Religion & Spirituality

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Why Is It So Important for Evolutionists To Trade The Obvious Answers For Their Rediculous Conclusions?

Example:

Their Title: Evolutionists Say “Jurassic World” Might Exist . . . On Another Planet

Answers in Genesis' Response:

“Claiming to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:22). Creationists are routinely mocked by evolutionists for believing that mankind once lived with dinosaurs. So I just had to shake my head and chuckle when I read the first line of this article, “A new study argues that a real-life ‘Jurassic World’ could currently exist, just on another planet.”

Yes, according to a new study, “Planets far away from Earth could be harboring species that resemble Earth’s dinosaurs and humans may currently have the ability to find them.” So dinosaur-like creatures may have evolved on another planet and might be living right now—we just have to find their planet by searching for planets with high levels of oxygen in their atmosphere.

So it’s foolish to believe that God created dinosaurs on day six of creation week, on the same day as mankind, just a few thousand years ago . . . but it’s not foolish to believe dinosaurs evolved on a distant planet and we just need to look for the right signatures to find them? Yes, Romans is right, “Claiming to be wise, they became fools.”

Studies like this one simply highlight yet again that humans are willing to grasp at anything rather than believe the truth of God’s Word. But it’s in God’s Word that they’ll find truth. Not only the truth about the past (and the proper framework for interpreting things like dinosaurs), but also the truth about our spiritual condition and the free gift of salvation offered through Jesus Christ.

Think about it! Evolutionists are happy to have dinosaurs living at the same time as humans—as long as they’re on another planet!

This breaks God's heart to see His loving mankind act in this unbecoming manner because of their distorted views of hatred towards Him.

They need Jesus bad.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

TheOneyouwerewarnedabout · 41-45, MVIP

if we evolved from monkeys.. why is there still monkeys?..

1-25 of 40

pipedreams

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout I'd advise you to read one or two books on evolution.

It is not claimed that we evolved from monkeys. The monkeys that now exist are one line of development, we are another.

That is one simple fact.

Kstrong · 56-60, F

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout why dont we see any monkeys evolving into human form?

GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M

@pipedreams [quote]I'd advise you to read one or two books on evolution. [/quote]

Why? It doesn't exist outside of man's inventions.

[quote]It is not claimed that we evolved from monkeys. The monkeys that now exist are one line of development, we are another. That is one simple fact.[/quote]

According to whom?

pipedreams

@GodSpeed63 According to books of popular science readily available, full of facts backed up by the relevant statistics and experimental verification.

Really, do try to understand and stop making a mockery of the Christian Faith.

Take a look HERE:-

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M

@pipedreams [quote]According to books of popular science readily available, full of facts backed up by the relevant statistics and experimental verification. [/quote]

They're not reliable like the scientists who write them.

[quote]Really, do try to understand and stop making a mockery of the Christian Faith.[/quote]

How am I making a mockery of the Christian?

pipedreams

@GodSpeed63 The books are as reliable as the facts upon which they are based. If you only spend your time on Creationist Websites, all sponsored by Fundamentalist/Literalist Christians like yourself, it's no wonder you call such books into question.

You mock Christianity by insisting upon a literalist approach which leads to talking donkeys and all the rest of it [i]and implying the need to believe in such a way[/i]

Oh, and have you had a good read of the website I referred to?

GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M

@pipedreams [quote]The books are as reliable as the facts upon which they are based. [/quote]

Big deal. Scientists are fallible and can make the biggest mistakes ever. Their conclusions on those 'facts' can be way out in left field.

[quote]You mock Christianity by insisting upon a literalist approach which leads to talking donkeys and all the rest of it and implying the need to believe in such a way[/quote]

There's only one interpretation in God's Word and that belongs to Him, and Him alone, and whoever He wishes to share it with. How many talking donkeys have you read in His Word?

[quote]Oh, and have you had a good read of the website I referred to?[/quote]

If you want people to read on a site, make sure they can click on its URL.

pipedreams

@GodSpeed63 What is your actual problem? I posted the website ref, easy enough to cut and paste into your browser.

Of course scientists are fallible. But you in effect seem to claim that you are not, this by insisting that the Bible is God's Word, and that God has shared its true interpretation with you.

There is one talking donkey in the Bible, AKA Balaam's Ass. That was just one example of many tall stories, [i]that the vast majority of Christian scholars teach were never ever meant to be taken literally in the first place[/i].

All the best

GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M

@pipedreams [quote]What is your actual problem?[/quote]

Why?

[quote]But you in effect seem to claim that you are not, this by insisting that the Bible is God's Word, and that God has shared its true interpretation with you. [/quote]

It's not me that's infallible, it's my Father in Heaven that's infallible. Why is it a problem to you that God shares the Truth with His children?

pipedreams

@GodSpeed63 In that you claim that God has shared the true interpretation of his Word with you, in effect you claim infallibility. Try to follow the implications of your claims. You certainly imply that you have been favoured with the true interpretation of the Word.

I have no problem with Reality revealing itself to anyone. I simply do not think it is to just one particular sect of one particular religion.

Problem? I was referring to your apparent inability to cut and paste a link into your browser. This I suppose, in reality, a way of avoiding actually reading the link.

What is your problem with information?

GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M

@pipedreams [quote]In that you claim that God has shared the true interpretation of his Word with you,[/quote]

It's my testimony and not a claim. God shares the Truth with every true believer in Christ. He can also share it with you, if you'd let Him.

pipedreams

@GodSpeed63 Your words "shares the truth with every [b]true[/b] believer" in the context of our discussion, is [b]purely circular[/b] and proves my point.

I will not respond again. Life is far too short to continue this.

All the best. May Grace be with you.

GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M

@pipedreams [quote]Your words "shares the truth with every true believer" in the context of our discussion, is purely circular and proves my point.[/quote]

What point is that?

pipedreams

@GodSpeed63 Work it out. It really is not difficult. Read back over our discussion.

Bye

GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M

@pipedreams [quote]Work it out.[/quote]

I guess you don't have a point to make.

pipedreams

@GodSpeed63 Oh dear!

Here goes.

I claimed that you were claiming infallibility.

You said in effect that it was God and God's Word that was infallible.

I said that in as much as you say that God reveals the true meaning of his word to the true believer, you WERE in effect claiming infallibility - this in as much as you imply YOU are a "true believer'.

I pointed out that such a claim was of purely circular reasoning.

(Please don't ask me to explain circular reasoning, it is quite a simple concept - it assumes what it seeks to establish, presupposes the truth of what it sets out to prove, it takes for granted the very claim that it sets out to establish. i.e. In your case that YOU have been granted the true understanding of God's word - why? Because you are a true believer!)

Get it?

[b]That was my point[/b]. In fact your claims are based on empty air, of no substance. See the PS.

Perhaps if you were to see this, acknowledge it, then you just might come to understand what [i]genuine[/i] Faith is, and truly open to the realities of Grace. Instead of trusting in your own beliefs.

Now, again, I will withdraw from this. Make of it what you will. I will not respond again.

All the best.

PS. "I understand and believe correctly because I am a true believer. I am a true believer because I understand and believe correctly"

JimboSaturn · 51-55, M

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout Monkeys and humans have common ancestors, we did not evolve from monkeys. This is a misunderstanding of evolution.

Americans are from England, then why are there still English?

TheOneyouwerewarnedabout · 41-45, MVIP

@JimboSaturn why havnt we seen any giant leaps of evolution in the past 200 recorded years?..

JimboSaturn · 51-55, M

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout Because evolution takes a long time, slow adoption across very long periods of time.

Kstrong · 56-60, F

@JimboSaturn why dont i see any in transition?

TheOneyouwerewarnedabout · 41-45, MVIP

@JimboSaturn youd think after all this time.
we humanoids sapiens and troglodytes would have evolved some UV resistant skin?

JimboSaturn · 51-55, M

@Kstrong We do a great deal in the fossil records. Evolution takes millions of years so of course we can't observe it personally any more than we can observe geological forces.

pipedreams

@JimboSaturn Your restraint and politeness is commendable.

😀

JimboSaturn · 51-55, M

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout We originally had a better adaptation to UV when we evolved in West Africa, melanin, the pigment that makes people of Africa have dark skin. Once our species moved out of Africa to areas away from the equator where there is less light, melanin was no longer needed and in fact unhelpful since we needed as much sun and vitamin D as we could get, hence our skin turned paler.

JimboSaturn · 51-55, M

@pipedreams It doesn't matter what I say, it's pointless arguing with the author of this post.

1-25 of 40