Honest questions?

[AV1611VET]

Non sequitur.

Of course --

That's my trademark.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Accepting micro without macro is like saying addition and subtraction exist but multiplication and division don't when they hit a boundary (0) they cannot cross.

Only you, AV. Only you.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Of course --

That's my trademark.

Well, if you'll notice, you'll see that your post was and mine have the same time stamp.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Oh look, AV derails another thread.

Oh, it gets better -- he necroed the thread just so he could derail it.

Sad that he couldn't think of a single honest question to ask; but then again, he rarely does.

 

[juvenissun]

No, absolutely not. Science has deep roots in ancient Greece, early China, the Arab world in the Middle Ages, etc. It's quite vain of you to believe it all stemmed from Christianity. Actually, during the Enlightenment, the Christian Church was getting pretty irritated that science was departing from being just a group of people out to prove the Bible right. I'm sure many scientists back then were inspired by their faith to study the world, but that's hardly reason to claim that modern science was birthed from Christianity. It seems these days that a sizable chunk of American Christians wish to insert religion back into the science classroom anyway...

That is what my question asked about. Could we say that those "many scientists" actually set the foundation at that time, which leads to the development of modern science?

LewisWildermuth, this question is actually for you. Where are you?

 

[sandwiches]

What technology uses macroevolution in its development?

Some medicine uses evolutionary theory in its development. All I'm saying is that you don't have to accept that it's true. All you have to do is justify it or twist it to where you won't feel bad about benefiting from what you claim doesn't exist, right?

Then you won't mind if I go ahead and use 'technology, medicine, or whatever', will you?

I don't think anyone minds. Personally, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of your actions is all. If using your "Boolean standards" make you feel better about using something you claim doesn't exist, then by all means. Just don't expect to not be called out on it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some medicine uses evolutionary theory in its development.

I said 'macroevolution'.

Before you consider me a verse-twisting hypocrite, you might want to understand the angle (torque?) I'm coming from.

 

[Split Rock]

3. How does evolution explain Ussher's time line?

Ussher's time line is based on a geneology which is either:
A. Incomplete
B. Incorrect

4. How does evolution explain Jesus being a man?

What else would he be?

 

[AV1611VET]

What else would he be?

Where did He get the Y-chromosome?

 

[Skaloop]

Where did He get the Y-chromosome?

Did you mean a man as in a male human, or man as in mankind?

 

[Belk]

Where did He get the Y-chromosome?

The same place he got the rest of the chromosome pairs he inherited?

 

[AV1611VET]

The same place he got the rest of the chromosome pairs he inherited?

Then evolution is blasphemous, since it denies the virgin birth of Christ.

 

[Belk]

Then evolution is blasphemous, since it denies the virgin birth of Christ.

I must have missed that. Perhaps you can point out where that is stated in the theory?

 

[AV1611VET]

I must have missed that. Perhaps you can point out where that is stated in the theory?

You've never heard of the virgin birth?

What's with even basic doctrine being questioned now?

LOL

Google is your friend.

 

[Belk]

You've never heard of the virgin birth?

What's with even basic doctrine being questioned now?

LOL

Basic doctrine is a theory now? I was asking where the theory of evolution states that Jesus was not born of a virgin birth as you claimed.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Then evolution is blasphemous, since it denies the virgin birth of Christ.

Evolution is not actually the theory that established that you need an egg and a sperm to make a zygote. That would be cell theory. Is that blasphemous?

 

[Skaloop]

Then evolution is blasphemous, since it denies the virgin birth of Christ.

Not necessarily; God provided the male portion of DNA. Not with His own DNA, of course, but He used the appropriate bits to make Jesus, genetically, the way He wanted Him to be. That would be compatible with evolution for everything else.

 

[AV1611VET]

Basic doctrine is a theory now? I was asking where the theory of evolution states that Jesus was not born of a virgin birth as you claimed.

Oh, sorry -- I misunderstood the question.

I asked where Jesus got His y-chromosome, and you said:

The same place he got the rest of the chromosome pairs he inherited?

You don't see blasphemy here?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Then evolution is blasphemous, since it denies the virgin birth of Christ.

Yet another reason to ignore the whole "virgin birth" myth -- besides the poor translation it was based on, of course.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution is not actually the theory that established that you need an egg and a sperm to make a zygote. That would be cell theory. Is that blasphemous?

Tell Belk that -- I'm not interested.

All I want to know is: From an evolutionary perspective, where would Jesus have gotten His y-chromosome?

I can't believe an evolutionist has no specific answer.