But it does, Leauki...according to dictionary definitions and science textbooks.

Evolutionists would have gullible youngsters believe the lie that an ape species somehow branched (evolved) into a brutish ape-like creature who in turn branched into a human.   

Nope, Genesis tells us God created man in his own image and likeness, that man is a special creation, therefore he differs from other species in kind. God created the whole man at once, complete, and independent of all antecedents. The human species descended from one pair, Adam and Eve. 

Before Adam, "there was not a man to till the earth." 2:5,

"Eve is the mother of all the living." 3:20

"God made the world....from one man He created the whole human race." Acts. 17:24, 26.

I cannot accept any evolutionary theory that denies belief in God as the direct Creator of heaven and earth, 1:1 of every living and moving creature, 1:21, and of man, male and female..1:27.

Catholic teachings insist that man is something more than a mere physical body, he is a living rational soul, a direct creation of God. It would be intellectually lacking to believe that a soul, a perfect spiritual entity made by Almighty God, could have a body of brute ape origin!

Leauki,......let me clue you in....when you go after someone's character, you've lost the debate.  How many times have I called you out on your misrepresentation of the bible by showing you what it really says without going after your person?  The latest  was when you said we (Christians)  are supposed to "convince" others to come into the faith by using the great commission? 

Did I call you out by calling you names and slandering your integrity even tho you greatly misquoted and misrepresented the Christian faith? 

Now, calm down.....show me where I've lied about evolution in Post #356. 

Calling someone a liar is a serious thing.  Usually the ones so adament like this show they're on shaky ground to begin with.....which is exactly what the humanistic theory of Evolution is built on....that's why it keeps on shifting around. 

You need to get a grip. 

really? then why did Dawkins also say and I again....go right to the source Leauki...

"Darwin made it posible to be an intellectualy fulfilled atheist." 

KFC POSTS #354

A few pages back you took a stab at the Church over the Galileo case. Your anti-CC prejudice is rearing it's ugly head again. Dark Ages, that would be 500 through 1000. Could you be more specific how the Chruch warred against science during the Dark Ages? As far as I know before the 1800s, few scientists saw any conflict between science and religion.

There's never been a conflict between science and Catholicism becasue God is the source of all truth whether it's in the natural or spritiaul sphere of man's being and activity. Consequently, nothing in the Chruch's teachings would be wrathful to science. The Church has no quarrel with proved facts of science, but she does warn us not to accept erroneous guesses of some scientists as positive facts.

The conflict is of the true scientist with the pretender, the pseudo scientist who has but a smidgeon of scientific knowldege and seeks with it to refute the unchangeable laws of God as they apply to morality.  

Replying to this assumption that the Chruch is opposed to science, Pope Leo XIII said, "Whoever gives credit to fancies so grotesque shows shows how little he knows of the flame of zeal that burns in the heart of Christ's spouse, the Chruch. The galaxy of scientists , Catholics, stand forth in history as evidence that Catholic Chruch teachings were not a hindrance to their scientific work, to put it negatively." Their names are an elequent answer to your assertion.

Actually, it's when you start lying that you lose the debate. And when you continue to lie even when several people tell you that you are not telling the truth, you lose credibility.

I do NOT "misrepresent" what the Bible says. I offer my own translations and interpretations. They are NOT lies any more than your theology is a lie.

But we can let this stand. I accuse you of lying about evolution and you accuse my religion of being a lie.

That was not a lie. That is how I understand Christianity.

If you can tell me that it is not true and refer to some Christian leaders who disagree (with explanation) with a Christian duty to convince others of the truth of the Christian faith, I will gladly accept that attempting to convince others of the truth of the Christian faith is not a Christian duty.

That's the difference between being wrong and telling a lie.

I didn't quote anything. I didn't "misquote" anything either. If you disagree with my interpretation of Christianity regarding the point about a duty to bring Jesus Christ closer to non-Christians, you are free to correct me like I did you about your claims about evolution for months and months.

If you tell me that I am wrong and why I am wrong, as explained above, I will no longer say that Christians have a duty to evangelise and if I do it again, you could call me a liar and you might be right.

It wasn't in post #356. It was in several posts before that and lots of posts over the last year.

El-Duderino pointed out to you when you misrepresented evolution and I told you as well.

You keep claiming that evolution teaches that one species turns into another (you also claim that evolution is about where life comes from). I have explained, in detail, how one species can become two without ever "turning" into another. I have told you that this is how evolution works. Yet you keep claiming that evolution means that one species turns into another.

And I know why you do it. You have this strange belief that there is a species border of some kind that evolution cannot cross. And apart from the fact that there is no such species border (except in a snapshot) that is also wrong because evolution does not work in such a way as to be able to hit such a border even if it did exist.

I told you, I explained it you, I referred you to books that explain it much better than I ever could; yet again and again you come back here and make your original claim, as if it was the unchallenged truth. You don't even add something "although I have been told that this is not evolution what I am talking about here" or anything else that would suggest that your false statement about evolution is not a fantastic argument.

And a fantastic argument it is, I am sure. It works with everyone who also doesn't understand how evolution works.

But it's still a lie.

Calling someone a liar is indeed a serious thing. But I am sick and tired of you lying about evolution.

If there really were a valid point to be made in favour of Creationism, it should be possible to make that point without resorting to lies. Apparently, it is not.

If you were really as principled as you claim to be, you would be glad if someone pointed out an error you make. Instead you ignore corrections and keep pretending that there isn't even a doubt that your statements about evolution are correct, when instead you have been misrepresenting evolution in the same way ever since I first met you here.

In the example I once gave I used the evolution of human languages to describe how one type of thing can become two without ever becoming another type of thing. Some Germanic language evolved into both English (on the islands) and German (on the continent), but at no point did that original language turn into a different language (and no "language border" was ever crossed). Animal species evolution works in the same way (simplified). There is no species border.

I am telling you again, and I absolutely expect you to ignore that you were told when you bring it up the next time.

I don't think that you have much integrity when it comes to evolution vs Creationism, because I know you are telling untruths. But I do know that you are completely consistent.

I think your interpretations of the Bible are interesting and useful as a basis for a good society and I think you are a good person. But I really don't like the way you claim that your interpretations are the only valid interpretations, that your interpretations become the official word of G-d, even when the literal translation contradicts them or allows for other interpretations, that you claim that I "misrepresent" the Bible when I dare to read for myself those chapters you make claims about, and that you keep making false claims about evolution in order to confuse your religious beliefs with science.

No, it doesn't.

Evolution explains how new species emerge, but the mechanism does NOT include the event of "one species turning into another".

Dictionary definitions are not enough to explain how a mechanism works. And the science textbooks I have read never claimed that "one species turned into another".

Populations of one species branch and evolve into two species. But at no point during this process is a "species border" being crossed. The parent generation and its child generation are always of the same species.

The Catholic Church endorses the teaching of evolution and rejects the teaching of Creationism or "intelligent design" in science class.

You are the only Catholic I have ever met who opposed evolution on supposedly religious grounds, despite the fact that your Pope does not. And I live in a Catholic country.

Your theology might say that there is an incompatibility between evolution and Christian faith, but the Catholic Church says that there is not.

You misunderstand the purpose of the image.

It's not supposed to mean that one species turns into another, it is meant to show how the first generation and the last generation can be really different while all generations in between are always very much like the generations following and preceding them.

It is perhaps an unfortunate way of visualising how evolution works.

If the same type of image contained a million pictures of creatures between ape and man (as depicted as the first and last individual in the image), and each pair (parent and child generation) of those creatures were to be shown to people, everyone would say that the two creatures they are shown are the same species, yet the first and last generation appear as different species.

And that's what the image is supposed to show, how a species evolves. It does not show how a species turns into another.

Where in the bible does it say that apes are brutish, that apes have souls, that those souls are brutish, and that human souls are PERFECTION?

How can I let that stand when you just made something up? when have I ever accused your religion of being a lie?  Isn't that a lie in itself?  Go ahead and show me where I've called your religion (I didn't know you even had one) a lie?  I know you have a Jewish background but I have no idea what religion you even belong to, so how can I call it a lie? 

So does this make you a liar then because you are purposely misrepresenting me? 

you went into a fit of temper right after #356 calling me a liar.  So again....I'll ask you  (still haven't answered me)  don't just call me a liar...point to my error.  What did I say in 356 for you to go into a rage about? 

 I also see you are using the tactic of bringing in another to srengthen your argument...typical Leauki because what you are saying is you can't stand alone.  You're not strong enough.  My problem isn't with El-D.   It's with you.  El-D didn't insult me.  You did.  And I'm going to call you on it.  I like you Leauki and I enjoy our conversations but I'm not letting you off the hook on this one. 

Again, got to shore up the numbers to make it seem like you're right (but that's the name of the game isn't it?).  When did "several people" call me a liar?  You're the only one that has to my knowledge.  Should I bring in Lula like you do El-D?  Does that help the whole number thing?  If you knew your OT well, you'd see that God wasn't about numbers at all.  The ones with fewer were in the right all the time.   According to your theology David was in the wrong because he was alone going against Goliath and thousands of others behind him.  Or Gideon who God pared down his army so there were very few going against a huge Midianite Army.  Or Moses going against the whole of Egypt....or the two spies against the 10 who lied.  (read that the majority lied)

Maybe Christ was wrong too, because the consensus was that he was really the devil so they hung him on a cross.  One alone with no one to stand up for him.   Do you know they called him a liar as well? 

so I can say the same about you when you misrepresent Christianity?   You say:

What's good for the goose is not for the gander?  well maybe that's how I understand Evolution (using your own words)....and I am using the Evolutionists to get my ideas and thoughts from.  I'm constantly quoting your guys Leauki.  It's coming from their own mouths. 

so....let me guess.  You're just wrong and I'm a liar? 

Just read the passage yourself......the great commission is found at the end of Matthew.....Jesus said to go out and make disciples.......that's not conversion.   A disciple is one who sits under another to learn.  A disciple has already been convinced previously and now is ready to learn under another is more knowledgeable.  We are to make disciples....not to persistently try to convince others that Jesus was/is the Messiah for all mankind.  Do me a favor...go read Matthew 10:14 (5-14 for context) and that should take care of this discussion. 

Leauki you just described yourself.  They say the things that bother us the most are what we are most guilty of.  I think you need to do some self-examination.  I'm not an expert on Evolution anymore than you are....there are times I've asked you pointed questions  about some of the claims you bring to the table and all I get is an impatient ....."how do I know?"  Well you made the claim! 

I have no idea what you mean there is no species border?  Isn't that saying a tomato can be a watermelon if there is no border?  Both are fruits afterall.   

you give me nothing Leauki....I specifically asked you this:

You go off on a tizzy, call me names but don't give me any specifics on this post that set you off.  Now tell me where I lied or be quiet. 

See, now using your mode of operation I could call you a liar right here......just like you do me....how many times have I told you Leauki....it's NOT about MY interpretation?  How many times have I shown you the bible interprets itself? How many times have I said I don't really care about my opinion when it comes to scripture?  How many times have I prefaced when I was using my own opinion on certain things that we are unsure about?  Don't I say...."well I can only give my opinon here because this is all we know?"

KFC POSTS #314

Exactly! These two sentences say it all!

Unfortunately, since the time of Darwin, we have seen firsthand how intellectual confusion, in the political, academic, religious and scientific world, results from a loose use of the term "evolution".

Species "evolving" from their own kind is true science, what is sometimes called "micro-evolution", but in reality isn't evolution at all and shouldn't be confused with evolution...it's Variety Within Kind due to reshuffling of genes also called Recombination.  God instantaneously created the dog....one "kind"...2 were loaded onto the Ark and over time, as a result of recombination of genes within the dog gene pool (within kind), gave rise to variety...lots and lots different dogs....all still dogs, one "kind".

LEAUKI POSTS # 319

Yes, you have and same thing with fruit flies as with dogs...start out with fruit flies... end...with fruitflies.   The experiments with fruitflies confirmed variety within kind.

KFC POSTS #314

KFC POSTS #369

Exactly!  The idea of change to something vastly different, "transmutation",  e.g. reptiles supposedly changing into birds over eons of time is psudeo science being masqueraded as true science under the name of Evolution according to Darwin's theory.

LEAUKI POSTS # 319

Yes, Darwinism does claim just that. Darwin's followers, Evolutionists, have defined evolution and taught through science textbooks that evolution is a molecules-to-man natural transformation in which new, "higher" genetic information is gained which was not possessed by one's ancectors. They are the ones who have given us this understanding now commonly held across society.   

And going one step further, many have taken Darwin's Evolution Theory and turned it into an Atheist naturalistic philosophy on the false ground that human life is just a natural descent of a long line of animals.

LEAUKI POSTS:

kfc,

Species border is DNA. And as you know, Almighty God designed it "irreducably complex" for good purpose.  Scientific research has gained many, many new insights into the message sequence of DNA as a result of bio chemistry, molecular biology, genetics, biology, etc. It's now known with a high degree of certainty that the Creator's design of DNA will not allow evolution according to Darwinists to occur...the message sequence of DNA prevents transmutation of genes from one "kind" to a different one.  

So modern scientific research has proved "molecules- to- man" evolution isn't plausible. What we now know about DNA has busted Darwin's evolutionary tree of life ancestry wide open. But you know acknowledging the truth comes hard to a lot of people...being created by God and not descended from an ape is a whole new ball game of life.

its funny seeing the ignorant preach.

And actually a watermellon shares a common ancestor with a cuecumber.

If you want to know anything about evolution stop asking lula and go open a book.

from post #348

That's correct, Leauki.  We are only repeating what Evolutionists themselves claim..I've shown this by directly quoting from the dictionary and 3 science books.

Do you agree with or deny what evolutionists claim evolution is?  

leauki posts 366

Let's be clear....according to the dictionary and science textbooks, evolutionists state that new species emerge from different ones, but have not yet been able to explain how evolution occurs or come up with empirical evidence.

Now you're diverting to the ever elusive mechanism. While Evolutionists take for granted that evolution--molecules to mankind-- definitely occurred, as can be seen from direct quotes of the dictionary and science textbooks....Here evolution is portrayed as a fact, but it's crucial mechanism (the missing link) continues to be ever-elusive....it's never been found in the fossil evidence. If molecules-to-mankind cannot occur, there is no mechanism to find.

Find a new post.  I'm locking this one.

Lula posts

LEAUKI POSTS 367

Oh yes, I understand the purpose of the image...all too well! It's meant to show a series of (evolutionary) changes from ape to human....to SCHOOL CHILDREN. Remember, it's in science textbooks that unwary, naive, uncritical, unquestioning school children read...the same textbook that defines evolution as all living things are modified descendants of a common ancester that lived in the distant past...like on page 13, Darwin developed the modern theory of evolution, successfullly explaining how more complex species arose over time from simpler ones. in fact, the image shows this.... the simple ape evolving to the complex human. Evolution claims that complex humans are descendants of simple ape-like ancestors and that they in turn came from still more primitive apes. What school children read is augmented by an image of an ape-like creature shown evolving through a series of hypothetical intermediate froms into a modern human being....the image is to indoctrinate them into believing Darwin's theory of human origins...that they decscended from apes...that they are just animals.  Are they just animals?

Atheistic humanism is being taught in public schools through the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution while the other side of the Origins debate, Special Creation, is being suppressed.