I believe in the Bible fully from cover to cover.  The Bible says the Universe 
and the Earth was created in 6 literal days.  Now, the day may not necessarily 
be 24 hours but the idea was that God created everything in a short time.

When he did that is not revealed in the Bible.  Many Biblical scholars claim 
that they can backtrace the genealogy and concluded that it is currently about 
6000 years old.  I have no reason to doubt them although I fully admit that 
they could be wrong.  After all, they are all human and their calculation is 
not from God.  Also, this is a rough estimate.  No exact dates are provided in 
reference to major events.  Just hints here and there that place the event in 
its historical context.

Also, Biblical scholars who study Eschatology (study of End times, like 
Armageddon, 2nd Coming of Christ, Millenial Kingdom, etc.) sometimes apply 
prophecy to Biblical history.  This is a valid Bible Study technique, since 
"Prophecy is Prologue".  What that means is that many events that occur in the 
Bible always have prophetic significance one way or another.   Many scholars 
equate a 7-day prophecy to our history.  1 day is prophecied to be equal to 
1000 years.  Many prophecies put us on the 6th day.  That is also where the 
6000 years came from.  The 7th day is the day of rest which they equate to the 
Millenial reign of King Christ from a literal throne in Jerusalem.

So, if you ask me what I believe, there it is.




Jojo


PS.  BTW, as a believer, the Bible says that I am a King and Priest.  So, I 
will be running a city and/or a church in the Millenium.  Most likely just a 
city cause there would only be one church.

So, I'll be looking up some of you who have been nasty to me.  (In case you 
missed it, I"M JOKING)






  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:44 PM
  Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots


  Thanks for giving me a specific time-frame within the you tube link to fast 
forward to. Right now I don't have the time to wade through the entire lecture, 
but I did listen to the specific section about disproving the horse evolution 
theory. I did perform a spot check here and there. I do see the lecturer has a 
lot of charisma. Possessing charisma always helps to persuade the audience.  
Using a healthy dose of ridicule is always entertaining too. As for me, using 
ridicule to insinuate we are trying to create a whale from corn is not likely 
to convince me that evolution is a failed theory, 41:15.

   

  I think you would enjoy reading "Forbidden Archeology", if you haven't 
already. I think there are some intriguing, as well as controversial, findings 
listed in this book.

   

  http://books.google.com/books/about/Forbidden_Archeology.html?id=vhV9AAAAMAAJ

   

  
http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Hidden-History-Human/dp/0892132949/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409142589&sr=1-1&keywords=forbidden+archeology

   

  In your personal opinion, how long do you think the Earth has been around?

   

  Regards,

  Steven Vincent Johnson

  svjart.orionworks.com

  zazzle.com/orionworks

   

  From: Jojo Iznart [mailto:[email protected]] 
  Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:47 PM
  To: [email protected]
  Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

   

  Actually, reproduction by cellular mitosis would favor evolution.  If 
Macro-evolution is occuring, cellular mitosis should prove it quickly.  Why?  
Because one one set of genes can produce a trait that would confer a survival 
advantage.

   

  If reproduction is by cellular meiosis. both mutations have to be compatible 
for it to generate a trait.  This task is more difficult and will occur at less 
probability compounding the long long long odds already facing Macro-Evolution.

   

  Regarding Horse Evolution, that was debunked about 5 decades ago.  I have a 
video for that but it is long.  Horse evolution discussion starts at time 
41:26.  It talks about the Equus seris of horse evolution in your article.

   

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk

   

   

  Jojo

   

   

    ----- Original Message ----- 

    From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson 

    To: [email protected] 

    Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:18 AM

    Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots

     

    From: Jojo

     

    > Well, we have conducted evolution experiments in the lab where we

    > subjected bacteria to artificial stress to stimulate macro-evolution. 

    > These accelerated trials would be the equivalent of millions of years

    > of natural selection.  And yet, what did we find?  We find that the 

    > bacteria did change and adapt to the stress but yet remained the same

    > bacteria.  This is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution.  The bacteria

    > was simply expressing certain genetic traits already built into its DNA.

    > No mutation.  

    > 

    > In this particular experiment I am talking about, E. Coli gained

    > resistance to penicilin.  That is adaptation,no macro evolution.  In

    > the end, E. Coli was still E. Coli.  the same bacteria.  No species

    > jump.  It did not become some other kind of mold or something.

    > 

    > And most remarkably, when the stress was removed, the E. Coli population

    > then reverted to its original form where it was E. Coli susceptible 
again. 

    > Natural selection was clearly not operative here.

    > 

    > Its evidence like this that is suppressed to foist the biggest lie on

    > people.

     

    Interesting experiment. I know I also suggested using bacteria in a 
previous post. I'm glad someone has actually conducted it using bacteria. Do 
you know how long the experiment was conducted? I do see a problem with this 
particular experiment, even though I think it was a good stab at trying to 
observe evolution working. Bacteria don't reproduce sexually. They clone 
themselves. It's a much more simplified carbon-copy process of perpetuating the 
species. There's far less potential to introduce mutation and other genetic 
changes with each successive generation. There is very little chance for the 
random exchange of genes between two organisms. Introducing random genetic 
change is, IMO, crucial for the theory of evolution to work effectively.  I 
would like to see an equivalent experiment done with a much more complex 
organism, say a simple animal, a Planarian. They are fascinating little 
creatures. They are simple animals but complex multi-cellular organisms 
nevertheless. But if you split them part way down the middle down their length 
starting with the head they will eventually split apart completely and become 
two individuated worms. You wouldn't think a complex multi-cellular animal 
organism would be capable of doing that, not after they have been hatched! 
Alas, I'm not sure this kind of an experiment would work because of the time 
frames involved. It would have to take decades of persistent research in order 
to possibly notice if we could eventually create a new species of worm that is 
incapable of sexually reproducing with the original organism. See:

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian

     

    . . .

     

    In the meantime, I'd still like your opinion on what you think is happening 
concerning what the text below reveals as an example of the evolution of horses 
starting 30 million years ago.

     

    
http://www.examiner.com/article/stranger-than-fiction-the-evolution-of-the-horse

     

    What do you personally believe is happening here?

     

    Regards,

    Steven Vincent Johnson

    svjart.orionworks.com

    zazzle.com/orionworks

Reply via email to