• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Clearing up misconceptions about evolution

Greg1234

In the beginning was El
May 14, 2010
3,745
38
✟26,792.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Neither of us have very good odds.

If there must be a creator god, you cannot dismiss Allah, Mbombo, Atum, Ptah, Unkulunkulu, Nanabozho, Brahma, Coatilique, Viracocha, Esenge Malan, Kamuy, Izanagi and Izanami, Marduk Vishvakarman, The sons of Borr, Rod or Ranginui and Papatuanuku.

El/Yahweh is not the only contender, so if any of these gods have a hell then your a dead cert to be there as well.

So I guess we're both playing roulette then.

Well "Ptah and "Atum" are actually different aspects of the one. Together with "Sokar" they were the names for the triad or the trinity in Heliopolis, the site of a sect in Egyptian religion. " In Heliopolis, this triad would be known as Ptah-Sokar-Atum, but hailed as Osiris." They correpond with the names "Father, "Son" "Holy Spirit" or "Brama, Vishnu and Shiva" (" Hindus view cosmic activity of the Supreme Being as comprised of three tasks: creation, preservation, and dissolution and recreation. Hindus associate these three cosmic tasks with the three deities, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Lord Brahma brings forth the creation and represents the creative principle of the Supreme Being. Lord Vishnu maintains the universe and represents the eternal principle of preservation. Lord Shiva represents the principle of dissolution and recreation. These three deities together form the Hindu Trinity.") in other cultures.

Unkulunku and Mbombo are from African satellite religions and can be traced back to a major religion in Africa (specifically Egypt). So there is no real need to chase these down and the Egyptian mecca will suffice.

"Allah" is actually Arabic for "God" (" The word "Allah" is the perfect description of the "One God" of monotheism for Jews, Christians and Muslims!"Allah" is the same word used by Christian Arabs and Jewish Arabs in their Bible, centuries before Islam came.").

"Nanabozho" is the name in the Native American culture for the Spirit or the source of life. It can be known under various names and characteristics and can have certain physical representations based on what manifested trait you wish to emphasize. It corresponds with the Father, Brahma, etc. (" Namtbozho is apparently the impersonation of life, the active quickening power of life of life manifested and ci"1odied in the myriad forms of sentient and physical nature. lie is therefore reputed to possess not only the power to live, but also the correlative power of renewing his own life and of quickening and therefore of creating life in others.").

"El" is simply another name for the Supreme One.

:wave:
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I find it hard to believe, in a world where survival of the fittest is easy to see, that in-between species could survive...much less thrive.
And that is in the case of all the transitions you've listed.

Maybe the reason these links are missing is because they never existed in the first place.
:cool:

You didn't answer my question. What particular lineage of transitional fossils would you like me to provide for you?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,435
52,724
Guam
✟5,182,747.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You didn't answer my question. What particular lineage of transitional fossils would you like me to provide for you?
A species of Genus A, daisy-chained* to a species of Genus B.

* No missing links.
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟43,402.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
A species of Genus A, daisy-chained* to a species of Genus B.

* No missing links.

And how many fossils do you require to consider something "daisy-chained"? If I give you 5, will you ask for 10? 100?

3.bmp


I also must point out that your questions is fundamentally flawed as species in one genus do not evolve into species of another genus, rather, they share a common ancestor.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,435
52,724
Guam
✟5,182,747.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And how many fossils do you require to consider something "daisy-chained"?
What kind of question is that?

I would require all of them.

Genus A, species a ... Genus B, species a

Daisy-chain horse → cow; or bird → Bob; or whatever.
If I give you 5, will you ask for 10? 100?
Oh, please.

My guess is that there should be at least a billion between one genus and the very next one.

Remember that grayscale argument and how I showed the number of Hz from red to violet?
I also must point out that your questions is fundamentally flawed...
It appears you don't understand what I mean by asking you to daisy-chain your fossils.
... as species in one genus do not evolve into species of another genus, rather, they share a common ancestor.
I totally disagree with this -- (but I don't understand neoevolution like it is taught today, either).

In any case, you're not going to convince me of anything until you daisy-chain about a billion fossils from one Genus to its next.
 
Upvote 0

Mr Strawberry

Newbie
Jan 20, 2012
4,180
81
Great Britain
✟27,542.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Originally Posted by CabVet
... as species in one genus do not evolve into species of another genus, rather, they share a common ancestor.

I totally disagree with this -- (but I don't understand neoevolution like it is taught today, either).

You can disagree with it all you like but in no version of evolution has a species in one genus ever evolved into a species in another genus. That you do not understand this after god knows how many years of being on this forum shows how utterly futile your time spent here has been for you. You have learnt nothing.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,435
52,724
Guam
✟5,182,747.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You can disagree with it all you like but in no version of evolution has a species in one genus ever evolved into a species in another genus.
So it came by abiogenesis?
 
Upvote 0

Mr Strawberry

Newbie
Jan 20, 2012
4,180
81
Great Britain
✟27,542.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
So it came by abiogenesis?

You remember the phylogenetic tree? I'm sure you've seen it. Well, species on one branch do not hop onto other branches. We can all trace our ancestry back to the base of the trunk of the tree, but the tip of the particular twig we are on either stops or splits or carries on going as it is. It doesn't suddenly become part of another branch on the tree. Do you see?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pgp_protector

Noted strange person
Dec 17, 2003
51,914
17,820
57
Earth For Now
Visit site
✟475,231.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Valkhorn

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist
Jun 15, 2004
3,009
198
44
Knoxville, TN
Visit site
✟26,624.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Like all evolutionists you leave out half of what is said. If you can not dazzle with brilliance, baffle with bull crap.

I just had a phone call with god. It said it wasn't happy with what you were saying about it and that you were dead wrong. You might want to stop before it smites you.
 
Upvote 0