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.
People with a lot of inbreeding have a lot of genetic problems like the Hebrew people and the Amish. My son is very healthy and he does very well in school. So there is a lot of advantage to mix things up as much as we can. We should marry someone that is is as different from us as we can find.Hi Joshua. That was someone else who posted about their ancestors, not me. Still, it's very interesting what you can discover about your family history these days. Your family sounds a bit like mine, with the far eastern influence, at least we can't be accused of inbreeding!
After a major extinction God repopulates the earth with a remnant or 10% of the population. That would amount to 700 million people to repopulate the earth for the next 1,000 year.7 billion people we have living on the earth today, only half a billion of self-identified superior-race of whites are to remain.
if so a cat can evolve into a flying cat in a single generation?
according to this criteria if that dog will evolve into a fish it will still be a dog?No. Nor the dog we were talking about. But however many generations it took, the flying cat would still be a member of the family Felidae, just like the flying dog would still be a member of the family Canidae.
A dog can't evolve into a fish. A dog might evolve into an aquatic mammal like an otter or a dolphin, but it would still be a member of the family Canidae.according to this criteria if that dog will evolve into a fish it will still be a dog?
You mean like your profile picture?
It kind of reveals ones belief system, don't it?
Especially on a debating sight, "here is what I think:"
The common saying from Barnard, which appears in the March 10, 1927, issue with the phrase "One Picture Worth Ten Thousand Words", where it is labeled a Chinese proverb.
Luke is not a precise contemporary of Jesus, but Luke would have met many of the disciples of Jesus. Luke does mention that his sources were eyewitnesses. Luke traveled with the apostle Paul and Paul was the last to have seen the Christ.Of the Gospel authors, the only possibility is John.
A primary source is a contemporary account of an event, written by someone who actually experienced or witnessed the event in question. So Luke, by his own admission, doesn't count. Whether Luke is a reliable source or not is a separate question.Luke is not a precise contemporary of Jesus, but Luke would have met many of the disciples of Jesus. Luke does mention that his sources were eyewitnesses. Luke traveled with the apostle Paul and Paul was the last to have seen the Christ.
I would say that the two gospel authors, John and Luke were very much reliable sources.
A primary source is a contemporary account of an event, written by someone who actually experienced or witnessed the event in question. So Luke, by his own admission, doesn't count. Whether Luke is a reliable source or not is a separate question.
Such a fine line between a direct contemporary of Jesus, and someone who mixed with these contemporaries. I fully accept Luke's authorship as near enough to contemporary authorship, as one could hope for.A primary source is a contemporary account of an event, written by someone who actually experienced or witnessed the event in question. So Luke, by his own admission, doesn't count. Whether Luke is a reliable source or not is a separate question.
But he is still not a primary source.Such a fine line between a direct contemporary of Jesus, and someone who mixed with these contemporaries.
Except for John, of course.I fully accept Luke's authorship as near enough to contemporary authorship, as one could hope for.
John, James, Paul, and Peter, technically all contemporary sources.But he is still not a primary source.Except for John, of course.
But I never really understood why creationists care very much about distinctions like these. If you believe that the Bible is the product of plenary verbal inspiration then its reliability is assured, whatever the technical classification of the sources may be.
Why do you care, since you believe the texts to be a product of plenary verbal inspiration?John, James, Paul, and Peter, technically all contemporary sources.
Luke's gospel is as close to a contemporary source as anyone could wish for.
The first century evidence is strong enough, to push the death and resurrection of the Christ into factual territory. That is without accepting a belief in inspired texts.
Simply because I do not believe the gospels were hand written by God.Why do you care, since you believe the texts to be a product of plenary verbal inspiration?
Not a scientific account, though there is an imprint of the truth within the Genesis account.What about Genesis?
No, and they never will. Even if a species of dog evolves to survive in a similar aquatic environment as a dolphin it will still be a member of the family Canidae, not one of the four families to which the forty-some-odd species of dolphins belong.so dolphin and a dog belong to the same family then?
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?