True Science Debunks Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha!!!!

Give us one.... that does not rely on the Bible for confirmation of fulfilment.

...and what about all the failed prophecies?

 

So if a book contains prophecies that later came true, then that book was inspired by God (or is the word of God) ?

 

ALTER2EGO -to- MIKAËL:
I did say Bible prophecies to the tune of almost 2,000 accurately fulfilled. Which book do you know of that can truthfully make such a claim?

These were not mere generalized prophecies. They provided details in many cases of when, how, and where things would occur. When the prophecies were fulfilled, it was easy for historians to pinpoint their accuracy because they were so specific. Some of the prophecies were so specific that skeptics began arguing that they were written after the fulfillment of the events. Of course they had no evidence to prove their skeptical remarks.

These prophecies are all interconnected to the overall theme of the Bible: God's ultimate purpose for mankind. You won't find any religious book that compares to the Judeo-Christian Bible in terms of accuracy in prophecy. I will start a thread on this topic shortly.

 

2,000 ? Can you give me just 1 fulfilled prophecy ?

 

I just asked him that in 41!!

 

LOL. I did not notice.

 

Everyone will die someday.Ecclesiastes 9

here is another one: Clouds that are full of water, pour rain down on the earth. Ecclesiastes 11

Bible even solves the mystery of why brides wears white while groom wears black.

Always wear white clothes to show you are happy.Ecclesiastes 9 obviously as a groom you have nothing to be happy about.

I think this is the type of prophecy he means, LOL.

 

Mind you, I asked him the same thing a hundred times before on another forum but he never gave me one....just kept spamming with copy and pastes from 'Lying for Jesus' web sites.

 

Seems the OP ran away.

 

No, from past experience, he rarely runs away. He gets banned a lot but he doesn't run away. He just ignores any refutations to his copy and pastes and continues to copy and past from 'Lying for Jesus' websites.

 

Alter2Ego - Will you please answer the question !

 

For my response, notice what I said in the very last sentence of the last paragraph of Post #43. This thread is specifically about Macroevolution.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

There is no such thing as microevolution. The terminology is a trick-phrase used by pro-evolution scientists to describe variations or adaptation of the exact same species or type of animal. Almighty God YHWH/Jehovah/Yahweh created living things on earth with the ability to adapt to their environment—up to a certain point. Once the living creature reaches it's adaptation limit, it stops adapting. This is the reason why we see variations of the same creature (eg. domestic house cats and domestic dogs) because it is a result of the animals' ability to adapt and produce variation within the pre-set limit granted it by God. This point is confirmed by the sources below. Keep your eyes on the words printed in red within the quotations:

 

Translation: You are too stupid to back up your claims.

 

You're going to be number 2 on his ignore list mate! LOL!

 

So there are no fulfilled prophecies. OK dude, that's all I wanted to know.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- MIKAËL:
This thread is about evolution theory and has nothing to do with Bible prophecies. It's not my problem that you can't accept that. I realize you want to entertain yourself at my expense. Knock yourself out trying. Many before you have tried and failed. You can confirm that with another person that has been following me around at other websites. When I get tired of people's trolling behavior, I simply put them on "Ignore."

In any event, below are comments from two paleontologists made over the last 30 years (at least one of whom is pro-evolution). Even they have had to admit there's no evidence of macroevolution to be found in the fossils.


1. "Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. And it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)


2. "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record." (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)

 

Why, why, why do you keep quote-mining Gould? Are you really so stupid that you don't realise that Gould is an evolutionist?

"....The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism."

"Eldredge and I believe that speciation is responsible for almost all evolutionary change. Moreover, the way in which it occurs virtually guarantees that sudden appearance and stasis shall dominate the fossil record." to p183.
(both quotes taken from The Panda's Thumb.)

"If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multi-cellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution"
--Gould.

 

Sounds good doesn't it folks....but it only sounds good because it's yet another quote-mine from the 'Liars for Jesus' that leaves out important parts, such as what Raup said immediately following the above which was....

"Now let me step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works."

Raup also states...

"We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be."

Please note A2E that Raup believes that evolution has occurred; he calls evolution a "fact".

Both Raup and Gould are just fine with evolution, they merely question some of what Darwin said. Darwin's findings are 150 years old and we've discovered a lot since then...even so, in 150 years Darwin's basic ToE has not been disproved. Live with it kid.

 

"In the beginning Allah created the heaven and Earth" - Genesis 1:1 .