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.
Yup --- if you accept the "simple fact" that you are an ape --- (I mean, what's the harm, eh?) --- then you'll eventually have to accept the "simple fact" that your ancestors crawled out from under the abiogenesis rock.I am proud of it because God did it.
Yup --- if you accept the "simple fact" that you are an ape --- (I mean, what's the harm, eh?) --- then you'll eventually have to accept the "simple fact" that your ancestors crawled out from under the abiogenesis rock.
So I happen to have a sin nature, which is incompatible with the teachings of evolution.
So I happen to have a sin nature, which is incompatible with the teachings of evolution.
Adam didn't predate the animal kingdom, the animal kingdom predated Adam.How so? The Bible doesn't say that animals and other organisms don't have sin natures.
Yup --- if you accept the "simple fact" that you are an ape --- (I mean, what's the harm, eh?) --- then you'll eventually have to accept the "simple fact" that your ancestors crawled out from under the abiogenesis rock.
Uh, no. It is possible to accept that there is similarity to other apes enough to be classified as one without accepting common descent.
I thought we were supposed to be 'great apes' or something.His car might be very similar to your car, but they aren't necessarily built at the same factory.
You are not playing along. You seem to think you can overlook red-shift and move on to other observations as evidence for Big Bang.
Well, in case you didn't know, Big Bang and red-shift are synonymous. To ignore red-shift is to ignore Big Bang. If red-shift interpretation is flawed, then Big Bang theory is flawed and predicts nothing. And, like I said before, it is flawed.
Nothing says, "No comment," like a non-response, eh?http://www.christianforums.com/t7437092-8/#post54039081
^When all else fails, pretend it doesn't exist.
Nothing says, "No comment," like a non-response, eh?
How about getting pass the first hurdle first - Redshift.How about replying to my whole post? Here it is again in case you missed it:
Yep. What's the harm, eh?Yup --- if you accept the "simple fact" that you are an ape --- (I mean, what's the harm, eh?) --- then you'll eventually have to accept the "simple fact" that your ancestors crawled out from under the abiogenesis rock.
Why?So I happen to have a sin nature, which is incompatible with the teachings of evolution.
How about getting pass the first hurdle first - Redshift.
[/SIZE]The official explanation of the NASA image states, "Appearances can be deceiving. In this NASA Hubble Space Telescope image, an odd celestial duo, the spiral galaxy NGC 4319and a quasar called Markarian 205 [upper right], appear to be neighbors. In reality, the two objects don't even live in the same city. They are separated by time and space. NGC 4319 is 80 million light-years from Earth. Markarian 205 (Mrk 205) is more than 14 times farther away, residing 1 billion light-years from Earth. The apparent close alignment of Mrk 205 and NGC 4319 is simply a matter of chance." Professional astronomers seem to be so enamored of their 'redshift equals distance' theory that it damages their eyesight.
Arp originally proposed his theories in the 1960s, however, telescopes and astronomical instrumentation have advanced greatly; the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, multiple 8-10 meter telescopes (such as those at Keck Observatory) have become operational, and detectors such as CCDs are now more widely employed. These new telescopes and new instrumentation have been utilized to examine QSOs further. QSOs are now generally accepted to be very distant galaxies with high redshifts. Moreover, many imaging surveys, most notably the Hubble Deep Field, have found many high-redshift objects that are not QSOs but that appear to be normal galaxies like those found nearby. Moreover, the spectra of the high-redshift galaxies, as seen from X-ray to radio wavelengths, match the spectra of nearby galaxies (particularly galaxies with high levels of star formation activity but also galaxies with normal or extinguished star formation activity) when corrected for redshift effects.
Actually, it's my fault.Oo look, my thread's still going! What'd I miss?
Sure, sweep it under the rug.EDIT: Oh, Doveaman and his galaxy-quasar thing. That's so 2009.
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?