- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,059
- 52,633
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
Good word choice.Tried that and there was simply too much fooling of myself I had to partake in.
This, so much.Evolution does not require that all life began from a single species. I freely admit that I don't know what life was like when it first started. That does not negate the fact that evolution happens. If I can't explain "how" gravity works, do apples stop falling out of trees?
You really don't understand biology at all, do you? Where do you think seeds come from? what do you think pollen is? (It's plant sperm, more or less). Why do you think teaching about sex is called teaching the "birds and the bees"?
I am not anti-Christian. I am a Christian. Most Christian pastors understand and embrace evolution. Most Creationist pastors are just as much conned sheep as their flocks are. Most creationists do not understand science.
The con men are the professional lecturers, and "research institutes" that know that they are conning the sheep, but are making all kinds of money doing so. <<
The real lcon men are those preaqhing evolution is a fact when they have no real biological evidence.
Kent Hovind has been jailed for his fraudulent practices. Michael Behe was forced in court to admit that his Creationist "Intelligent Design" scheme is no more scientific than astrology.
I am not familiar with those 2 but I would probably agree with the court. For you and others is is necessary to point only to the obvious frauds. Check the faculty at the ICR and tell me which ones are not qualified. Tell me which ones you are more qualifed thatn they are.
We do straighten you out, but you'd rather believe the con men than think for yourselves.
You do not straighten me out and you were unaware that I have never read anything by the 2 you mentioned. You assumed something but now you know better, right? Neither you nor any of your cohorst has ever posted the biolgical evidence for HOW evolution is valid.
I don't know if you are one who tries to use natural selection and mutations as mecvhanisms for evolution but you can't show me if natural selection has been proven and you can't show me how a mutation has ever change a species. Your con men say it has and you accept by faith alone that it does.
"Kind" used to be defined as "species." Creationists changed that equivalence because species do things that they don't believe well-behaved "kinds" should not do, like splitting and becoming two new species.
Who change it and when. Most Christians I know say "kinds" and "species" are the same thing. IMO, the evolutionists chaned it because "kind" is to Biblical and the faithful might think that God actdually did what he said and they certainly can't let that go unchallalnged.
You say your are a Christian, what makes you think God did not do it exactaly as Genesis says? Do you believe the first verse in Genesis?
Yes and no. Evolution teaches that population adapt and change over time.
That is obvious and can be biologically proven through observation.
Observation of living populations shows is that one such change is speciation, the splitting up of a population into two separate populations representing two separate species.
That simply is not true. If a population splits, there is a biological reason but the 2 groops remain the same species. I the salamander ring species, some, not all, of the salamanders could still mate with the other group. In any case, they all remained salamanders and were called that. Some did reclassify them as a sub-species.
Observation of the fossil record confirms that it has happened in the past, and that we can group species as parent population/daughter populations, sister populations, and cousin populations in exactly the same way as we can chart a family tree for you, your parents, your siblings and your cousins.
Not true and many if not most evolutinists see the weakness of trying to use the fossil record as evidence of evolution. Gould and Mayr said basically the same thing---When we look at the living biota...discontinutiesare overwhelming freque3nt...The discontinuties are even more strining in the fossil record. Neew species appear in the fossil record succenly not connected with their ancestgors by a series of intemmediates.
Yet Mayr says the fossil record it still the most convincing evidence for evolution. It see illogical to says the best evidence for evolution is woefully lacking, whihc Mayr admits.
Observation of DNA confirms the degree of relatedness of these species, exactly the same way that observation of DNA can confirm the degree of relatedness between you and your blood relatives.
Actually it doesn't. It separates not only each species, it separates us by family. My son and I will have different DNA but what we have will shdow he is my son.
Most large, multi-cellular organisms fit very nicely into the family tree in this manner.There is some debate when it comes to bacteria-sized species as to how and why to fit them in
The so-called family tree is a farce established by those trying to make evolution look palauible. You have no evidence for a connecti between land and aquaitc life; you have no connection between vertibrates and invertibrates or between mamals and non-mamals. I thought the evolutionist has give up using the family tree.
Evolution does not require that all life began from a single species.
They use to teach that and even descrdibe it as a simmple celled organism. DNA caue them to walk that back.
I freely admit that I don't know what life was like when it first started.
You do not even know what it evolved into. You have no idea what the second, third, fourth, fifth, etc life forms were but you are willing to say all life form we have today came from one source. Not ony is that biologically impossible it is illogical. Tell me how a life form can get bones.
That does not negate the fact that evolution happens. If I can't explain "how" gravity works, do apples stop falling out of trees?
Yes it does. Apples falling from trees can be observed and repeated. We probably don't know everything about gravity but we do know about falling objects.
If you admit that I disagree with that definition, (in fact I think it is ridiculous), then why did you claim that it is what I believe?
It may be rediculous but you thinking it is does not make it so. I am not sure I claimed that is what you believe. Tell me specifically wht you believe.
Knocking down such an easy target, and pretending that you are defeating my position is what makes it a strawman argument. I "can't" refute it because it is so ridiculous that it is not worth refuting, especially since no one believes it.
I don't think I have suggested I have defeated your postion. I have only stated what i belive and why I reject your postion. You do the exact same thing to me. If I have a straw men, so do you. Maybe you can't refute it because because it the truth and you have no answere for your postion, soo you cal mine a strawmen.
>>I reposted it twice already, and it is really not important enough to me at this point to repost it again. Answer it or not, I don't care.
If it was seman it would be called seman.
Most Christian pastors do not understand biology which is necessary to try and explain evolution. Most conservative Christian pastors reject evolution.
To say that most creationists do not understand science is arrogant and self serving.
IMO, the evolutionists chaned it because "kind" is to Biblical and the faithful might think that God actdually did what he said and they certainly can't let that go unchallalnged.
Yes it does. Apples falling from trees can be observed and repeated. We probably don't know everything about gravity but we do know about falling objects.
How can you say Santa Claus doesn't hold up to the same scrutiny as the Christian god?No, we don't because those figures do not hold up to scrutiny as the bible does. Making that kind of comparison is almost laughable. As if you are grasping for a solid argument and failing.
How can you say Santa Claus doesn't hold up to the same scrutiny as the Christian god?
There are numerous tales of Santa. The authors of these stories were divinely inspired when Santa filled them with HIS holy spirit, and guided their thoughts to write HIS word!
Santa even filled St. Nicholas, a real verifiable person, with HIS holy spirit.
Finally, Santa fills HIS chosen people (those with money), with HIS holy spirit over the Christmas holidays. That is why they buy presents at Christmas.
I don't usually like to make that comparison. Santa has never committed or advocated genocide, slavery, murder, misogyny, etc., unlike the Christian god.Have you ever seen Santa Claus compared to Jesus Christ?
It's a real eye opener.
We call that diabolical mimicry.
You don't have to.I don't usually like to make that comparison.
Neither has God.Santa has never committed or advocated genocide, slavery, murder, misogyny, etc.,
That would fall under your interpretation of His actions.... unlike the Christian god.
Yes ... twin sister of "diabolical plagiarism.""diabolical mimicry"?
It's a real eye-opener.How is Santa diabolical?
If it was seman it would be called seman. There is no biological reason to teaqch sex by usisng birds and bees.
I have not called you anti-Christian. Most Christian pastors do not understand biology which is necessary to try and explain evolution. Most conservative Christian pastors reject evolution. To say that most creationists do not understand science is arrogant and self serving. You are suggesting we are not inntellectual capable of understanding it becasue we do not accept as true evidence , what you accept as evidence. Let me suggest the scientist as the ICR understnd it much better than you do and they reject it.
I agree and it not worth the effort fo me to backtrack to find it.
You don't have to.
Others have done it for you.
You just have to either agree or disagree with it; and to disagree with it shows a lack of comprehension.
Neither has God.
That would fall under your interpretation of His actions.
Yes ... twin sister of "diabolical plagiarism."
It's a real eye-opener.
Actually the God of the Bible advocated genocide many times over. You even believe that he did so.
I don't know if you ever watched The Invaders; but if you did, did David Vincent push for genocide?
I suspect you guys are misusing a good word (as usual).
Suit yourself.Nope never saw it. Does it matter? And no, we are not misusing a good word. There is no doubt that the God of the Bible is a very immoral god.
Suit yourself.
Is abortion infanticide?
Because I'm done with the old topic; unless you have something new to add.Why are you trying to change the topic?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?