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.
But the day will come for you when the question will be asked of you: "What did you do with the gospel information that was given and explained to you by the many Christian believers with whom you debated?"
DNA randomly mutates (albeit with some control over repairs).True. But nothing randomly mutates and there are no experimental limbs, eyes, organs, bones or body parts as evolutionists fail to admit.
Jesus never said to "sell" the gospel. His view was that His followers told people about the gospel and to let them decide whether they believe it or not. Selling the gospel like an Amway salesperson is man's idea not God's. Selling something through persuasive selling techniques means that the person can be "sold" out of it again.If God is the one asking the question, I'd respond that they needed better salespeople.
No. Not at all. God never forces or manipulates anyone into anything. He just enlightens the person concerning the truth of the gospel and it is up the the individual to believe it or reject it. But without that enlightenment, an unbeliever cannot believe in the way he needs to believe to be able to make a firm commitment to it. Otherwise it is a limited intellectual belief, and not a true belief of the heart.So are you retracting your comment that "unbelievers decide to be so"?
It is a theory, based on speculation and guesswork.DNA randomly mutates (albeit with some control over repairs).
There are no experimental traits because evolution is not teleological, it's not an experiment.
A scientific theory is "... an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid" (Wikipedia). The ToE has been extensively tested for 160 years, and is more robust and better understood than ever.It is a theory, based on speculation and guesswork.
The words used in the conclusions of those experiments and lines of evidence are: "probable", "could have", "might have", etc. It is widely accepted that there is not enough conclusive evidence to make evolution an absolute scientific law.A scientific theory is "... an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid" (Wikipedia). The ToE has been extensively tested for 160 years, and is more robust and better understood than ever.
It's based on multiple independent lines of evidence, including genetics, comparative anatomy, developmental biology, paleontology, biogeography, selection & breeding experiments, and more.
From each of these, one can infer evolution with common descent. Taken together, they are unequivocal.
It is widely accepted that there is not enough conclusive evidence to make evolution an absolute scientific law.
Scientific evidence is always qualified, often by statistical confidence levels. Theories are open to refinement, falsification, or replacement; there are no certainties or proofs outside formal logical systems (although in the case of evolution there's too much evidence from unrelated fields to have any reasonable doubt about the theory as a whole).The words used in the conclusions of those experiments and lines of evidence are: "probable", "could have", "might have", etc.
There is a difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law. That link should clarify the concepts for you.It is widely accepted that there is not enough conclusive evidence to make evolution an absolute scientific law. But then, that is a topic for another thread.
Evidence?Each animal was handpicked by God, not Noah.
So no actual evidence of any sort, just story-telling.So if God desired quick speciation, he could plan it without blinking.
Really?We don't know when the Flood was.
So the flood story is embellished.- The there may have been animals outside the reach of the flood
that the participants of the voyage did not know about.
- Other animals may have survived the flood.
So no mechanisms for post-flood hyperevolution, thanks.How do we know the Flood was just 4,500 years ago, when there is substantive evidence that the first migrants to the American continent occurred 20,000 years ago?
I know that there was some fellow in the 19th Century who did calculations and came to the conclusion that creation happened around 6,000 years ago, but he erred, not understanding the Jewish format concerning genealogy.
So, if the ark came to rest in the mountains of Ararat more than 20,000 years ago, there would have been plenty of time for the animals to migrate around the world.
Also, I read an article which states that sea levels have been rising for the last 1800 years (the extent that records go), and they have discovered the traces of civilization under the North Sea, which shows that animals and humans could have crossed from one continent to another through land bridges caused by extremely low sea levels.
Wow. Cannot argue with such logic.Scripture is spiritually correct.
So, no proposed mechanism for allele preservation/extinction, rapid macroevolution, etc.The story says that God brought seven pairs of each animal to the Ark.
I get that you haven't read the story yourself.
You'll likely get mad if I tell you that God closed the door on the Ark too.
Then you'll be miffed If I tell you it rained by God's doing.
15 Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the Lord shut him in.
That is because the notion of "half-formed" anything is naive bunk put forth by creationists.Most people are hard pressed finding any characteristic forms that are "half-formed".
No, I think that was foxes, being bred for fur farming.One researcher did breeding on a wolf pack. By breeding based on attitude or character traits the animals changed so much in just a few generations that they stopped the experiment because the wolves bred with a mild temperament were becoming too small and timid to survive back in the wild. So they stopped the selective breeding.
That is not miraculous.
The topic is the proposed mechanisms for post-flood hyper-diversification.This is debate could descend into to: "Yes it is". "No it's not". "Yes it is". "No it's not" - ad nauseum.
One generation? You're making things up, now?Nothing was half formed. They changed with no intermediate forms in one generation.
True. But nothing randomly mutates
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?