Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

[rjs330]

I'm really not interested in your opinion.
I'm swayed by evidence, not incredulity. You have none of the former, and too much of the latter.

Funny, I believe the same way about evolution.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

Oh? And on what do you base that? Look, I can easily pick up a lump of coal and rightfully say this came from organic life on earth eons ago. However, it is defiantly not a matter that dinosaurs began suddenly spewing lumps of coal out of their orifices or suddenly, poof , turned into coal. It tool eons of time and zillions of intermediates steps. It's not possible for one thing to turn into t something else? C'mon. We do that everyday in our manufacturing processes. We can take mere rocks an turn them into locomotives, given a complicated process. Now, are we such exceptions to nature, so superior, that nature and God can't accomplish the same things and on an even grandeur scale?

So you believe in intelligent design then?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[rjs330]

At least one population, yes. Not necessarily all of them.

Well, here's information about their most recent common ancestor: http://www.timetree.org/search/pairwise/314295/9612?

Yes.

So how many common ancestors were there at the very beginning?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Cearbhall]

So how many common ancestors were there at the very beginning?

Between which species?

 

[SteveB28]

So how many common ancestors were there at the very beginning?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Just think about that question for a moment......

"Ancestors" at the beginning.........??

 

[rjs330]

Yes, you should do yourself a favor and study up on the literary history of Scripture. You probably should read up on the Higher Criticism, especially in regard to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Also, you might want to review the discussion as to whether the Pastorals are genuine Pauline or not. Frankly, I don't think that they are. You also might want to look into the major contradictions found throughout Scripture. Well, I am definitely not your academic advisor; I'm just trying to be helpful.

I don't think your trying to be helpful. You clearly do,not believe scripture. And there are myriads of people just like you. Higher critcism and liberal theology seeks to discredit the word of God as it stands and it accomplishes its goal very well as demonstrated by your beliefs. You don't given the bible proper authority because of this crticism and theology and use it like a club against believers in order to propegate the belief that we can't trust the word of God.

Meanwhile there are a great deal more great bible scholars who defend the bible and affirm it's authenticity. Why is it you don't believe them and their evidence? Its because you don't want to. Because if you did you would have to acknowledge the truth.

These,men who question the authority of scripture are the ones we are warned about. Wolves in sheep's clothing. Evil men who seek to turn people from the truth.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/comm/torrey_ra/fundamentals/01.cfm


Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

 

[Hoghead1]

So you believe in intelligent design then?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

I hold that God works in and through evolution, that evolution would be impossible without God. I also hold that creation is God's own self-evolution from unconsciousness and mere potentiality into self-awareness and self-actualization. I get nervous with labels such as "intelligent design" or "creationist," as there are too readily identified with creation-science, which I have absolutely no use for.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

All of this evolution has stayed within species and is no more than a variation. Bacteria haven't become mice, mice haven't become horses. It just doesn't work that way.

If the earth really is billions of years old, surely something like this would have happened at least once in nature.

Of course it doesn't work that way. But creationists seem to expect it to work that way.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

On the contrary, they continually remain Spiritually informed.

Which means they remain continually ignorant.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And it's still a virus.
Call me when it's a salamander.
Evolutionists is sooooooooooooooo dishonest.
Viruses mutated into viruses.
Bacteria mutates into bacteria.
Fruit flies mutate into fruit flies.
Evolution mutates from a theory to a religion among those who know no better.

You're embarrassing yourself. Please stop.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Through faith, which may sound like an overly simplistic answer, but it's a real challenge sometimes. The world is constantly trying to knock me down in this regard, but I pray and I know He loves me.

What about those whose faith differs from yours? Can they also say that they know their doctrines are true through faith? Can they say that they know yours are false through faith?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Obviously, you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor. There is evidence of common descent that all life on Earth is descended from the last universal ancestor.
Common ancestry between organisms of different species arises during speciation, in which new species are established from a single ancestral population.

Evolutionists claim a single common universal progenitor; one cell that morphed into all living things, both plant and animal.
This is YOUR theory, not mine.
Fruit flies irradiated for 50,000 generations remained fruit flies, despite hopes that multiplying the rate of mutations would somehow demonstrate a process of increasing complexity. Nothing of the sort happened. That's an equivalent, by the way, of a million years of human reproduction.

You can be a condescending name caller until the end of time, but that doesn't change the fact that evolution has never been observed and every attempt to test it has failed. Apparently you don't even understand your own theory so maybe you should go read up on it before pretending to know things you do not.

And by the way, we ALL know that we are referring to generations, not a single organism, so you can put that straw man away as well.

I would suggest you read a book before gracing this forum with your presence. It might help.

 

[Robert Palase]

Funny, I believe the same way about evolution.

'Believe' being the operative word, you have no evidence that evolution is wrong, if you did you would be world famous over night.

 

[Jimmy D]

They connection is with the HIV virus and it has to do with retrovirus, but I do not have time to look into it right now. The point is that the Lemar is a common ancestor for humans. To see how they feel the Madagascar play a part in evolution then you would need to read the article. "Madagascar may help scientists understand how HIV-like viruses coevolved with primates," This whole retrovirus thing is a pet subject for Loudmouth. He likes to talk about retrovirus and how they feel that is evidence for common ancestor. "lentiviruses may have been present in ancestral primates as long as 85 million years ago."

I will tell you what I will do. I will throw my wild theory out there and you can tear it down and prove me wrong. According to the leading expert on DNA we are told that this is the Language of God. So RNA could also be the language of God. Evolution has a lot more to do with the regulation of what is already there.

Discovery Of Virus In Lemur Could Shed Light On AIDS
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081201200113.htm

That link in no way suggests that lemurs are a common ancestor for humans, where did you get that from? It's talking about the length of time that lentiviruses have been present in primates.

Ancestors of the modern lemur colonized Madagascar about 75 million years ago, and since then, lemurs and their lentivirus-carrying African cousins have been evolving separately. Four hundred kilometers of ocean divide the two branches, giving mainland primates limited opportunities to swap germs with lemurs. And the last of the occasional land bridges between the two disappeared beneath the sea 14 million years ago, suggesting that lentiviruses are likely at least that old, say the researchers.

High-end estimates of the age of this lentivirus, called pSIVgml, could range back 85 million years, when the primate family that includes lemurs split from the evolutionary branch that would eventually give rise to monkeys, apes and humans. "Lentiviruses could be very ancient indeed," Gifford said.

Did you read the bit I quoted above? Lemurs evolved in isolation from African apes with which they shared a common ancestor, 'Lemurs are the common ancestors of humans' is blatantly untrue.

 

[amariselle]

Of course it doesn't work that way. But creationists seem to expect it to work that way.

I don't.

 

[amariselle]

What about those whose faith differs from yours? Can they also say that they know their doctrines are true through faith? Can they say that they know yours are false through faith?

Of course, people can say whatever they wish.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Of course, people can say whatever they wish.

But then why should I believe you when you claim to know that what you said earlier is true? I have as much reason to believe your claims as that of others who also say they know "through faith."

 

[amariselle]

But then why should I believe you when you claim to know that what you said earlier is true? I have as much reason to believe your claims as that of others who also say they know "through faith."

You shouldn't just believe me simply because I say something. You should question what I say and explore the Christian faith for yourself. I can only stand firm on what I believe, but others must decide what they believe. No one should take my word for absolute truth just because I said it. The Bible is there and anyone can pray and search the Scriptures for themselves. I have done so, my choice is Jesus.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You shouldn't just believe me simply because I say something. You should question what I say and explore the Christian faith for yourself.

I already have. I was previously a Christian.

I can only stand firm on what I believe, but others must decide what they believe. No one should take my word for absolute truth just because I said it. The Bible is there and anyone can pray and search the Scriptures for themselves. I have done so, my choice is Jesus.

But you're claiming to know something. It shouldn't be surprising that people would ask how you know it.

 

[amariselle]

I already have. I was previously a Christian.

I understand that. It is a choice, it always is.

But you're claiming to know something. It shouldn't be surprising that people would ask how you know it.

My answer, search the Scriptures for yourself, do not take MY word for it, take God's word about Himself.