Ever seen a hyena with wings?

So, random goo decides it wants to be another ‘kind’ of random goo eh? Such is the bastard child of evolution’s progress, or so we are told.

Image result for wake up

Well then Mr. or Mrs. Evolutionist, how long must you wait until man can grow wings and fly like the eagle? A year? A decade? A thousand years? A million years? Hmmm? Do answer if you can.

And while you are here. How long must you wait until the whale leaves the ocean, after he learns to read, so he can build a tree house and live comfortably like the robin?

And again. How many zillions of years must you wait until the hyena forgoes two useless legs and learns to walk upright so he can take his comedy act on the road? Hmmm?

Until whales, eagles, and hyenas change to another ‘kind,’ until they acquire a different flesh, and until man learns to live underwater, grow wings, and grow two more legs totalling four, keep your mouth shut as to the pretended ‘science’ of godless evolution.

Thank God for the human brain which can understand that God made all creatures great and small, after their kind.  And of course for sleep, which is only temporary. So time to wake up.

Advertisements

About ColorStorm

Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture.
Gallery | This entry was posted in Unbelief (ahem: atheism) and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

56 Responses to Ever seen a hyena with wings?

  1. LOL! Well said. I haven’t got to the hyenas yet, I’m still trying to figure out what quirk of evolution decided to make apes lose their hair so we could freeze half to death, loose our muscle mass so we couldn’t hunt prey as well, and then develop numerous food allergies and a propensity for self destruction? Totally irrational. Also that naked thing is pretty persistent. There’s not a single animal in the entire kingdom that does shame.

    Thought you might enjoy this, today being a holiday and all.

    https://victorscornerdotorg.wordpress.com/2017/04/01/remembering-the-fools-around-the-world/

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Ha! I’m in spam land. Figures. 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Wally Fry says:

    And this is NOT an April’s Fools joke. The joke is in the naysayers.

    And, yes, that link IB put here is really good too.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. violetwisp says:

    Amazing. You have a way with words ColorStorm, it can’t be denied.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ColorStorm says:

      Well doggone it vi- consider then that God’s word inspires such things.

      Don’t be afraid of scripture. It’s all good.

      (erase this comment at your place, supposed to go here)

      Like

  5. ColorStorm says:

    Maybe so Vi- but are you connecting the dots between the words?

    Is there any thing faulty with these colorful words in truth? Can you deny the ultimate point made? Is it unreasonable to suggest that ‘evolution’ can produce a whale that is an excellent marksman?

    Why not? 😉

    Like

  6. KIA says:

    Ah cs, I once believed evolution was defined as ‘from goo to you by way of the zoo’ too. But there are a whole lot better explanations and evidences for it out there in the real world that we as Christians allow ourselves in the make belive world of apologetics. I’m just starting to learn what I had denied myself an education on for 34years. Ignorant no longer

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      Sorry mike. There are NO BETTER EXPLANATIONS and no other EVIDENCES because apart from the Creator, they are ALL fraudulent.

      And MAKE BELIEVE world of apologetics? You wish. There is more truth in Genesis alone than all your pseudo-science combined. Perhaps you have not been honest with your own education, for wisdom has a beginning………..and rest assured, there is zero wisdom in godlessness.

      Like

      • KIA says:

        You do realize that a majority of those who call themselves Christian actually accept the Better Explanations and Evidences for Evolution by Natural Selection, if just believing that God did it, right?

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Let me help you mike.

          ‘Natural selection………….’ things selecting, er, uh, um….from things ALREADY existing.

          This is where godlessness has lost its pretended battle before entering the arena of logic. Godlessness is that lost cause.

          Simple.

          Liked by 1 person

      • “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being”

        Genesis 2:7

        The Bible tells us, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God. “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). According to the Bible, anyone who denies the existence of God is a fool. Why, then, are so many people, including some Christians, willing to accept that evolutionary scientists are unbiased interpreters of scientific data? According to the Bible, they are all fools! Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.”

        If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.

        Liked by 1 person

        • ColorStorm says:

          Nice. Tks.

          Love that ‘evolution is an enabler for atheism.’ Well, I don’t love that it has teeth, but it certainly is true.

          And yes, let’s call it what it is, regardless what the adherents of this vice say: Atheism is indeed a RELIGION, and the wicked step child of godless evolution.

          Liked by 1 person

  7. I think a flying hyena may be the prototype for the griffin… HA!
    I bet they’re friends with all those unicorns running around out there….HA HA!!
    But every real animal is in its place…all cared for by the Creator of all…
    just as we are… His beloved…

    Liked by 1 person

  8. According to the discoveries of modern science, the so-called random goo, isn’t random at all.

    It is meticulously designed, software coded in a coherent editable language and precision manufactured.

    The goo is everything human beings have ever striven to be.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Peter says:

    ‘Until whales, eagles, and hyenas change to another ‘kind,’ until they acquire a different flesh, and until man learns to live underwater, grow wings, and grow two more legs totalling four, keep your mouth shut as to the pretended ‘science’ of godless evolution.’

    And yet our late friend Arch provided you with this very evidence and you refused to allow it to be displayed on your site. The evidence is there to prove you are wrong, but you will not see it.

    By all means you can chose ignorance, but reflect upon the irony of your accusing those who are prepared to accept the evidence as being close minded.

    Frances Collins, a Christian and well credentialed scientist, said that the evidence for evolution was overwhelming. So many people of faith champion Collins and yet conveniently ignore that he accepts Evolution as scientific fact.

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      @pete

      ‘Our dear friend arch’ proved nothing, but to pollute this site with endless and mindless insults and lies about scripture and people of faith. I told you and him I need not be a host for the devilish planting of godlessness cloaked as ‘knowledge.’

      Evidence? Natural selection? I also mentioned recently that ‘selection’ of existing things is a far cry different than a ‘rock deciding what other rock’ it wants to mate with to fashion into a turtle. On this point alone, evolution offers nothing but guesses. And btw, many believers accept theistic evolution. The difference? At least they give God the courtesy of existing to put in motion all successive changes, something your friend never did, which ‘changes’ will never put a whale into a bird’s nest!!!!!!

      After their ‘kind’ is a truth so simple even you can understand.

      Like

  10. If evolutionists thought you were crazy and just believed a creation myth, they would just disregard you CS. But, alas, there is more to it than that.

    It must be awfully hard to look at the whole of creation and attribute it to time and chance instead of intelligent design. It must be frightening, too, to have that point of view in and of itself: it gives man no hope, no meaning, no purpose, no outside reference point for his behavior or thoughts. It’s every man for himself and nothing else. That would frighten me too.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Arkenaten says:

    The irony of course is that SoM accepts evolution.

    Like

    • ColorStorm says:

      My comment @ 11.55 kinda addresses this. SoM would agree.
      But tkx for the input.

      Like

      • Arkenaten says:

        Actually, you beleive as james does.
        Look at his response.
        James does NOT believe in evolution.
        SoM does, no matter the language he couches his reply on.

        And you? Do you agree with SoM or are you a Creationist?

        Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Ha. Love the way you try to pit believer against another.
          Did the age of men evolve from living from 700 yrs to 120 to now 70, 80, or 90?

          Did this nullify the Creators making of man? Not in the least.

          Genesis explains it all, and rather well.

          Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          Well, one can consider Genesis literal or Analogous.
          Creationists such as James consider it in a more literal frame.
          How about you? Literal or analogous?
          Oh, and you know there are two versions of the creation story, yes?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Yep. Perfectly aware of the attempt to paint the two accounts as contradictory. This has been dismissed by thoughtful people, but the narrative explains itself quite well.

          So what is not literal about the Creator providing the greatest of sea creatures to roam in the greatest of playgrounds such as the whale.

          Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          So, do you accept the account as written in Genesis as literal or analogous?
          I am not talking about any contradiction, I am asking if you are aware of the fact the written text of Genesis comprises of two different sources?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          There are no defects in the Genesis account. Period.

          Back on point. Ever seen a hyena with wings? Why not? Surely the critter would be more suited if he could fly. This is the point of godless evolution which I pointed out, and which SoM agrees. But maybe the four legged comedian will one day earn his wings eh. Or you could face the cold reality that he was made, after his kind. The wingless kind.

          Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          So you accept that there are two different sources for the Genesis account of Creation?

          Why do you think this is?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Sighs. Read the title of this post and the ramifications. The authenticity of Genesis hardly needs addressed.

          But don’t run the risk of being accused of mutiny on another’s blog. I suggest you consider WHY hyena’s do not have, and will never have wings.

          Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          I am not questioning the authenticity,but asking why you think there were two different authors?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Your bait has been refused.

          Once more, stay on point. The hyena with wings presents quite the dilemma. Any answer you give hangs the ignorance of life apart from the Creator, so I can see your reluctance.

          Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          If we are to establish any sort of veracity it behooves us to iron out potential niggly issues.

          So why do you think there are two different contributing authors to Genesis?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Have a nice day. And learn the lesson of the hyena.

          Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          So you acknowledge, but refuse to face the truth this evidence reveals.
          You are a fraud.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          I acknowledge nothing you assert. I am simply aware of what is germane to a post that I wrote. For I have seen your hundreds of comment threads all designed to deter, malign, or destroy. I have no interest in helping you, at least on my own doorstep. And the common visitor and friend agrees with me completely.

          And being considered a fraud, coming from a person who believes not one word of scripture, is rather a compliment, so thank you.

          Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          Yet you do not deny either … which is very, very telling.

          By your silence you damn your argument.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Hello. I wrote the blog post. You have avoided the main point which was presented to you more than once.

          I do not play reindeer games, and I am in no way obligated to address your smokescreens posed as questions.

          So until you can answer WHY hyenas do not have wings, and WHY they never will, you will have proved yet again the emptymindedness of atheism.

          But perhaps another commenter would be happy to slap your hands.

          Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          Why hyenas do not have wings?
          I guess the same reason Rhinos and Hippos don’t … and neither do you for that matter. All because of evolution.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Yay. You finally answered. But no door prizes.

          Maybe they have to wait a few more million years…………

          ………..or they can be happy living the life they were designed to live, thanks be to their Creator.

          It’s far much easier believing in reality.

          Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          Actually, evidence shows how they evolved.
          But you have no interest in truth , and never have.

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Please ark. You have lost this argument with your very first comment. You can post a thousand excuses and change nothing.

          The truth of God, nature, and scripture all sing the same tune.

          Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          What argument?
          There is none.
          You ask why a hyena has no wings and then provide your own answer.

          Even a child has more intelligence, and thus you disqualify yourself from participation in any normal adult conversation.

          If you cannot accept evolution then you must consider yourself relegated to the ranks of willfully ignorant … or severely indoctrinated.

          Even the inventors of your relgion, the Catholic Church,accept and for the most part embrace evolution and have adjusted the world view accordingly.

          Surely you’re aware of Lemaitre?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          You mean the man who called Einstein a dunce? Next thing you know it, you will cite Hawking as a genius too.

          But no thank you. You can keep you godless evolution with its many participants in the bleachers, and I’ll take the truth of God and creation every time.

          Like

        • Arkenaten says:

          So you don’t accept that George Lemaitre discovered the Big Bang?
          A Catholic Priest and a member of the first Christian sect to lay out your first doctrine and also compile your bible and also accept evolution as fact.

          Aren’t you a little behind the times, Colorstorm?
          We could hardly call the Catholics, ”Godless” now could we?

          As I already stated, they were the ones who invented your religion.
          They most certainly do not deny your god, now do they?

          Maybe you need to read a little more widely?
          Would you care for me to provide you with a couple of excellent primers?

          Like

        • ColorStorm says:

          Uh hello? Any body home in that brain? I would hardly call any man who believed in God Godless.

          And your new hero friend George was welcome to every opinion he had. So what? He wasn’t there ‘in the beginning.’

          I am well aware of the theories. But don’t you have some pictures to take, the ones in which the unseen image reveals God by faith?

          And your comment about ‘inventing your religion’ is proof of your parlor tricks, and therefore is your last one on this thread. Tkx.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s