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.
Are you a robot with no independent mind? So far you keep posting these propaganda and misinformations that have nothing to do with the OP. Again, I mentioned nothing about Trump, the Capitol, the indictment or any of those stuffs, why are you so obsessed with it and posting it?
Honestly when I hear stories of experts finding missing links to species I can't help but remember the fraudulent account of the Piltdown Man , i mean after such a hoax in 1912 where people truly believed they had found a missing link between apes and men, why should i believe a possibly fraudulent claim that goes against what The Bible teaches as God creating all things.No, it's "missing lynx." And they found it:
Lynx issiodorensis - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
As your fellow YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise writes, the large number of hominid fossils is some of the "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Would you like to see some of that?
Dr. Wise rebutted that belief by citing numerous examples of transitional series.
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certain CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
Even more convincing, there are no transitional forms were evolutionary theory does not predict them.
You've confused adaptation with evolution.
You might want to write this down for future reference.
- Your skin getting red in the shower is adaptation, but not evolution.
- A mutation that happens to do nothing is evolution, but not adaptation.
- A mutation that allows Tibetans to safely live at high altitudes is adaptation and evolution.
If you did it would invalidate evolutionary theory. Evolution happens to populations, not individuals.
If there was, it would be peculiar, since humans evolved from other apes, not monkeys.
But there are dozens of transitional hominids between other apes and humans:
Here are some of the more important ones:
Yes, it caused a good deal of concern when it was found, because it was exactly the opposite of what evolutionary theory predicted. A large cranium with an apelike jaw was not expected. Evolutionary theory predicted a manlike body with a small cranium. So a lot of embarrassed scientists, until one evolutionist was able to show it was a fake. BTW, evolutionary theory correctly predicted the actual nature of hominid fossils. They have relatively manlike postcranial skeletons and small crania.
The Bible just says God made living things, but doesn't provide the details. But many creationist organizations now admit that new species and even higher taxa come from other species. Would you like to see that?
Genesis 1:25
The text of Genesis makes it clear that the "yom" of the creation story are not literal 24-hour days. By definition there can be no literal mornings or evenings before there was a sun to have them.
I'm just showing you the evidence. Are you telling me that the police are lying? Is there anyone you think isn't lying? Did you not see all the video taken by the insurgents themselves? Did you not hear their statements that Trump ordered them to attack the Capitol? Are they lying, too?
I'm just pointing out one major incident of domestic terrorism. As you see, the police correctly identified it as such. Here's why:
I'm not here to watch any video, neither do I care about Trump or the so called insurrection three years ago, I'm here to talk about God, not Trump.
I'm not here to listen to any policeman, neither do I wanna receive any lecture on terrorism. I'm here to talk about God, not terrorism.
that's where you lost me. So even though time exists you're telling me there couldn't have been 12 hour time spans of day and night? Also God emits light, according to revelation 21:23
I'm pointing out that by definition, "morning" and "evening" require a sun to have them. But the sun didn't exist the first day. So we know it's figurative.
But no mornings or evenings. By definition.
Not the only reason, but as early Christians like St. Augustine observed, it is absurd to speak of mornings and evenings without sun to have them.
Evolution was just the observation of what happens. The creation story was considered to be figurative as the text itself shows us that it is.
Yes. Putting a reinterpretation of those days as literal 24-hour days is adding to scripture. We should lean on what the Bible actually says and not rewrite it to fit our narrative.
it's not adding to scripture, it's just plain reading. What you're doing is adding. As far as early Christians go there were plenty of early Christians that thought the Earth was flat.
No, what happens in observation is adaptation and variation. Some call it "micro evolution", which is just a play of words, and it cannot be extrapolated to "macro evolution over millions of years". "Macro evolution" is a myth that contradicts modern scientific discoveries of genetics and epigenetics.
If there is no narrative to explain away the literal description of the way God created the world, then there is no way people can question other aspects of the Bible as being true. BUT as I'm sure you may already know, if you can question how God created things and put our own narrative, then we can question other aspects of the Bible and other aspects of the Bible and put our own narrative on what it really means.
This is just fulfillment of this particular portion of the Scripture. In western world the word of God is often rendered as foolishness or superstition, but "the foolishness of God is wiser than men". Contrary to popular belief and conventional wisdom, science is not a god, there's no absolute certainties, usually a "law of physics" is just a known and observable pattern of how things in nature behave, most of them are theories, and any of these theories in the textbook can be seriously challenged by new discoveries and evidence, especially in the fields of biogoly and genetics.
It's using the word in a new way to avoid the logical consequences.
No, several hundred years before Christ was born, people knew the Earth was round. Eratosthenes of Alexandria even accurately measured the circumference of the Earth. That's just a story people tell. Every educated person in the Roman world was well aware that the Earth is round.
We directly observe it happening. Can't get much more real than that. Perhaps you don't know what biological evolution is. What do you think it is?
Doesn't matter. Other people see these discussions and make conclusions. You play an important role in that.but i'll save you the work and let you know i'm not buyin
You're confusing adaptation and evolution.
"Microevolution" is evolution in a population that does not produce a new species. "Macroevolution" is speciation. We see both happening. I think what you are thinking of is common descent of all living things on Earth. As your fellow YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise admit, there is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Would you like to learn about some of it?
We don’t see physical changes over time we just see different species, different variations of the same animals. We don’t see any specific animal going thru the process of becoming a different animal. We do see that some animals became extinct. And we can’t say that cows didn’t exist just because we haven’t found any.
What are some examples of evidence supporting macroevolution?
