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.
Mechanical Bliss said:It has nothing to do with evolution, troll.
Nice dodge, troll. But CALLING you a troll isn't the same as hiring a team of clowns to run around your house spray painting troll over everything. That verse specifically refers to actions, not words.JohnR7 said:Matthew 25:40
And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'
Are you calling the King a troll?
.
lucaspa said:Reinvented the wheel. You just restated the position of the book Oomphalos by Paul Gosse published in 1857.
LOL! Lamarckism is AGAINST Darwinism, since it involves inheritance of ACQUIRED characteristics. Darwinism doesn't allow that, and neither does biochemistry and genetics.
obediah001 said:The creation does not look bilions of years old thet perception is the Big Lie of our day as all of Creation shouts the young age. Only Evil-uotion THEORY says otherwise & theory is all it is, thereis NO proof of any of its claims.
Philosoft said:Well, the first edition of Origin lacked a theoretical foundation for natural selection to operate on, so the second edition in 1869(?) postulated something like Lamarckism. Mendel's work of 1866 languished unrecognized until about 1900, when genetics and natural selection were synthesized into modern neo-Darwinism.
Not exactly a "logical implication," but maybe what truthteller is talking about.
"Basis" in this context means "physical means of inheriting characteristics which form the operating basis for natural selection." In short, Darwin was ignorant of Mendelian genetics.Plan 9 said:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin.html
Above is the link to the first edition of The Origin of Species.
I've been reading for some time and Darwin seems to me to have a decent theoretical foundation to go on. Perhaps you'd like to read for a while and then quote some specific passages with which to make your point?
Plan 9 said:As Lucaspa has already pointed out, the Earth looked billions of years old to Henry Phillip Gosse, one of the last reputable scientists to be a Creationist, and he wrote Omphalos: An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot, which was published in 1857, to account for it.
According to Gould, Omphalos did not assert that God "lied" in giving the Earth an appearence of great age, but this probably isn't interesting enough to go into for most readers of this thread.
If you want to be a Creationist, perhaps you should get to know the old Creationists better?
Philosoft said:Well, the first edition of Origin lacked a theoretical foundation for natural selection to operate on, so the second edition in 1869(?) postulated something like Lamarckism. Mendel's work of 1866 languished unrecognized until about 1900, when genetics and natural selection were synthesized into modern neo-Darwinism.
Not exactly a "logical implication," but maybe what truthteller is talking about.
Plan 9 said:Do you think these folks have reinvented the wheel or do you think his ideas have been passed along without credit?
Either way, he should be credited, as you have done.
lucaspa said:They reinvent the wheel. They have not assimilated history. How could they? If they paid attention to history then they would have to admit that creationism had already been falsified.
So, instead of availing themselves of the knowledge of the collective (the knowledge of those who have gone before) they act like individual drones and have to make everything up as they go along.
BTW, I doubt Truthteller is going to be back to this thread.
To do anything of a practical nature requires no belief in the long ages.
Time is relative. Einstein made that very clear and so does the Bible. At the speed of light there is no time. Some say God is pure energy, so for God time does not exist. How old is the universe? 13.9 Billion years. When did the age or era we live in begin? 12,900 years ago. What does the Bible say? This is the end of the 13 day. So a day can be 1000 years and a day can be a billion years. It depends on your perspective and your viewpoint.If you believe in a miraculous Creation, they say, well, it could have been last Tuesday, and God would have created everything with an illusion of age, therefore God would be a deceiver. A variant of this argument is that He then deceived the world by making it look like it's billions of years old.
The wheel did not change for 4,000 years it remained the same. When they decided to reinvent the wheel, change came very fast. In this case necessity is the mother of invention. Bicycles, tractors, trucks and cars needed a better tire, so they invented one. So where is the theory that change is suppose to be slow and gradual over time?They reinvent the wheel.
The oil companies would disagree in a major way with you. All of their science on where to look for oil is completely dependent upon a very old earth geology.To do anything of a practical nature requires no belief in the long ages.
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?