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.
Barbarian observes:
(Darwin) thought God just created the first living things. So either you're completely wrong, or "demonic" doesn't mean what the dictionary says it means.
There's only one. I thought you knew. And we always capitalize His name.
insurmountable problems
What's His Name?
Hebrews call Him Yahweh. We call Him God. Don't worry about it; there's only one. He'll know what you mean.
But what is evolved to some may just be a variation of an original design blueprint that has great scope to change.
That great scope to change is part of the design software so to speak just like a computer software has scope to create many variations.
Afterall all the changes talked about within species still only have the same basic body plans that have either become bigger, smaller, longer, flatter, disappeared, reappeared etc ect.
These changes are perhaps influenced by environments such as with larger animals and plants it was higher levels of oxygen, But a massive limb is still a limb just like a very small one on an insect. It could even be that the original design has the ability to produce new systems that can produce extensions of the original design like a system within a system. But still, this is something inherent from the original design.
Something perhaps we will never be able to understand and reproduce artificially and something that cannot be reproduced by a random and blind process.
People call many things "God"...it's not a name, but derives from "Gott".
No.
"God" and "Gott" are cognates, both most likely derived from proto-Indoeuropean "*ghut." We call Him God, because He is the only one.
Is Allah God?
Allah is what Arabic Christians call God.
Is Allah God?
So, your answer is yes?
Barbarian observes:
Allah is what Arabic Christians call God. When Moses asked Him, so he could tell the Israelites Who sent him, God replies "I am that I am." Literally, “Ehyeh asher ehyeh.”
That depends on whether or not you think Moses had it right, I suppose.
As I understand it Allah may be related to the word Alahim (Elohim
you think that ICR and the others of their ilk are giving reasonable excuses for their pseudoscience. Anyone who actually understands basic science knows that their explanations have insurmountable problems . Morris’ hydrological sorting idea explains , for example,that dinosaurs were slower than horses, which is why they’re found lower in the fossil record. But it doesn’t explain how magnolias were able to outrun ferns . The creationist explanation for paleontological geology is ad hoc and if looked at in detail , is also rather silly! ALL creationist explanations of natural phenomena are like that. Which is why the scientific community ignores them ( and does eye rolls and facepalms when they read them)
gods are a dime a dozen. Fallen angels have been gods. Rome had lots of Gods, as does, I think, Hinduism. Greek had gods coming out the gazebo. Babylon, Egypt...etc etc.Barbarian observes:
(Darwin) thought God just created the first living things. So either you're completely wrong, or "demonic" doesn't mean what the dictionary says it means.
There's only one. I thought you knew. And we always capitalize His name.
gods are a dime a dozen.
Now when we have a claim from science that man arose from some single celled creature
and then the lifeform underwent endless changes that are responsible for all types of life on earth,
that is not from the spirit or word of God.
Not for Christians.
In the longer term, bananas, cockroaches, worms, man, etc etc etc are all said to have a common ancestor. Then they get into grouping the ape skulls with the post flood man skulls, etc etc as if man came from the animals. That is not fact, that is belief.That's not what science says. It says humans evolved from other species of humans.
We know. NOT part of the word of God though, obviously.Common descent is part of science, yes.
Satan also uses the vanity and so called wisdom of man to deceive. So, how can we know the difference? One way. His word. Period.But of course, science uses man's intelligence to learn all the things about God's creation that He didn't tell us about in scripture.
Right. Sub-atomic particles are part of His scriptures. Could it be that you have a non-scriptural belief that it can't be true, if it's not in the Bible?
In the longer term, bananas, cockroaches, worms, man, etc etc etc are all said to have a common ancestor.
Satan also uses the vanity and so called wisdom of man to deceive.
So, how can we know the difference?
One God, may gods.(verses about gods)
There is only one God. He created you. Don't confuse fake gods with the real thing. They aren't real; God is.
The first evidence for that came long before Darwin. Linnaeus produced a family tree that showed relationships between living things.
Later, when DNA was understood, it was predicted that DNA analysis would show the same evolutionary relationships. It does. And we know it works, because we can test it on organisms of known descent.
That is not in the bible. What is in the bible is the old serpent in the garden trying to cast doubt that God meant what He said!Example of Satan doing so: "Did God not say that living things reproduce according to their kind?"
He deludes creationists by using part of the truth.
Not relationships due to common ancestry.
Great, show an example of this...ha.
That is not in the bible.
Not for the distant past. That is only inferred by faith based on how things work today. I kid you not.Turns out, it does show common ancestry.
Linnaeus, impressed with the family tree he got for living things, tried to do it with minerals. Couldn't do it. Because we see nested hierarchies only in cases of common descent.
I agree (except the faith based imaginary timeframe) Post flood man did start to have modern DNA. try to show some from before Noah and you will run into a wall so high, that you need a telescope to see the top. I suspect the flood may have been somewhere around the time the KT layer was put down. Feel free to offer DNA from before that!Sure.
Two new papers add DNA from 64 ancient individuals to the sparse genetic record of the Americas. They show that people related to the Anzick child, part of the Clovis culture, quickly spread across both North and South America about 13,000 years ago.
Ancient DNA confirms Native Americans’ deep roots in North and South America
Part of what God said, to be more precise. The part he uses will tend to be opposed directly to other parts He said. That is the name of the game.He deludes creationists by using part of the truth.
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?