'evolved'. Give God more credit than that. God created every creature on the earth, in each day/generation that is written in the Bible. But, God wiped the screen blank a number of times indeed, like tons of times. In other words, He created and then obliterated, and formed each animal and bird, and critter and man/woman differently, each time changed in ways He saw fit that were better. There is NO EVOLUTION. Tell that to God when you see HIM. He has EVERY PART on how each animal/human was formed because He kept re-forming them and making them better each time. It's God's HANDIWORK here at stake, not "evolution's."

You'll notice in the first chapter of Genesis, it says God "Created" each in their 'day' or 'generation'. We also cannot ascertain that 24 hours was the 'day's' length then either. All that I do know is that He has revealed something to me to share with others, for their sakes. Believe me or not. It really doesn't matter. In the first chapter of Genesis, it says God created the beasts and birds, and all of that, before He created man on the sixth 'day' or 'generation'. Now follow all this closely and re-read it as much as necessary for you. In the SECOND chapter of Genesis, does it not say that the Lord God "Formed" man from the dust of the ground. And the Lord God saw that the man was lonely, and so He formed the birds, and animals from the dust of the ground and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. So first, we have Adam being CREATED after the birds and beasts were CREATED, and yet in Genesis chapter two, it says the Lord God FORMED man BEFORE the beasts and birds.

You will also notice that in the first chapter, God said the fowl/birds were created from the waters, but in the second chapter, it says the Lord God FORMED the birds/fowl from the dust of the ground. Now it is time for people to know the truth because they are questioning the true existence of God. I happen to know that God CREATED man and woman once, and the Lord God wiped them from the face of the earth many times and improved man and animals and plants, etc. as He saw fit. That is why we find man's bones that are older than 5,000 years, or "OUR" ADAM. There were Adams and Eves formed many times over the thousands of years and they were perfected and changed as the Lord God saw fit. That is why it is written, "and He called THEIR name Adam in the day they were created. That is why it is written,'This is the book of the generations of Adam, in the image of God made he him/man.' I'm not sure that is the exact quote without looking it up right now. It is not a big matter. The Lord God has wiped the earth clean before and He will again. Remember Noah and his wife, of whom we are all descended from, therefore we are ALL Brothers and Sisters who don't get along well. Ishmael is the descendant of all of the Arab people. The next time the Lord God wipes this earth clean, He will again FORM a man from the dust of the ground, whether He forms the beasts beforehand or afterwards, and He will FORM another woman. And another book will be written for that Generation of Adam (and Eve). I hope I've explained this well enough for now. This is the Lord God's playpen down here (His VERY BELOVED CREATION) and He will change things as He will a dollhouse. It's His option. What are you going to do about it?? Forget your Evolution idea!! There is a Higher Power that oversees every little change in every creature He forms. That's all, just for now. Re-read and study, and look in your Bibles.
May the Lord God Continue to Bless the Lord Jesus,

Michael W. Cadry

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#2 Jun 21, 2013
Ah. More preaching. Swell.

“I am the great an powerful Ny!”

Since: Dec 06

Lebanon, PA

#3 Jun 21, 2013
I read most of this the first time you posted it. Adding the exclamation points to the title didn't make it sound any less dumb.
Vicky

Hamilton, OH

#6 Jun 23, 2013
So what you're saying is that (an apparently imperfect) God was unsatisfied with his original creation and re-made all the creatures over and over again trying (unsuccessfully) to perfect them and thereby creating the impression of an evolutionary sequence? Sorry, I accept 150 years of scientific research over trying to force fit preconceived answers from your unnamed sources into the available evidence any day.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#7 Jun 24, 2013

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#8 Jun 24, 2013
If you want a real laugh read this idiots post on 19 Nov 2012 on his Google+ timeline https://plus.google.com/110804643956226717336...

He thinks that the solar panel on the ISS is a building, he also does not seem to understand that the signing of the armistice at the end of WWI is a historical event, not a current one - ROFLMAO

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#9 Jun 25, 2013
Bluenose wrote:
If you want a real laugh read this idiots post on 19 Nov 2012 on his Google+ timeline https://plus.google.com/110804643956226717336...
He thinks that the solar panel on the ISS is a building, he also does not seem to understand that the signing of the armistice at the end of WWI is a historical event, not a current one - ROFLMAO
But wait, there's more. He has also written a book. It is either about Jesus or the lead singer of Molly Hatchet. I am just guessing based on the picture.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#10 Jun 27, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>But wait, there's more. He has also written a book. It is either about Jesus or the lead singer of Molly Hatchet. I am just guessing based on the picture.
Yep, you can buy his book for various prices, even as an eBook. Then again, you can just download the latest edition for free off his web site. This idiot doesn't even know how to look after his own commercial interests. The book is an absolute treasure. If I has written it as a joke everyone would laugh at me for being so ridiculous, but this drop-kick is deadly serious. He's obviously from the shallow end of the gene pool.

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#11 Jun 28, 2013
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, you can buy his book for various prices, even as an eBook. Then again, you can just download the latest edition for free off his web site. This idiot doesn't even know how to look after his own commercial interests. The book is an absolute treasure. If I has written it as a joke everyone would laugh at me for being so ridiculous, but this drop-kick is deadly serious. He's obviously from the shallow end of the gene pool.
Genetic driftwood maybe. Did you notice if his book was available on rolls?
LGK

Preston, UK

#12 Jul 3, 2013
Vicky wrote:
So what you're saying is that (an apparently imperfect) God was unsatisfied with his original creation and re-made all the creatures over and over again trying (unsuccessfully) to perfect them and thereby creating the impression of an evolutionary sequence? Sorry, I accept 150 years of scientific research over trying to force fit preconceived answers from your unnamed sources into the available evidence any day.
Are you scientific answers original to you or preconceived? 150 years is a time-frame, not a source.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#13 Jul 3, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you scientific answers original to you or preconceived? 150 years is a time-frame, not a source.
You're straining the irony meters beyond maximum capacity again.

What's the "code", El?

“My hand is over my crotch.”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

It's time to put it to use

#14 Jul 4, 2013
Creation-a mere fairytale.
Evolution-based on facts.
Vicky

Hamilton, OH

#15 Jul 4, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you scientific answers original to you or preconceived? 150 years is a time-frame, not a source.
You're right, 150 years is a time frame. Where did I cite it as a source? I was referring to the 150 years since Darwin published "On The Origin Of Species" in 1859, which I assumed most people reading this would understand on both sides of the issue. That is the time frame in which serious research on evolution has taken place. While our understanding of the mechanisms have changed, no evidence has been discovered to discredit the fact that evolution has occurred. While I'm not a practicing scientist (more of an underachieving geologist), I've read quite a bit on the subject and done enough grubbing for fossils to understand the subject. So, no the science isn't original to me, but not spoon fed as "absolute truth" to be accepted without question either.
LGK

Preston, UK

#16 Jul 4, 2013
Vicky wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right, 150 years is a time frame. Where did I cite it as a source? I was referring to the 150 years since Darwin published "On The Origin Of Species" in 1859, which I assumed most people reading this would understand on both sides of the issue. That is the time frame in which serious research on evolution has taken place. While our understanding of the mechanisms have changed, no evidence has been discovered to discredit the fact that evolution has occurred. While I'm not a practicing scientist (more of an underachieving geologist), I've read quite a bit on the subject and done enough grubbing for fossils to understand the subject. So, no the science isn't original to me, but not spoon fed as "absolute truth" to be accepted without question either.
Anyone talking about absolute truth has left science because scientific theories / explanations are provisional. Do you think the theory of biological evolution ie FARM (Fish evolved into Amphibians which evolved into Reptiles which evolved into Mammals) is provisional or is an absolute truth?

Everyone believes evolution has and does occur, that's not controversial - things do change over time. It's the mechanism of change that's controversial. The theory of evolution claims that random mutation, natural selection & descent with modification can & did change fish into amphibians. And there lieth the problem. There is neither empirical evidence nor proof of concept for this. If you have it, please be my guest & shared it: I'll be the 1st to hold up my hand & say you're right if you produce that evidence.

I'm not a geologist but know enough to realise that fossils do not show mechanisms, I'll call them still photos of what lived & died, not how it changed from A to B. So I'm afraid fossils don't count as evidence of change by random mutation, natural selection & descent with modification.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#17 Jul 4, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone talking about absolute truth has left science because scientific theories / explanations are provisional. Do you think the theory of biological evolution ie FARM (Fish evolved into Amphibians which evolved into Reptiles which evolved into Mammals) is provisional or is an absolute truth?
Everyone believes evolution has and does occur, that's not controversial - things do change over time. It's the mechanism of change that's controversial. The theory of evolution claims that random mutation, natural selection & descent with modification can & did change fish into amphibians. And there lieth the problem. There is neither empirical evidence nor proof of concept for this. If you have it, please be my guest & shared it: I'll be the 1st to hold up my hand & say you're right if you produce that evidence.
I'm not a geologist but know enough to realise that fossils do not show mechanisms, I'll call them still photos of what lived & died, not how it changed from A to B. So I'm afraid fossils don't count as evidence of change by random mutation, natural selection & descent with modification.
Of course there is empirical evidence that supports fish to tetrapod evolution. The fossil record is empirical evidence and that supports it. The many nested hierarchies found in biology support it even more. We knew it before DNA came along and DNA confirmed it all over again. Then we had ERV's within the DNA and creationists were left without a clue.

Claims such as yours are so easily debunked that it is laughable.
Vicky

Hamilton, OH

#18 Jul 4, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone talking about absolute truth has left science because scientific theories / explanations are provisional. Do you think the theory of biological evolution ie FARM (Fish evolved into Amphibians which evolved into Reptiles which evolved into Mammals) is provisional or is an absolute truth?
Everyone believes evolution has and does occur, that's not controversial - things do change over time. It's the mechanism of change that's controversial. The theory of evolution claims that random mutation, natural selection & descent with modification can & did change fish into amphibians. And there lieth the problem. There is neither empirical evidence nor proof of concept for this. If you have it, please be my guest & shared it: I'll be the 1st to hold up my hand & say you're right if you produce that evidence.
I'm not a geologist but know enough to realise that fossils do not show mechanisms, I'll call them still photos of what lived & died, not how it changed from A to B. So I'm afraid fossils don't count as evidence of change by random mutation, natural selection & descent with modification.
Again you don't seem able to comprehend what I said. I thought I fairly clearly said that I reject someone else forcing their limited interpretation as "absolute truth" (please note the quotation marks)to my own experience and studies that lead me to accept a scientific, evolutionary explanation. I'm glad that we agree that evolution has occurred. Unfortunately, if it wasn't considered controversial there would be no need for a forum such as this.

Do you have a more plausible scientific theory than "random mutation, natural selection & descent with modification"? If so, please let's discuss it. Do you not understand that fish appeared before amphibians before reptiles before mammals in the fossil record"? Isn't this exactly what we should expect to see for a record resulting from "random mutation, natural selection & descent with modification"? It is not the single individual fossil that we find that proves evolution but an assemblage of clearly similar forms through time that documents the process.

You say you accept the fact of evolution but reject the theory. You say there is no empirical evidence or proof but offer nothing to support this position. Please enlighten us and be specific. If you can't then you're just blowing hot air.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#19 Jul 4, 2013
MichaelCadry wrote:
Dear ALL,
I'm going to tell you what I can and I am not going to reveal my source, but my facts. This earth has been here for over a million years old. Some of you seem to think that just by gradual changing, different species 'evolved'. Give God more credit than that. God created every creature on the earth, in each day/generation that is written in the Bible. But, God wiped the screen blank a number of times indeed, like tons of times. In other words, He created and then obliterated, and formed each animal and bird, and critter and man/woman differently, each time changed in ways He saw fit that were better. There is NO EVOLUTION. Tell that to God when you see HIM. He has EVERY PART on how each animal/human was formed because He kept re-forming them and making them better each time. It's God's HANDIWORK here at stake, not "evolution's."
You'll notice in the first chapter of Genesis, it says God "Created" each in their 'day' or 'generation'. We also cannot ascertain that 24 hours was the 'day's' length then either. All that I do know is that He has revealed something to me to share with others, for their sakes. Believe me or not. It really doesn't matter. In the first chapter of Genesis, it says God created the beasts and birds, and all of that, before He created man on the sixth 'day' or 'generation'. Now follow all this closely and re-read it as much as necessary for you. In the SECOND chapter of Genesis, does it not say that the Lord God "Formed" man from the dust of the ground. And the Lord God saw that the man was lonely, and so He formed the birds, and animals from the dust of the ground and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. So first, we have Adam being CREATED after the birds and beasts were CREATED, and yet in Genesis chapter two, it says the Lord God FORMED man BEFORE the beasts and birds.
You will also notice that in the first chapter, God said the fowl/birds were created from the waters, but in the second chapter, it says the Lord God FORMED the birds/fowl from the dust of the ground. Now it is time for people to know the truth because they are questioning the true existence of God. I happen to know that God CREATED man and woman once, and the Lord God wiped them from the face of the earth many times and improved man and animals and plants, etc. as He saw fit. That is why we find man's bones that are older than 5,000 years, or "OUR" ADAM. There were Adams and Eves formed many times over the thousands of years and they were perfected and changed as the Lord God saw fit. That is why it is written, "and He called THEIR name Adam in the day they were created. That is why it is written,'This is the book of the generations of Adam, in the image of God made he him/man.' I'm not sure that is the exact quote without looking it up right now. It is not a big matter. The Lord God has wiped the earth clean before and He will again. Remember Noah and his wife, of whom we are all descended from, therefore we are ALL Brothers and Sisters who don't get along well. Ishmael is the descendant of all of the Arab people. The next time the Lord God wipes this earth clean, He will again FORM a man from the dust of the ground, whether He forms the beasts beforehand or afterwards, and He will FORM another woman. And another book will be written for that Generation of Adam (and Eve). I hope I've explained this well enough for now. This is the Lord God's playpen down here (His VERY BELOVED CREATION) and He will change things as He will a dollhouse. It's His option. What are you going to do about it?? Forget your Evolution idea!! There is a Higher Power that oversees every little change in every creature He forms. That's all, just for now. Re-read and study, and look in your Bibles.
May the Lord God Continue to Bless the Lord Jesus,
Michael W. Cadry

Aren't you the schizophrenic guy who believes that angels tell him all this stuff?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#20 Jul 5, 2013
LGK wrote:
Anyone talking about absolute truth has left science because scientific theories / explanations are provisional. Do you think the theory of biological evolution ie FARM (Fish evolved into Amphibians which evolved into Reptiles which evolved into Mammals) is provisional or is an absolute truth?
Provisional. That's the great thing about science, is that it ALWAYS has the potential to be falsified. Which is why evolution is a scientific theory that works. Even better, falsifiable as it is, it hasn't been falsified yet.

"Truth" is subjective, which is why every religion lays claim to it. Science deals with facts and evidence. We'll leave "truth" for the philosophers pretending to know stuff while sitting on their azz.
LGK wrote:
Everyone believes evolution has and does occur, that's not controversial - things do change over time. It's the mechanism of change that's controversial. The theory of evolution claims that random mutation, natural selection & descent with modification can & did change fish into amphibians. And there lieth the problem. There is neither empirical evidence nor proof of concept for this. If you have it, please be my guest & shared it: I'll be the 1st to hold up my hand & say you're right if you produce that evidence.
No, you'll be the last to do so because you're a reality-denying YEC liar for Jesus who doesn't care about evidence in the slightest. We have plenty of evidence but since evidence is superfluous to the position of Goddidit with magic (especially since you're a YEC) to ask for something which we both know exists but you don't have the slightest interest in is highly disingenuous on your part.
LGK wrote:
I'm not a geologist but know enough to realise that fossils do not show mechanisms, I'll call them still photos of what lived & died, not how it changed from A to B. So I'm afraid fossils don't count as evidence of change by random mutation, natural selection & descent with modification.
We know you're not a geologist because you're a YEC. You're not a chemist either because you're a YEC. You're not a physicist either because you're a YEC. You're not a biologist either because you're a creationist. No-one claims the mechanisms are demonstrated by fossils; The mechanisms of evolution are observed in biology. But what the fossils DO demonstrate is clear evolutionary change. And that's WHY only evolution is capable of making successful predictions based on the fossil record. In the meantime you are not capable of telling us the likelihood of fossils with feathers and three middle-ear bones because your position is invisible Jewmagic. Thus if they exist then the Jewish wizard didit, and if not then the Jewish wizard didit. Not falsifiable either way. Hence not scientific.

What's the "code", El?

Maybe you'll have an answer next century? Or later? Thought so.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#21 Jul 5, 2013
Vicky wrote:
Again you don't seem able to comprehend what I said.
He's a fundie. He doesn't comprehend reality.
Vicky wrote:
Unfortunately, if it wasn't considered controversial there would be no need for a forum such as this.
This forum is utterly redundant. Evolution is not controversial. Certainly not in any scientific sense. The only "controversy" is that manufactured at a cultural level, because even today in the 21st century there are many people who reject reality because they think that the Flinstones is a science documentary.
Vicky wrote:
If you can't then you're just blowing hot air.
Get your gas mask ready, it's only gonna get worse next time round.
LGK

Preston, UK

#22 Jul 5, 2013
Vicky wrote:
<quoted text>
Again you don't seem able to comprehend what I said. I thought I fairly clearly said that I reject someone else forcing their limited interpretation as "absolute truth" (please note the quotation marks)to my own experience and studies that lead me to accept a scientific, evolutionary explanation. I'm glad that we agree that evolution has occurred. Unfortunately, if it wasn't considered controversial there would be no need for a forum such as this.
Do you have a more plausible scientific theory than "random mutation, natural selection & descent with modification"? If so, please let's discuss it. Do you not understand that fish appeared before amphibians before reptiles before mammals in the fossil record"? Isn't this exactly what we should expect to see for a record resulting from "random mutation, natural selection & descent with modification"? It is not the single individual fossil that we find that proves evolution but an assemblage of clearly similar forms through time that documents the process.
You say you accept the fact of evolution but reject the theory. You say there is no empirical evidence or proof but offer nothing to support this position. Please enlighten us and be specific. If you can't then you're just blowing hot air.
I have no problem with assertions that fish preceded mammals in life's history but that doesn't mean fish changed into non-fish or mammals, let alone how. No-one has ever seen a fish producing anything other than a fish. We may well expect to find fish preceding amphibians etc in the fossil record IF fish could evolve into amphibians but how do we know, in the 1st place that fish CAN change into non-fish? That's the evidence I'm saying does not exist, it's just been assumed. The burden of proof lies with people claiming that this can / has happened& up to press, no-one has ever produced such proof. If I see it, I will accept it.

Just one word on fossils. They cannot in principle be evidence of a mechanism however many similarities they may or may not have.

I accept micro-evolution 100% ie small-beaked finches producing big-flinched ones etc but finches all the way. What I don't accept is birds changing into non-birds or bacteria changing into non-bacteria. That's never been observed in the lab or in the wild.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 4 min Charles Idemi 1,392
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr replaytime 149,719
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr marksman11 141,001
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 4 hr One way or another 176,923
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Denisova 16,810
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 5 hr susanblange 693
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off 7 hr MikeF 16
More from around the web