What's new

Science vs. Creationism

Jesus also Cursed a Fig tree for not meeting it's created purpose(Mark 11: 12-25).... Best be watching your back!!!

Why did Jesus curse that tree since, as Mark explains, “it was not the season of figs”? (Mark 11:13) Well, when a fig tree bears leaves, normally it also produces early figs. It was unusual for a fig tree to have leaves at that time of year. But since it had leaves, Jesus rightly expected to find figs on it. The fact that the tree had borne only leaves meant that it would be unproductive. Its appearance was deceptive. Since fruit trees were taxed, an unfruitful tree was an economic burden and needed to be cut down.

Some months earlier Jesus had compared the Jewish nation to a fig tree that had been unfruitful for three years and would be cut down if it remained unproductive. (Luke 13:6-9) By cursing the fig tree just four days before his death, Jesus showed how the Jewish nation had not produced fruits befitting repentance and thus was in line for destruction. Though that nation—like the fig tree—superficially appeared healthy, a closer look revealed a lack of faith that culminated in the rejection of the Messiah.—Luke 3:8,*9.
 
Verbal, dramatic, and situational irony are often used for emphasis in the assertion of a truth. The ironic form of simile, used in sarcasm, and some forms of litotes can emphasize one's meaning by the deliberate use of language which states the opposite of the truth, denies the contrary of the truth, or drastically and obviously understates a factual connection!

...so the only "irony" here is that you and your fellow evolutionists deny the facts and truth of provable science and biology and then use "language" that makes you seem to be the intellectual ones and those of us who believe in an Almighty Creator the "stupid" and "uneducated" ones!

If you're going to quote something, you should state it as such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

I don't need a lesson on what Irony is. I do appreciate the effort though.

What I found ironic is that you consider your interpretation of the bible truer than those of your fellow ilk. Im sure if you talked to those gentlemen thet would say that you're "spinning" the bible to fit your truth. Why is your truth truer or more accurate then theirs when neither one of you can verify?
 
Why did Jesus curse that tree since, as Mark explains, “it was not the season of figs”? (Mark 11:13) Well, when a fig tree bears leaves, normally it also produces early figs. It was unusual for a fig tree to have leaves at that time of year. But since it had leaves, Jesus rightly expected to find figs on it. The fact that the tree had borne only leaves meant that it would be unproductive. Its appearance was deceptive. Since fruit trees were taxed, an unfruitful tree was an economic burden and needed to be cut down.

Some months earlier Jesus had compared the Jewish nation to a fig tree that had been unfruitful for three years and would be cut down if it remained unproductive. (Luke 13:6-9) By cursing the fig tree just four days before his death, Jesus showed how the Jewish nation had not produced fruits befitting repentance and thus was in line for destruction. Though that nation—like the fig tree—superficially appeared healthy, a closer look revealed a lack of faith that culminated in the rejection of the Messiah.—Luke 3:8,*9.

Soooo.. Watch your back!!!
 
The Catholic Church gives more weight to the word of modern evolutionists than to that of God’s Son, Jesus Christ, who confirmed the Genesis account of creation as accurate by saying: “Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” (Matthew 19:4) Whose opinion do you consider to be deserving of more weight?

I gave you John Paul II as an example where religious person can accept evolution and still believe in God. I think dalamon is like that as well.
Frankly I do not value neither opinion of church nor Jesus Christ. History and Mythology is full of self proclaimed prophets/sons/daughters of God and legends about them - at the end of the day all of them are faux.
 
Science does not disprove the Biblical text.

You are being ignorant. Fossil record disproves it. We know that land animals appeared before birds based on fossil records and that birds evolved later from dinosaurs. Bible says God created birds first. Checkmate, science wins.
 
The Catholic Church gives more weight to the word of modern evolutionists than to that of God’s Son, Jesus Christ, who confirmed the Genesis account of creation as accurate by saying: “Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?” (Matthew 19:4) Whose opinion do you consider to be deserving of more weight?

What does Jesus say about the internet? Oh wait he lived 2 ****ing thousand years ago.

Jesus said that there are boys and girls, derp. Did he mention hermaphrodites?
 
Last edited:
Serious question, how do they identify a fossil, especially to call it a new animal, from a single portion of a broken bone. I read about them identifying a species related to the platypus based off part of a jaw and nothing else. How is that enough to know it isn't just a different animal of the same species like a person with big feet or something?
 
You are being ignorant. Fossil record disproves it. We know that land animals appeared before birds based on fossil records and that birds evolved later from dinosaurs. Bible says God created birds first. Checkmate, science wins.

....checkmate? If I played you in a game of chess....I'd have your queen captured before the 1st 25 moves!

The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. .*.*. the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major*forms of life were established fits best.”

The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution .*.*. is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”

The fossil record closely matches the general order of the appearance of living forms found in the Bible book of Genesis. Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments: “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History
 
....checkmate? If I played you in a game of chess....I'd have your queen captured before the 1st 25 moves!

The Bulletin of Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History pointed out: “Darwin’s theory of [evolution] has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. .*.*. the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution.”

Zoologist Harold Coffin states: “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found and scientists admit there is little prospect of their ever being found. On the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major*forms of life were established fits best.”

The scientific magazine Discover said: “Evolution .*.*. is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists, scientists who study the fossil record, there is growing dissent.”

The fossil record closely matches the general order of the appearance of living forms found in the Bible book of Genesis. Donald E. Chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at Oregon State University, comments: “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”

Paleontologist Alfred Romer wrote: “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History

FALSE yet again!
Where does it supports Biblical claim of birds being first before land animals? And I will remind you again, 99.86% of world scientists support evolution. Good for you quoting one ancient zoologist from 1981 who is not even known to be an expert in the field and who himself admitted that "his data is more religious that really scientific". Or finding creationist chemist who runs his own ministry entitled ‘Creation Compass". None of it counts as SCIENCE or EVIDENCE!
And Alfred Romer died in 1973. He was quite reputable paleontologist and he would be very happy to see current and updated fossil records. He was nowhere near being creationist BTW, so I would suggest you stop dragging his name into this nonsense. ( Romer was very keen in investigating vertebrate evolution. Comparing facts from paleontology, comparative anatomy, and embryology, he taught the basic structural and functional changes that happened during the evolution of fishes to primitive terrestrial vertebrates and from these to all other tetrapods. He always emphasized the evolutionary significance of the relationship between the form and function of animals and the environment.
Through his textbook Vertebrate Paleontology Romer laid the foundation for the traditional classification of vertebrates. He drew together the (then) widely scattered taxonomy of the different vertebrate groups and combined them in a simplified scheme, emphasizing orderliness and overview. Based on his research of early amphibians, he reorganised the labyrinthodontians. Romer's classification was followed by many subsequent authors, notably Robert L. Carroll, and is still in use)
 
Back
Top