Discussion Regarding Evolution, Fact or Fiction?

[Michael2012]

Michael...

Matthew 24:37-39
37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Luke 17:26-28
26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built;

2 Peter 2:4-6
4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;

2 Peter 3:5-7
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

How do you then take these passages speaking of Noah's flood, if it was an allegory, and not that which literally happened?

If someone in the Bible cites an allegory, that changes it to a literal event?   How so?

No sir. If someone cites an allegory, it remains to be an allegory.

Perhaps it would be just and fair of you to answer my question in red in my quoted post above.

I'm curious, perhaps you can tell us what the meaning of the allegory is, if it were an allegory.

[KiwiChristian]

I understand it the same way I understand the story of Joseph and the famine:

Gen 41:57  The people of all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth.

What a terrible translation!

"And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."

Now, the Hebrew basically says that all the countries affected by famine came unto Egypt

[KiwiChristian]

I understand it the same way I understand the story of Joseph and the famine:

Gen 41:57  The people of all the earth came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe in all the earth.

What a terrible translation!

"And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."

Now, the Hebrew basically says that all the countries affected by famine came unto Egypt.

[4WD]

What a terrible translation!

"And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands."

Now, the Hebrew basically says that all the countries affected by famine came unto Egypt

You are funny KiwiChristian.  What the Hebrew says is And all countries [Hebrew - erets] came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands[Hebrew -erets].   And of course that is the same Hebrew word [i[erets[/i] that was covered by the flood.

[The Barbarian]

No sir. If someone cites an allegory, it remains to be an allegory.

So, if it turns out that the flood story is an allegory, then these other people talking about it, do not change it to a literal history.  And since we do not know if it is a literal history or not, the reference means nothing in terms of whether or not it is an allegory.

Perhaps it would be just and fair of you to answer my question in red in my quoted post above.

I'm curious, perhaps you can tell us what the meaning of the allegory is, if it were an allegory.

The same as if it was an actual event.   Why would it be different?   The story about God's justice and mercy in the face of man's corruption and rebellion.    And of course His promise to keep His people safe.

[tooldtocare]

The same as if it was an actual event.   Why would it be different?   The story about God's justice and mercy in the face of man's corruption and rebellion.    And of course His promise to keep His people safe.

The promise to keep his people safe had some conditions attached. If they failed to follow His commandments there would be consequence's

31And I will pour out my indignation upon you, I will blow against you in the fire of my wrath, and deliver you into the hand of brutal men, skilful to destroy.

32You shall be for fuel to the fire; your blood shall be in the midst of the land; you shall be no more remembered: for I the LORD have spoken it.

(:-

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGgSNDPhO0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMSSwoJFq-8

[Amo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA4qfSlPtgI

[Michael2012]

No sir. If someone cites an allegory, it remains to be an allegory.

So, if it turns out that the flood story is an allegory, then these other people talking about it, do not change it to a literal history.  And since we do not know if it is a literal history or not, the reference means nothing in terms of whether or not it is an allegory.

So, you don't know if it's an allegory or not, if it is literal or figurative. So you don't know if the flood literally happened or not. On the case that it is an allegory and is figurative and did not literally happened, that would render a lot of related and relevant scriptural events to be questionable. Is it true or not that all but Noah and those in the ark the only ones left alive at that period of time? Is it true or not that God destroyed all flesh at that time? What now becomes of the covenant of God with Noah? Is it a covenant based upon an allegory? Is it true or not that .... and so on...

Perhaps it would be just and fair of you to answer my question in red in my quoted post above.

I'm curious, perhaps you can tell us what the meaning of the allegory is, if it were an allegory.

The same as if it was an actual event.   Why would it be different?   The story about God's justice and mercy in the face of man's corruption and rebellion.    And of course His promise to keep His people safe.

Matthew 24:37-39
37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

Please tell me if vv.38-39 is figurative or literal.

Luke 17:26-28
26 And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: 27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built;

Please tell me if v.27 is figurative or literal.

2 Peter 2:4-6
4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, one of eight people, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly; 6 and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly;

Please tell me if v.5 is figurative or literal.

2 Peter 3:5-7
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. 7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Please tell me if v.6 is figurative or literal.

[4WD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGgSNDPhO0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMSSwoJFq-8

For every such video that you post, there are literally hundreds or thousands of articles, books, lectures, videos that present the cosmology of the 14 billion year old universe and a 4.5 billion year old solar system.  That you can find one or two scientists who are as confused about this as you among the hundreds is not at all surprising.

[Alan]

For every such video that you post, there are literally hundreds or thousands of articles, books, lectures, videos that present the cosmology of the 14 billion year old universe and a 4.5 billion year old solar system.  That you can find one or two scientists who are as confused about this as you among the hundreds is not at all surprising.

My thoughts exactly, trying to "scientifically" explain the YE narrative is nothing short of entertaining to say the least.

[Texas Conservative]

My thoughts exactly, trying to "scientifically" explain the YE narrative is nothing short of entertaining to say the least.

Reminds me of Galileo.  Right is right no matter how many believe it or not.  Radiometric dating is 112 years old.

Our scientific advances on many things are in their infancy.  I think the definitive age of the earth will be refined with scientific progress.

[Amo]

For every such video that you post, there are literally hundreds or thousands of articles, books, lectures, videos that present the cosmology of the 14 billion year old universe and a 4.5 billion year old solar system.  That you can find one or two scientists who are as confused about this as you among the hundreds is not at all surprising.

Yea, because numbers are so very important. Just like the bible you claim to believe points out, "wide is the gate, and broad is the path that leads to truth and salvation, and many there be which go in thereat, because straight is the gate and narrow is the way which leads unto deception and destruction and few there be that find it", right. The vast majority of all in this world have believed, accepted, and promoted the truth unto salvation, while just a tiny handful have been deceived and promoted the lie. NOT!

Your numbers mean absolutely nothing. To the contrary, it is the deceived who rely upon all such as evidence of any truth. We can also go back and examine those hundreds of thousands of sources you speak of over the last century and find one theory after another which today have been proved wrong. Yet those who promoted them were as high-mindedly confident in them as you are here today.

Apart from this, point out the fault in the theories or accusations provided in the videos shared. A blanket ignorant statement about numbers means absolutely nothing.

[Amo]

My thoughts exactly, trying to "scientifically" explain the YE narrative is nothing short of entertaining to say the least.

Yes, of course, all attempts to reconcile the biblical account of creation and the flood by scientific observation are the ventures of fools and nothing more than entertainment. While the pursuit of scientific observation which contradicts the same is a noble endeavor of the elite and enlightened scientific mind, such as your own I presume. You don't fool me, your extremely tiny brain existing in a infinitesimally microscopic piece of time in eternity is just as clueless as mine and everyone else's on this planet. By faith you have chosen the observations of fallen humanity with tiny infantile brains just like yours and mine as your guide to scientific truth. I and others place that faith in the testimony of scripture which claims to be the written testimony of those inspired by the eternal author of all truth, the Holy Spirit of God. Your derogatory comments are no sign of superior intelligence or correctness, they are the natural defense mechanisms of the puny fallen nature we must all contend with. A nature and being fallen from its original state of perfection and pureness created in the image of God, not a nature derived from countless transitional stages and apes. Your theory degrades humanity and God to the confines of our own puny and fallen minds. Turn brother, and elevate both by faith in God's word above your own and that of fallen humanity.

[KiwiChristian]

For every such video that you post, there are literally hundreds or thousands of articles, books, lectures, videos that present the cosmology of the 14 billion year old universe and a 4.5 billion year old solar system.  That you can find one or two scientists who are as confused about this as you among the hundreds is not at all surprising.

Yeah, posting links back an forth achieves nothing.

[KiwiChristian]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwGgSNDPhO0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMSSwoJFq-8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAXXZ9nNE0A

[KiwiChristian]

You are funny KiwiChristian.  What the Hebrew says is And all countries [Hebrew - erets] came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands[Hebrew -erets].   And of course that is the same Hebrew word [i[erets[/i] that was covered by the flood.

Wrong. The word is "hā·'ā·reṣ"

[Amo]

http://www.icr.org/article/10137/

Researchers shined a laser light on fossil leaves and found some surprising results. Instead of mere impressions of leaves, the fossils turned out to contain original molecules—persisting after millions of supposed years.......................................

The second surprising result came from scan results between several fundamentally different kinds of plants. They found that specific chemical bond signatures signified the same basic plant kinds. For example, fossil and modern Araucaria had unique chemicals not shared with ginkgos. Lead author Vivi Vajda told Lund University,

"The results from the fossil leaves far exceeded our expectations, not only were they full of organic molecules, they also grouped according to well-established botanical relationships, based on DNA analysis of living plants i.e. Ginkgoes in one group, conifers in another."

So they didn't expect to find original organic molecules after supposed millions of years, nor did they expect to find those same molecules in similar plant kinds. It was as though millions of years of evolution never changed these plants' basic forms or even their basic molecules.

Could ginkgos remain ginkgos and Araucaria remain Araucaria because they have been reproducing faithfully within separately created kinds from the beginning of creation?

The original biomolecules in fossil leaf cuticles point to their deposition thousands of years ago, not millions. Also, biochemical similarities between ancient and modern plants of similar groups show no hint of evolution, but fit just fine with the created kinds of Genesis 1:12.

https://creation.com/gilding-the-sea-lily-crinoid-organic-molecules-mississippian

But not so fast. This ought to be a bombshell to anyone still thinking these fossils could be millions of years old. As the Ohio State University press release said in its introduction, "scientists have long believed that complex organic molecules couldn't survive fossilization"—i.e. that complex organic molecules couldn't survive for millions of years. Yet, bizarrely, researchers O'Malley, Ausich and Chin choose instead to not even question the 350-million-year supposed 'age' of their fossils. Rather they blithely say that their results suggest that "the preservation of diagnostic organic molecules is much more common than previously realized".

The millions-of-years paradigm is wrong, wrong, wrong. These beautifully preserved sea lilies, containing intact species-specific complex organic molecule biomarkers, give testimony to fast processes, not millions of years of slow burial. If only the researchers had stuck to the facts (their own eyewitness testimony), rather than feeling the need to go 'gilding the (sea) lily' with 350 million years worth of evolutionary fairy tale. 

Now some might ask how I know that the real age of the sea lily fossils is only around 4,500 years old? Well, let me make a candid admission. In my own strength, I'm pretty sure that I would never in a million years have been able to arrive at that figure. But I'm not writing this in my own strength. That's because God has spoken by His prophets (Hebrews 1:1, 2 Peter 1:20), and we have a record of that—the Bible.

Three whole chapters (Genesis 6–9), plus numerous verses citing them throughout the Bible (e.g. Psalm 104:6–9, Matthew 24:37–39, 1 Peter 3:20), are devoted to the account of the global Flood. This gives us a tremendous 'heads up' in understanding the world's geography, rocks and fossils, and wipes away latter-day human speculations of millions of years.

Such an understanding is available to Christina O'Malley, William Ausich, and Yu-Ping Chin, too, who could then try to undo the damage (Matthew 12:36) they've done through having gilded the sea lily story—if they're game. I say 'game', because for them the academic consequences of proclaiming a biblical thousands-of-years-not-millions timeline in their line of work would likely be fearful indeed.

Witness Expelled and Slaughter of the Dissidents—when even just a hint of a possibility of a Designer is even enough to get evolutionist PhD scientists sacked, it's easy to imagine that any challenge on their 'hero' time would render them apoplectic! It's their line-in-the-sand, the proverbial 'hill' they're willing to die for.

https://creation.com/expelled-new-movie-exposes-persecution-of-anti-darwinists

https://creation.com/reiss-resigns-as-royal-society-stifles-debate-on-evolution

https://creation.com/slaughter-of-the-dissidents

https://creation.com/time-is-the-hero

https://creation.com/Charge-the-hill

[KiwiChristian]

transitional stages?

LOL. no such things

[The Barbarian]

So, you don't know if it's an allegory or not, if it is literal or figurative.

Only God knows that.  However, there was a huge flood in the Middle East, at the right time.   So I'm inclined to think it's not just an allegory.

On the case that it is an allegory and is figurative and did not literally happened, that would render a lot of related and relevant scriptural events to be questionable.

Nope.   It would render a lot of people's interpretation of scripture to be questionable, but of course, that's quite a different thing.

I'm curious, perhaps you can tell us what the meaning of the allegory is, if it were an allegory.

Barbarian observes:
The same as if it was an actual event.   Why would it be different?   The story about God's justice and mercy in the face of man's corruption and rebellion.    And of course His promise to keep His people safe.

Matthew 24:37-39
37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

So you're arguing that if scripture mentions an allegory, that makes it a literal history?  How so?

   

[The Barbarian]

transitional stages?

LOL. no such things

Let's test your belief.   Name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a form transitional between them.

Very few creationists have taken this test, and so far, no one has succeeded.   You might be the first.

Let us know.   If you like, pick several such examples.

[The Barbarian]

But not so fast. This ought to be a bombshell to anyone still thinking these fossils could be millions of years old.

In fact, organic molecules millions of years old are well-known from marine invertebrates.   No paleontologist is surprised that heme and collagen has been recovered from dinosaur fossils.   The claim that was surprising was that tissue had been found.   And so far, no one has been able to confirm that truely remarkable claim. 

It is known that iron can preserve certain organic molecules for many millions of years.    Not surprisingly, iron fixation has been found in all such examples to date.

[KiwiChristian]

Simply put, all complex creatures on this earth are dependent on microbiome for their very existence. The study of microbiota is more of a support for evolution than an argument against since microbes are shown to evolve rapidly with environmental changes (our bodies). Did you know that the human body has over a trillion microbes inhabiting our bodies, most of which are crucial to our existence?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4848870/

So, which evolved first? the termites or their microbes?

[Michael2012]

So, you don't know if it's an allegory or not, if it is literal or figurative.

Only God knows that.  However, there was a huge flood in the Middle East, at the right time.   So I'm inclined to think it's not just an allegory.

An God had told us what He knows about that. But it seems you don't and can't believe what He told us about what He did with all flesh save Noah and all those with him in the ark and with the earth, unless you have scientific evidence and explanation how it could have happened. 

So, tell me what then is it to you more than it is an allegory? That it is real? And you are just waiting for scientific evidence and explanation so that you will believe that it is a real event that took place? Or that, you believe it is a real event yet only regional because so far that is what science seems to convict you? Well, if one's faith depends on what science seems to convict him, then there goes his faith relative to scriptures.

On the case that it is an allegory and is figurative and did not literally happened, that would render a lot of related and relevant scriptural events to be questionable.

Nope.   It would render a lot of people's interpretation of scripture to be questionable, but of course, that's quite a different thing.

So, in your take of the Noah's flood, as a Christian, kindly share to us your take on the following questions among many more:

1. Is it true or not that all but Noah and those in the ark the only ones left alive at that period of time?
2. Is it true or not that God destroyed all flesh at that time?
3. Did Noah actually built the ark or not?
4. What now becomes of the covenant of God with Noah? Is it a covenant based upon an allegory?
5. Does the rainbow has any meaning to the Jew and the Christian regarding the flood, if the flood were just a figure of an allegory?

Barbarian observes:

The same as if it was an actual event.   Why would it be different?   The story about God's justice and mercy in the face of man's corruption and rebellion.    And of course His promise to keep His people safe.

michael...

Matthew 24:37-39
37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

So you're arguing that if scripture mentions an allegory, that makes it a literal history?  How so?

I had already answered that in  Reply #840:

No sir. If someone cites an allegory, it remains to be an allegory.

In addition to that, we find that in scriptures, most often if not all the time, when true events are taken as a figure in as passage, that is, as an allegory, the writer makes it a point to put this on the clear, that it is used symbolically. This does not at all make the referenced literal events to cease to be real events. An example is that of the two sons of Abraham (Gal. 4).

So, why do I get the impression that you find it difficult to answer my simple queries:

1. Matthew 24:37-39, please tell me if vv.38-39 is figurative or literal.
2. Luke 17:26-28, please tell me if v.27 is figurative or literal.
3. 2 Peter 2:4-6, please tell me if v.5 is figurative or literal.
4. 2 Peter 3:5-7, please tell me if v.6 is figurative or literal.

[4WD]

Wrong. The word is "hā·'ā·reṣ"

Actually the word is "ארץ"  which is transliterated in English as "erets" and is translated as the following:

H776

ארץ

'erets

eh'-rets

From an unused root probably meaning to be firm; the earth (at large, or partitively a land): -  X common, country, earth, field, ground, land, X nations, way, + wilderness, world.


But no matter.  The point is that it is the same word used in describing both the flood of Noah and the famine of Joseph.

[Alan]

Yes, of course, all attempts to reconcile the biblical account of creation and the flood by scientific observation are the ventures of fools and nothing more than entertainment. While the pursuit of scientific observation which contradicts the same is a noble endeavor of the elite and enlightened scientific mind, such as your own I presume. You don't fool me, your extremely tiny brain existing in a infinitesimally microscopic piece of time in eternity is just as clueless as mine and everyone else's on this planet. By faith you have chosen the observations of fallen humanity with tiny infantile brains just like yours and mine as your guide to scientific truth. I and others place that faith in the testimony of scripture which claims to be the written testimony of those inspired by the eternal author of all truth, the Holy Spirit of God. Your derogatory comments are no sign of superior intelligence or correctness, they are the natural defense mechanisms of the puny fallen nature we must all contend with. A nature and being fallen from its original state of perfection and pureness created in the image of God, not a nature derived from countless transitional stages and apes. Your theory degrades humanity and God to the confines of our own puny and fallen minds. Turn brother, and elevate both by faith in God's word above your own and that of fallen humanity.

If I were to truly believe your stance as written above, then that would gain full respect from myself and I presume others here, but the continuous gish galosh of YouTube videos attempting to justify your belief through pseudo science just shows that you are an equal partner in deceit, if in fact you believe we (OWC) are all deceived. 

[Alan]

So, which evolved first? the termites or their microbes?

No reason for the microbes to evolve, they are thriving and doing their job perfectly to this day, that is how God created complex lifeforms, to be dependant on other organisms for life itself.

[4WD]

Yes, of course, all attempts to reconcile the biblical account of creation and the flood by scientific observation are the ventures of fools and nothing more than entertainment. While the pursuit of scientific observation which contradicts the same is a noble endeavor of the elite and enlightened scientific mind, such as your own I presume. You don't fool me, your extremely tiny brain existing in a infinitesimally microscopic piece of time in eternity is just as clueless as mine and everyone else's on this planet. By faith you have chosen the observations of fallen humanity with tiny infantile brains just like yours and mine as your guide to scientific truth. I and others place that faith in the testimony of scripture which claims to be the written testimony of those inspired by the eternal author of all truth, the Holy Spirit of God. Your derogatory comments are no sign of superior intelligence or correctness, they are the natural defense mechanisms of the puny fallen nature we must all contend with. A nature and being fallen from its original state of perfection and pureness created in the image of God, not a nature derived from countless transitional stages and apes. Your theory degrades humanity and God to the confines of our own puny and fallen minds. Turn brother, and elevate both by faith in God's word above your own and that of fallen humanity.

You make light of the human brain.  Yet it is perhaps the single greatest entity in all of God's physical creation.  He gave you a brain.  You should use it.  You deride the brain seeks to understand God's creation [God's general revelation]  as though that is somehow less than the brain that seeks to understand the meaning of God's word [God's special revelation]. Your understanding of the written revelation is not in the least superior to another's understanding of the general revelation; and may even be perhaps considerably inferior.

[Amo]

If I were to truly believe your stance as written above, then that would gain full respect from myself and I presume others here, but the continuous gish galosh of YouTube videos attempting to justify your belief through pseudo science just shows that you are an equal partner in deceit, if in fact you believe we (OWC) are all deceived.

Of course, we all know the bible says that those who believe God's word are deceived, and those who know better than God's word are the enlightened saved. Those who listen to Jesus, Moses, and other prophets are of course totally deceived for believing them over the "scientists" of today. All should understand that when Jesus said "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.",He meant the mouth of todays "scientists". Who are of course God. Who else could they be, they now exactly how it all happened up to millions and even billions of years ago. Who could have such great depth of knowledge and insight save God alone.


2 Tim 3:3 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

Who is a boaster, or proud, heady and high-minded above those who think they know and understand our beginnings better than the word of God? Presuming to know what took place over hundreds of millions and billions of years because of their puny, heady, and high-minded opinion of themselves and their superior intellect and knowledge as they view themselves. Who denies the power of God more than those who deny His act of creation recorded in His word, and the judgment of the flood upon all of humanity recorded by the same? You are specifically identified by prophetic scripture concerning the last days.

2 Pet 2:2 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not. 4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

2 Pet 3:3 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: 3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Turn from self confidence brother, and rely upon the truth of God's word. Have faith in the word of God above and beyond the observations of self loving and prideful fallen humanity.

[Amo]

You make light of the human brain.  Yet it is perhaps the single greatest entity in all of God's physical creation.  He gave you a brain.  You should use it.  You deride the brain seeks to understand God's creation [God's general revelation]  as though that is somehow less than the brain that seeks to understand the meaning of God's word [God's special revelation]. Your understanding of the written revelation is not in the least superior to another's understanding of the general revelation; and may even be perhaps considerably inferior.

Isa 1:4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward. 5 Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. 6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.

The condition of sin is a disease of the mind. The only cure is the truth of God's word and submission to it. All the rest is delusional insanity. The imaginings and speculations of self loving, self important and deluded sinners. This is the condition of all humanity apart from the guiding influence and effect of the truth recorded in God's written word.

[4WD]

Isa 1:4 Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward. 5 Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. 6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.

The condition of sin is a disease of the mind. The only cure is the truth of God's word and submission to it. All the rest is delusional insanity. The imaginings and speculations of self loving, self important and deluded sinners. This is the condition of all humanity apart from the guiding influence and effect of the truth recorded in God's written word.

Such ignorance !!  Fully understanding the function of gravity is what keeps one from jumping out of a window of a high rise building.  Explaining gravity from a scientific point of view makes gravity no less important.  And having understood it from a scientific point of view does not keep one from understanding God's word.  But of course you are dead set against any such understanding.  You would prefer to remain in the scientific ignorance of those very same people to whom God spoke Isaiah 1:4-6.  A really sad day for God, I am sure.

[Amo]

Such ignorance !!  Fully understanding the function of gravity is what keeps one from jumping out of a window of a high rise building.  Explaining gravity from a scientific point of view makes gravity no less important.  And having understood it from a scientific point of view does not keep one from understanding God's word.  But of course you are dead set against any such understanding.  You would prefer to remain in the scientific ignorance of those very same people to whom God spoke Isaiah 1:4-6.  A really sad day for God, I am sure.

More sheer folly. Equating the observable science of demonstrating the law of gravity before our very eyes, with the guess work of what supposedly took place over completely unobservable countless millions and billions of years. Which guess work is constantly being revised and corrected from previous mistakes which were boastfully believed in their time and used to prove false claims and ridicule those who disagreed. Of course, you are better than those people spoken of in Isa 1:4-6 aren't you?

[tooldtocare]

kjjkjjj

[tooldtocare]

We are decedents of space traveler's; not monkeys

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans have been humans since making our first step on this planet.
Earth was formed 4.543 billion years ago

The earth was covered entirely in ice 2.6 million years ago (the climate change debate is over)

Homo sapiens first walked on this planet 200,000 years ago. So humans have been around for a mere 0.004% of the Earth's history.

It was not evolution that transformed us into what we are today, it was the seed of life that visitors "planted" on this planet.

Some far off day we will be seeders too
We are aliens on our own planet.

Just as we will do on another soon to be a life supporting planet in our near future.

Are we aliens on our own planet?
Are they going to say hello?
Or maybe they already have.,...,.,[-]?

(:-

[The Barbarian]

So, which evolved first? the termites or their microbes?

Since wood roaches, which gave rise to termites, had microbes, it would appear the microbes were first.