Variation is Not Evolution
There are various breeds and species, but an animal NEVER becomes a totally different animal, they all produce after their kind.
I recently wrote what was supposed to be my final article on evolution but I have decided to write one more. There IS one kind of change that does happen, it’s simply variation but it has been called “micro-evolution” by evolutionists. I concede that there are many different breeds of dog,(pitbulls,great danes etc.) but they are still dogs, there are various speciations of mosquitoes, but they remain mosquitoes. No matter how many breeds or species of an animal you get, no animal ever becomes a totally new animal.
Macro-evolution (the branching of one kind into a totally new kind) does not happen. I get frustrated with evolutionists for misrepresenting what is simply variation. The term “micro-evolution” was coined by them to rename variations and is actually misleading.
Micro as everyone knows means Small, Macro means large, and large changes of one animal into another (Such as a cat into a non-cat) have never occured. People often tell me about the “fossil record” but you cannot tell whether a fossil had any descendants. As I have often heard it said “No fossil is evidence for evolution”.
The problem with evolutionists is they mix fact and fiction. (variation=fact) (one animal becoming a totally new animal=fiction)
Animals only produce after their kind, the fact that there are various breeds/species does not change that.
Liked it
111 Responses to “Variation is Not Evolution”
On June 9, 2009 at 6:07 pm
As I told your critic John, A new species is not a new Animal, there are different species of bear,(but it remains a bear) different species of fly,(but they remain flies) different species of apes (but they remain apes) etc. Variations within a kind may cause different species of a particular animal but it never creates an entirely new animal
On June 9, 2009 at 6:11 pm
I agree
On June 9, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Why exactly is it that mutation does not create new species over millions of years you guys say it never happens but you never give a reason. Also as you know I have been accused of nitpicking articles and not providing anything constructive but all you guys do is find fault with evolution you never present an alternative theory.
On June 10, 2009 at 1:33 am
Dear Jamie, I appreciate the question, nobody is saying variations don’t occur, what we are saying is those variations are limited and will not create an entirely new animal.
there are for example many species of bear in the world, from the Asiatic Black Bear to the Panda Bear, but they are always bears. The theory of evolution teaches that one animal can evolve into an entirely new animal, but this does not occur.
The variations are limited to within a particular kind, you could have a fly with 2 wings or 4 wings but as Robert said they remain flies. The animal itself does not become a new animal, simply a variation of the parent animal.
The genetics are passed from parent to offspring, and two vastly different kinds of animals cannot have viable offspring, I’ll use the example of a mule, it’s a cross between a donkey and horse, but they (mules) are usually sterile.
On June 10, 2009 at 1:56 am
That really was not a response to my question at all.
On June 10, 2009 at 2:03 am
I agree with John – micro evolution does occur – you can do experiments with fruit flies in a lab and watch changes (since fruit flies have a short life span you can watch several generations quite quickly.) What you won’t see is a fruit fly turn into a bird.
Jamie – I think we have all been presenting an alternative theory that fits the data and the fossil record. God created the universe. Secular scientists are getting closer, they are finally scrapping the natural selection idea and are on to “Intelligent Design”. If they keep looking for the truth, eventually they will reach God if they don’t let their presuppositions blind them.
On June 10, 2009 at 5:22 am
God created the universe is not a scientific theory and even if it was possible to have god in a scientific theory you still have not actually provided any evidence or even a coherent argument. Hypothetically lets say evolution was disproved it still would not validate creationism because there is no evidence for it.
On June 10, 2009 at 5:30 am
Follow me on this Mr. Mullen, if something is made, it had a maker, the Universe has not always been, the creation itself is evidence for the creator
On June 10, 2009 at 5:11 pm
I follow jamie, I think, with the mutation theory. Mutation and adaptation have been proven. But they still do not lead to a new creature, simply an improved – or sometimes degraded – model. For instance, the eohippas (sp?) and the horse. Eohippas adapted to climatic change, its three toes developed over time into a hard hoof – among other changes. If you study the skeleton of the horse, you will see the bones of the eohippas are still all there. One toe is now the hoof, one is the pastern, and one is the splint bone. Mutations in viruses are constant and reproduce the mutation. They don’t make a new virus, but a new strain of the same virus. Every once in awhile you see where science has discovered a new species. Isn’t it possible that the word ‘new’ could mean ‘previously undiscovered’?
On June 10, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Regarding eohippus there is no evidence that they evolved into horses at all, modern excavations have in fact found horses in the same strata with eohippas so, it is not rational to think eohippas became the horse since the horse already existed along side them,it is rational to think they are simply two distinct animals with similar features.
I’ll give an example, a bird and a bat are both winged creatures, but they are distinct animals, similarity is similarity but it does not show relationship
On June 10, 2009 at 6:00 pm
eohippus was likely a specie of hyrax and not a horse at all, it was named Hyracotherium (”Hyrax-like beast”)by its discoverer, a paleontologist Richard Owen
On June 10, 2009 at 7:37 pm
And I will ask if god made the universe who made god and you will say that question does not make sense because god is eternal but that is just a cop out. If everything needs a creator then god needs a creator it is just that simple. Also NO ONE has actually given me a reason for why evolution cannot happen you have all admitted mutations happen so unless you can give me a scientific reason for why it one species cannot evolve into another species then I think this point goes to me.
On June 10, 2009 at 8:16 pm
God does not need a creator, only something finite needs a creator, God by definition is eternal i.e he has simply always been. God was before time, and will remain after time, God created time and is therefore not bound by it.
He is INFINITE, Always existed and will never cease to exist.
Marcus said “everything made needs a maker,” God however was NOT made, only something finite is made.
On June 10, 2009 at 8:38 pm
God is what can be defined as the uncaused cause, the infinite that created the finite
On June 10, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Jamie’s keeping score? lol.
Anyway the reason macro evolution cannot happen is because there are limits to variations, there are variations within a kind but they remain just that, WITHIN a kind.
No animal can become a totally new animal,a non-dog cannot produce a dog,and a dog cannot produce a non-dog. It’s simply not in their genes, humans have the genetic blueprint to make more humans, apes have the blueprint to make apes, period.
On June 10, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Just for the record I am not making the argument that god does not exist or even that he did not create the universe. My argument is that your belief that god MUST HAVE made the universe is false. Also lets get away from theology here no one has given me any reason for why species do not evolve, the only things you have said is that one species cannot evolve in to another and you have continued to make that statement without evidence.
On June 10, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Genetics Jamie,Genetics….it isn’t hard to figure out when you look at nature, everything since the beginning has ALWAYS produced what it is genetically meant to produce, environment does not really have much of a role, if my environment required I grow wings or a tail for example (taking this example from a previous comment I saw) I still would not be able to grow wings or a tail because GENETICS prevents it,I am human and so therefore my traits are human,my genes are inherently human, that’s the foundational fact of why macro-evo is simply impossible
On June 10, 2009 at 11:26 pm
As far as God goes, if you saw a painting, you’d acknowledge it had a painter,yet you find it hard to grasp that this finite universe with all its design had a creator? I find it utterly mind boggling that anyone would think simple chance could create something so profoundly amazing
On June 10, 2009 at 11:35 pm
You cannot separate God from science, the creation testifies of the creator, and denying it won’t change it, it was made for His glory.
People are just vain. The narcissism of humankind is astounding, for creatures that are so small in relation to the big picture, humankind is sure full of themselves.
On June 11, 2009 at 12:31 am
Jamie – I admire your persistence, but i think you’re on a loser here.
I, like most non-believers, am open to the idea than I might be wrong. A god could exist. If one does, and if it so chose there is no doubt that it could convince me (and the rest of the world) of it’s existence. A 200 foot tall Shiva dancing above the Vatican and throwing thunderbolts would probably do the trick
There is however *nothing* that could convince fundamentalist religionists of the type populating this website that their own particular vision of the infinite is the correct one.
If Shiva *did* manifest above the Vatican you can bet they’d rationalise it somehow and carry on believing the same myths, while congratulating themselves on the strength of their faith… They’d spin it as god testing their faith perhaps, or Satan doing the same, or a trick by the media to raise ratings… Whatever.
On June 11, 2009 at 12:34 am
Oops. typo there…
I meant (of course):
There is however *nothing* that could convince fundamentalist religionists of the type populating this website that their own particular vision of the infinite is the NOT correct one.
but hey you knew that, and you’re way too sophisticated to try and make some facile debating point out of it, aren`t you?
On June 11, 2009 at 2:22 am
Thank you malc for the compliment and the advice but sophisticated as I may be I am also stubborn and pigheaded in general and I feel it is important to present a contrasting argument to that of the fundamentalist viewpoint. And as weird as it sounds I kind of like arguing as frustrating as it can get but some times it is worth it even if you are not guarenteed a result. Also whoever decided to get cute with the genetics comment clearly does not relise modern genetics accepts the theory of evolution.
On June 11, 2009 at 4:16 am
I was merely making a point, and science accepting something doesn’t make it fact. For years science accepted the practice of bleeding people in an attempt to heal them,but excessive bleeding caused people to DIE rather than get better, if people had read the Bible they would have realized why.
“For the life of the flesh is in its blood” refer to Leviticus 17:11 if you take the blood, you are taking part of the life, you take too much and a person dies, the life of the flesh IS in the blood just as the bible stated.
On June 11, 2009 at 7:58 am
Jonathan people have told Jamie all this before, he’s just in his own words “stubborn and pigheaded”
At least he admits his stubborness so have to give him credit there, I read that you are agnostic Jamie? let me ask what it would take to convince you God is there?
On June 11, 2009 at 9:19 pm
I have absolutely no idea what would convince me there is a god. So what is your point john that genetics proves that evolution is untrue except fo the parts of genetics that prove it is? You seem to flip flop between championing science when it suits you but whenever evidence is provided that contradicts you it suddenly becomes on par with medieval blood letting. Also there are diseases that do require blood letting it’s just not a cure for everything.
On June 11, 2009 at 10:35 pm
genetics allow variation within a kind,(such as eye color) but not macroevolution, genetics prevents one kind of animal from producing something other than its own kind, a human is ALWAYS producing humans because humans are genetically human, an ape is genetically an ape, a mosquito is genetically a mosquito and they always reproduce after their kind
farmers in fact count on the fact that when they plant a watermelon seed, they’ll get watermelon,or if they plant corn that they’ll get corn
On June 11, 2009 at 10:46 pm
All this has been rehashed and rehashed, genetics don’t allow an animal to evolve into a totally new animal, period. Variation does occur, but you’ll never get a monkeyman or mosquitofly,genes don’t permit it.
On June 12, 2009 at 6:13 am
Yes I agree your brilliant argument based on the fact that you use the word genetics alot must be right except for the fact that you do not go into any kind of detail you just say GENETICS over and over. One thing is for certain though when I want information about genetics I have learned not to put my faith in trained geneticists but random people on the internet. Of course if any of you had truly understood Mr Ghaz’s article you would realise that mutation changes DNA in a variety of ways which allows for whats that name boys and girls? Evolution.
On June 12, 2009 at 6:23 am
Mutation will not create an entirely new animal, just variation of existent ones (like white cats or black cats or big cats or small cats, they stay cats)
On June 12, 2009 at 7:02 am
I will ask you again and hope to actually get an answer this time why? What is it that is keeping animals after millions of years of variation from turning into a new species because you realize that the changes on the outside mirror the changes on the inside you say genes will not allow it but after millions of years of mutation the animal has different genetic information than it’s ancestor.
On June 12, 2009 at 7:16 am
Its genes are not totally different, human genes are always human genes no matter what. A mutation does not create new genetic information, it just rearranges existing genetic information, it only has certain genes to work with, those already in place. you may have a person with an extra finger but they’re still a person
On June 13, 2009 at 12:18 am
Yes and australopithecus always had the same genes until they did not.
On June 13, 2009 at 1:21 am
To “Because”
You said: “A mutation does not create new genetic information, it just rearranges existing genetic information”
Ah. now i see the source of your errors. Biologists and evolutionary theorists have known for many years that a common form of mutation called ‘gene duplication’ can and does in fact produce new information. Of course not all of that information is good. Most of it’s useless, or harmful but once in a blue moon you get a piece that’s beneficial to the organism and that new information will be passed on to it’s descendants.
I invite you to search google for the term and read a little of the published research and I’m sure you’ll soon understand the basic mechanism – it’s not complicated really.
On June 13, 2009 at 5:41 am
‘gene duplication’ is not creating new information, it’s duplicating i.e copying existing information
On June 13, 2009 at 6:11 am
Jamie said “australopithecus always had the same genes until they did not.”
the last part of that statement does not remotely make sense, if they always had the same genes,then they could not have NOT had the same genes, as was stated, even gene duplication is just duplicating existing genes not creating new ones
On June 13, 2009 at 7:47 am
Jamie – you just don’t give up, do you? How about you give us some evidence of evolution occuring, other than “australopithecus always had the same genes until they did not”. If you are a proponent of evolution, you should be able to refute our points with evidence that supports your theory, instead of just mocking ours.
On June 13, 2009 at 9:12 am
Well actually malc just put forth evidence that did disprove your theory. And the point I was trying to make is that we have fossils that over millions of years show things like increased brain capacity over time and increased bipedalism but you refuse to recognize that for some reason. Darwin claimed that we were related to chimps decades before the discovery of DNA then when it was discovered we realized that chimps are our closest living relative which proved Darwin was right about that but you refuse to aknowledge that. And malc just told you that it is possible to increase genetic information and you refuse to aknowledge that. And my point about australopithecus was that every australopithicus had the same genes until one mutated and it had different genes and eventually beneficial mutations started pilling up upon beneficial mutations until you started getting different kinds of primates which ultimately culminated with us arguing over the internet. (Although I admit this is not entirely correct because australopithicus is one several primates species that could be the ancestor of homo sapiens.)
On June 13, 2009 at 9:33 am
Malc was talking about gene duplication, not new gene creation, so no he did not disprove our point. As for fossils you cannot tell if a fossil had any descendants much less totally different descendants unlike itself. DNA does not prove we are related to chimps in any way, it only shows there are similarities. I could easily argue that the similarities show the same designer and not a common ancestor. Furthermore, a mutation in an existent gene is a mutation, it does not create new genes so your australopithicus argument fails.
On June 13, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Actually you could not make an argument for a designer with evolution because you have no proof for a designer while I provide proof for a common ancestor in the form of fossils. And yes fossils do prove things by carbon dating shows certain species of primates adopting traits such as bipedalism so unless god spontaneously creates a new species of primate every hundred thousand years or so for lulz that is proof. Also as far as DNA goes one of the major jobs of DNA is to code for proteins we use in our bodies proteins are made up of amino acids there are only twenty amino acids used in all living things on earth, removing or doubling the amount of amino acids creates a different kind of protein which is new information.
On June 13, 2009 at 11:46 pm
adopting traits such as bipedalism over time I meant to say.
On June 14, 2009 at 12:00 am
I could use DNA to argue for the same designer, all living things have the same building block, DNA, I did not even say anything about evolution, you brought evolution up.
On June 14, 2009 at 12:05 am
this debate is endless
On June 14, 2009 at 12:12 am
Carbon DATING doesn’t show “certain species of primates adopting traits such as bipedalism”
Carbon dating is used to try to determine dates,nothing else.
On June 14, 2009 at 12:18 am
We already said, Fossils are not evidence for evolution Jamie, they’re dead, you can’t tell if they ever had descendants, and carbon dating wouldn’t show if they had descendants either.
Anyway… God created all the animals at the beginning, some have since died out, and as for DNA, removing something is a loss of information (detrimental) where as doubling it would just be copying existing information not adding anything new.
On June 14, 2009 at 12:37 am
Carbon Dating is fallible and even if it were accurate it’s used for DATING things not for determining if fossils had descendants or adopted traits Jamie,so that’s the flaw (well one of them) in your argument.
On June 14, 2009 at 1:08 am
I know exactly what carbon dating is for my argument is that the fossils show different traits and the carbon dating gives the time of the fossil and when you add the two together it gives you a picture of animals evolving over time. And we have modern day descendants of fossilized animals that show that they had descendants with evolution explaing both the similarities and the differences. And I already explained DNA to you.
On June 14, 2009 at 1:19 am
Fossils show that an organism died,that’s it in reality, not that it “evolved” because as we already said, you can’t tell if any fossil is the ancestor of anything, or that it had descendants at all.
All you can tell is that the fossil itself existed,what it was,and that it itself died,there are modern animals yes, (modern lizards,birds,etc which are descended from other lizards and birds etc.) but they do not show evolution, in fact that modern animals reproduce after their kind CONTRADICTS the theory of evolution
and we already explained that carbon dating is fallible
On June 14, 2009 at 1:37 am
If I took a bone to you that is human and said “this is the ancestor of all humans”
you’d say “and how do you know this particular person had any children?”
that’s the point we’re making, you can only tell what something is by its fossil, not that the fossil had children.
And while You can tell that lizards have lizards and people have people because you know things produce after their kind, it would be irrational to think that a non-human evolved to a human or that a non-lizard evolved to a lizard
On June 14, 2009 at 2:01 am
Macro-Evolution has never been observed, it’s all speculation based on presupposition (evolutionists presuppose evo happened so they interpret the fossils (which are just dead) based on the assumption. They try to imagine what they think happened based on their presupposition that “it must have happened” but they cannot in actuality show it.
On the other hand, we DO see animals produce after their kind, so that supports what all the creationists are saying.
On June 14, 2009 at 2:31 am
Similarity (“homology”) is not an absolute indication of common ancestry (Evolution) but certainly points to a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and Volkswagen “beetle” car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent suspension, two doors, boot (trunk) in the front, and many other similarities (’homologies’). Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer!
It’s the same thing in regards to the similarities between humans and chimps
On June 14, 2009 at 2:45 am
Nothing has ever given birth to something more genetically complex than itself. This is just assumed by evolutionists to be possible. Never before has information been added to the genome of a species.
No single-celled organism has ever morphed into a multi-cell organism. Evolutionists firmly believe this can happen as the second phase of evolution, despite the fact that it has never been observed in the history of scientific research.
No creature has ever given birth to something that was a different kind of organism than itself. This is again just believed by evolutionists to be possible, although it has never happened in recorded history. Evolutionists believe that over time, lizards change into birds and fish turn into mammals. Yet, of all the billions of lizards on Earth, not a single one is in turning into a bird. Of all the billions of fish on Earth, not a single one is in the process of becoming a mammal.
Never in the history of science has any mutation benefitted an animal’s species long term, or made it more genetically complex. Evolution would require billions of these mutations to be happening constantly both today and throughout history, and yet none have ever been observed. All mutations ever witnessed in reptiles, birds, or mammals are either a loss or a scrambling of existing genetic information, and are either neutral or negative to the mutated animal.
On June 14, 2009 at 2:55 am
It is impossible for a cold blooded animal to give birth to a warm blooded animal; and yet this is believed by evolutionists in the fish to mammal and lizard to bird theories.
Eyes are far more complex than anything man can create, and yet they’ve been around since the first animals of an evolutionist timescale. In addition, fossils indicate that they’ve always been just as complex as they are today, which means that evolutionists face a fundamental problem. For instance, trilobites had extremely complex eyes, and were supposedly alive long before people according to evolutionist assumptions. Their eyes had two lens layers that allowed everything to be in focus without the need for refocusing, and yet had no spherical aberrations (distortion) because of the precise alignment of the lenses.
Virtually every species of animal has two genders required for reproduction. How this system could have randomly changed from cell division, when it started, and how it manages to be so consistent is inexplicable by evolutionists. I wonder how any species survived before it gained the instinct and ability to reproduce.
No creature has ever evolved or “adapted” a new body-part to suit it’s environment, despite evolutionist belief, and they do not have the capability to do so.
Spiders have been found perfectly preserved in amber that supposedly date back “hundreds of millions of years,” according to evolutionist faith-based dating systems. These spiders spin webs, and are no different from today’s modern spiders. If evolution were true, spiders should have changed significantly over millions and millions of years. To the contrary, spiders remain the same spiders throughout the fossil record.
What DOES occur is variation of EXISTING traits. Dogs can create a variety of dogs over thousands of years, and this is a provable fact. Breed a beagle with a boxer and you have a new kind of dog, but guess what… it’s still a dog, and the size, hair color, and shape (existing traits) vary, but all fall within the limits of the existing dog gene pool. The confusion comes when people assume that variation of EXISTING traits means that somehow completely new genetic information can be added, thus allowing a cactus to evolve into a porcupine. To the contrary, organisms can only sample from an existing gene pool.
The gene pool for humans contains the ability to have a variety of skin types, hair colors, eye colors, body shapes and sizes, but never will any human form functioning gills and be able to breathe under water, because that genetic information is not in our gene pool. A red haired woman and a black haired man can have a blonde child, but don’t freak out – that blonde child isn’t evolving into a new species. It’s just exhibiting a variance of an existing trait in available human genes.
On June 14, 2009 at 5:18 am
There are too damn many of you to answer everything right now so I’m just going to talk to #50#51#52 because they clearly have something on there mind. First of all the reason evolution is a better argument than divine creation is because evolution has mutation and natural selection which explains evolution which I understand you guys have a problem with but it is a better answer than god did it somehow. So before this conversation goes any farther I need to ask you firstly to present your alterative to evolution which I assume you will be able to provide complete with evidence that fit into the current laws of the numerous scientific disciplines. Also I need to ask you how old you think the earth is and provide proof of how old you think it is as well as evidence showing that all other datings of the earth are false.
On June 14, 2009 at 7:08 am
Jamie, people have been through this and over this repeatedly, you want evidence of intelligent design? My suggestion is look at human anatomy, everything in our systems works TOGETHER and if we were missing any part of it we would not function to our full potential.
It’s built great, and runs like a well oiled machine when kept healthy.
But, if our anatomy isn’t convincing enough for you I suggest you study the ant, it is quite geniusly designed and as insignificant as people consider ants they are a marvel of engineering.
You ask “Also I need to ask you how old you think the earth is and provide proof of how old you think it is as well as evidence showing that all other datings of the earth are false.”
the problems with the dating methods they make too many assumptions starting out, that’s the basic fallacy of ALL the dating methods
Dating methods are based on 3 unprovable and questionable assumptions:
1) That the rate of decay has been constant throughout time.
2). That the isotope abundances in the specimen dated have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter isotopes
3) That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of daughter material
As for the age of the earth. there is evidence that it is young
According to evolutionists, Stone Age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000-5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history?
Strong geologic evidence exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone—formed an alleged 500 million years ago—of the Ute Pass Fault, west of Colorado Springs, was still unsolidified when it was extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains, allegedly 70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground. Instead, it is likely that the two geologic events were less than hundreds of years apart, thus greatly shortening the geologic time-scale.
DNA in “ancient” fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years. Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005
The data for “mitochondrial Eve” are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago. Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.
On June 14, 2009 at 7:56 am
Creationists and evolutionists have one thing in common.
We both live on the same planet and are looking at the same things, the difference?:Interpretation.
The evolutionist sees similarity and says “common ancestor” whereas the creationist looks at similarity and says “same designer”
What we have are two different worldviews.
We are both looking at the same things and just reading them differently
On June 14, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Anatomy is proof of nothing it is called the illusion of order. I wrote about the unimaginative human mind in another one of my articles which explains it but I might have to go into more detail later. And who told you DNA only lasts a thousand years. Also as to the reason why megalithic man did not start writing overnight, the art of writing is one of the major jumps in the history of humanity it might seem obvious to us but when writing was invented it really must have seemed like some magnificent gift of the gods. Think about it fire the wheel these things happen in nature but writing must have been one of the first and still most amazing independent triumphs of the human mind. So in conclusion that probably did not happen overnight.
On June 14, 2009 at 10:13 pm
DNA degrades, like everything else, it’s called entropy, anyway try removing a portion of your anatomy and see if it still functions properly. I garauntee the order is not an illusion, but is the way it is for a reason, you have four fingers and opposable thumbs for a reason,a voice box for a reason, a heartbeat for a reason, need I go on?
Jamie said “Also as to the reason why megalithic man did not start writing overnight, the art of writing is one of the major jumps in the history of humanity” he went on to say “So in conclusion that probably did not happen overnight.” yet as was pointed out megalithic man was already making cave paintings, and keeping records of lunar phases so clearly they were knowledgeable.
Jamie started out with his presupposition that prehistoric man could not have been advanced despite evidence that shows they were advanced.
This debate is actually rather circular (in other words people have been all over it before)
On June 14, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Are you aware Jamie that in forensics DNA is used as evidence? Well sometimes that DNA becomes too degraded for testing within a short time due to age,environment,etc. DNA is not going to last billions of years.
On June 15, 2009 at 1:12 am
I never said megalithic man was not knowledgable. You cannot assume writing is just a natural part of advancement. For instance we live in what we assume is the most advanced age man has ever lived in yet I do not have a robot butler. The only reason you see writing as natural is because you have never been without it but if you put yourself in the shoes of prehistoric man it would not even occur to you unless you happened to be one of the greatest geniuses known to man.
On June 15, 2009 at 4:46 am
Also 2 the point ar you aware that most evidence used in criminal cases is not fossilized?
On June 15, 2009 at 6:46 am
Before the existence of supposedly “ancient” organic material had been well publicized, it was predicted that “no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years.” This prediction was based upon the observed breakdown of DNA.
Not long after this prediction was made, “very old” DNA started turning up. For example, at the Clarkia Fossil Beds of northern Idaho, a green magnolia leaf was discovered in strata that is supposed to be 17 million years old.Because it was so fresh-looking and still pliable, scientists decided to see if any DNA was present. And to their surprise they discovered that there was, and also that it matched that of modern magnolia trees.
Since then, DNA claims have been made for supposedly older material such as dinosaur bones,and insects in amber. It was said that the reason the magnolia leaf was preserved was because it was buried in clay,and this has a lot of truth to it; however, the 17 million year date is still doubtful.
Likewise, scientists say that DNA (from the insects) was preserved because they were entombed in amber.
However, a serious problem arises when we come to the dinosaur bones; for these were not entombed in amber or clay, but rather in sandstone. And because sandstone and bone are both porous, this means that ground and rain water would be able to seep into the rocks, and thus into the bones as well. The fact that the outer part of one of these bones was mineralized gives strong evidence that water — and thus oxygen — had access to the bones. The fact that the inside of the bones are not mineralized is an indication that they are young. The fact that the partially mineralized bone had red blood cells in it is a strong indication that it is young: most likely less than 10,000 years old
On June 16, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Why is the seventeen million year date doubtful?
On June 16, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Because Jamie, there is no dating method that ACTUALLY works and even if it did DNA would not last indefinitely, everything decays and as was stated above scientists have stated “no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years.”
On June 16, 2009 at 3:33 pm
“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock’.”
William Stansfield, Ph.D., California Polytech State
On June 17, 2009 at 11:44 am
The statement “no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years.” Was made before they had evidence of DNA lasting past that. And there is no dating method that is 100% accurate is much more accurate than saying no dating method works.
On June 17, 2009 at 11:59 am
Jamie, the statement “no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years.” was based on the actual OBSERVATION of it’s rate of decay, there were SPECULATIONS that DNA might last past that based on presuppositions and dating methods that are faulty.
On June 17, 2009 at 2:21 pm
First, We can observe the breakdown of DNA, that’s how we know DNA does not stay intact very long.
we know dating methods are unreliable due to too many presuppositions,assumptions,and environmental variables, we cannot tell the age of something using any dating method because they all have the same dilemmas.
the speculation that DNA could last “millions of years” was based on the assumption that the dating methods used were reliable, which we know they aren’t, the OBSERVATION is more reliable than the speculation, true science in fact can be observed and tested.
The topic of the article was evolution, Macro-Evo has never been observed, it is purely theory…it does not qualify as science
On June 17, 2009 at 2:56 pm
P.S. What we OBSERVE in science, is that everything reproduces after its kind, just as the Bible tells us. for example, there are people who have made a family business of dog breeding, and over each generation of breeding you get various breeds of dogs, poodles,great danes,beagles,huskies etc. but not once has anyone seen a dog produce a non-dog….ever There are ranchers that have bred cattle for generations too, but the cattle ALWAYS reproduce after their kind, never will a cow produce a non-cow
On August 29, 2009 at 11:06 am
Hello,
Quite possibly through hybrid regeneration amongst 2 species there could be a new species introduced which could spawn an entire new direction of evolution. Some where along the line microorganisms in water gave way to plants which gave way to animals.
john
On August 29, 2009 at 11:30 am
Good theory John, except that micro-organisms Always reproduce micro-organisms, plants reproduce plants, and animals only reproduce animals as their genes demand, one would never give rise to another,genetic engineering might be possible, but that is not natural evolution
On August 29, 2009 at 12:05 pm
John said \”Some where along the line microorganisms in water gave way to plants which gave way to animals.\”
However,what we see is that everything reproduces after it\’s kind, so John is speculating.
Further, A micro-organism is not genetically a plant,so wouldn\’t give rise to a plant, and a plant is not genetically an animal,so wouldn\’t give rise to an animal, everything reproduces what it’s DNA dictates, Someone thinking it could do otherwise is purely speculative and wishful,imaginative thinking.
On August 29, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Evolutionists can point to a small handful of cases in which a mutation has helped a creature to survive better than those without it. Actually, they need to take a closer look. Such ‘good’ mistakes are still the wrong types of changes, they are headed in precisely the wrong direction. Rather than adding information, they destroy information, or corrupt the way it can be expressed (not surprising, since they are random mistakes).
On August 30, 2009 at 12:43 pm
When we look at the process of photosynthesis, which began billions of years ago, we can see that through, light, water and carbon gases, plants are able to reproduce thus elements not related to a specie’s genes have caused it to reproduce. If we consider spontaneous generation, possibly a combination of species gave rise to animals.
John
On August 30, 2009 at 1:52 pm
John, you are speculating again.
You bring up Photosynthesis? no offense john photosynthesis is how plants make food, not reproduce, so perhaps I missed what you were trying to get at?
To define photosynthesis more concisely, it is The process in green plants and certain other organisms by which carbohydrates are synthesized from carbon dioxide and water using light as an energy source. Most forms of photosynthesis release oxygen as a byproduct.
You mention spontaneous generation? The idea that life can arise from non-life has been debunked,
However recently a scientist by the name of John Sutherland and a team of researchers WERE able to synthesize components of RNA, In the end though RNA is still a chemical compound,Ribonucleic acid, it is not living, though RNA is a component in living cells,it isn’t the only one. To make a living organism takes a lot more than a few chemicals.
To use an analogy, baking a building block does not build an entire house.
On August 30, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Nature cannot create specified information John, specified information is a sign of intelligence. Nature can only create random patterns, but those patterns would be nonsensical, not orderly.
You might be interested to know that While admittedly DNA is not a HUMAN language,it does follow linguistic law. It has also been shown to be more COMPLEX a language than greek or egyptian.
As you know your DNA encodes for your traits,it’s like if I were to write “make a boat with a red stripe on the side”, you could read that and (assuming you had the expertise) could build the boat. Many will say “DNA isn’t language it’s a substitutionary cipher” but a substitutionary cipher is still language.
Take care
On August 30, 2009 at 6:28 pm
I was merely trying to say for example, lets use an analogy…If a friend were walking along a path in the woods and was exposed to poison ivy, the chemicals from the poison ivy would not create another poison ivy plant on the person’s exposed area, it would in fact create some type of rash that resembled nothing of the original source that produced the rash. Am I barking up the wrong tree?
john
On August 30, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Re SG, Amino acids, often called “the building blocks of life”, can form via natural chemical reactions unrelated to life, as demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiment, which involved simulating the conditions of the early Earth. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of how life on Earth originated is a question of how the first nucleic acids arose.
If you were to say the first nucleic acids came from meteors that screamed through the atmosphere from oute space, possibly you could tell me where and how these original nucleic acids arose?
Regards,
john
On August 30, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Not to elongate this, but much of Quantum Mechanics is speculation and I would further add that much of the initial part of the scientific method is speculation. Once speculation has been confirmed it is now called scientific news/fact.
Gracias
On August 31, 2009 at 12:20 am
Dear John,a rash is a rash, not a living organism so I would say yes you are barking up the wrong tree.
Further, Even Miller admitted there were problems with his experiment.
Third Nucleic acids are building blocks yes, but the point being made is much more is needed for life than just them, a living organism is not as simple as you seem to think.
You yourself admit organization, so why have you never asked who the organizer is?
On August 31, 2009 at 9:14 am
the Atheists belief that all that we see came about naturally,organizing itself over “billions of years”, etc is equivilent to believing a plane could come together on it’s own, from parts left laying around a hangar. Which we know does not occur.
Dear atheists, please….think. The Lord says “Seek and you will find, knock, and the door will be opened” God wants a seeking,humble, heart my friends.
Not attacking you all, God loves his creation, He gave us a mind for a reason.
On August 31, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Beautiful…although the it seems there maybe a defect with the mind in general. And why did one of God’s archangels have the weakness of betrayal? I would imagine that angel was God’s creation as well…
On August 31, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Also, if you take the Bible literally, you would than say that Adam and Eve are siblings…I don’t take the Bible literally.
I don’t know if anyone, considering Lucifer’s plight, can actually organize one Universe, let alone a multiverse type theory, with each Universe containing more than over a septillion plus stars. Quite possibly that’s the organizer’s intent.
In addition, I know that each human individual can be likened to a Universe within its own.
Regards to all.
On August 31, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Dear John, we live in a fallen world, that is why there are defects. God’s original creation was very good by His own declaration, it was the rebellion of Adam that messed everything up. God gave Adam and Eve a choice, to trust Him and His Wisdom,Knowledge, & Word, or not to….they chose to seek their knowledge from the Tree rather than from God, thus they showed an irreverence for God, much like many people do today. They knew the consequences, but chose disobedience anyway. That’s what brought death into the world and caused Adam & Eve to be cast from the Garden.
Everything a person does has a consequence, for good or ill.
It is our choices that make the difference if we choose the wrong road to go down, bad things inevitably happen as a consequence.
However, if we Obey God and seek His will as we should, we will have His blessing. Regarding the rest of your comment, Adam and Eve were created for one another, they weren\’t siblings. God created us for fellowship with him, man was however made a free-will being.
Anyway, you were asking about why Satan rebelled against God? I don\’t have all the “Why” answers. Only God knows the answer to that one.
Take care and may God’s love find you well.
On August 31, 2009 at 1:45 pm
P.S. It should be noted, that because the world is fallen, we all go through our share of pain and bad things can happen to decent people as we know, the fall affected ALL of creation, even the ground was cursed. However, when tragedy strikes or pain befalls us, God is still there to help us through it if we’ll trust Him, we may not have the full picture yet, but when Christ returns, I’m sure He’ll be open to answer any question we have.
God Bless.
On August 31, 2009 at 8:14 pm
I know all about Adam and Eve, you say they were created for each other, actually Eve was spawn from the rib of Adam. I call them God’s first two children. Anyhow, they had 3 sons, I am wondering who the 3 sons had their children with?
That is my point re Lucifer, how could God create a defect, an archangel no less. Who tempted Lucifer, when did this happen…while Earth was already formed? Maybe when Lucifer was cast out it spoiled the spiritual greatness of Heaven and that is the reason for the Big Bang…
Thanks for your well wishes and same to you.
Regards,
John
On September 2, 2009 at 8:00 am
If Lucifer was cast out of Heaven because he started the War in Heaven (and now the fabric of Heaven has been spoiled), because he did not want to serve humans as God wished, then that would mean Adam and Eve were already in existence. So either the War in Heaven was happening concurrently or Eve’s temptation was from another source.
On September 2, 2009 at 11:14 am
Hello John, (the one w/a small j.) I think maybe this will be helpful to you http://www.gotquestions.org/Satan-fall.html
On September 2, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Thanks Artistan…but you know I feel as though God/The Creator is omni squared meaning all all, he is everything. How could such a being create a defective angel and his most powerful archangel at that. If that is the case than God’s entire creation could be defective. Why would he bother to create a planet for his people if he knew here would be a possibilty that it would never be the utopia he planned Gen 6:5-8. That said, God should never had to give Adam and Eve the “directive” to NOT eat from the Tree of Knowledge.
Sometimes saying God Bless or take care of yourself can never ever be enough.
John King, I do trust in the Lord, I know this is not (Earth) God’s true domain…I trust also in the absolute overwhelming intelligience and beauty of the natural world, like the sun that shines, a river that flows and a tree that grows or a flower that blossoms every year.
Thank you.
John
On September 2, 2009 at 3:40 pm
PS I also give overwhelming love, thanks and adoration to his son JC every single day and whenever else I can…now that is sacrifice. Amazing.
On September 2, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Dear John, (little j) Revelation chapters 21-22 gives us a detailed picture of the new heavens and the new earth. After the events of the end times, the current heavens and earth will be done away with and replaced by the new heavens and new earth. In essence, after this earth passes away,God will restore everything to the perfection that existed prior to the fall.
Hope that helped.
God Bless
On September 2, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Thanks so much Artistan, it does immensely. (I meant a sacrifice on JC’s part by BTW). I always wondered about the meek shall inherit the earth considering GW or other absolutely global catastrophic events. This planet will perish one day though, unless of course a miracle happens (The Sun will turn into a Red Giant one day). But until then we all live in this place.
Such a heavy consequence though for disobeying God that we had to read of Cain and Abel…terrible.
You sound like a good preacher Artistan.
Sincerely,
John
On September 3, 2009 at 8:48 am
PS Quite the compelling war that Lucifer had a third of GOD’S angles with him.
On September 3, 2009 at 8:51 am
PPS “Angels”…angles meaning angle of attack.
On September 5, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Yep, I love Joel Osteen…’s bank account.
That diatom thing…interesting organism.
John
On September 5, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Yep, I love Joel Osteen…\’s bank account.
That diatom thing…interesting organism.
John
On September 5, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Hi john, the Church is called to share the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to pick pockets. If the money given went to help the ministry rather than a preacher’s personal pocket, there’d be less anxiety over giving. If the money was going to help relieve AIDS victims in Rwanda while introducing people to God for example, that woud be great.
Unfortunately, often times many preachers put their own personal gain ahead of God’s Will. Many are preoccupied with personal gain in this life and have forgotten a simple question asked in God’s Word “for what does it profit a man, if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?” The focus of the church needs to be on the True head of the Church, it’s when a church or inividual begins losing sight of Christ that they begin to stumble and fall.
On September 6, 2009 at 8:49 pm
HI Jonathon,
We have digressed, but I am sure you are familiar with the parable of the 3 servants who were given “money” from the master. The one who put his in the sand got yelled at because he didn’t make more money with his “share”. In this day and age I would consider that to be possibly prudent. I believe in God/Creator/Intelligient (with a distinct purpose) Design, but the Bible is loaded with contradiction and guilt. In addition, the majority of the earth’s crust is sand or silica. Regarding Rwanda there is too much money in this country (USA) for ANYONE to be homeless.
(REGARDING variation, I am sure we are all familiar with the Tree of Life, common ancestor and descent with modification. Different species can reproduce into a different species with time.)
Interesting the homo sapiens (Humans) have evolved out of one place and now we are as possibly seperated as can be due to a myriad of insignificant reasons.
Jon
On September 6, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Dear john, I would like to explain the talents parable if I may. It was not about making money for personal gain,or selfish worldly indulgence, although some preachers have abused it for that purpose.
It was more about having a willingness to use what you were given (whether it be abilities,time,money or anything) to serve the Master (Jesus) and those that do the Will of God will have his blessings whereas those who never lift a finger for the Lord have no right to expect him to reward their laziness.
We are to be about serving God, not ourselves, I know that denying oneself can be difficult, but when our trust is in God, no sacrifice is too great when we consider what Christ has given for us. He gave His All, we are to do likewise.
God gave everyone abilities, and used for His glory they are NEVER wasted.
When we are doing God’s Will, He provides. A verse to think on
“But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus” Philippians 4:19
Anyway, regardless of speciation, a bear remains a bear,as was mentioned there are many bears from panda to polar but it doesn’t ever “evolve” into an entirely new creature.
Everything reproduces after it’s kind, speciation is simply variation within the kinds. A kind = the overall genus/class,genus in fact is latin for kind. so it is a scientific term regardless of what evolutionists might say.
On September 6, 2009 at 10:09 pm
As a P.S. it is true that the earth’s crust has silica, what is not widely known is that It is an essential element of living matter and humans have a critical need for this element.
Silica is a vital mineral that is almost completely overlooked by mainstream nutritionists. It was originally thought that silica is at worst an environmental contaminant of the human body and at best an element which quickly passes through the body and is excreted. These ideas were based almost entirely upon observations of mineral silica, which in the form of dust and particles was responsible for a number of serious illnesses such as silicosis.
_
Silica in mineral form had been used therapeutically, but it was absorbed inefficiently into the human body. It had traditionally gained a place in the pantheon of herbal remedies, being present in horsetail fern and some vegetables.
Work since the 1930s on absorbable mineral and organic silica showed irrefutably that organic silica could be described as an essential nutrient for both humans and other animals.
It was also found that silica supplementation aided bone and cartilage growth. In 1993, it was reported that treatment with silica could stimulate bone formation. By the 1990s, silica formulations were being used by some pharmaceutical companies on wound and burn dressings because it was recognized that silica healed wounds more quickly and could stabilize burns.
_
We are born with an abundance of silica and relatively low amounts of calcium. Then with every advancement in chronological age, the amount of calcium increases and the amount of silica decreases within the body. Silica enhances the function of iron, calcium, magnesium, potassium and boron, and is essential for bone development and growth. Bones need silica to re-calcify and to strengthen bone tissue. A silica deficiency in tissue causes a calcium deficiency which, in turn, results in a loss of tissue elasticity.
_
Silica is also one of the most important constituents of the body’s connective tissue
On September 6, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Good points…
But talk to me about the talent of the people in Africa who are starving…talk to mew about the people in Africa who are getting gang raped by their own people and the government turns its cheek on it. Where is their talent, where has it gone, both the victim and the attacker?
That parable also mentions the words usury and/or interest re investing money with bankers. (Wall Street).
The bible is strictly a guideline at best…it is a good tool to make people feel guilty. The bible cannot be taken literally…it can not give us the detailed answers for everything in doing so, if read in full and totally comprehended, we would be equivalent to God and his knowledge. There has to be some ambiguity to the Bible in order for God’s people to have FAITH.
Re speciation, sometimes new species are evolved, its called genetic mutation (DNA/Chromosone), common ancestor, Tree of Life and or descent with modification.
I love Victoria Olsteen..lol
john
On September 6, 2009 at 11:59 pm
People should be helping ppl in Africa john, God Loves people, we are told to help the poor,widowed etc. the fact that people fail to do as we are told, is our fault, not God’s. People need to quit getting mad at God for our failure to obey his commands.
On September 7, 2009 at 6:59 am
This is very true…but I cannot see how a loving God would let his people suffer in any way…I would think my God would find a loving solution…i read and hear about God’s wrath entirely too much…it should not have to come to that…I sometimes think God created us to amuse HIMSELF.
Belief in God can sometimes be nothing else but hope and a mechanism to fill the ignorant void in people.
I also believe in intelligient design, as in nature and an honest attempt by HUMANS to truly be INTELLIGIENT (as in the Wright Brothers).
On September 7, 2009 at 7:21 am
Also, to me it seems as though God is NOT perfect for a variety of reasons including that he may have been lonely…but how could God send his ONLY son on a suicide mission? To save us, save us from ourselves? It is God’s own creation entirely…God’s creation is flawed…I am sorry to say but our God is not Perfect. Lucifer proved that.
On September 7, 2009 at 9:12 am
Jesus came to save us because he LOVES us john, God IS perfect, everything he made was made for a purpose. The purpose is spelled out in the scriptures, you want understanding of them on God’s terms? Pray about it. We are imperfect due to Adam’s CHOICE to sin, but God made the ultimate sacrifice to reconcile us.
Be glad he gave his all for us, he could have just given us His wrath if he didn’t care but He wants better for us,because he DOES care. He wants us to have life,that is why Christ came.
Sin entered the world by ADAM, suffering and death came with it, God in His PERFECT love warned Adam before hand what would occur if Adam didn\\\’t listen, Adam chose to disobey anyway and now there are consequences. I am tired of people blaming God for our faults, He made us a free will being, the fact that people abuse that free will is our fault. Blaming God for Adam’s sin is like blaming your mother for you getting burned as a kid after touching a hot stove even though she told you not to because you’d get hurt.
On September 7, 2009 at 9:22 am
Dear john, why did Jesus come? For one reason already mentioned…..Love, when love is the motive no sacrifice is too great.
On September 7, 2009 at 10:12 am
Understood Jesus had great love, Jesus did.
A perfect Universe had Theia collide into the Earth creating the moon…a perfect Universe had an asrteroid slam into the earth 65mya and destroyed just about every type of dinosaur.
A philosophical defintion of perfection in paradox would be perction is the constant state of imperfection.
Sorry Guys, I do not believe God is purrfect…way too much pain and suffering on this rock.
Watching Jerry Lewis Tele now.
On September 7, 2009 at 10:14 am
No greater love hath a man than to lay down his life for his friend/brother. (Quite the paradox).
On September 7, 2009 at 1:23 pm
So in essence, what yuu are saying here is that Our God is loving God, but he will wait till whenever Revelation will happen to correct things and due to the now cascaded effect of sin, there will be a great multitude of people left behind, formerly part of his loving creation.
That’s like a parent watching his child suffer and not stepping in early enough to stop the cascade, unconditionally that is.
On September 7, 2009 at 4:40 pm
God is calling people to repent even now john,and we Christians are told to help the poor,the widowed etc, God beckons to people he pleads with them to repent, but some unfortunately have refused the great gift of salvation, for those that reject Christ as their savior, they are judged.
“He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.”
John 12:48
Part of our responsibility as Christians is to help relieve the suffering on this planet and to share God’s Love, but as was mentioned earlier some preacher’s are more interested in lining their own pockets than doing God’s will.
For those that are not obeying God’s will, they Will answer to Him.
Sorry for any typos, my keyboard is sticking.
On September 7, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Thanks Robert…Sticking?
I am just saddened that in this creation/world everyone is not on the same page.
How long is God going to wait to straight the world?
Here are a couple of quotes from 2 believers…
“The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.” (science and religion should work together).
“Choosing not to believe in God (the intelligent designer (being)), should provide significant cause for believing in the overwhelming, awesome beauty of the physical natural world to include the vast array of natural, wonderful symbiotic relationships within its realm. Choosing not to believe in God would also provide causation to extrapolate that there is no ‘intelligent’ species.”
I used to make oodles of typos.
John
On September 8, 2009 at 9:01 pm
“If God does not exist, one will lose nothing by believing in him, while if He does exist, one will lose everything by not believing. In every man’s heart there is an emptiness that only God can fill with his son Jesus Christ. In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.”
jon
Post Comment