First born

[Subduction Zone]

.
My belief is, the Bible teaches Creationism, while the world through Science teaches Evolution.

Evolution is a contradiction of Creationism, therefore, these two understandings are diametrically opposed.

Anyone declaring that they believe in Creationism, and Evolution at the same time, would then need to make a choice between the two, they are by Definition, mutually exclusive.


Would you say that the people in this thread who have an Atheist or Agnostic icon who claim to believe in Evolution, would ever believe in Creationism at the same time?

That was not the question. Too bad that you cannot see that one does not have to believe the false parts of the Bible to be a Christian.

 

[JIMINZ]

That was not the question. Too bad that you cannot see that one does not have to believe the false parts of the Bible to be a Christian.

.

one does not have to believe the false parts of the Bible to be a Christian.

Thank you, you just made my point for me to Nithaleva.

And, there are no false parts in the Bible.

 

[Nithavela]

.


Thank you, you just made my point for me to Nithaleva.

And, there are no false parts in the Bible.

The bible describes a circle with π equal to 3. That's a mathematical impossibility.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What I'm saying is that NO one can explain HOW the superior intelligence of God got inside prehistoric people and changed them into Humans

Exactly.

So why believe it?

 

[Nithavela]

Exactly.

So why believe it?

A bronze age book says so.

 

[lesliedellow]

.
My belief is, the Bible teaches Creationism, while the world through Science teaches Evolution.

Evolution is a contradiction of Creationism, therefore, these two understandings are diametrically opposed.

Anyone declaring that they believe in Creationism, and Evolution at the same time, would then need to make a choice between the two, they are by Definition, mutually exclusive.


Would you say that the people in this thread who have an Atheist or Agnostic icon who claim to believe in Evolution, would ever believe in Creationism at the same time?

The Bible teaches that there is a heavenly ocean above our heads. Are the astronauts atheists because they are quite sure there is no ocean up there?

 

[Subduction Zone]

.


Thank you, you just made my point for me to Nithaleva.

And, there are no false parts in the Bible.

I can see that you have never studied the Bible. There are countless false parts of the Bible. You really should study the Bible some day. There are hundreds of self contradictions. There is of course the myths of Genesis. There is the fact that the Bible describes the Earth as unmoving. In fact the Bible only describes the Earth as being flat. That is one of the reasons that there has be a recent upsurge in "Flat Earth" believers.

But once again, the false parts of the Bible do not mean that Christianity is wrong.

 

[xianghua]

It doesn't matter what happened before they became solid rock. Radiometric dating measures the time since the rock solidified. During that time, the rock was not at a high enough temperature to turn it into an ionized gas.

but if the ratio were already speed up before the rock formed then even in the formation moment the ratio will be wrong.

What DNA example?

this one for instance:


DNA sequences from Miocene fossils: an ndhF sequence of Magnolia latahensis (Magnoliaceae) and an rbcL sequence of Persea pseudocarolinensis (Laura... - PubMed - NCBI

 

[sfs]

but if the ratio were already speed up before the rock formed then even in the formation moment the ratio will be wrong.

No. You don't just assume some ratio was present. Either you use an isotope that couldn't be present in solidifying rock -- specifically the argon in potassium-argon dating, since argon is a gas -- or you use isochron dating to estimate the initial ratio.

this one for instance:


DNA sequences from Miocene fossils: an ndhF sequence of Magnolia latahensis (Magnoliaceae) and an rbcL sequence of Persea pseudocarolinensis (Laura... - PubMed - NCBI

That's universally regarded as incorrect these days. It was contamination from modern DNA. The field of ancient DNA research has advanced greatly since then, with much more stringent processes and controls to eliminate contamination.

 

[xianghua]

. It was contamination from modern DNA. The field of ancient DNA research has advanced greatly since then, with much more stringent processes and controls to eliminate contamination.

not in this case:

"The possibility of contamination is extremely low because no PCR products were detected in any negative controls, and the laboratory at Washington State University in which DNA of M. latahensis was extracted, amplified, and sequenced never possessed samples of the four extant species of Magnolia that share an ndhF sequence with M. latahensis."

 

[sfs]

not in this case:

"The possibility of contamination is extremely low because no PCR products were detected in any negative controls, and the laboratory at Washington State University in which DNA of M. latahensis was extracted, amplified, and sequenced never possessed samples of the four extant species of Magnolia that share an ndhF sequence with M. latahensis."

Yes, in this case.

However, due to the enormous power of PCR to amplify even a few copies of DNA sequences, modern DNA contamination has become a crucial problem. For this reason, many of the most extravagant reports on ancient DNA, including claims of DNA sequences surviving for millions of years in plants [6-8] and dinosaur bones [9], have been disputed and actually disregarded.

From here (the paper you're citing is reference 8).

 

[Loudmouth]

.
Why then do you keep pushing the Theory of Evolution as though it was in fact the truth when we all know it is nothing more than and assertion, assumption, supposition, conjecture....HUH?

We accept the theory of evolution because of the mountains of evidence that support it.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[xianghua]

Yes, in this case.

thanks. so we found a 20my DNA when science show us that DNA cant survive such a long time:


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291781657_Biomolecules_in_fossil_remains

 

[Subduction Zone]

thanks. so we found a 20my DNA when science show us that DNA cant survive such a long time:


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291781657_Biomolecules_in_fossil_remains

Please quote from the articles that you did not understand.

 

[Loudmouth]

thanks. so we found a 20my DNA when science show us that DNA cant survive such a long time:


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291781657_Biomolecules_in_fossil_remains

If you read sfs' post you would see that these results are considered to be contamination from modern sources.

 

[Aman777]

Meaning? Well, in every modern translation, instead of "giants" it reads "Nethilim", so with your emendation it would read "intellectual Nethilim". Furthermore, although "intellectual giants" may be idiomatic English, it is far from clear that it would be idiomatic Hebrew.

Today's Humans are the nĕphiyl. We are the "mighty" ones, as evidenced by the very FIRST nĕphiyl to be produced by Noah's grandson Cush and a prehistoric woman, after the Ark arrived on planet Earth.

Gen 10:8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.

Inside Nimrod was the intelligence of Adam which is like God's intelligence. Gen 3:22 Also, inside Nimrod was the DNA of the common ancestor of Apes. Judging from the sinning on today's nĕphiyl, we ARE the fallen ones, literally. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

They can't explain it because there's no evidence that such a thing ever happened. The evidence indicates that intelligence evolved slowly over a long period.

Agreed, IF we are speaking of today's physical Humans, BUT it did not evolve over time within a population. It happened in just ONE generation and was caused by Noah's grandsons, since they had NO other Humans to marry. God tells us that like Cain, they married and produced children with the prehistoric women who had been on planet Earth for MILLIONS of years before the Ark arrived. Gen 6:4 I will be glad to show you my views on the verse in case you cannot understand. God Bless you

 

[Aman777]

tevans9129 said: ↑
Can anyone provide physical evidence of the first mammal that was born? What was the mother (species) and what was the father (species) Not interested in speculation, conjecture, beliefs, I am looking for something that can stand up to a challenge?

Adam was the first creature made which science classifies as a "mammal". They are mistaken since they falsely assume that Humans evolved from Apes. Humans were the FIRST living creatures made BEFORE the plants, herbs and trees. Gen 2:4-9 Jesus/Lord God made Adam from the dust of the ground and he had no Mother. Adam was "formed" like a Potter molds clay and given Life by the only God ever formed or that ever will be formed, Jesus Christ. Isa 43:10-11

Jhn 1:3 All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made.

God Bless you

 

[JIMINZ]

The bible describes a circle with π equal to 3. That's a mathematical impossibility.

.
I love it, thanks.

 

[Nithavela]

.
I love it, thanks.

You're.. welcome?