Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Evidence for a Creator - the support will surprise you...


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 8728 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jun 2011 23:07:06 BDT
Anita,

Another pile of utter drivel. We've been through these all before and yet you persist despite rebuttals. Its dreadful.

"It tells us that G-d put trees on dry land before He put life in the ocean."

Tell me how these trees were pollinated then? By wind? If they were all pollinated by wind (cos there were no insects) why are there trees that are now pollinated by insects and birds? Could it be evolution? Possibly?

"How about Whales... They give birth tail-first and upside-down. And it usually takes a long time. If they gave birth head-first the baby would die of lack of oxygen. Now how did evolution know how to do that? Did it wait until all the baby whales drowned and then realized that they needed to give breach birth?"

Evolution doesn't know anything. However baby whales who die in birth do not pass on genes. If all the genes that promote birth the wrong way end up in dead baby whales then those genes will be eliminated in favour of the genes that promote birth the right way for survival. Very simple - not even a mild challenge. Its what you would expect if evolution were the driving force.

The rest of your post is utter garbage and I can't be bothered to comment on it.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jun 2011 23:17:24 BDT
Anita,

Right, so you think these bloody lizards are real as well.
Along with angels, devils and a 6000 year old earth.
My brother is a mental admissions nurse to my local authority. He says that if you spoke about this to him he would have no problem with having you declared delusional and possibly schizophrenic. He would recommend you be observed under controlled conditions for psychosis.
Do you really think this stuff you peddle is normal? Please take a step back and think seriously. You are way off the path. I now am seriously worried about your state of mind - you are close to the David Ickes of this world and his sanity has been questioned many times.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Jun 2011 23:17:32 BDT
Last edited by the author on 1 Jun 2011 23:18:41 BDT
Pumpkin Head says:
Anita

"I'll tell you what else is amazing about the metamorphosis of frogs and butterfly (including other things that morph like beetles)... and this has to do with continuing reproduction. If one evolved where was the other to mate with?"

And with that post, you have again demonstrated a lack of understanding as to the mechanism of evolution. Evolution works at the population level i.e. the group as a whole evolves. One individual doesn't suddenly morph into a new species, leaving it without a mate. The genetics of the group changes, allowing interbreeding to still occur. A new species has risen when members of that population can no longer interbreed with a separated population of what was the original species.

I'll ask again: where are your sources for your information?

Posted on 2 Jun 2011 00:48:03 BDT
A. Little says:
For anyone interested in 'Expelled' ...

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 00:59:05 BDT
Anita Meyer says:
Pumpkin Head said: Anita "I'll tell you what else is amazing about the metamorphosis of frogs and butterfly (including other things that morph like beetles)... and this has to do with continuing reproduction. If one evolved where was the other to mate with?"

And with that post, you have again demonstrated a lack of understanding as to the mechanism of evolution. Evolution works at the population level i.e. the group as a whole evolves. One individual doesn't suddenly morph into a new species, leaving it without a mate. The genetics of the group changes, allowing interbreeding to still occur. A new species has risen when members of that population can no longer interbreed with a separated population of what was the original species. I'll ask again: where are your sources for your information?

I now respond: My sources are clearly evident in all of the natural world. It is common knowledge of how the world works... from a butterfly comes another butterfly and a frog another frog. To date, we have not witnessed otherwise. The Bible is also a great testimony to this as well.

Genesis 1:11 - And G-d said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. Genesis 1:12 - And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and G-d saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:21 - And G-d created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and G-d saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:24 - And G-d said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Genesis 1:27 - So G-d created man in his own image, in the image of G-d he created him; male and female he created them.

And where is "your" proof and evidence for the genetics of a group changing into a new species? Please cite your sources if you could please?

Additionally, where is this found in the fossil record?

Author Anita Meyer
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 01:03:07 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 30 Nov 2011 23:15:44 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 01:09:44 BDT
Anita Meyer says:
I originally said: "How about Whales... They give birth tail-first and upside-down. And it usually takes a long time. If they gave birth head-first the baby would die of lack of oxygen. Now how did evolution know how to do that? Did it wait until all the baby whales drowned and then realized that they needed to give breach birth?"

Reverend A Theist said: Evolution doesn't know anything. However baby whales who die in birth do not pass on genes. If all the genes that promote birth the wrong way end up in dead baby whales then those genes will be eliminated in favour of the genes that promote birth the right way for survival. Very simple - not even a mild challenge. Its what you would expect if evolution were the driving force.

I now respond: Pure postulation and all in theory. There is no proof or evidence of this. Frankly, its wishful thinking, but we just do not see this happening today. Therefore the odds are, it doesn't work this way and never did.

What we know is what we currently see occurring, which speaks volumes, and this happens to be Whales giving birth tail-first so that the baby does not die of lack of oxygen. This is the given design of the whale and was intelligently created that way.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 01:17:26 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Jun 2011 01:18:56 BDT
Anita Meyer says:
Reverend A Theist said: Anita, Right, so you think these bloody lizards are real as well. Along with angels, devils and a 6000 year old earth. My brother is a mental admissions nurse to my local authority. He says that if you spoke about this to him he would have no problem with having you declared delusional and possibly schizophrenic. He would recommend you be observed under controlled conditions for psychosis. Do you really think this stuff you peddle is normal? Please take a step back and think seriously. You are way off the path. I now am seriously worried about your state of mind - you are close to the David Ickes of this world and his sanity has been questioned many times.

I now respond: It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to the profoundly sick society that you come from.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 01:22:55 BDT
Hi Anita,

In a post on the "Too intelligent to be religious ?" thread, you said;

"I was once an evolutionist myself and thought it undeniable the distinct resemblances between monkey/ape and humans. In my minds eye, I could clearly see this, but years later I had recanted on the notion."

What was it that changed your mind ? If you don't mind sharing it with us.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 02:39:10 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Jun 2011 02:41:40 BDT
Anita Meyer says:
Notreshuggie said: Hi Anita, In a post on the "Too intelligent to be religious ?" thread, you said; "I was once an evolutionist myself and thought it undeniable the distinct resemblances between monkey/ape and humans. In my minds eye, I could clearly see this, but years later I had recanted on the notion." What was it that changed your mind ? If you don't mind sharing it with us.

I now respond: Yes, I will tell you. Firstly, I've always had an affinity towards G-d (I was not pushed or indoctrinated to believe). I am also a visual pattern recognizer and I'm able to link things in the natural world with math. Later in life I was able to make the connection that put all the pieces of the puzzle together for me, which I somewhat explain here in my book demo, but there is nothing like having me give this demonstration in person (to witness this firsthand) such as at one of my book signings:

http://www.insearchoftheuniversaltruthpublisher.com/files/Pictures_and_explanation.pdf

Additionally, I've witnessed G-d in ways that have been unexplainable with miracles happening all around me. This was the final draw for me. After this it was to late for anyone to tell me otherwise. From this point on I delved diligently into scripture and read any/every religious book I could get my hands on. I also was able to meld the science aspect into it. After all my studying, I realized that the Bible cannot be falsified. Everything in it is applicable and correct. The author is a loving G-d and not as some claim otherwise. All the evidence is against evolution. Not one true intermediate between man and monkey/ape has been found. The fossil record tells us of a great flood rather than any form of evolution. In public school I was taught that evolution was the means for how we all came about, but when I examined all the facts, I found that there really wasn't any real facts or evidence, everything was all in theory. I eventually gave up on forcing myself to see something that is not there.

But this is only a small part of it, there is just so much, and that's why I wrote a book to include IT ALL!

In my book I talk about religion verses evolution, which includes carbon dating, evolution, mutations, amino acids, natural laws and so on... I also talk about Quantum Mechanics and how the Bible is all about it, engulfing the concept of "free will", non locality, the soul, consciousness, energy and so forth... Then I go on to explain about what I had discovered with the Hebrew letters and how they conform to natures law. I also link up Egypt and the Great Pyramid with the Bible as well as the book of Enoch. I seek to explain the message and meaning behind Qabalah. I even delve deep into what's called the "Bible Code". I talk about biblical foreknowledge, and the whole gamut of what G-d and the Biblical message is all about. There is a grand message here and it all correlates and comes together to make immense sense and seeks to explain why life is the way that it is... why we suffer, why we sin, why we die... so forth and so on... all the answers are in the Bible as well as other religious scriptures.

Moreover, what I have discovered with the Bible and the Hebrew writing is that we have been contacted in such a supernatural way that it has become a religion, or maybe intended to be a religion to show us the way to a science.

I have done my research thoroughly to confirm what it is that I whole heartily believe. Now it is time for me to start sharing this knowledge.

Author Anita Meyer
The Primordial Language - Confirmation of the Divine Creator

Posted on 2 Jun 2011 02:50:23 BDT
P E says:
The most revealing thing about 'religionists' is that all they can do is quote others. If they ever have a meaningful, original thought that they can argue intelligently I'd be willing to entertain it.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 06:15:50 BDT
"I have done my research thoroughly to confirm"

And ignored anything that does not fit with your religious views (i.e. real evidence). Everytime you respond you just make assertions you cannot support, usually along the lines of 'it's obvious that...', 'got must have ...'. You have used the word 'evidence' in the title of the thread, but you consistently fail to produce any.

btw you still haven't explained why men have nipples.

or why god bothered to make a universe with ~10^22 stars and then populated a single planet orbiting one of those stars with life (why did he also wait ~14 billion years - in god timeframe - to do that)

If you're going to write a story about an imaginary world, at least make it logically consistent. Tolkien did a great job with his, but then he was writer (oh wait, so are you aren't you)

Another question: When god first created Adam and Eve, were they having sex (I've checked some religious sites and this seems unclear)? From what I recall, eating fruit from the tree of knowledge is a euphemism for rumpy pumpy? If that's is the case, why were they created with the equipment needed to have children, if god had no intention for them to procreate (they didn't have children until after the tree incident).

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 06:30:08 BDT
Anita,

Oh dear, it is from 'Expelled'. Please re-watch the video. Dawkins does not say that life on Earth was seeded by aliens or that this is what he believes. He is making the same point that he makes in 'The God Delusion' which is that *if* an alien civilisation had created life and seeded it on a planet, that alien civilisation would itself have come about through a natural process such as evolution by natural selection. It is presented as a "What if...?" scenario.

I hope that you simply didn't understand what was said rather than deliberately misrepresenting it. I know which one I'd attribute to Stein.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 06:43:17 BDT
Rev,

On the whale birth question: Am I missing something, but wouldn't they be umbilically attached all through birth and so wouldn't drown regardless of whether breach or head. I'd think a whale's shape would have more bearing on this, given they taper towards the tail and there are no legs to cause issues; breach would be far easier.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 08:10:28 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Jun 2011 08:22:16 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"The fossil record tells us of a great flood rather than any form of evolution."
The fossil record moves through many strata just as we'd expect to see if a process of development took place over millions of years. The examples of organisms move from the simple towards the complex, a steady progress along the tree of life. This all fits in with the simple to complex theory of evolution by natural selection.

Creationist sight the fact that there are big things at the top and smaller things that would have moved to the bottom, this at first seems plausible but if we apply thinking it falls apart. In a catastrophic flash flood the organisation of the dead organisms would not have been so neat, there would be no reason to expect dinosaurs to all find a layer before birds for instance.

The idea that smarter creatures ran to higher ground is sometimes given to explain more developed creatures featuring more recently in the record, again it sounds convincing as long as you don't think about it. Obviously not everywhere has significant higher ground to run to, not that out running flood waters that are also said to have carved out the grand canyon in minutes is an option. The final problem with this solution is that there is evidence of simple organisms found on mountain tops, it's one of the phenomena that lead to the alternative theory of evolution, mountains formally being on the sea bed and taking millions of years to rise due to tectonic movement, creationist fail to account for this.

Finally, if there was a great flood, we wouldn't expect to the steady progress in the fossil record as we do, we'd expect almost nothing then a rich, compact layer containing everything squished together then back to relative calm with all strata being extremely even and equally distributed around the globe.

Mostly what we have here is creationists fitting whatever they find to their unfalsifiable, non-predicting conclusion that can do whatever it likes, that is not science. And none of this has yet moved onto the problems Noah has after the flood such as re-establishing geographical bio-diversity and generally clearing up the mess.

What is it that you are sighting as your evidence for the fossil record supporting the flood Anita?

Posted on 2 Jun 2011 09:23:47 BDT
Lector says:
Luna Schlosser: Oh, I see. You don't believe in science, and you also don't believe that political systems work, and you don't believe in God, huh?
Miles Monroe: Right.
Luna Schlosser: So then, what do you believe in?
Miles Monroe: Sex and death - two things that come once in a lifetime... but at least after death, you're not nauseous.

From Woody Allen's The Sleeper. ;-)

Posted on 2 Jun 2011 09:29:22 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Jun 2011 09:46:24 BDT
Lector says:
"...did you know that "God" spelled backwards is "dog"?" ;-)

From Woody Allen's The Sleeper.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 11:08:48 BDT
Anita,

Take a look at this article:

http://www.livescience.com/5302-ancient-whales-gave-birth-land.html

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 11:13:48 BDT
Interesting article.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 11:26:19 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hello Light,
I beleive in the Universe as a living thing which people refer to as God, but to call it a Man. No. Although sometimes I like the idea that we might be the smallest particle in a cell which could be our world, which makes up a body which could actually be the Universe. bit far fetched but then, my mind is open to all things.
Therefor I love GOD for creating and enabling my soul in the first place, because as I think I explained before. I believe it is the GOOD in collective souls which 'feeds' and 'drives' the Universe. So I do try to be a good person, but sadly fail often, though as I've said before by the time I am recalled to the Universe I hope to have succeeded. I am certainly not a Christian, although I feel that Jesus was a very good man, who was actually a Jewish Essene Priest, so if I was going to 'follow' him I would actually be a Jew. I do call myself a child of God, but not in a hippy way. Just becasue I have no other name for it..
If you have time you could read what I said on this subject which is on ''Wrong to assasinate Bin Laden?'' forum.
I have absolutely no religion, and as I said before I beleive religion to be Evil and the Devisive. I love hearing other points of view though and am thirsty for knowledge, of any sort, but sadly not the ''Anita'' way. Sorry Anita, I find myself agreeing with lots of stuff but find your method of putting it over, wordy and dare I say boring; and now know why I didn't particularly take to Science at school. But then I am a simple pleb.
I think you need to remem ber that through the Ages, Science has often been proved to be wrong. As are we all, but if you don't seek you are never going to find anything..
I look forward to hearing from you light.
Regards.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 11:31:53 BDT
Last edited by the author on 2 Jun 2011 11:33:51 BDT
Pumpkin Head says:
Anita

>> "And where is "your" proof and evidence for the genetics of a group changing into a new species? Please cite your sources if you could please?"

Any biology textbook gives this information. To be fair, though, I ask for your sources, so in return I'll give you this one:

Higher Biology: With Answers

Or on the web:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Scroll down to section 5.0 Observed instances of speciation. It is important to realise that speciation does not involve jumps across taxonomic groups, so you won't find examples of chimps turning into humans or any other misconceived notions about evolution. (This is where I anticipate you bringing up the idea of biblical "kinds" as a refutation of evolution)

>> "Additionally, where is this found in the fossil record?"

Genes aren't preserved in the fossil record (apart from fragments in tissues of very recent extinct organisms such as mammoths). By looking at the assemblages of fossilised organisms in an area, inferences can be made as to the degree of relatedness. (Note the word `infer'. No science has 100% proof of anything. This is where it differs from religionist claims of absolute and unchanging authority based on ancient texts, despite evidence to the contrary).

You title this thread as "Evidence for a Creator - the support will surprise you...", but all you are providing are bible quotes, most of which contradict scientific evidence. For example, you mentioned land plants coming before ocean life. In keeping with the thread title, how does science corroborate this, and can you post the reference for this scientific evidence?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 11:38:10 BDT
M. E. Phelan,

You said:
"and now know why I didn't particularly take to Science at school"

What Anita writes is nothing to do with science. Real science is actually interesting and engrossing. There are many very good science books aimed at the lay-reader (of which I count myself as one) that put the subject across well.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 11:38:16 BDT
Pipkin says:
Anita,
I think you will find that Dawkins said that All hu'man' life is the result aliens from another planet seeding us. But I will research this further. And it is quite obvious that whoever they were obviously evolved themselves in a Darwinian manner, on whatever planet they came from.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 11:41:41 BDT
Pipkin says:
Sam,
I was being silly. I actually did very well in the Sciences and found it to be very exciting, but what I meant is that Anita's methods would have switched me off, becasue I find myself drifting when I read her stuff. Though I concede she is very intelligent and really deserves to be taken more seriously. For she has worked hard to achieve and contain all those words.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Jun 2011 11:49:34 BDT
M. E. Phelan,

You said:
"Though I concede she is very intelligent and really deserves to be taken more seriously."

Ah! Now I'm starting to recognise where you're being silly. :)
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  170
Total posts:  8728
Initial post:  29 May 2011
Latest post:  31 May 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 12 customers

Search Customer Discussions