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.
It's a big game of connect-the-dots, isn't it?We also share ancestors with chimps, but we aren't chimps.
Both chimps and humans are primates.
We also share ancestors with lions, but we aren't lions.
Both humans and lions are mammals.
Likewise, we share ancestors with fish, but we aren't fish.
Both humans and fish are vertebrates though...
Incidentally, how do you define "atom"?That would depend on how you personally define "kind".
Incidentally, how do you define "atom"?
The online etymology dictionary defines it as coming from the word for "indivisible."
But since it has been divided, you would think the thing to do is change the word, wouldn't you?
I mean, if academia in the past was willing to change "kind" to "genus," why aren't they dealing their cards evenly across the table?
Or is it because "kind" is a Bible word, and academia's spiritual goal is to change or dilute every jot & tittle of the Bible?
Would it matter if it did?Or maybe it's because the word Kind as used in the Bible never had any clear definition,
Would it matter if it did?
If they're willing to pluto "child in the womb" to "fetus" or "virgin" to "young woman," would it really matter?
It's a big game of connect-the-dots, isn't it?
What am I supposed to say when someone asks me what a Biblical kind is?So then why do you insist that "kind" and "genus" have identical meanings?
Did I ever present it as a problem?I don't see that as a problem. In fact, it's the only way to ever solve anything.
...or "virgin" to "young woman," ...
Setting my belief of that aside, academia crawls all over that like ants on an ice cream cone, doesn't it?Actually, it was the Greek Septuagint which changed "young woman" to "virgin" when translating from the Hebrew.
Not that I think you'd believe me.
Setting my belief of that aside, academia crawls all over that like ants on an ice cream cone, doesn't it?
Kids can graduate college nowadays not knowing how to address, stamp, and mail a letter; but they can tell you what words are mistranslated in the KJB, can't they?
They can't tell you what nations come from Noah's sons; but they can tell you why WHITE CHRISTMAS is racist, can't they?
They can't tell you where the comma belongs in GOD REST YE MERRY GENTLEMEN; but they can tell you Genesis 1 and 2 are contradictions, can't they?
Whenever anyone changes a word in the Bible, I assume it is because they have been to college and taught that.But anyway, what does any of this millennials stuff have to do with Biblical academia?
Agree, connecting the dots can lead to a solution, but filling in between two points (dots) with sufficient, verifiable evidence that draws an irrefutable result is one thing, and accepting that they’re connected with significantly less evidence that uses speculative stretches in the gaps is another.Every problem/mystery that requires solving through investigation and research is.
I don't see that as a problem. In fact, it's the only way to ever solve anything.
The alternative would be to have the fully detailed picture right out the gates even before asking the questions and reality just doesn't work like that.
Every single problem / mystery that needs solving, is a game of connect-the-dots.
The initial dots are the "clues" you have, the data at your disposal.
You connect them and the picture that surfaces provides you with ideas on where to look for other clues / data. You can then see if they match the picture. If not, you start over and this time include the new "dots" as well.
This is the only way to solve problems.
Whenever anyone changes a word in the Bible, I assume it is because they have been to college and taught that.
Either that, or they have been to college and taught to think critically, and they choose to apply that critical thinking to the Bible.
So when you mentioned [Satan's] Septuagint, I assumed you picked that lie up somewhere in the halls of academia.
Satan doesn't want you guys to think your Creator was born of a virgin, so he had God's "virgin" rewritten as "young woman," and disseminates this information throughout the halls of academia and via such writings as Strong's Concordance and whatnot.
That lie has now infiltrated our churches via what is known as "psychoheresy" and voila!
We know have Mary being a "young woman," care of academia and ecclesia.
You just told me the Septuagint used the term "young woman" over "virgin;" and then you ask me if they "relied heavily on the Septuagint"?Concerning the Septuagint, however, I assume you disagree, then, with the theory that the writers of the gospels relied heavily on that translation of the Old Testament?
Agree, connecting the dots can lead to a solution, but filling in between two points (dots) with sufficient, verifiable evidence that draws an irrefutable result is one thing, and accepting that they’re connected with significantly less evidence that uses speculative stretches in the gaps is another.
Evolutionists and academia don’t seem to want to present finds and explain any connection as a possibility that they hope to verify, but rather with the first hint of a supposed tie they put them on a chart and present them as the logical flow to a captive audience.
Did I ever present it as a problem?
I've always presented it as a solution to evolution's problem, haven't I?
It looks like you are agreeing with me that evolution is a game of connect-the-dots.
Agree, connecting the dots can lead to a solution
but filling in between two points (dots) with sufficient, verifiable evidence that draws an irrefutable result is one thing, and accepting that they’re connected with significantly less evidence that uses speculative stretches in the gaps is another.
Evolutionists and academia don’t seem to want to present finds
and explain any connection as a possibility that they hope to verify
, but rather with the first hint of a supposed tie they put them on a chart and present them as the logical flow to a captive audience.
I am constantly amazed that you are unable to grasp basic points.
Lions and tigers both evolved from a common ancestor. As lions and tigers continue to evolve, they become more and more different.
A long time ago, shortly after lions and tigers diverged from their common ancestor, they would have been able to still interbreed, because their differences were quite small.
- Example: The finches on the Galapagos islands which are able to interbreed quite easily.
Now, more time has passed since lions and tigers diverged from their common ancestor. They are still similar enough to interbreed, but there are more differences now, and that makes it harder for them interbreed successfully.
- Example: Ligers, the males are completely sterile even though the females are fertile.
And in the future, lions and tigers will keep getting more and more different. Perhaps one day they may be able to produce offspring, but they will ALL be sterile offspring, both males and females.
- Example: mules and hinnies, which are both the result of breeding between horses and donkeys. They are almost invariably sterile in both sexes.
After that, lions and tigers will continue to diverge until eventually they won't be able to interbreed at all. They won't be able to produce any offspring at all.
- Example: Dogs and cats, which can't interbreed at all.
This is not a difficult concept to grasp. If you can't understand this, you really have no business trying to discuss evolution.
Have I not made it plain that I'm one of the biggest dot connectors around?Do you agree that every question that requires research/investigation to be answered, is like that? And not just evolution?
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?