Why should we believe?

[OnceConvinced]

We are often told by theists that God will not be tested and we should not be asking for proof of his existence as that would make us an "evil generation". We are even sometimes told that even if God did provide evidence we would not believe it (so much for THEIR faith!).

Some also believe that just this universe should be enough proof for us, because the bible says so! However for many of us that simply is just not true and we know it, don't we? For many of us, when we look at the universe we see overwhelming proof of evolution not creation, which proves that bible statement false.

One thing that is certain by spending time on this website is that nobody has really been able to provide any real proof that god exists. (only philosophical arguments and unverified claims, including bible verses).

So here we are, many of us without what we feel is adequate proof that there is a god and for many of us overwhelming evidence that there most likely is no god at all.

It seems that many theists look down their nose at us because we require more proof than they do. Many, claim to have had God prove themselves to them, yet STILL look down on us for requiring the same!

It seems God, if he exists, is unwilling to prove himself to us, rather requiring acts of faith instead.

If a God is not willing to provide proof adequate for us, why should we believe that he wants us to worship him or have a relationship with him?

Does he even care if we worship him or have a relationship with him?

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to Claire Evans]


“In fact, there are people today with horns.
Now, according to evolution, there is a purpose for each part of the body. What is this purpose?�

Nonsense. )

Firstly,
You don’t understand evolution.

“Poor design"(vestigial traits, vestigial genes, new modified genes that are bad(cause different genetic diseases, are a result of mutations(mistakes done in the process of DNA replication))) is consistent with the predictions of the scientific theory of evolution by means of natural selection. This predicts that features that were evolved for certain uses, are then reused or co-opted for different uses, or abandoned altogether; and that suboptimal state is due to the inability of the hereditary mechanism to eliminate the particular vestiges of the evolutionary process.

Secondly,
Those “horns� are nothing but Cutaneous horn- keratinous skin tumors.

“Cutaneous horns, also known by the Latin name cornu cutaneum, are unusual keratinous skin tumors with the appearance of horns, or sometimes of wood or coral. Formally, this is a clinical diagnosis for a "conical projection above the surface of the skin."[1] They are usually small and localized, but can, in very rare cases be much larger. Although often benign, they can also be malignant or premalignant.[2]�

Example of Cutaneous horns:
“Zhang Ruifang, aged 101 (living in Linlou Village, Henan province, China), has grown a cutaneous horn on her forehead, resembling what those who have examined her and her family call "Devil's Horns." Notably, this growth has expanded to reach a total of 6 centimeters in length. Another is forming on the opposite side of her forehead.[6]

Liang Xiuzhen, aged 87 (living in Guiyan village in Ziyang City, Sichuan province, China) grew a 13 cm (5.1") pointed horn from her forehead, earning her the nickname "Unicorn Woman".[7]

Huang Yuanfan, aged 84 (living in Ziyuan, China).[8]

Madame Dimanche, called Widow Sunday, a French woman living in Paris in the early 19th century, grew, in six years from the age of 76, a 24.9 cm (9.8") horn from her forehead before it was successfully removed by French surgeon Br. Joseph Souberbeille (1754–1846). A wax model of her head is on display at the Mütter Museum, The College of Physicians of Philadelphia, US.[9]

The Shope papilloma virus can cause rabbits to grow horns. This may have been the source of myths such as the Wolpertinger and the Jackalope.�

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutaneous_horn
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/peoples ... -head.html

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 40 by Claire Evans]

Now, according to evolution, there is a purpose for each part of the body. What is this purpose?

Wow. Where did you get this from? Was it a video game wiki?

[OnceConvinced]

If one does not differentiate towards who Jesus was talking to, then one is not going to understand the context. It is not picking and choosing.

Of course it’s picking and choosing. None of the bible was written aimed at people 2000 years into he future. Paul’s letters in particular were all written to specific churches at the time. Jesus words were all said to his disciples and people at the time.

Of course if you look at what is said in the bible and know that it’s a load of nonsense you are going to say “Oh it was only meant for the people at the time.�

Paul was pivoting in establishing Christian and thus had to have special powers to prove the existence of the Holy Spirit.

When I read Paul’s writings, I don’t see a man with special powers, I see a very flawed man who was often mistaken. I see a misogynist man. I also see evidence of dishonesty.

Christianity does not depend on what we do now. Special powers like Paul had are not needed by us

Apparently they are, if there are demon possessed people. Special powers are still needed to cast these demons out.

But clearly that didn't happen. There could have been no Holy Spirit.

How can you possibly know that? You weren’t there and as of yet you have not come up with anything that I didn’t believe as a Christian.

You think that one being enlightened means one is saved but that is not the case. People know the scriptures but that doesn't mean they are saved. Jesus gave light to every man yet that did not mean every man was been saved (John 1:9).

Take a look at the scripture I quoted again. Note the very crucial words “, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,�

How can one possibly taste the powers of the world to come if they did not have the holy spirit in them?

The powers of the world to come means the Messianic Age.

Powers which come as a result of having the holy spirit within you. So you get a TASTE due to having the holy spirit in you. You couldn’t possibly have a taste of those powers if you do not have the holy spirit in you.

Sorry, Claire but the scripture quite clearly states that it is possible to have had the holy spirt and then to lose it. It should be obvious from the scriptures. Remember that a promise is made from God that if you ask for it you will get it. I most definitely asked for it. So if I didn’t get it, then that verse is lie isn’t it?

Luke 11:11-13 Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?"

Even just repenting and being baptised is a guarantee you will receive the gift of the holy spirit.

Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’� (Acts 2:38).

Is Acts 2:38 a lie, Claire? It’s a bible PROMISE!

Are you trying to tell me that I can repent and be baptised yet NOT receive the gift of the holy spirit?

Sorry, but you have no biblical leg to stand on whatsoever.

You fall into the category of those who knew the Bible yet did not know and did not have the Holy Spirit in them. You thought you did but you did not.

This is a category made up by you which as I have proven with scripture is clearly false.

Please show me anything remotely biblical that says there is such a category. I repented. I was baptised. Thus I was guaranteed the gift of the holy spirit.

Please show me one scripture that explains that falling away is without knowing the spirit. Even Paul says it's possible for him to fall away. Do you seriously believe Paul didn't truly know the spirit?

I Corinthians 9:27 I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

That mean he has renounced earthly passions which lead a Christian astray. Else if he did not, he would not be fit to preach.

He is talking about overall self-discipline. He goes on to preach about being a good example to others and living with integrity. He talks about a race and the rewards at the end. He is talking about self discipline and keeping oneself pure, lest one fall.

Let’s face it, Paul was often preaching about self-discipline. It was clearly one of his biggest concerns, people falling from the faith. Yet he called them all brothers and part of the family of Christ. He understood that even he himself could fall from grace if he did not discipline himself.

Being saved does not mean one will never sin again. That is not what is called falling away.

Of course it is.

He is clearly renouncing everything that would cause him to live a sinful life.

Which would result in him losing his salvation. Note:

Rev 3:5 states that God will not remove your name from the book of life if you overcome, which then implies that it CAN be removed if you fail to overcome.

It clearly does not mean one won’t become an ex-Christian. The Parable of the Prodigal Son was an example of an ex-Christian. Judas Iscariot was the first ex-Christian. Do you really think Jesus would have picked him and used him for so many years if he was a false Christian?

Here is the context Paul means about falling away

"The apostle Paul prophesies of an apostasy in II Thessalonians 2:3, 9-12, and he prefaces it with a warning against being deceived. The great apostasy may already be fully underway, spurred by the rising tide of deception in society. With so much information available (Daniel 12:4)—along with so many ways to manipulate it—men find it extremely easy to deceive millions instantly. This is especially true for those who do not really believe the true source of knowledge, God and His Word. Thus, after subtle doctrinal changes, many of the brethren have fallen away."

The fallen have been deceived.

What you are quoting here should be clear evidence that Paul was worried that people could fall away ie go from Christian to ex-Christian. He was quite clearly concerned about Apostacy. In no way is he saying they were never true Christians or that they never had the holy spirit in them.

http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fus ... seID/29665

Paul says there will be those who will fall away because they did not know the truth.

The fallen are apostates.

The fallen were not necessarily those who didn’t know the truth. You are adding that.

I knew the truth. So how could I have fallen way because I didn’t know the truth?

Please simply name one crucial thing that I didn’t believe as a Christian that I should have believed? You can’t name one thing can you? You know you have no leg to stand on. I knew the same truth that you know now. I knew what really mattered.

I repented. I was baptised. Thus I MUST have been filled with the holy spirit. It could not possibly be any other way unless the bible is lying. Is the bible lying Claire? Is Acts 2:38 a lie? You seem to be insisting it is.

BTW I truly accepted the holy spirit.

You thought you did else you would not think He does not exist.

Is Luke 11:11-13 a lie? If what you are saying is true, then it must be.

I KNOW that I asked for the holy spirit and I know how genuine I was when I repented and when I was baptised.

You were never there Claire. You don’t know my heart, so you are in absolutely no position to judge.

All you are doing here is convincing me that it is you who is not the true Christian. It’s just simply not possible that you could have the holy spirit in you guiding you. It is you, Claire that is the mistaken one. If you had any wisdom from God at all, then you would know that I was the real thing. I wasn’t just pretending. Nor was I someone who just fell away. There was so much more to it than that.

John 16:12-13New International Version (NIV)

12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

What lies did I buy into Claire? What lies? Which ones made the difference between be knowing the truth and believing a lie? Which ones would have made God flag me away as a fraudulent Christian?

The disciples at that time did not have the Holy Spirit yet they understood that He would come. Once they had the Holy Spirit in them, they understood the truth. This cannot apply to you. You cannot have had the Holy Spirit and then deny Him.

I’ve never denied him. When have I ever denied him?

Seriously. I have quoted scripture after scripture that show that it is possible to have gone from having the holy spirit to not having it. I have quoted you scriptures that all it takes is repentence, asking and baptism to gain the holy spirit. If that is not the case then the bible is straight out lying.

So far you have come up with nothing that remotely supports your beliefs. You have taken things out of context to support your beliefs. Clearly the holy spirit is not guiding you. That is obvious to me.

Sorry I just don’t buy that I could have been a false Christian for so many years, without the holy spirit, and that God would never have put me straight during that time. In fact other Christians, including church leadership very much did believe I was a holy spirit filled Christian.

Perhaps He is putting you straight through me? It doesn't matter what church leaders thought.

I don’t believe that is possible at all because clearly you don’t have the holy spirt guiding you.

And what do you believe you are putting me straight on?

What exactly have you told me that would correct a faulty belief I may have had as a Christian. A faulty belief which would prevent me from every receiving the holy spirit?

Please just give me one example, otherwise all you are doing is blowing hot air.

What did I do wrong? I repented. I was baptised. I even asked God for the holy spirit.

So far I don’t see anything that you have said that matters, that I didn’t believe myself as a Christian. I can’t see anything which would be a valid reason why God would not give his holy spirit to me.

Is it really so difficult to get the holy spirit? According to what you are telling me its virtually impossible, but that goes against what the bible says.

It may be clear to you but I believe it is because you have a lack of understanding because the Holy Spirit is not your teacher.

And the holy spirit is clearly not your teacher. That much is blatantly obvious to me.

That's the thing. I can't lose my faith.

Oh yeah I said that once. Famous last words. Come back when you’re 38 and let’s see whether you’ll be saying the same thing.

It never came to the point of me losing my faith because the Holy Spirit delivered me at that point.

I don’t see how that is possible because there’s no way the holy spirit could possibly be upon you. That much is clear to me.

I had the foundation in that I truly knew Him. It is not only WW3 to contend with. It is the unleashing of demons from another world.

What's worse? Facing demons or losing your faith?

I was never afraid of demons as a Christian. I considered demons to be wimps.

Because you can't think it is possible that there is intelligent design.

But I did! For 40 years of my life! Can’t you see? I was there. I’ve been there done that. I believed. If I had a confirmation bias I’d still be a believer right now. I’d still believe in intelligent design. But obviously it’s not that intelligent. Just look at the common honey bee. It stings when it’s life is threatened. Then what happens? It dies because it’s just used its sting. How is that in anyway intelligent design? Endowing a creature with a weapon that kills itself?

If there really is an intelligent designer, then I need proof of this designer and also some answers to why he’d design things in such an unintelligent way.

But so far you have not given me a good reason to believe, which is what the idea of this thread is. Why should I believe?

All you do is tell me things I know aren’t true and insist you have the holy spirit guiding you when it’s quite clear to me you don’t.

I once believed in Intelligent design. I shunned and mocked evolution, calling evolutionists idiots for believing it. I believed in creation for over 30 years. I was finally able to look at the other side of the argument and see the sense in it. I found that it made more sense than intelligent design. I have proven that confirmation bias is not an issue for me. Just give me good arguments. Show me evidence and I will change my view.

That gazania wasn't evidence for you? And how do you know you have been told the truth about evolution. Did you witness macro evolution? How do you know the different skulls and skeletons of hominids aren't the result of alien experiments?

How does this horned human fit into the evolutionary process?

Do I have to give you a list of atrocious design? No, I don’t have to because someone else already has.

You talk about me having confirmation bias but here you go again, showing that you have it. You only want to point out that which appears to be intelligent design. Why won’t you look at the clearly atrocious design and factor that into things?

I can see that there is both amazing and beautiful things in this universe. I can also see the horrors and the apparent malevolence. Can you? It is the horrors, incompetence and malevolence that tell me that if there is indeed a creator is must be a complete monster.

There is no monster when it comes to evolution, which is why I take that more seriously.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... 0ca84d.jpg

This is a historical fact

http://beforeitsnews.com/beyond-science ... 40536.html

Are you seriously trying to take this evidence of evolutionary mutations to try to prove demons exist? Seriously?

Ephesian 6:12

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Demons aren't flesh and blood. They do not have skeletons. They are spiritual beings according to the bible. Fallen angels in fact. Surely you would be aware of that?

Real demons don't have horns and don't have human bodies. Only Hollywood demons have them.

You will just have to accept that you may have been duped about macro evolution. And is it impossible for an intelligent people to guide the process of evolution?

Evolution requires no guide. If you had even a remote understanding of evolution you would know this.

When I see images like this how can I ever come to the conclusion that this universe was a result of intelligent design?

Glad you brought this up. If one has to concede that there is a God and Satan, then one can see that Satan is the desecrator. He has power, too. And the Sumerian Text mentions that ETs manipulated the DNA of humans with much botched up results.

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sume ... anu_40.htm

You cannot blame all those things on Satan. Just like you can’t blame the horrendous design of the honey bee on Satan.

What if I said to you that my computer just followed instructions but it never had been programmed by a human with intelligence? It just happened.

I would know that you don’t understand evolution. Evolution does not claim that things just happened. That is a strawman.

So how did evolution put together the human body to work in sync?

There you go with that creationist mindset again that there has to be some driving force behind evolution that has some goal in mind. I have already tried to explain evolution to you. You still don’t get it. I give up.

Let’s liken the universe to a computer anyway. Let’s say that there was a creator. Where did the creator get his natural resources from? After all you can’t just create something out of nothing. And how did the creator get there?

If you can answer those questions, then you can answer how we got here without a creator.

God is God. He can get resources by any means.

Where from? A creator cannot create without resources. It’s like your flawed computer analogy. A computer can’t be build without natural resources. Where did God’s natural resources come from?

God was not created. He just was.

So you are willing to believe that a super powered magical being always just was, but you can’t apply the same logic to a universe that always just was?

You can't compare the supernatural to human abilities.

Who’s trying to do that?

Come on Claire. Any argument you can give for God’s existance can be applied to the universe itself. Please be consistent with your logic.

So what if the computer is not a living organism?

I’ve already explain this to you. A living organism can grow, mutate and multiply. Pieces of metal cannot. Living organisms have a will. Pieces of metal don't.

The principle is the same.

No way is the principle the same. It’s just not possible for it to be the same. An inanimate object cannot grow, mutate or multiply.

It is not random.

Who said evolution was random? Evolution is an inevitable outcome of millions of years of growth, mutations and outside influences. Please go back to that analogy I gave you of losing your memory. If you can understand that analogy you can understand evolution. You are still labouring under that creationist mindset.

I was once where you were.

The uniqueness of creation is not random.

I agree. It’s an inevitable outcome of millions of years of evolution. Of trial and error. Of mutations… all that jazz. Things seem to naturally work in patterns so it’s not surprising patterns will evolve.

Unless you believe those white dots around the centre of the gazania was just random. Can you explain why that occurred?

The universe operates in patterns so its not surprising patterns will emerge in nature, but I have no need to explain it. You are the one who is saying they got there by magic not me. I’m quite happy to say that I don’t have the information needed to be able to say how they occurred. No doubt If I could have watched the evolution process, I would have an answer for you, but I don’t. But then again you were never there to witness God doing anything so we are both in the same boat, aren't we?

Just because I don’t know, does not mean I am going to stoop to ignorance and say “Goddidit�. You may want to insist on coming to the conclusion of “magic�. I’m not.

Is evil the result of evolution?

Of course it is. Evolution is not perfect so you will have mutations, things going wrong. Thus horrors can eventuate. Man doesn’t help by polluting the planet and screwing things up... drugs, inbreeding, brainwashing etc.

What evolutionary benefit is there to sacrifice a child in a horrific way?

Evolution does not work towards benefits. Evolution is what it is. There is no striving for perfection or benefits. There is no striving for the opposite. Once again you have that creationist mindset that is muddying your perception of evolution.

Corruption occurs due to evolution, not due to magical evil demoniac beings.

If God was omnipotent, then it would appear that He would be malevolent and incompetent due to the botched up things in this world.

Yes, well that should be obvious to anyone. That is one of the reasons I can't possibly believe in God. God would have to be a monster if he was real.

Do you know what would make him even more of a monster? If he knowingly created beings that would go on to be so evil and corrupt, ie angels who went on to become demons.

Yet I don't believe He is omnipotent because then Satan would have no power.

For things to have become so badly corrupted by Satan, then there must have been fatal flaws in the design process to begin with. If creation was perfect it would be incorruptible.

BTW Satan is not a god, he is but a fallen angel. As such he does not have to ability to cause the horrors that are in that picture I showed you. The horrors in nature cannot possibly be caused by fallen angels.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 40 by Claire Evans]

Now, according to evolution, there is a purpose for each part of the body. What is this purpose?

Wow. Where did you get this from? Was it a video game wiki?

I should say was. We have vestigial organs today.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]


“In fact, there are people today with horns.
Now, according to evolution, there is a purpose for each part of the body. What is this purpose?�

Nonsense.
Firstly,
You don’t understand evolution.

“Poor design"(vestigial traits, vestigial genes, new modified genes that are bad(cause different genetic diseases, are a result of mutations(mistakes done in the process of DNA replication))) is consistent with the predictions of the scientific theory of evolution by means of natural selection. This predicts that features that were evolved for certain uses, are then reused or co-opted for different uses, or abandoned altogether; and that suboptimal state is due to the inability of the hereditary mechanism to eliminate the particular vestiges of the evolutionary process.

Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking of things like humans organs that are necessary for life and have a very important function. For example, we are told that RNA eventually lead to DNA which created bodies of creatures as we know today. We are told that they started off simply. We cannot have a hawk, for example, that lived with evolving eyes. It needs 20/20 vision from the start of haw existence. So what was the evolutionary process for a hawk?

Secondly,
Those “horns� are nothing but Cutaneous horn- keratinous skin tumors.

“Cutaneous horns, also known by the Latin name cornu cutaneum, are unusual keratinous skin tumors with the appearance of horns, or sometimes of wood or coral. Formally, this is a clinical diagnosis for a "conical projection above the surface of the skin."[1] They are usually small and localized, but can, in very rare cases be much larger. Although often benign, they can also be malignant or premalignant.[2]�

Example of Cutaneous horns:
“Zhang Ruifang, aged 101 (living in Linlou Village, Henan province, China), has grown a cutaneous horn on her forehead, resembling what those who have examined her and her family call "Devil's Horns." Notably, this growth has expanded to reach a total of 6 centimeters in length. Another is forming on the opposite side of her forehead.[6]

Liang Xiuzhen, aged 87 (living in Guiyan village in Ziyang City, Sichuan province, China) grew a 13 cm (5.1") pointed horn from her forehead, earning her the nickname "Unicorn Woman".[7]

Huang Yuanfan, aged 84 (living in Ziyuan, China).[8]

Madame Dimanche, called Widow Sunday, a French woman living in Paris in the early 19th century, grew, in six years from the age of 76, a 24.9 cm (9.8") horn from her forehead before it was successfully removed by French surgeon Br. Joseph Souberbeille (1754–1846). A wax model of her head is on display at the Mütter Museum, The College of Physicians of Philadelphia, US.[9]

The Shope papilloma virus can cause rabbits to grow horns. This may have been the source of myths such as the Wolpertinger and the Jackalope.�

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutaneous_horn
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/peoples ... -head.html

That is true.

No what about the other examples of the horned skulls that I posted. Do you believe every single one of them are hoaxes and why?

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

“Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking of things like humans organs that are necessary for life and have a very important function. For example, we are told that RNA eventually lead to DNA which created bodies of creatures as we know today. We are told that they started off simply. We cannot have a hawk, for example, that lived with evolving eyes. It needs 20/20 vision from the start of haw existence. So what was the evolutionary process for a hawk?�

The eye evolved slowly over millions of years. In fact evolution is continuing on even now. There is no such thing as an "evolving eye" that is not functional.


At first there was just some flat eyespots=patch of photosensitive cells with no directional sensitivity.

“Flat eyespots can only sense ambient brightness: they can distinguish light from dark, sufficient for photoperiodism and daily synchronization of circadian rhythms. They are insufficient for vision, as they cannot distinguish shapes or determine the direction light is coming from.�

Next we had the early eyes=a depressed area that allowed limited directional sensitivity. The light sensitive regions bulge outwards to the side of the head.

“The basic light-processing unit of eyes is the photoreceptor cell, a specialized cell containing two types of molecules in a membrane: the opsin, a light-sensitive protein, surrounding the chromophore, a pigment that distinguishes colors. While flat eyepatches were ineffective at determining the direction of light, as a beam of light would activate exactly the same patch of photo-sensitive cells regardless of its direction, the "cup" shape of the pit eyes allowed limited directional differentiation by changing which cells the lights would hit depending upon the light's angle. Pit eyes, which had arisen by the Cambrian period, were seen in ancient snails,[clarification needed] and are found in some snails and other invertebrates living today, such as planaria. but not enough to discriminate an object from its surroundings.�

Next the depression almost closed in pinhole fashion allowing for finer directional sensitivity and limited imagining.

“During the Cambrian explosion, the development of the eye accelerated rapidly, with radical improvements in image-processing and detection of light direction.[23] The primitive nautilus eye functions similarly to a pinhole camera.
After the photosensitive cell region invaginated, there came a point when reducing the width of the light opening became more efficient at increasing visual resolution than continued deepening of the cup.[10] By reducing the size of the opening, organisms achieved true imaging, allowing for fine directional sensing and even some shape-sensing. Eyes of this nature are currently found in the nautilus. Lacking a cornea or lens, they provide poor resolution and dim imaging, but are still, for the purpose of vision, a major improvement over the early eyepatches.[24]�

Next the transparent humor develops in enclosed chamber as protection against parasites, UV light(can cause retina damage) and allowed for even more better imagining.

“Overgrowths of transparent cells prevented contamination and parasitic infestation. The chamber contents, now segregated, could slowly specialize into a transparent humour, for optimizations such as colour filtering, higher refractive index, blocking of ultraviolet radiation, or the ability to operate in and out of water. The layer may, in certain classes, be related to the moulting of the organism's shell or skin. An example of this can be observed in Onychophorans where the cuticula of the shell continues to the cornea. The cornea is composed of either one or two cuticular layers depending on how recently the animal has moulted.[25] Along with the lens and two humors, the cornea is responsible for converging light and aiding the focusing of it on the back of the retina. The cornea protects the eyeball while at the same time accounting for approximately 2/3 of the eye’s total refractive power.[26]�

Next we have the development of lens which allowed for focusing of the light in smaller surface area helping the animals see in more darker waters.

“In a lensless eye, the light emanating from a distant point hits the back of the eye with about the same size as the eye's aperture. With the addition of a lens this incoming light is concentrated on a smaller surface area, without reducing the overall intensity of the stimulus.[6] The focal length of an early lobopod with lens-containing simple eyes focused the image behind the retina, so while no part of the image could be brought into focus, the intensity of light allowed the organism to see in deeper (and therefore darker) waters.[25] A subsequent increase of the lens's refractive index probably resulted in an in-focus image being formed.[25]�

Next we have the development of cornea and iris.

“Independently, a transparent layer and a nontransparent layer may split forward from the lens: a separate cornea and iris. (These may happen before or after crystal deposition, or not at all.) Separation of the forward layer again forms a humour, the aqueous humour. This increases refractive power and again eases circulatory problems. Formation of a nontransparent ring allows more blood vessels, more circulation, and larger eye sizes. This flap around the perimeter of the lens also masks optical imperfections, which are more common at lens edges. The need to mask lens imperfections gradually increases with lens curvature and power, overall lens and eye size, and the resolution and aperture needs of the organism, driven by hunting or survival requirements. This type is now functionally identical to the eye of most vertebrates, including humans. Indeed, "the basic pattern of all vertebrate eyes is similar."[33]�

Each of these new features appeared as a consequence of natural selection; as every new improvement help the animals see better therefore hunt better for food, evade predators. Animals because of a mutation that lead to a small improvement in the structure of eye had an advantage at survival over those that didn’t had the mutation, therefore no improvement. In times of hardships, extreme conditions in their habitat this tiny advantage might have the difference between life and death; and thus the beneficial mutation was propagated further and so on.



“That is true.

No what about the other examples of the horned skulls that I posted. Do you believe every single one of them are hoaxes and why?�

You only posted two things the hornet skull from 1800 which I talked about and living people with “horns� which are nothing but Cutaneous horn- keratinous skin tumors.

Q: What other examples?

[Claire Evans]

If one does not differentiate towards who Jesus was talking to, then one is not going to understand the context. It is not picking and choosing.

Of course it’s picking and choosing. None of the bible was written aimed at people 2000 years into he future. Paul’s letters in particular were all written to specific churches at the time. Jesus words were all said to his disciples and people at the time.

Of course if you look at what is said in the bible and know that it’s a load of nonsense you are going to say “Oh it was only meant for the people at the time.�

You just contradicted yourself. You acknowledge that Jesus' words were directed to the disciples but then say:

"I see you wish to exclude all modern day disciples of Jesus from this promise from Jesus. " Post 33.

This was about Jesus saying the disciples can do greater things.

Paul was pivoting in establishing Christian and thus had to have special powers to prove the existence of the Holy Spirit.

When I read Paul’s writings, I don’t see a man with special powers, I see a very flawed man who was often mistaken. I see a misogynist man. I also see evidence of dishonesty.

According to the Bible, he did. What is this dishonesty?

Christianity does not depend on what we do now. Special powers like Paul had are not needed by us

Apparently they are, if there are demon possessed people. Special powers are still needed to cast these demons out.

I said special powers like Paul. We do not preach in languages we don't know and one does not heal by people touching our clothing.

Acts 19:11-12

…11God did extraordinary miracles through the hands of Paul, 12so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and the diseases and evil spirits left them.

But clearly that didn't happen. There could have been no Holy Spirit.

How can you possibly know that? You weren’t there and as of yet you have not come up with anything that I didn’t believe as a Christian.

You believe there is no Holy Spirit so how can you have had that? It's one thing to believe and quite another to actually have.

You think that one being enlightened means one is saved but that is not the case. People know the scriptures but that doesn't mean they are saved. Jesus gave light to every man yet that did not mean every man was been saved (John 1:9).

Take a look at the scripture I quoted again. Note the very crucial words “, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,�

How can one possibly taste the powers of the world to come if they did not have the holy spirit in them?

One can have these holy experiences without actually being saved. Experiencing the power of the Holy Spirit is not always the same as having the Holy Spirit dwell in a person. In fact, Paul is saying salvation is impossible if one experiences the power of the Holy Spirit and still denies Christ. It means they never had salvation in the first place. Perseverance and sanctification is needed to have the Holy Spirit dwell in them. They will never choose earthly things over the Spirit. If the do, they crucify Jesus again.

Could the disciples have had the Holy Spirit come into them at Pentecost and then reject Him later? Impossible.

Quote from

http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/whe ... impossible


"1. Consider verses 7–8. Here the situation with those who fall away is put in a picture. After verse 6 says that repentance is impossible for the apostates, verses 7–8 say,

For ground that drinks the rain which often falls upon it [this drinking of frequent rains is a reference to all the blessings of verses 4–5: the light, the Spirit, the word the powers] and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned.
So the picture is not of a field that had life and vegetation and then lost it. The picture is of two different kinds of fields — one is fruitful and blessed; the other is barren and cursed. I think the point is this: If we have sat in church with the light and the Spirit and the word and the work of God coming to us and blessing us and even shaping us in some degree, but then turn our back on it, we are like a field without vegetation and will come into judgment. The rain we have drunk (light, Spirit, word, powers) produced no life in the field.


And so those who turn there back on the faith will commit apostasy.

The powers of the world to come means the Messianic Age.

Powers which come as a result of having the holy spirit within you. So you get a TASTE due to having the holy spirit in you. You couldn’t possibly have a taste of those powers if you do not have the holy spirit in you.

Sorry, Claire but the scripture quite clearly states that it is possible to have had the holy spirt and then to lose it. It should be obvious from the scriptures. Remember that a promise is made from God that if you ask for it you will get it. I most definitely asked for it. So if I didn’t get it, then that verse is lie isn’t it?


Luke 11:11-13 Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?"

You may have asked for it, like the eventual apostates did, but still fall away because other things were more important. And what we you looking for? Instant gratification? Miracles from the start? Were you willing to persevere in faith even when you did not understand?


Even just repenting and being baptised is not a guarantee you will receive the gift of the holy spirit.

Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’� (Acts 2:38).

Is Acts 2:38 a lie, Claire? It’s a bible PROMISE!

Are you trying to tell me that I can repent and be baptised yet NOT receive the gift of the holy spirit?

Sorry, but you have no biblical leg to stand on whatsoever.

It's easy to say sorry but does one truly repent to God? Being baptized does not guarantee salvation and the Holy Spirit. Paul mentioned that the former Christians, now apostates, tasted all these things yet still turned away.

You fall into the category of those who knew the Bible yet did not know and did not have the Holy Spirit in them. You thought you did but you did not.

This is a category made up by you which as I have proven with scripture is clearly false.

Please show me anything remotely biblical that says there is such a category. I repented. I was baptised. Thus I was guaranteed the gift of the holy spirit.

Scriptures which I don't believe you know the context to. The scripture you want is the one about Paul who said those who thought they had the Spirit but did not eventually fell away.

Please show me one scripture that explains that falling away is without knowing the spirit. Even Paul says it's possible for him to fall away. Do you seriously believe Paul didn't truly know the spirit?

I Corinthians 9:27 I strike a blow to my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

That mean he has renounced earthly passions which lead a Christian astray. Else if he did not, he would not be fit to preach.

He is talking about overall self-discipline. He goes on to preach about being a good example to others and living with integrity. He talks about a race and the rewards at the end. He is talking about self discipline and keeping oneself pure, lest one fall.


Let’s face it, Paul was often preaching about self-discipline. It was clearly one of his biggest concerns, people falling from the faith. Yet he called them all brothers and part of the family of Christ. He understood that even he himself could fall from grace if he did not discipline himself.

Yes, and self discipline in the faith is to renounce earthly passions. Falling from grace is not the same as falling away and becoming an apostate. We must be on guard against back sliding but back sliding is not the same as renounce Christ.

Being saved does not mean one will never sin again. That is not what is called falling away.

Of course it is.

It's called back sliding.

He is clearly renouncing everything that would cause him to live a sinful life.

Which would result in him losing his salvation. Note:

Rev 3:5 states that God will not remove your name from the book of life if you overcome, which then implies that it CAN be removed if you fail to overcome.

It clearly does not mean one won’t become an ex-Christian. The Parable of the Prodigal Son was an example of an ex-Christian. Judas Iscariot was the first ex-Christian. Do you really think Jesus would have picked him and used him for so many years if he was a false Christian?

It will be removed if there is no repentance. The book of life are those who will have eternal life. This is a figure of speech in the Bible. It's obviously not a real register or book.

"The name shall not be erased from the roll or register of the citizens of heaven. “A process of erasure is ever going on, besides the process of entering. When the soul has finally taken its choice for evil, when Christ is utterly denied on earth and trodden under foot, when the defilement of sin has become inveterate and indelible, then the pen is drawn through the guilty name, then the inverted style smears the wax over the unworthy characters; and when the owner of that name applies afterwards for admittance, the answer is, ‘I know thee not; depart hence, thou willing worker and lover of iniquity’� (Dr. Vaughan)."

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/revelation/3-5.htm

The progical son was a believer who drifted not that he became an unbeliever. He strayed because he thought life would be better with status and wealth. He squandered all that his father gave to him. He eventually ended up feeding with the pigs. Only once reaching rock bottom did he recognize his need for God. It is the case today. We only recognize our need for God once we have reached rock bottom. We then realize that the earth can offer nothing more precious.

2 Timothy 2:25-26

25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

Ephesians 2:12

12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

The father of the progical son welcomed his son back. The son was so humbled that he was prepared to come home as a slave. His ego had gone yet he had been restored to the privilege of being his father's son.


"The father then orders the servants to bring the best robe, no doubt one of his own (a sign of dignity and honor, proof of the prodigal’s acceptance back into the family), a ring for the son's hand (a sign of authority and sonship) and sandals for his feet (a sign of not being a servant, as servants did not wear shoes—or, for that matter, rings or expensive clothing, vs.22). All these things represent what we receive in Christ upon salvation: the robe of the Redeemer's righteousness (Isaiah 61:10), the privilege of partaking of the Spirit of adoption (Ephesians 1:5), and feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace, prepared to walk in the ways of holiness (Ephesians 6:15)."

As sinners we will be restored when we are saved. We shall be dressed with these garments.
https://www.gotquestions.org/parable-prodigal-son.html

Judas never became an ex Christian. Christianity did not exist when Jesus was on earth. The disciples never did have the Holy Spirit in them when Jesus was alive. It was only after Pentecost that they did which Judas did not partake in.

Here is the context Paul means about falling away

"The apostle Paul prophesies of an apostasy in II Thessalonians 2:3, 9-12, and he prefaces it with a warning against being deceived. The great apostasy may already be fully underway, spurred by the rising tide of deception in society. With so much information available (Daniel 12:4)—along with so many ways to manipulate it—men find it extremely easy to deceive millions instantly. This is especially true for those who do not really believe the true source of knowledge, God and His Word. Thus, after subtle doctrinal changes, many of the brethren have fallen away."

The fallen have been deceived.

What you are quoting here should be clear evidence that Paul was worried that people could fall away ie go from Christian to ex-Christian. He was quite clearly concerned about Apostacy. In no way is he saying they were never true Christians or that they never had the holy spirit in them.

As mentioned in his previous scripture, these brethen never truly had the Holy Spirit in them in the first place. This is why they would be so easy to lead astray. There are many Christians who think they are being what God wants them to be but it is not so.

Matthew 7:21-23New King James Version (NKJV)

I Never Knew You
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fus ... seID/29665

Paul says there will be those who will fall away because they did not know the truth.

The fallen are apostates.

The fallen were not necessarily those who didn’t know the truth. You are adding that.

I knew the truth. So how could I have fallen way because I didn’t know the truth?

People may know the truth but that doesn't mean they had the Holy Spirit in them. The devil knows the truth.

Please simply name one crucial thing that I didn’t believe as a Christian that I should have believed? You can’t name one thing can you? You know you have no leg to stand on. I knew the same truth that you know now. I knew what really mattered.

Did you realize that you are nothing without Jesus? That you are not worthy without the Spirit?

I repented. I was baptised. Thus I MUST have been filled with the holy spirit. It could not possibly be any other way unless the bible is lying. Is the bible lying Claire? Is Acts 2:38 a lie? You seem to be insisting it is.

Do you feel a bit bad that you are no longer a Christian? Are you subconsciously worried that you are wrong that there is no Holy Spirit? If so, that is good! Take that concern as a reminder that God is there.

Baptism is an introduction into the Christian faith. It is not the same as receiving the Holy Spirit. Only through the blood of Christ are we saved, not by baptism:

Romans 5:8, 9
8 But God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more, then, since we have now been declared righteous by his blood, will we be saved through him from wrath.

BTW I truly accepted the holy spirit.

You thought you did else you would not think He does not exist.

Is Luke 11:11-13 a lie? If what you are saying is true, then it must be.

But were you really taught properly about what it is to truly accept the Spirit? Did people tell you that you needed to do certain things to be saved when it was misleading? Was there a barrier?

I KNOW that I asked for the holy spirit and I know how genuine I was when I repented and when I was baptised.

You were never there Claire. You don’t know my heart, so you are in absolutely no position to judge.

All you are doing here is convincing me that it is you who is not the true Christian. It’s just simply not possible that you could have the holy spirit in you guiding you. It is you, Claire that is the mistaken one. If you had any wisdom from God at all, then you would know that I was the real thing. I wasn’t just pretending. Nor was I someone who just fell away. There was so much more to it than that.

I have some really inspiring words from Oswald Chambers:

"Seek if you have not found. “You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss…� (James 4:3). If you ask for things from life instead of from God, “you ask amiss�; that is, you ask out of your desire for self-fulfillment. The more you fulfill yourself the less you will seek God. “…seek, and you will find….� Get to work— narrow your focus and interests to this one thing. Have you ever sought God with your whole heart, or have you simply given Him a feeble cry after some emotionally painful experience? “…seek, [focus,] and you will find….�

“Ho! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters…� (Isaiah 55:1). Are you thirsty, or complacent and indifferent— so satisfied with your own experience that you want nothing more of God? Experience is a doorway, not a final goal. Beware of building your faith on experience, or your life will not ring true and will only sound the note of a critical spirit. Remember that you can never give another person what you have found, but you can cause him to have a desire for it.

“…knock, and it will be opened to you� (Luke 11:9). “Draw near to God…� (James 4:8). Knock— the door is closed, and your heartbeat races as you knock. “Cleanse your hands…� (James 4:8). Knock a bit louder— you begin to find that you are dirty. “…purify your hearts…� (James 4:8). It is becoming even more personal— you are desperate and serious now— you will do anything. “Lament…� (James 4:9). Have you ever lamented, expressing your sorrow before God for the condition of your inner life? There is no thread of self-pity left, only the heart-rending difficulty and amazement which comes from seeing what kind of person you really are. “Humble yourselves…� (James 4:10). It is a humbling experience to knock at God’s door— you have to knock with the crucified thief. “…to him who knocks it will be opened� (Luke 11:10).

John 16:12-13New International Version (NIV)

12 “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

What lies did I buy into Claire? What lies? Which ones made the difference between be knowing the truth and believing a lie? Which ones would have made God flag me away as a fraudulent Christian?

The lie that the Holy Spirit does not exist. If you could not recognize Him in your life, how could you have had His truth?

The disciples at that time did not have the Holy Spirit yet they understood that He would come. Once they had the Holy Spirit in them, they understood the truth. This cannot apply to you. You cannot have had the Holy Spirit and then deny Him.

I’ve never denied him. When have I ever denied him?

Right now. You are "Once Convinced".

Seriously. I have quoted scripture after scripture that show that it is possible to have gone from having the holy spirit to not having it. I have quoted you scriptures that all it takes is repentence, asking and baptism to gain the holy spirit. If that is not the case then the bible is straight out lying.

So far you have come up with nothing that remotely supports your beliefs. You have taken things out of context to support your beliefs. Clearly the holy spirit is not guiding you. That is obvious to me.

I don't think you want to know the context. To consider that one may have gotten it wrong means that one has to do something about it. That is not something that most unbelievers want to do.

Sorry I just don’t buy that I could have been a false Christian for so many years, without the holy spirit, and that God would never have put me straight during that time. In fact other Christians, including church leadership very much did believe I was a holy spirit filled Christian.

Perhaps He is putting you straight through me? It doesn't matter what church leaders thought.

I don’t believe that is possible at all because clearly you don’t have the holy spirt guiding you.

And what do you believe you are putting me straight on?

What exactly have you told me that would correct a faulty belief I may have had as a Christian. A faulty belief which would prevent me from every receiving the holy spirit?

Please just give me one example, otherwise all you are doing is blowing hot air.

What did I do wrong? I repented. I was baptised. I even asked God for the holy spirit.

So far I don’t see anything that you have said that matters, that I didn’t believe myself as a Christian. I can’t see anything which would be a valid reason why God would not give his holy spirit to me.

Is it really so difficult to get the holy spirit? According to what you are telling me its virtually impossible, but that goes against what the bible says.

I will refer to your story. Here is the trap you feel into:

"As I grew older and more independent, I started to learn to think for myself and realised that I did not have to believe everything a pastor, my parents, or church leaders said. I could examine things for myself. I started to see flaws in my beliefs, the bible and the things I was being taught. "

It's true that you didn't have to believe everything everyone else told you. It is because of what they said that you believed the Holy Spirit didn't exist because what they believed, especially the OT, contradicted what Jesus is truly about. You are saying those people were your teachers, not the Holy Spirit.

There are flaws in the Christian beliefs but did you not think that those flaws are human not flaws of God? The OT is riddled with paganism, the occult and just plain manipulation from the Jews then to make people believe they were the Chosen People. Did you not stop to think that Jesus was correcting the misconceptions?

Those flaws didn't put me off.

You begged God for more faith but you had appeared to have written Him off in your heart already.


I can now:
• Create my own purposes in life

Did you want this all along? To be the master of your own destiny instead of Gods? This appeals to you it seems, not being subservient to God.


94 reasons I no longer believe

1. God had not done anything of any particular note in my life for around ten years. I realised my faith was all based on a few things from way back.

Perhaps you didn't recognize Him working? It is sometimes not blatant. In fact, it rarely is. Knowing God is a slow process.

8. God has not notified anyone I know that I am no longer a believer. I have not been laid on anyone’s heart. Only some people know because I have told them.

Manifestation of ego in my opinion. Why should you be special that God has to announce your non belief to the world? How do you know that people hadn't prayed for you in secret?

14. I still have much the same good strong morals as before, which proves to me that I do not have the devil manipulating me and God is not needed to be a good person.

Being moral is not always the same as living a righteous life. Morals evolve.

16. Prophecies made by Christians over my life didn’t eventuate

Why base your faith on what other Christians made? You should not have put so much emphasis on what people did and said to you.

18. Miracles were not taking place in my town even though I was hearing amazing stories of things happening in remote out of the way places overseas.

Manifestation of ego again in my opinion. Why should miracles happen where you are? Why must all the action be centred around you?

When God… angels or demons visit people, it’s always when they’re lying in their bed. (suggests dreams to me)

You do not know all people.


35. God does not save children from starvation and sexual slavery
36. God does not heal amputees.

There is a battle between good and evil in this world. Starvation and sexual slavery are the results of evil people inspired by the devil and when we sin, we give the power to the devil. As for God not healing amputees, many have a full life and say without the suffering they went through, they would never have known God and be so spiritually refined to be a better person.

37. God’s teaching methods are so primitive and barbaric. (ie, needs to teach with suffering and death)

OT right? Yahweh was a Canaanite God who adopted the Israelites as his people, not the Father. Did Jesus teach with suffering and death?

38. God changed between the Old and New Testaments thus contradicting the notion he never changes.

That would have been true if God was the God of the OT. He is not.

42. Jesus and God were not sinless.

Give me an example, please.

44. Jesus’s death made no obvious difference.

It did. Those who believe will have eternal life.

45. I realised that many aspects of Christianity, which I was taught were unique are actually rip offs of older religions. Eg virgin births, resurrections.

Like?

49. Jesus has not returned yet.

Does that mean He will never return?

54. There was a lack of unity within Christianity. If the Holy Spirit is involved, why are there so many denominations? Why can no two Christians agree on anything?

Because each individual has a different level of understanding. There were disagreements in the early Church. Peter was at loggerheads with Paul.

59. I see people glorifying the horrible torturous death of an innocent being on a cross.

It's not glorification. It is reverence; a reminder of what Jesus did for us.

62. New conversions returning back to being sinners almost immediately. So much for the holy spirit.

We will always be sinners to the day we die. It depends on the strength of the level of the relationship with the spirit, not that there is any ineptitude on God's part.

That's the thing. I can't lose my faith.

Oh yeah I said that once. Famous last words. Come back when you’re 38 and let’s see whether you’ll be saying the same thing.

Okay.

I had the foundation in that I truly knew Him. It is not only WW3 to contend with. It is the unleashing of demons from another world.

What's worse? Facing demons or losing your faith?

I was never afraid of demons as a Christian. I considered demons to be wimps.

Obviously losing one's faith because demons don't have a problem with those who don't have faith in Christ.

Because you can't think it is possible that there is intelligent design.

But I did! For 40 years of my life! Can’t you see? I was there. I’ve been there done that. I believed. If I had a confirmation bias I’d still be a believer right now. I’d still believe in intelligent design. But obviously it’s not that intelligent. Just look at the common honey bee. It stings when it’s life is threatened. Then what happens? It dies because it’s just used its sting. How is that in anyway intelligent design? Endowing a creature with a weapon that kills itself?

If there really is an intelligent designer, then I need proof of this designer and also some answers to why he’d design things in such an unintelligent way.

But so far you have not given me a good reason to believe, which is what the idea of this thread is. Why should I believe?

All you do is tell me things I know aren’t true and insist you have the holy spirit guiding you when it’s quite clear to me you don’t.

Let's play devil's advocate. Maybe God, as an intelligent designer, wanted bees to die like. Just because you don't like how that is done, doesn't mean there's no intelligent design behind it.

I once believed in Intelligent design. I shunned and mocked evolution, calling evolutionists idiots for believing it. I believed in creation for over 30 years. I was finally able to look at the other side of the argument and see the sense in it. I found that it made more sense than intelligent design. I have proven that confirmation bias is not an issue for me. Just give me good arguments. Show me evidence and I will change my view.

That gazania wasn't evidence for you? And how do you know you have been told the truth about evolution. Did you witness macro evolution? How do you know the different skulls and skeletons of hominids aren't the result of alien experiments?

How does this horned human fit into the evolutionary process?

Do I have to give you a list of atrocious design? No, I don’t have to because someone else already has.

You talk about me having confirmation bias but here you go again, showing that you have it. You only want to point out that which appears to be intelligent design. Why won’t you look at the clearly atrocious design and factor that into things?

I can see that there is both amazing and beautiful things in this universe. I can also see the horrors and the apparent malevolence. Can you? It is the horrors, incompetence and malevolence that tell me that if there is indeed a creator is must be a complete monster.

There is no monster when it comes to evolution, which is why I take that more seriously.

How do you know that it isn't possible that aliens experimented with creation and came up with horrific results? Please answer that.

How did flowers get their designs?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/or ... 0ca84d.jpg

This is a historical fact

http://beforeitsnews.com/beyond-science ... 40536.html

Are you seriously trying to take this evidence of evolutionary mutations to try to prove demons exist? Seriously?

Ephesian 6:12

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Demons aren't flesh and blood. They do not have skeletons. They are spiritual beings according to the bible. Fallen angels in fact. Surely you would be aware of that?

Real demons don't have horns and don't have human bodies. Only Hollywood demons have them.

I didn't say they were demons, did I? Human skulls with horns is not indicative of demons. I've never heard that people with horns are a result of mutations. Can you quote some scientists? Just interested what they have to say about this type of skull.

You will just have to accept that you may have been duped about macro evolution. And is it impossible for an intelligent people to guide the process of evolution?

Evolution requires no guide. If you had even a remote understanding of evolution you would know this.

I think it's time you read this:

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2014/0 ... -part-one/

https://www.newswithviews.com/Collins/phillip24.htm

Do not think that science is always objective. The theory of evolution is most definitely not.

When I see images like this how can I ever come to the conclusion that this universe was a result of intelligent design?

Glad you brought this up. If one has to concede that there is a God and Satan, then one can see that Satan is the desecrator. He has power, too. And the Sumerian Text mentions that ETs manipulated the DNA of humans with much botched up results.

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sume ... anu_40.htm

You cannot blame all those things on Satan. Just like you can’t blame the horrendous design of the honey bee on Satan.

Why not? God's creation and the devil's creation/desecration have had to adapt together in this world. There is no way God wanted lions to kill animals for prey yet because death is in this world, it is necessary.

What if I said to you that my computer just followed instructions but it never had been programmed by a human with intelligence? It just happened.

I would know that you don’t understand evolution. Evolution does not claim that things just happened. That is a strawman.

So how did evolution put together the human body to work in sync?

There you go with that creationist mindset again that there has to be some driving force behind evolution that has some goal in mind. I have already tried to explain evolution to you. You still don’t get it. I give up.

No scientist has proven that and you know it.

Let’s liken the universe to a computer anyway. Let’s say that there was a creator. Where did the creator get his natural resources from? After all you can’t just create something out of nothing. And how did the creator get there?

If you can answer those questions, then you can answer how we got here without a creator.

God is God. He can get resources by any means.

Where from? A creator cannot create without resources. It’s like your flawed computer analogy. A computer can’t be build without natural resources. Where did God’s natural resources come from?

All natural resources come from Him!

God was not created. He just was.

So you are willing to believe that a super powered magical being always just was, but you can’t apply the same logic to a universe that always just was?

I said nothing about the universe. In fact there may be many universes as espoused by scientists. Logic tells me that universes can't go on forever. And that is believed by scientists also. There is much speculation in science.

You can't compare the supernatural to human abilities.

Who’s trying to do that?

Come on Claire. Any argument you can give for God’s existance can be applied to the universe itself. Please be consistent with your logic.

You are asking where God can't His resources but a human needs to get resources while God is the origin of nature resources. The point I'm making is that there is a design in creation, whether it is artificial or not. Do you believe a computer can program itself?

It is not random.

Who said evolution was random? Evolution is an inevitable outcome of millions of years of growth, mutations and outside influences. Please go back to that analogy I gave you of losing your memory. If you can understand that analogy you can understand evolution. You are still labouring under that creationist mindset.

I was once where you were.

That just somehow produced a working human body with consciousness. That's a stretch.

Is evil the result of evolution?

Of course it is. Evolution is not perfect so you will have mutations, things going wrong. Thus horrors can eventuate. Man doesn’t help by polluting the planet and screwing things up... drugs, inbreeding, brainwashing etc.

Evil is the result of mutations? Wow! I've never heard of that. What mutations would cause someone to want to sacrifice a child? I don't think you know the depth of evil out there.

If God was omnipotent, then it would appear that He would be malevolent and incompetent due to the botched up things in this world.

Yes, well that should be obvious to anyone. That is one of the reasons I can't possibly believe in God. God would have to be a monster if he was real.

Do you know what would make him even more of a monster? If he knowingly created beings that would go on to be so evil and corrupt, ie angels who went on to become demons.

God did not create rebelling angels. That's a made up story. No sin can exist in heaven so how could there have been a rebellion?

Yet I don't believe He is omnipotent because then Satan would have no power.

For things to have become so badly corrupted by Satan, then there must have been fatal flaws in the design process to begin with. If creation was perfect it would be incorruptible.

That is not true. I could argue that God make perfect creation and then something manipulated the DNA through splicing, for example, to corrupt the genes.

BTW Satan is not a god, he is but a fallen angel. As such he does not have to ability to cause the horrors that are in that picture I showed you. The horrors in nature cannot possibly be caused by fallen angels.

That's the absolute nonsense the Christian Church espouses. He is not a fallen angel and that notion is based on something else which the church definitely would consider heresy.

The Annunaki is an alien race that invades this planet. The name means "those who from heaven to Earth came".

https://www.mysterypile.com/anunnaki.php

In Hebrew, heaven also means sky. Therefore is means an alien race that came from the skies down to earth.

[Justin108]

That's the absolute nonsense the Christian Church espouses. He is not a fallen angel and that notion is based on something else which the church definitely would consider heresy.

The Annunaki is an alien race that invades this planet. The name means "those who from heaven to Earth came".

https://www.mysterypile.com/anunnaki.php

In Hebrew, heaven also means sky. Therefore is means an alien race that came from the skies down to earth.

I... I mean.. Okay. I'm not quite sure what to do with this information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuRXVMSG3po

[OnceConvinced]

Once again I will try to trim down this reply and stick to the main points where I can.

I was not contradicting myself with our talk about bible verses aimed at people at the time. I was simply trying to point out that one can pick and choose what one believes to be aimed at the people at the time the words were written and what is meant for us today. The fact you see a contradiction there proves my point. It really is just a matter of picking and choosing. If you see something that doesn’t work today you can say “Oh it just applies to the people at the time.� When you see things that you want to apply to today you say “OH that was meant for everyone even those of us in the future.�

Re Paul’s dishonesty. This discussion is already becoming too big. I don’t want to add yet another line of debate into it.

You say that you can have holy spirit experiences without being saved. Sure, you can, but I am talking about the powers of the world to come. One who is not saved does not get to experience having powers of the world to come. They get holy spirit experiences that all can experience here on earth. The scripture I quoted quite clearly states “tasted the powers of the world to come�. Ie, power in the name of Jesus, spiritual guidance, words of wisdom, prophecies, casting out of demons, discernment, other gifts like abilities to teach, exhort, etc. Non-Christians don’t get to experience those things.

Paul never once accuses anyone of being false Christians unless they were simply pretenders. Pretenders do not get to experience the holy spirit at all. You claim the disciples could never have rejected him later. That is a pure presumption on your part. Paul makes no such claims.

It really doesn’t surprise me that many Christians will try to brand me as a false Christian. I know I wasn’t a false Christian. But they have to do it anyway, because someone like myself is a strong testimony to how false the bible and Christianity is it. People like myself are considered a threat by many Christians so they will do whatever they can to discredit us.

You stated that I fell away because other things were more important. That is untrue. There was nothing more important to me than my relationship with Jesus. Nothing whatsoever. There was nothing that even came close. Perhaps you can tell me that would have be more important than a relationship with Jesus Christ? Is there anything more important for you?

Never did I expect instant gratification, miracles or anything. All I expect was that God would keep his promises. He didn’t. I wanted to keep believing and for a long time fought against that disbelief. But there’s only so much crying out to God one can do before one realises that one is on their own.

BTW I did not bear thorns or thistles as a Christian. So you can’t lump me into the category of a false Christian that way.

You say that even just repenting and being baptised is not a guarantee you will receive the gift of the holy spirit. That for one thing violates the verse I already quoted in an earlier post.

Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’� (Acts 2:38).

Does the above verse say you “might receive the gift of the holy spirit�? No it says “YOU SHALL� That’s a promise, Claire. There are no conditions on it. If what that verse says is not true then it’s a lie. I know for a fact I did those things genuinely. If I was not a true Christian then that is proof of the verse being a lie.

You claim that falling away is not the same as falling from grace. I don’t see how it can be different. They are the same thing. Backsliding is a different thing from falling away. Just looking at the basic meanings of the words should tell one that. Falling away vs Backsliding. Different. Falling away is way more dramatic than simply just sliding back a bit.

However make no bones about it, I never renounced Christ. That just didn’t happen. I have never renounced Christ.

Note that just because I say I don’t believe in the holy spirit now does not mean that it doesn’t exist. Nor does it mean that I wasn’t a true Christian that didn’t have the holy spirit in them. I am debating here with a Christian, talking as if the holy spirit is real and that what the bible says about it is true. So when I do that. When I speak as having been a Christian, I speak as someone who believed they had the holy spirit in them. I am not going to satisfy your need to discredit me by saying I never had the holy spirit because it doesn’t exist. If the holy spirit is real and there really is such thing as a true Christian then I was one. I can’t see how I wasn’t. It’s just not possible I wasn’t because I did what God required of me and he used me. At least that’s how I saw it as a Christian

You say that one can be removed from the book of life (metaphor or not - irrelevant) if one doesn’t repent. Correction. Once can’t get into the book of life without first repenting. And as that bible verse promises in Acts, you do that, you gain the holy spirit. You don’t just get into the book of life by default.

How do you think you can gain the holy spirit?

You talk about Judas being not being an ex-Christian because Christianity did not exist at the time. Come on, Claire. Whether he was called a Christian or not is irrelevant. He WAS a Christian because he was a disciple of Jesus. The holy spirit may have come later, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t chosen by God, a disciple. He WAS a disciple whether you like it or not. In a RELATIONSHIP with Christ. Up there along all the others as an equal. You don’t get there if you aren’t genuine. It wasn’t the 11 disciples and Judas it was the 12 disciples. So for all intents and purposes he was a TRUE CHRISTIAN who turned against Jesus, thus becoming the first apostate. He pretty much denounced Jesus didn’t he? At least I never did that.

BTW the “I never knew you� scripture. For someone to be able to cast out demons and do wonders in the name of Jesus, the holy spirit is needed. It’s what the disciples needed before they could go out and do their thing. So once again evidence of ex-Christianity. All this verse is showing is that Jesus will reject those who reject him. It’s the whole “he who is not for me is against me� mentality. It’s the same mentality Paul had when he said that once you have tasted the holy spirit you can’t come back because you will be crucifying Jesus all over.




What did I get wrong as a Christian that would have stopped me from becoming a true Christian?

“Did you realize that you are nothing without Jesus? That you are not worthy without the Spirit? “

That’s what I believed at the time I was a Christian. Care to try again? Something that I got wrong as a Christian? So far you haven’t come up with anything.

Do you feel a bit bad that you are no longer a Christian?

I did. It haunted me for 5 years. It was a horrible experience. I really wanted to believe again.

Are you subconsciously worried that you are wrong that there is no Holy Spirit?

Nope. I no longer have those fears. I have gotten over my loss of faith now.

If so, that is good! Take that concern as a reminder that God is there.

I guess then it’s proof God is not there, huh?

Baptism is an introduction into the Christian faith. It is not the same as receiving the Holy Spirit. Only through the blood of Christ are we saved, not by baptism:

The Acts scripture I pointed out quite clearly contradicts you on that one.

But if you feel any better, I was baptised in the holy spirit and was given the gift of speaking in tongues.

But were you really taught properly about what it is to truly accept the Spirit?

I was taught that one genuinely needs to ask God for the gift of the holy spirit. Is there some other way?

Did people tell you that you needed to do certain things to be saved when it was misleading? Was there a barrier?

I was told that I needed to genuinely repent of my sins and accept Jesus’s death on the cross as the payment for my sins. That I was redeemed by the blood of Christ. That was all that was required.

Any of that incorrect?

As a small child I was 100% convinced in Jesus and that he loved me. I genuinely wanted to serve and please him and so I repented and asked him to forgive me and come into my life.

Anything I did wrong there? Was there anything wrong with my attitude? Was my focus wrong?

What lies did I buy into Claire? What lies? Which ones made the difference between be knowing the truth and believing a lie? Which ones would have made God flag me away as a fraudulent Christian?

The lie that the Holy Spirit does not exist.

I believed in the holy spirit as a Christian! I believed I had the holy spirit in me!

It is only now as an atheist that I don’t believe in the holy spirit. IT was not the case back then. So please, Claire tell me, what lies did I believed as a Christian that caused me to be a false one? That caused God to withhold is holy spirit from me? 38 years of genuinely following Christ. What lies caused me to be a false Christian?

I am OnceConvinced NOW Claire. I was not OnceConvinced when I was a Christian. I have only been OnceConvinced for 9 years. No have I ever denied Christ. I have just lost a belief in him. That is not denying Christ.

Do you deny Santa Claus?

To deny something or someone, it must mean that I believe in that something. There’s hardly any need to deny something you don’t believe in. And that’s they way it worked for me. I went from a place of being convinced and then that faith started to shake. It began to fall apart until one day I had to face facts. I didn’t believe in God. That however was not me denying God. I have never denied God. I have never said “There is no god�.

It's true that you didn't have to believe everything everyone else told you. It is because of what they said that you believed the Holy Spirit didn't exist

Nope that is completely wrong. I believed in the holy spirit right up until around the age of 38 where I lost my faith. It was only after a few years of battling against my disbelief that I realised I didn’t believe in the holy spirit anymore. NEVER did I ever disbelieve in the holy spirt while I was a Christian.

So I’m afraid you’re right off track there Claire. You still haven’t come up with anything that was a false belief I had as a Christian that would prevent God from imparting his holy spirit to me. I was baptised in the holy spirit when I was in my early 20s. At that time I fully believed.

You criticise me when I said that people were my teachers. Of course they were my teachers to begin with. I was a small child. Do you expect a kid under 10 years old to be able to study the bible and learn for themselves?

I started to study the bible for myself at a young age, but when you are that age you go with what your parents and your Sunday school teachers say.

When I was baptised by the holy spirit I was about 20… 21… somewhere around then. That was when I was growing from strength to strength as a Christian. It was when I was really starting to realise that I was able to gain my own answers from the bible. I still wasn’t thinking very critically at that point, but I had already rejected some nonsense I’d been taught by other Christians by then.

If I were still a Christian today I would be looking back to that point and saying “Wow! The Baptism of the Holy Spirit really did work! The holy spirit was guiding me big time!�

So sorry Claire, try again.

Those flaws didn't put me off.

They didn’t put me off either until I started to learn critical thinking skills in my late 20s. Then I had to start thinking hard about certain things.

You begged God for more faith but you had appeared to have written Him off in your heart already.

Why on earth wold you think I’d written him off already? Why would I be begging God for help if I’d written him off already? That makes no logical sense. I went through a period of 5 years of crying out to God for help. Does that sound like someone who had written God off?

I didn't just go from Christian to atheist. Even when I realised I didn't believe in Jesus anymore I still wanted to cling desperately to a belief in god. I couldn't let go. Does that sound like someone who had written God off?

At about the age of 40 I realised I no longer even believed in a distant god. It wasn't pleasant, but I still didn't write God off. I was an agnostic up until about 3 or 4 years ago. Only then did I say "I don't believe in God" and realised I was an atheist. But I have still not completely written God off. I will not say "There is no god." In fact I would love it if there was a god.

I can now:
• Create my own purposes in life

Did you want this all along? To be the master of your own destiny instead of Gods?

No, I wanted to follow God’s plan for my life. Wouldn’t any Christian who genuinely follows Christ?

94 reasons I no longer believe

You really want to go through all these? Haven’t we got enough to discuss?

Please realise that many of these things did not come to me until after I lost my faith. They just cemented my disbelief still further. The majority of them were not an issue until I was around 38 years old when I had my crisis of faith. Don’t try to lump them into my time spent as a genuine believer.

You may want to pick out some and try to make them big issues, but they aren’t necessarily big issues on their own. They are like 94 rocks all plummeting down upon my faith, covering it up.

Feel free to take just one of the things on my list and point out how it caused me to be a false Christian and why God deemed me unfit to have the holy spirit. Which of those things messed up my salvation?

Moving on from that list to your other points…

My point in asking what is worse: losing your faith vs having to deal with demons or WWIII is that there can not possibly be anything worse than losing your faith. I think you agree. So considering I cried out regularly over a 5 year period to God and never got any help. I am hardly going to cry out to God when WWIII comes. Maybe I might cry out if a demon attacks me because that would mean God is real, but I’m not going to expect any help from him when he wasn’t willing to help when I was in the crisis that really mattered.


Intelligent design

If God wanted Bees to die then that’s pretty cruel and malevolent of him. But why would he want them to die for? Bees are hugely important when it comes to this world’s survival. We could make most species extinct and it would not have a huge impact on our lives. Take away the bees though and we’re doomed. So it makes no sense to have a bee use its sting when threatened and then die. That would kind of bee like creating revenge, wouldn’t it? A bee is about to be killed so its stings its attacked just so that at least it’s attacker suffers. The bee can die being satisfied in the knowledge it got in its sting.

There are so many examples of unintelligent, malevolent and incompetent design. I’m not going to try to justify them just so I can keep a belief in a god.

No, the gazania is not evidence of intelligent design. This universe works in patterns so of course we will see patterns in evolution. Let’s not stoop to ignorance and say “Goddidit� just because you can’t believe that something like that could have resulted from millions of years of evolution and patterns working. Why do we have to resort to “Goddidit�?

You asked me to humour you about the bee question. How about we play Devil’s advocate for the Gazania? What if the patterns that influence this world worked together for millions of years and caused a flower with patterns? Just because we don’t know how it ended up that way doesn’t mean that it was intelligently designed.

Take a look at these beautiful things. Look at the patterns there. Wow! God created these especially for us!







But what are they? Horrible malevolent viruses. Should we call that intelligent design because of the beauty and because of the amazing patterns? Or should we call it malevolent design?

Or how about just evolution, which can be beautiful and ugly without any so-called intelligence behind it.

As for the horned human, how does it fit in? Most likely a result of a mutation. A mutation that became a dominant gene amongst off spring. It was an branch of humanity perhaps, that headed a different way to rest of us. We see that all the time in evolution. It doesn’t matter though, does it?

How do you know that it isn't possible that aliens experimented with creation and came up with horrific results? Please answer that.

Why would I even care about speculating? If someone wants to claim that, then the onus is on them to prove it.

I just can’t imagine God allowing aliens to mess up his creation though, can you?

How did flowers get their designs?

The fact that flowers have patterns is something I would expect seeing as this universe works in patterns.

It seems you must have an answer for everything and that you have trouble handling the unknown. Maybe that’s why you want to insert “Goddidit� into everything, just so you can have answers. Is there really a problem with not knowing the answer for something?

I don’t need to have all the answers myself. One thing I won’t do is stoop to ignorance and just say “Goddidit� because I don’t know.

What we really need to do is travel in a time machine, go back and investigate. I’m sure that however the flowers got their so-called designs would become obvious and we’ll be saying “Of course! It all makes perfect sense now!�

You can complain all you like about what science hasn’t proven. Nobody’s proven God created this universe either.

You say “All natural resources come from Him!� That seems like a presumption to me. Where did you get this information from? Have you got some inside information from God about this?

Creationists like to use examples about how everything that is man made has to have a designer. Well if you are going to use examples like that… which you already have… then you know that any creator cannot just possibly conjure raw materials out of thin air. Creators ALWAYS need natural resources. Why should God be any different?

You also need to stop using the example of a computer. A computer is not a living organism and cannot grow, evolve, change, mutate or procreate.

You can’t believe that over millions of years of trial and error we can’t have what we have now? Which actually isn’t all as wonderful as Creationists claim as evidenced by the photographs I posted earlier. It is so unbelievable to you that as a result of the patterns in the universe, patterns will evolve. Instead you find it more believable that there was a super powered being who created everything out of nothing via magic. Which is more of a stretch?

Evil is the result of mutations? Wow! I've never heard of that. What mutations would cause someone to want to sacrifice a child?

In that particular case I would say maybe mental illness which would result from… yes, you got it! Mutations in the brain! Birth defects. Now imagine if that gets passed on to the children of the person sacrificing a child.

But it needn’t be mental illness that causes someone to sacrifice their child. It could be a result of brainwashing or maybe even beliefs in Gods. What caused Abraham to decide he was going to sacrifice his kid?

I don't think you know the depth of evil out there.

I doubt it’s anything as fantastic as what you believe.

God did not create rebelling angels. That's a made up story. No sin can exist in heaven so how could there have been a rebellion?

Then who created the angels?

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

“Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking of things like humans organs that are necessary for life and have a very important function. For example, we are told that RNA eventually lead to DNA which created bodies of creatures as we know today. We are told that they started off simply. We cannot have a hawk, for example, that lived with evolving eyes. It needs 20/20 vision from the start of haw existence. So what was the evolutionary process for a hawk?�

The eye evolved slowly over millions of years. In fact evolution is continuing on even now. There is no such thing as an "evolving eye" that is not functional.


At first there was just some flat eyespots=patch of photosensitive cells with no directional sensitivity.

“Flat eyespots can only sense ambient brightness: they can distinguish light from dark, sufficient for photoperiodism and daily synchronization of circadian rhythms. They are insufficient for vision, as they cannot distinguish shapes or determine the direction light is coming from.�

Next we had the early eyes=a depressed area that allowed limited directional sensitivity. The light sensitive regions bulge outwards to the side of the head.

“The basic light-processing unit of eyes is the photoreceptor cell, a specialized cell containing two types of molecules in a membrane: the opsin, a light-sensitive protein, surrounding the chromophore, a pigment that distinguishes colors. While flat eyepatches were ineffective at determining the direction of light, as a beam of light would activate exactly the same patch of photo-sensitive cells regardless of its direction, the "cup" shape of the pit eyes allowed limited directional differentiation by changing which cells the lights would hit depending upon the light's angle. Pit eyes, which had arisen by the Cambrian period, were seen in ancient snails,[clarification needed] and are found in some snails and other invertebrates living today, such as planaria. but not enough to discriminate an object from its surroundings.�

Next the depression almost closed in pinhole fashion allowing for finer directional sensitivity and limited imagining.

“During the Cambrian explosion, the development of the eye accelerated rapidly, with radical improvements in image-processing and detection of light direction.[23] The primitive nautilus eye functions similarly to a pinhole camera.
After the photosensitive cell region invaginated, there came a point when reducing the width of the light opening became more efficient at increasing visual resolution than continued deepening of the cup.[10] By reducing the size of the opening, organisms achieved true imaging, allowing for fine directional sensing and even some shape-sensing. Eyes of this nature are currently found in the nautilus. Lacking a cornea or lens, they provide poor resolution and dim imaging, but are still, for the purpose of vision, a major improvement over the early eyepatches.[24]�

Next the transparent humor develops in enclosed chamber as protection against parasites, UV light(can cause retina damage) and allowed for even more better imagining.

“Overgrowths of transparent cells prevented contamination and parasitic infestation. The chamber contents, now segregated, could slowly specialize into a transparent humour, for optimizations such as colour filtering, higher refractive index, blocking of ultraviolet radiation, or the ability to operate in and out of water. The layer may, in certain classes, be related to the moulting of the organism's shell or skin. An example of this can be observed in Onychophorans where the cuticula of the shell continues to the cornea. The cornea is composed of either one or two cuticular layers depending on how recently the animal has moulted.[25] Along with the lens and two humors, the cornea is responsible for converging light and aiding the focusing of it on the back of the retina. The cornea protects the eyeball while at the same time accounting for approximately 2/3 of the eye’s total refractive power.[26]�

Next we have the development of lens which allowed for focusing of the light in smaller surface area helping the animals see in more darker waters.

“In a lensless eye, the light emanating from a distant point hits the back of the eye with about the same size as the eye's aperture. With the addition of a lens this incoming light is concentrated on a smaller surface area, without reducing the overall intensity of the stimulus.[6] The focal length of an early lobopod with lens-containing simple eyes focused the image behind the retina, so while no part of the image could be brought into focus, the intensity of light allowed the organism to see in deeper (and therefore darker) waters.[25] A subsequent increase of the lens's refractive index probably resulted in an in-focus image being formed.[25]�

Next we have the development of cornea and iris.

“Independently, a transparent layer and a nontransparent layer may split forward from the lens: a separate cornea and iris. (These may happen before or after crystal deposition, or not at all.) Separation of the forward layer again forms a humour, the aqueous humour. This increases refractive power and again eases circulatory problems. Formation of a nontransparent ring allows more blood vessels, more circulation, and larger eye sizes. This flap around the perimeter of the lens also masks optical imperfections, which are more common at lens edges. The need to mask lens imperfections gradually increases with lens curvature and power, overall lens and eye size, and the resolution and aperture needs of the organism, driven by hunting or survival requirements. This type is now functionally identical to the eye of most vertebrates, including humans. Indeed, "the basic pattern of all vertebrate eyes is similar."[33]�

Each of these new features appeared as a consequence of natural selection; as every new improvement help the animals see better therefore hunt better for food, evade predators. Animals because of a mutation that lead to a small improvement in the structure of eye had an advantage at survival over those that didn’t had the mutation, therefore no improvement. In times of hardships, extreme conditions in their habitat this tiny advantage might have the difference between life and death; and thus the beneficial mutation was propagated further and so on.

So the 20/20 vision of the eyes of the hawk just so coincidentally happened during the evolution of the hawk the way it is designed today.

Is there any scientific proof that this actually happened or is this mere speculation?

Evolutionists were left red faced when they thought fish today evolved from the coelancanth, which dates back to the dinosaurs, and was found to still be alive today. The explanation? Oh, it has a genome that is stopping it from evolving. It didn't need to evolve. It was good enough as it was.

It is completely and utterly idiotic that it is espoused that fish walked on land and evolved into someone else. If there is no need to leave the sea, then why come onto land?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 77129.html

And we have eyeless fish today.

And of course to try and explain how evolution doesn't gel, it goes on about missing links.

If creation is deemed as daft, so is evolution.



“That is true.

No what about the other examples of the horned skulls that I posted. Do you believe every single one of them are hoaxes and why?�

You only posted two things the hornet skull from 1800 which I talked about and living people with “horns� which are nothing but Cutaneous horn- keratinous skin tumors.

Q: What other examples?

You just dismissed as a hoax. Are they all hoaxes and can you explain how you came to that conclusion? The other examples are in the link I gave you.

Philadelphia
Human skulls with horns were discovered in a burial mound at Sayre, Bradford County, Pennsylvania, in the 1880's. Horny projections extended two inches
above the eye-brows, and the skeletons were seven feet tall, but other than that were anatomically normal. It was estimated that the bodies had been buried
around A.D. 1200. The find was made by a reputable group of antiquarians, including the Pennsylvania state historian and dignitary of the Presbyterian
Church (Dr. G.P. Donehoo) and two professors, A.B. Skinner, of the American Investigating Museum, and W.K.Morehead, of Phillips Academy, Andover,
Massachusetts. The bones were sent to the American Investigating Museum in Philadelphia, where they were later claimed to have been stolen and have
never been seen again
Pursuit, 6:69-70, July 1973 Mysteries of the Unexplained, p. 39 1992

New York
Giant, horned human skeletons unearthed just south of Elmira and Wellsville, NY

Texas
A 30 + year old male skeleton was unearthed in a mining area of the El Paso area. Skull had two small horns protruding from the forehead area. Witness of
this was Texas Ranger investigating another murder case .

http://www.burlingtonnews.net/hornedrace.html