Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[Aman777]

Which can't science get right?

The classification of Humans who are the descendants of Adam and NOT of Apes.

Yes, yes.... "education - bad!".

No. It's the knowledge of the evil (ToE) which is being force taught to our innocent children, which is bad. Trump and many evolutionists tell the children that they are nothing but evolved Animals. They have rejected God's Truth which tells us we are God's children. Such blasphemy will soon be judged harshly.

 

[the iconoclast]

the total and complete lack of any verifiable evidence that these entities exist.

Hey hey he who hunts a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

What evidence would you accept?

 

[DogmaHunter]

The classification of Humans who are the descendants of Adam and NOT of Apes.

Okay.

Explain how science gets it wrong and how you, a random internet person with not credentials whatsoever, gets it right.

No. It's the knowledge of the evil (ToE) which is being force taught to our innocent children, which is bad. Trump and many evolutionists tell the children that they are nothing but evolved Animals. They have rejected God's Truth which tells us we are God's children. Such blasphemy will soon be judged harshly.

Is that threat?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hey hey he who hunts a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

What evidence would you accept?

Before I can answer that question, you're going to have to define such entities in such a way that they even CAN have any evidence.

Because if god is defined as an unfalsifiable entity without any detectable or measureable manifestation, then that god is indistinguishable from non-existant things.

So at this point, I don't know what evidence I would accept.
What evidence would you accept to believe that 'brukabollybooboo" exists?
That's how your question sounds to me.

First, I'ld have to define what a ''brukabollybooboo' is and do it in such a way that it at least on principle, can be distinguished from non-existance.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because if god is defined as an unfalsifiable entity without any detectable or measureable manifestation, then that god is indistinguishable from non-existant things.

Will this definition do?

1. Martyrs.
2. Churches and other edifices, including Christian schools.
3. Iconography & statuary, including symbols, drawings, and artwork.
4. The Bible and other books written about our LORD, including tracts.
5. Songs, hymns and carols venerating Jesus Christ.
6. Holidays such as Christmas and Easter.
7. Debates, programs, cartoons, and specials on TV.
8. Time divided into BC/AD.
9. Nations that invest a large part of their finances to eradicate Him.
10. An academic infrastructure that routinely challenges His authority and ridicules His followers.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Will this definition do?

1. Martyrs.
2. Churches and other edifices, including Christian schools.
3. Iconography & statuary, including symbols, drawings, and artwork.
4. The Bible and other books written about our LORD, including tracts.
5. Songs, hymns and carols venerating Jesus Christ.
6. Holidays such as Christmas and Easter.
7. Debates, programs, cartoons, and specials on TV.
8. Time divided into BC/AD.
9. Nations that invest a large part of their finances to eradicate Him.
10. An academic infrastructure that routinely challenges His authority and ridicules His followers.

Only to show that the religion itself exists and that there are people who follow it.
It doesn't show that the religion is accurate.

Case in point: the exact same kind of definition for Islam, would yield the exact same result.
It would show that Islam as a religion exists. Not that it is accurate.

The point is to show that what the religion claims about god(s) is accurate.
And to be able to that, you'ld require a testable/falsifiable definition of this god.

 

[AV1611VET]

Only to show that the religion itself exists and that there are people who follow it.

Which came first?

 

[Aman777]

Before I can answer that question, you're going to have to define such entities in such a way that they even CAN have any evidence.

The evidence is in Genesis 1 since God reveals His scientific Truth, which can only be understood by the people of the last days, and some of which is just now being discovered. Scientists announced 2 years ago that what Genesis 1:21 told us more than 3k years ago, is the scientific Truth. As we near the return of Jesus, God will continue to reveal His scientific Truth and destroy the lies of the ToE.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why are you people even arguing with these Trolls? I already asked for their definition of species. they gave it. Then refused to follow the very definition THEY gave. Instead making excuses for not accepting the very definition they gave when asked for....

Fairie tales is all you will ever get from an evolutionists, because they won't even accept the scientific definitions they give you when asked for a definition......

 

[AV1611VET]

Fairie tales is all you will ever get from an evolutionists, because they won't even accept the scientific definitions they give you when asked for a definition......

I've noticed that lot of people are willing to set their science aside in order to make the Bible look wrong.

My favorite example is when they say the Bible speaks of geocentrism, using verses that can be explained by interpreting them from the "point of the observer."

But they won't do that (interpret them as being from "the point of the observer").

Instead they suddenly become Bible literalists.

While at the same time, arguing Genesis 1 is allegory.

 

[Speedwell]

I've noticed that lot of people are willing to set their science aside in order to make the Bible look wrong.

My favorite example is when they say the Bible speaks of geocentrism, using verses that can be explained by interpreting them from the "point of the observer."

But they won't do that (interpret them as being from "the point of the observer").

Instead they suddenly become Bible literalists.

While at the same time, arguing Genesis 1 is allegory.

The point of it is to demonstrate that biblical creationists don't apply their literalist interpretation consistently.

But that's OK, because "not literal" is not they same thing as "wrong."

 

[Kylie]

Hey hey kylie.

No but being unable to defend your position does.

The only reason you think it's not a defense is because you disagree with me.

Jer 16:20
Do people make their own gods? Yes, but they are not gods!"

Exodus 20:2
Thou shalt have no other gods before Me



Is your line of reasoning "thor and odin do not exist therefore God does not exist"?

Why do you or do not believe thor and odin are existing entities?

Cheers kylie.

Do you not even understand what an atheist is?

I do not believe that your God is an actual existing thing in just the same way you don't think Zeus or Darth Vader are existing entities.

Why is this concept so difficult for you?

 

[Kylie]

Compared to Human intelligence, it's the difference between a Commodore 64 and a modern computer. ONLY Humans have the superior intelligence which was inherited from the common ancestor of ALL Humans, namely Adam.

Cool story bro.

Then who told them they were naked? Gen 3:11 What had changed? Was it the loss of the glory or brightness of Lord God, in whose Image they were made? Of course it was. Remember that Lord God/Jesus is brighter than the noonday Sun. Act 22:11

What had changed was that they had eaten the fruit of the tree and gained the knowledge of good and evil and concluded that being naked is bad because religion has this big thing against nudity for some reason.

1. You got it, since there is but ONE way to Heaven and that is to believe in the death for your sins, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures.

So God holds us to an impossible standard so we have to crawl to him to not be punished for all eternity?

2. It's certainly not imaginary. Your destiny for Eternity depends on your faith in the above Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Yeah, it's imaginary.

Your assurances that it is real are not going to convince me. Would me assuring you that Harry Potter is real convince you that Hogwarts was real? Of course not. So you have to provide more than just your say-so, okay?

Here's the key. Genesis Chapter one is the entire HISTORY of the 6 Days/Ages of the creation of the THIRD Heaven. This includes events in the future AFTER Jesus returns to this Earth at the end of the present 6th Day. Genesis 1:28-31 is prophecy. Most of the rest of the Bible, from Genesis 2:4-Revelation 22, is filled with the DETAILS of the outline given in Genesis chapter one. No one can tell us WHEN those events have happened in the past, since they are in the future.

Wow, I haven't seen so much strainin' to do some explainin' since I saw an argument online to explain why there were two USS Melbournes at Wolf 359...

Unless God judges perfectly, He is not God. His works are always perfect when they are finished or brought to perfection.

And yet he didn't seem to do perfect work when he created mankind capable of disobeying him and ruining the world...

Funny that.

In any case, does God judge those who never had the opportunity to learn about him?

He was speaking to the religionists of His day. New Testament teaching shows that you should not let one hand know what the other hand is giving.

Of course. Something in the Bible disagrees with your opinion, come up with some reason to claim it doesn't apply to us today.

You will when you stand before Jesus since He is brighter than the Sun. I've been so sinful I couldn't stand that much scrutiny and neither can you. I'm sure happy that Jesus forgave me while knowing what a rotten apple I've been my whole life. Jesus is the only physical Image of the invisible Spirit of Love. God is Love. He loves you.

No. Just no.

Why on earth do you think that you can convince me by showing me that you really believe it? Why would I believe it just because you do? You are just wasting your time. You want me to believe, show me EVIDENCE that I can put to the test! Until you do that, you are wasting your time and just looking preachy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Which came first?

People. They then invented the religion.

 

[AV1611VET]

People. They then invented the religion.

Well for the record, God came first, then Christmas.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well for the record, God came first, then Christmas.

Or, first Shiva came and then Maha Shivaratri

 

[AV1611VET]

Or, first Shiva came and then Maha Shivaratri

No.

 

[Kylie]

No.

It's just as valid as your claim.

But I forgot - you have a double standard when it comes to logic, don't you? If the logic applied to your beliefs supports your beliefs, then it is valid reasoning. But the instant that you apply it to other beliefs, it becomes invalid.

 

[Aman777]

You want me to believe, show me EVIDENCE that I can put to the test! Until you do that, you are wasting your time and just looking preachy.

If I didn't like you, I would let you skate on into Eternity just as you are. I've done my duty and told you. It's up to you now. It's your free choice. God Bless you

 

[Speedwell]

If I didn't like you, I would let you skate on into Eternity just as you are. I've done my duty and told you. It's up to you now. It's your free choice. God Bless you

Your concern for our immortal souls does you credit. But don't forget that many of us believe that faith in Christ is what saves us, not faith in Genesis.