-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
When did evolution begin?
- Thread starter OldWiseGuy
- Start date
- Status
It's all he's got. He ASSUMES that Humans were made exactly like prehistoric people even after I've shown him that Adam, the first Human, was NOT made of flesh and did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes, but he REJECTS God's Truth in Genesis. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. Rejecting the Truth of God's Holy Word is the real problem. Amen?
Upvote
0
1. I showed you where Adam, the first Human, was made on the 3rd Day from the DUST of the ground. Gen 2:4-7 I also showed you that prehistoric people were made the 5th Day from the WATER, along with EVERY other living creature. Gen 1:21 Add Adam's formation from the dust to the creation of prehistoric people and you get TWO creations.
2. Sure I did and you were Unable to refute a single one of the Scientific Truths found in Genesis. You hand wave off God's Holy Word as NOT evidence and yet you present NONE of your own. I tire of your deceptive tactics. Please try to do better before you give all scientists a bad name. God Bless you
Upvote
0
That is a claim, not evidence. Do you understand the difference or not?
The lack of pre-integration sites in the human genome for ERV's that are fixed in other primate species refutes your claims.
Upvote
0
1. False since you CANNOT refute a single scientific fact that I listed from Genesis. The facts speak for themselves since NO man of the time, could have possibly known the scientific facts which are just NOW being discovered by today's Scientists.
One of them is currently being discovered by the European Space Agency. When the Fact that we live in a Multiverse composed of at least 3 Universes, which should be very soon, is confirmed, it will AGREE with Gen 1:6-8 which shows that the FIRST Heaven/firmament/boundary of Adam's world was made on the SECOND Day....AND...other HeavenS were made on the 3rd Day Gen 2:4, it will be empirical EVIDENCE that you cannot deny, thus your view was completely refuted by God Himself thousands of years ago. It will be PROOF of God which you cannot deny.
2. Since you know that the current THEORY only measures changes within the alleles for prehistoric creatures and has proven that it CANNOT detect the changes which were slowly made when Humans (descendants of Adam) passed their superior intelligence to the children they produced with the descendants of the sons of God (prehistoric people) Gen 6:4 I find your conclusion to be False and UnSupported. The only way you can hold your tenuous position is through bluster and bluff mixed with a lot of bamboozle and "just believe me". No wonder they force teach their ideas to the smallest children since it's easier to brain wash the very young. Amen?
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Using loaded terms is dishonest. Humanity evolved and you will find some disagreement on the details, but not much on the process among biologists. You are also being dishonest if you try to argue that those minor disagreements mean that there are different versions of evolution.
Nope, I do not accept arguments with dishonest terms. Christians are supposed to be honest. At least that was how I was raised. It seems in this aspect I am a better "Christian" than you are since I have no need of dishonest techniques.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
No, you are using an incorrect and overly limited definition of "observe".
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
You'll find wide disagreement on the details. One view of evolution has the creation of humanity from only naturalistic mechanisms, another view of evolution has God involved in the creation of humanity. That's a huge difference and results in two very different worldviews. They're not "minor disagreements".
You've once again been caught trying to pass off evolution as a monolithic term when in fact it isn't. It also reveals your claim of '99% of biologists believe in evolution' is very misleading.
Nothing dishonest about the fact that everyone believes Humanity was created by something.
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
You'll certainly have to do something to continue your complete failure to offer observed evidence.
Upvote
0
How about from sources that aren't Christian/ID based? Don't worry - when I was ID about 10 years ago I was exactly the same, but it's good to explore a range of views and sites.
A good start might be talkorigins where as well as lots of information you can take part in discussions.
Their FAQ covers a lot of common questions about evolution with links to extra information.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
In other words, use sites that you agree with? You asked me for sources and I gave them to you. What I haven't found is a source which provides evidence, based on the scientific method, for the view that only naturalistic mechanisms produced humanity from a single life form of long ago. Or one which provides evidence, based on the scientific method, that both a pine tree and elephant was produced from the same life form, only by naturalistic mechanisms.
If you give a link to a multi page site, please quote the area of the site which provides this evidence.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
So you decided to go with the dishonest route. That is the same as you admitting that you are wrong in my book. And no, my claim of 99% of biologists was not misleading in any way. I can post the support again, if you want to claim something else the burden of proof is still upon you.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
And I guess I need to remind you that I have both supplied evidence and you have shown that you have not clue as to what qualifies as evidence. I can still help you with that disability of yours.
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
Of course it was misleading. One view among biologists is that God had nothing to do with the creation of humanity (one of the views within evolution) while another view among biologists is that God definitely had something to do with the creation of humanity (yet another view within evolution). Your claim of 99% attempts to mislead and ignore that very important fact. You've once again been caught and exposed.
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
Thank you for your pages of invisible evidence that I've observed for several months now.
Upvote
0
I mean don't just use source you agree with! Get out there, search around, see what turns up. If you read something on talkorigins or whatever you disagree with - think why. Come up with a well-argued response and discuss it with those you disagree with. Don't just stick with sites you already agree with. I read creationist stuff to see what their arguments are but I also read the scientific literature to find out their arguments and evidence too. If you want to debate evolution/creationism, you have to understand both sides.
So, you mean common descent?
So, you mean common descent?
Animals and plants are eukaryotes (which is basically everything that is not archaea or bacteria). They are all descended from eukaryotes which split into animals, plants and fungi about 1.5 billion years ago (the paper I've linked below gives the figure of 1.576 plus or minus 88 million). By examining the DNA you can work out the relationships between different species and kingdoms. There is some suggestion that the split of animals and fungi came a bit later which explains why at the cellular level fungi has much more in common with animals than plants.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1689654/pdf/10097391.pdf
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
