ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 His Ecclesia
 Matters Effecting the Ecclesia
 Evolution vs. Creation
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Stoic Solomon
Junior Member

USA
19 Posts

Posted - 14 Jan 2003 :  15:59:15  Show Profile
I'm curious ...
Who here beleives in Evolution or Creation? I've seen a lot of Christians who beleive in an evolution. In my mind this is an important topic, because the validity of many scriptures are at stake.
What's your opinion? Maybe we can get a little debate going , or better yet, and afirmation of truth .
"A detective story generally describes six living men discussing how it is that a man is dead. A modern philosophic story generally describes six dead men discussing how any man can possibly be alive."
- Gilbert Keith Chesterton

Robert-James
Advanced Member

uSA
353 Posts

Posted - 14 Jan 2003 :  20:27:00  Show Profile
Greetings Sol-om-on. That is the name of the sun in three languages. But anyway........G.K Chesterton is a mouth piece of modern Popery. If a man still is wondering if a monkey is in the genetic closet..........I doubt that he would be interested in ecclesia.org information.
Go to Top of Page

Isaiah21_6
Regular Member

USA
30 Posts

Posted - 15 Jan 2003 :  01:38:25  Show Profile
Well, it is a legitimate question due to the thorough programming and subsequent mind control provided by the public indoctrination centers (schools) and the media - they treat evolution as a given.

Those that wish to give an answer to this heresy and wish to study to show themselves approved can gain a wealth of information by going to http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=real_video.

It's a seven part video series that can be downloaded and watched with realplayer. It's an enlightening as well as entertaining exposition of creation and evolution. Watch as Dr. Kent Hovind absolutely demolishes the "theory" of evolution. Highly recommended.

There's your affirmation of faith and the end of debate
Go to Top of Page

True North
Advanced Member

USA
163 Posts

Posted - 15 Jan 2003 :  06:54:48  Show Profile
Darwin's theory of evolution is correctly called transformism. Read on if you want to know why transformism has the evolutionists scratching their heads. The following is part of a new book called symbols for life.



Currently the accepted theory for the evolution of the Human Species is that it followed different stages beginning with the Australopethicus and continuing with homo habilis, homo erectus and homo sapiens. The last stages include those people who lived thousands of years ago in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic Age and are the immediate ancestors of modern man. The discovery of the evolution of man is attributed to two scientists of the 19th century: Sir Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin.<BR>


<BR>
The scientific method starts with a hypothesis. Based on an assumption then data is collected and a theory formed. Then more data is collected or re-collected and the theory tested or re-tested against the data. When proved, the theory becomes law, but the law is only a law until it changes in the light of previously undiscovered data.<BR>


<BR>There are inherent weaknesses in the Transformistic Theory (evolution of a lower life form to a higher life form across order lines) which must be explored in order to see if we can form it into law. <BR>


<BR>
Weaknesses of the Transformistic Theory;<BR>
1. It is mathematically wanting. Given the amount of time necessary for a beneficial mutation to allow an advancement of a specie from a lower order to a higher order of life, there has not been enough time. According to recent studies utilizing the computers of today feeding in all the available data, that given a 4.7 billion year starting date for our earth, there had not been enough time for transformism to have taken place. Mathematically the whole theory would not stand up.<BR>


<BR>
From the periodical 'Scientific Research', Nov. 1967, in an article entitled, "Heresy in the Halls of Biology, Mathematicians Question Darwinianism", from a meeting with an authorship of, M.Eden from the Massachusets Institute of Technology, S.M.Ulam from Los Alamos, V. Veiscoft of the Massachusets Institute of Technology, M.P. Schultzenberger from the University of Paris,...in a close dialogue with geneticists in an attempt to clarify and resolve this mathematical challenge aimed at what may well be the most profound philosophical gesture in mans' history, the theory of the evolutionary development of living things has said, "There has not been enough time for natural selection as seen through the eyepieces of Darwin and his followers."<BR>


<BR>
2. If the basic assumption of the Transfomistic Theory is for an additive mutation to the gene to require a lower form of life to evolve to a higher form then the theory is lacking. We know today that insofar as the molecular structure of the gene is concerned there are only three possible mutations. An additive mutation, a change mutation or a deletetive mutation to the DNA structure of the gene. In order to get an evolutionary development from a lower form of life to a higher form across order lines we have an additive mutation to the DNA structure of the gene. There has never been one, either beneficial or non-beneficial. Every time we get a mutation to the DNA structure of the gene, it is always a change mutation. What might appear to be a beneficial change has always turned out to be a change mutation.<BR>


<BR>
3. Paleontologically there is no fossil record evidence to support the evolutionary development from a lower form of life to a higher form of life across order lines. The fossil record is very complete, as complete as a record of this type could be expected to be, in the existing 34 basic body plans (phyla) of animals. We are constantly discovering new information and new material and there is not one single fossil evidence of any kind of a life form in the process of evolving from a one form of life to another form of life across order lines. Were the whole concept of beneficial mutation correct we would have seen an example. Even laying beneficial mutation aside, with hybrid creatures we end up in sterility, so a beneficial mutation cannot even be demonstrated.<BR>


<BR>
Douglas Dewar, in his book entitled "The Transformists' Illusion", listed every single known fossil by Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and Species. He listed the number of fossils that were known in each of their respective categories. He then, being an ornithologist and dealt mainly with the skeletal structure of birds, demonstrated that the Hyracotherium (or better known as the eohippus and that fossil which is used to show the evolution of the horse in most encyclopedias of today) is not even an equine animal at all that it was not even an ancestor to the horse. He also demonstrated that the archeoptryx, the supposed missing link between the reptiles and the birds was not even a bird at all but actually a feathered reptile and was not even in the line or ancestry of the birds.<BR>


<BR>
4. The New anthropological evidence that we have. Many of the new scientific findings are not available in the scientific journals, and although not primary sources, what was originally treated in Tuesday Magazine was covered in the Readers Digest Magazine in an article titled 'Africa the Birthplace of Man' and in Ebony Magazine, October 1973, "New Findings on the Origins of Man". The article tells us of a find inside border cave in Africa, where they found in an archaeologically unambiguous stratum, skeletons. Not just one but several complete skeletons of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, human beings, that lived 70 to 80 and maybe even 100,000 years before they were supposed to have appeared. Remember Homo Sapiens Sapiens was charted in the Upper Paleolithic Period about 35,000 BCE. Now we have skeletal evidence of the appearance much earlier. In the conclusion of the article, talking about the whole structure, Leaky says, "The leg bones are practically indistinguishable from those of modern man. It may be that we did not evolve from any of the previously known human types but descended in a direct line of our own. It may be years before pre-historians can fully evaluate the significance of these latest discoveries but from the evidence it seems clear that modern man evolved on earth far earlier than realized...".<BR>


<BR>So re-evaluating from just these four facts, the Transformistic Theory of evolution cannot be made a law by the man
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
ECCLESIASTIC COMMONWEALTH COMMUNITY © MMXVII Ecclesiastic Commonwealth Community Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.05 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000