Alan Gross
Well-Known Member
I like you Alan, but I emphatically disagree.
All anyone has to do to be convinced 'evolution' can not be anything having to do with reality that can be demonstrated, as long as they agree to do one thing and it is just as reasonable a thing to do as any.
And what is that one thing?
As long as someone agrees not to "assume evolution exists, and then want to add that as an axiom into any of their equations, as if assuming something makes it automatically come to life, and become a part of reality, even when we aren't about to observe it to be real, in any way or in any fashion.
It's just an example of not having them try to be saying something like, "we know that evolution is true, because evolution is assumed to exist and be real already, only just in our minds."
I don't want us to be saying, "since, we assume evolution is true, we have to assume we know evolution is true".
Based on what? Assumption. Period.
What does Darwin's book say 300 times, in his "Origin of the Species"?
300 times Darwin wrote in his book, "we may suppose"... That is the only mechanism he can use that brings him the results he comes up with for his shaky theory, is to assume it. For anyone to believe it they would have to agree to use their imagination and say with Darwin's 300 "we may suppose" statements that he is actually saying, "we may suppose that we need to assume something else extra here that we're going to suppose to be 'true', by inventing it out of thin air, next, in order to 'give us some (fake) ammunition' we'd need, in order to even begin to get our sin-cursed reasonings into sinning motion enough and think that: 'assuming evolution makes it exist', to start with, before we are able to say anything else about evolution being 'real'."
It's all rash, imaginary guesswork, otherwise to consider evolution possibly being real.
How about if he'd said, "now, we know that we can not suppose or assume anything". Then, where would his theory wind up? At the same place his 'Theory of Evolution' began, and that was with one big demonically stealth gratuitous assumption, which sounds like, "we may assume evolution takes place, because we may suppose evolution takes place".
Then, without adding in "the assumption that evolution exists to start with",
they would then be allowed to produce any demonstration that shows some approximation pointing to any 'evolutionary' process.
If evolution is not assumed, then you look around for something in support of evolution.
You won't find any except on paper.
Because they would be looking for evidence of evolution in a world that was Supernaturally Created by God, and their isn't any evidence, because there can't be.
And there is none.
There aren't two different sets of explanations laying around to see, since there is only one way that things came into being as they are.
And since Entropy is universally acknowledged as being able to be demonstrated in myriad ways and experiences continually worldwide that presents the idea of evolutions with one problem.
Scientifically, Entropy and Evolution are exact opposites in meaning.
And when Entropy is present taking place everywhere and Evolution can't 'field a team', that can be used for 'evidence' as long as we don't just assume it, then that is one big insurmountable problem for 'Evolutionists'.
There aren't any processes that are going on, or have ever gone on, which can be shown to demonstrate evolution taking place. Although they've tried, it always.
"Look a bird hatched from a lizard egg, see that's how birds evolved".
Or maybe it's the other way around.
Either way, you're talking about something that is produced from the imagination, not from science.
To prove evolution doesn't exist, you don't assume it. It should be able to have something concrete to show for itself if it was anywhere to be found.
...
So, why did I bring that up, to say that if you don't assume the existence of a 'Universal Invisible 'church', then you can search all over in the Bible and all it ever refers to are local churches, bodies, households, assemblies that congregate together, or to several of churches by saying, "to the church", meaning "to many or all of the Divinely founded and Bible based local church entities", around, in the same way the Bible is saying "to the church", plural, in the generic sense, and it is saying "to churches", etc., when the article 'the' is dropped.
"The husband," is referring to "husbands", not one big Universal Invisible Husband".
At least, that is how our language always works, unless the Devil gets his mind wrapped around it.
Yeah, I'm saying that if we don't assume a "Universal Invisible church" exists in the Bible, then where is anything like that, anywhere? The Kingdom of God? Yep. But the Kingdom is not what the Bible is saying by using the word, "church" and for 1,500 years of the New Testament Age of the kind of Churches Jesus Originated, there wasn't any talk of one, until Satan sold the invention of those words and that concept, to the Prodestants. It's not only invisible it's imaginary and not taught by God.
So, to not assume is a very valuable skill to bring to the table,
but I was really going to bring up "the body of Christ", as having some imaginary 'spiritual' worldwide existence being in direct opposition to the teaching in the word of God, by defining words like 'body' by what they were intended to mean in the age in which they were written and by what their synonyms mostly express, instead of(?) trying to use it's meaning by using an Antonym of it and think that it OK to conclude from doing something like that: "this is what God is saying".
Why would He do that?
God teaches words in the Bible for us to understand that they really mean the opposite of their real actual definition? And that doing that it produces some kind of new Doctrine men that are supposed to teach?
Not if they don't t assume it, without bonafide evidence and true Biblical support, instead of that which is faked, when men make Synonyms equal Antonyms in their meanings.
They don't.
1.) So. No, we may not suppose and assume,
And. 2.) No, Synonyms are never equivalent in meaning to their Antonyms.
Synonyms and Antonyms are intended to have opposite in meanings to one another.
Not to be so negative, but those two things really ill-advised.
You could say that I
in the practice of ether of them.emphatically disagree
Last edited: