Evolution Vrs God: The Great Debate

Discussion in 'Question & Answer' started by Mawuli, Jul 26, 2013.

  1. Mawuli

    Mawuli TheGuide Staff Member

    Watch the great debate as it unfolds

    Hator likes this.
  2. Hator

    Hator Active Member

    Awesome stuff! Can't wait for the debate.
  3. Mawuli

    Mawuli TheGuide Staff Member

    Watch Evolution crumble under the spotlight.

  4. YasharAl ben Yahuah

    YasharAl ben Yahuah New Member

    Educated Idiots!!! 2014-07-09-04-07-10--1563554765.jpeg
  5. Nation7

    Nation7 New Member

    I first wish to mention that many people misinterpret what they read (or listen to), especially if it's a large amount, such as this. One reason is that they try to read the material all at once without intervals of rest & such. Therefore, I suggest reading only a comfortable portion at a time, each with comfortable intervals of rest & reflection on the portion just read. One helpful idea is to highlight all the text at hand, then copy & paste it into a word file, save the file, them print it out for such reading.

    With that said, I will now reply.

    This brings to mind, some concepts I learned of of the Five Percenter Nation. One is that the relationship of a man to his wife, is like that of the sun to the earth. The Native Americans also believed in this concept. They all believe that the sun is their father, & the earth is their mother. This is perhaps the reason for the term, mother earth. For a more detailed explanation, they believe that the sun decided to create a living version of itself. For this, the sun needed a home for this living version. The sun therefore caused a bit of itself to disengage and orbit it, which eventually became the orbiting planets. the sun continued to radiate its energy & such to these orbiting planets of which one of them used this energy to create & maintain life and thus eventually create man.

    I also believe in this concept because I find that it makes sense. If I, for example, decide to create life, the place I choose for that life to begin & grow would most likely be within my wife. Therefore, she would bare the life, & I would of course assist her. The earth bares the life & the sun assists in maintaining that life. From this I derived the concept that such a life would then grow to leave then form its own home. This applies to both the life mentioned within the wife, and to man on the earth. Therefore I believe in man's gradual ability to leave the earth & so forth.

    This concept goes even further, which is as follows:

    In the beginning, there was nothing. The only way that something can form from nothing is within the mind (imagination). Obviously, it did so happen that something did form from this nothing, which is proof that the mind had already existed when there was nothing but nothing.

    In the beginning, the mind I mentioned decided to create a physical version of itself. It needed a place in which this phycical version could exist (a home for this creation so to speak). It therefore created the blackness, which is the universe (Therefore, like the earth & the wife, the universe is the mother). Within the universe, the mind created matter, energy, movement, change, etc. of which some of this eventually became the stars, planets, & so forth. One of these stars is of course the sun.

    It's logical to me that the mind I had mentioned is my God (Whom I choose to call Allah), & that my God created everything by way of the steps mentioned (notice the similarities of all the mentioned steps to one another.). It's also logical that if all of this is so, I, and everyone & everything in the universe is but a figment of Allah's imagination. Therefore, it's also logical to me that Allah must be more real than I am, or anything else He so created.

    Many of whom I've discussed this with, before giving any of this more thought, first concluded that I imply that I, and everyone & everything else & the universe is not real. On the contrary, I do believe that I and all else I've just mentioned, is real indeed. However, I believe that this is so only within the realm of the universe, which is never the less within the mind (imagination) of my god. One person I knew always liked to say "Don't wake the dreamer, or you'll find that you, & everyone & everything else, never was."

    None of this contradicts the bible, In fact, it supports scriptures in the bible.

    I do have more to add to this subject, & perhaps I will another time.
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2015
  6. Nutsugah

    Nutsugah Member

    9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False

    The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct.

    Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law is wrong. This article will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one.

    The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is still called a theory, instead of a law. The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process.

    The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many recessive traits.

    A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists.

    [​IMG]

    Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables.

    New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals. Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.

    If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.

    If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except the Eskimos who have skin that is halfway between white and black. The people from Russia and the Nordic countries have white skin, blood hair and blue eyes. This is the opposite of what one would predict if natural selection controlled skin color.

    Many evolutionists argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark-skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark-skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. Dark-skinned people have always lived near the Equator, not white-skinned people, even though the dark skin is more uncomfortable in the hot, sunny climate.

    Black skin absorbs the heat from the sun's rays more than white skin. Humans show no sign of natural selection based on the environment. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.

    Animals like bears, tigers, lions, and zebras living near the equator have heavy fur while humans living north of the Artic Circle have bare skin. A leopard from the jungle near the equator has fur like the snow leopard of the Himalayas.

    The snow leopard grows thicker hair but the jungle leopard would also if moved to a cold climate. Horses and dogs grow a heavy winter coat in colder climates. Natural selection isn't working as falsely claimed by Charles Darwin.

    The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.


    Evolution is Scientifically Impossible
    Evolution is a theory developed one hundred and forty years ago by Charles Darwin (N/A actually, by his grandfather in 1794 - before Charles was even born), before science had the evidence available to prove the theory false.

    His famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, has a title that is now known to be scientifically false. New species cannot evolve by natural selection. Modern scientific discoveries are proving evolution to be impossible. No new scientific discoveries have been found to support the Theory of Evolution.

    Life did not start with a bolt of lightning striking a pond of water as claimed by the main stream scientists.

    Kids are taught that life can evolve given enough time. This is a false statement without any scientific support.

    They are taught that if given enough time, a monkey at a typewriter could punch keys at random and eventually type President's Abraham Lincoln Gettysburg Address. This is nonsense.

    Time does not make impossible things possible. As an example, a computer was programmed in an attempt to arrive at the simple 26-letter alphabet. After 35,000,000,000,000 (35 trillion) attempts it has only arrived at 14 letters correctly.

    What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. (...)
  7. Nutsugah

    Nutsugah Member

    Contd.

    The Indoctrination System Called "Education"
    The educational system teaches children not to think. Any student who uses logic and solid scientific evidence to question the Theory of Evolution is ridiculed and insulted into submission. The students who submit become non-thinking robots who dare not question the dogma presented.

    A forth-grade elementary school class was observed at the park playing a three-legged race game, where adjacent legs of the two kids were placed into a bag. The kids must cooperate with each step in order to run. The kids thought it was great fun. The teacher told them they were being trained to cooperate.

    Actually, it was brainwashing kids into conforming to a system in which they are not allowed to have individual thoughts or opinions. They must become a "team player" and submit to peer pressure. Communist countries have used this same brainwashing technique for decades. The brainwashing of school children continues by teaching them there is no absolute right or wrong, and the teacher is absolutely positive about it.

    Whatever the children think is right for them is OK. That is of course until they question evolution. They are then told they are wrong. This brainwashing results in children who are unable to think logically, scientifically, and accurately.

    Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong
    The body and soul of Darwin's Theory of Evolution was the idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations.

    Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates between the old species and the new.

    The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the "evolutionary tree" have many flaws.

    One of the best examples of evolution nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable to his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly.

    Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment.

    Why would the bird continue for millions of generations to improve a wing stub that is useless? The Theory of Evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species, not the weakest. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage. This is the opposite of natural selection.

    According to natural selection, the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly.

    We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing, so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed.

    Evolutionists say birds grew hollow bones for less weight in order to fly. How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing? The evolutionary concept of growing a wing over millions of generations violates the very foundation of evolution: the natural selection.

    Birds aren't the only species that proves the theory of natural selection to be wrong. The problem can be found in all species in one way or another. Take fish for example.

    We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beach where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite a multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story.

    The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe air on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water.

    One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard.

    Giant dinosaurs literally exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period. The fossil record (petrified bones found in the ground as at the Dinosaur National Park in Jensen, Utah, USA) shows no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs? They do not not exist, because the dinosaurs did not evolve.

    Books published by evolutionists have shown the giant Cetiosaurus dinosaur with the long neck extending upright eating from the treetops. They claimed natural selection was the reason Cetiosaurus had a long neck. This gave them an advantage in reaching fodder that other species could not reach.

    One day during the assembly of a skeleton for a museum display someone noticed the neck vertebrae were such that the neck could not be lifted higher than stretched horizontally in front of them. The natural selection theory was proven to be a big lie. The Cetiosaurus dinosaur was an undergrowth eater. The long neck actually placed the Cetiosaurus at a disadvantage in his environment, just the opposite from the natural Theory of Natural Selection.

    Evolutionists will now claim the animal evolved a long neck because he had the advantage of eating from bushes on the other side of the river. This is typical logic of an evolutionist.

    Scientific Fact No. 2 - Species Without a Link Prove Evolution Theory is Wrong
    The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution. This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic, and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar-looking species and claim they evolved one from another. The human "family tree" is an example of this flawed theory. Petrified skulls and bones exist from hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture.

    This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species. They never do this with giraffes, elephants or the Platypus. (...) The pictures are simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution.

    [​IMG]
    Why do they claim the above discovery is "close to the missing link"? The answer is simple. Look at the picture: It is a monkey. A monkey species that has become extinct. Lots of species have become extinct. Millions of species have become extinct.

    It is obviously not similar to a human. Look at the feet with the big toe spread away from the smaller toes exactly like a modern chimpanzee, not like people.

    A newly discovered extinct species does not prove a "missing link" has been found.

    Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution." Well, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species.

    Evolutionists try to form these individual species into a link according to similar major features such as wings or four legs, but this simply proves the Theory of Evolution to be a fraud. Darwin was hopeful that future fossils would prove his theory correct, but instead, the lack of transitional links has proven his theory to be wrong.

    The presence of individual species actually proves they were not developed by an evolutionary process. If evolution were true, all plants, animals, and insects would be in a continual state of change. No two creatures would be identical, because they would not be separate species. All life forms would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing, and every animal, insect, and plant would be different.

    The cheetah above proves evolution does not exist. All species are locked solidly within their DNA code.
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2015
  8. Nutsugah

    Nutsugah Member

    Contd.

    Evolutionists are going ape over "Ape-Girl"

    [​IMG]

    The fossilized bones of a new animal have been found in Ethiopia near the site where "Lucy" was discovered many years ago. By the way, Lucy was a monkey, not an early humanoid. The number of bones of the Ape-girl skeleton are unique because Lucy had only a few head fragments.

    This find gives us a lot of information about the animal because major parts of the skeleton were unearthed (assuming these are all from the same animal). It has teeth in the jaw and is said to also have unerupted teeth still within the jaw. The evolutionists call the animal a "human-like" female child about three years of age and an "individual." This is not a "human-like" fossil. It is an "ape-like" fossil because it was an ape.

    The evolutionists call the animal a "transitional species" and a human ancestor even though it has a head exactly like a modern-day ape. The jaw is thrust forward and the forehead pushed back and slanted. The true appearance is more easily seen from side picture below.

    [​IMG]

    Ape-girl also has arms "that dangled down to just above the knees. It also had gorilla-like shoulder blades which suggest it could have been skilled at swinging through trees."

    So, it looks like an ape, it has a head like an ape, it has arms like an ape, it has shoulder blades like an ape - It is obviously an ape, not a human, pre-human or humanoid. This animal is simply a young ape. Its size is as would be expected for a young modern-day ape.

    The age of this fossilized animal is also very much in doubt. Scientists many years ago claimed a tooth found was Nebraska Man, a pre-human fossil millions of years old. They determined the age of the tooth. The scientists had sculptured an entire ape-like skeleton from information they found in one tooth. These lies were exposed when real scientists found the tooth to be from a peccary, an animal similar to (and closely related to) pigs.

    - See more at: http://humansarefree.com/2013/12/9-scienctific-facts-prove-theory-of.html#sthash.fGBOOYAr.dpuf

Share This Page