Subduction Zone
Regular Member
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.
Upvote
0
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.
.
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.
one does not have to believe the false parts of the Bible to be a Christian.
The bible describes a circle with π equal to 3. That's a mathematical impossibility..
Thank you, you just made my point for me to Nithaleva.
And, there are no false parts in the Bible.
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
.
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?
.
Thank you, you just made my point for me to Nithaleva.
And, there are no false parts in the Bible.
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.
What DNA example?
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.but if the ratio were already speed up before the rock formed then even in the formation moment the ratio will be wrong.
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.
. 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.
Yes, in this case.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."
From here (the paper you're citing is reference 8).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.
.
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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?