Evolution - and their take over/destruction of science

[joshua 1 9]

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!

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.

 

[joshua 1 9]

7 billion people we have living on the earth today, only half a billion of self-identified superior-race of whites are to remain.

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.

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has been moved to the Creation & Evolution sub-forum.​

Please note and abide by the Statement of Purpose of this forum.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[DogmaHunter]

if so a cat can evolve into a flying cat in a single generation?

Did you miss the word "stepwise" in the quote you are responding to?
Or are you rather deliberatly ignoring it?

How many times have I told you that evolutionary changes happens through the accumulation of small changes over generations?

5 times? 10 times? 50 times (if we also include all the other people here that told you the same)?

There comes a point where we can only conclude that you do it deliberatly and that you are just dishonest. And, fyi, that point has come and gone already.

 

[xianghua]

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.

according to this criteria if that dog will evolve into a fish it will still be a dog?

 

[Speedwell]

according to this criteria if that dog will evolve into a fish it will still be a dog?

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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You mean like your profile picture?

No, that's just a picture, actually. Pictures aren't "delusional". They just are.

It kind of reveals ones belief system, don't it?

Does it?
I just thought it was a funny picture.

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.

Okay.

Your mind works in mysterious ways.

 

[klutedavid]

Of the Gospel authors, the only possibility is John.

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.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

 

[Steve Petersen]

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.

The Gospels three other gospels never name their authors, so we don't really even know if THEY were eyewitnesses.

 

[klutedavid]

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.

Paul's letters are also included because Paul was the last to have witnessed the Christ.

"Then he appeared to more than 500 hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me."

Paul not only saw Jesus, Paul also spoke with Jesus.

 

[Speedwell]

Such a fine line between a direct contemporary of Jesus, and someone who mixed with these contemporaries.

But he is still not a primary source.

I fully accept Luke's authorship as near enough to contemporary authorship, as one could hope for.

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.

 

[klutedavid]

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.

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.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

Why do you care, since you believe the texts to be a product of plenary verbal inspiration?

 

[klutedavid]

Why do you care, since you believe the texts to be a product of plenary verbal inspiration?

Simply because I do not believe the gospels were hand written by God.

God never needed to write the New Testament, the death and resurrection event was so powerful of itself. That nothing could stop the gospels and letters being written. One very, very, clever God. The New Testament overall is an overwhelming testimony of Jesus, yet room is also included for the rejection of Jesus. A clever God who new exactly what He was doing when He came to visit us.

A foolish message laced with divine power to save anyone stupid enough to put their trust in His Son.

I have been overcome by God's brilliance in the timing and the execution of that death and resurrection. In addition, the extraordinary groundwork God laid down in the shadows and types embedded in the history of the nation of Israel, perfectly brilliant.

Not too much evidence and not too little, in the end, more than sufficient for any doubter.

 

[Speedwell]

Simply because I do not believe the gospels were hand written by God.

What about Genesis?

 

[pitabread]

Soooo... the OP is satire, right?

 

[klutedavid]

What about Genesis?

Not a scientific account, though there is an imprint of the truth within the Genesis account.

If the original text of Genesis has not undergone editing then explain the following.

The second chapter of Genesis uses the name of God as, 'YHWH', which was not given to mankind until Exodus 3:14. Sure looks like Genesis 2 was written or edited after the event in Exodus.

 

[xianghua]

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.

so dolphin and a dog belong to the same family then?

 

[Speedwell]

so dolphin and a dog belong to the same family then?

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.