Is there any evidence for evolution?

[AV1611VET]

Actually it was settled in the first century.

That's true!

 

[AV1611VET]

Just as long as it says what you want it to say then it's all good.
Never mind the quality feel the width.

Didn't you just see one of our seasoned (no pun intended) posters try and cast doubt on God's word by using another gospel, complete with a comparison pic?

 

[lesliedellow]

All settled by the KJB and Its Predecessors.

I'm afraid not.

 

[Ophiolite]

The Earth has been around for about 4.6 billion years.

Would it not be more correct to say it has been a sphere for that time, rather than a round?

 

[Loudmouth]

Would it not be more correct to say it has been a sphere for that time, rather than a round?

Oblate spheroid would be the correct term.

 

[Ophiolite]

Oblate spheroid would be the correct term.

I considered a footnote to that effect, but the true situation is more complex, since there is a inverted pear shape imposed on the oblate spheroid. That leaves the most accurate - and indisputable - term as geoid: Earth shaped.

 

[Nicky Blass]

Didn't you just see one of our seasoned (no pun intended) posters try and cast doubt on God's word by using another gospel, complete with a comparison pic?

"Gods word" is merely a label put on writings by some people who want to believe in such things, there is so much wrong with the term "God's word" that I wouldn't know were to start.

 

[AV1611VET]

... there is so much wrong with the term "God's word" that I wouldn't know were to start.

Good.

Maybe you'll keep quiet about it then.

 

[Nicky Blass]

Good.

Maybe you'll keep quiet about it then.

I will because I don't want to upset the apple cart.

 

[AV1611VET]

I will because I don't want to upset the apple cart.

You're a good man.

 

[florida2]

Couldn't closer genetics just simply mean more closely created like each other? Why does it have to prove a common ancestor, instead of common blueprints?

It's more complicated than I said in my post. Sharing DNA is a key piece of evidence for evolution. I suggest you look up ERVs and how they are evidence for common ancestry. There have been threads about it in the past. DNA is used to prove common ancestry in paternity tests, basically the same principle is used when examining species.

Genetic evidence for evolution is the best that there is, that's before I even get into things like nested hierarchies. If you want to learn about what science actually says about evolution (from your posts it seems you know little or nothing) I'll be glad to help

 

[florida2]

Only the:

1. AV330 Gothic Version
2. AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
3. AV1389 Wycliffe
4. AV1525 Tyndale
5. AV1560 Geneva Bible
6. AV1568 Bishop's Bible
7. AV1611 King James Bible

You are able to show that's the case because...?

 

[AV1611VET]

You are able to show that's the case because...?

I can't think of any other versions closer to the KJB.

They're pretty tight.

And given the fact that God said He would preserve His word ...

 

[florida2]

I can't think of any other versions closer to the KJB.

They're pretty tight.

And given the fact that God said He would preserve His word ...

So that means that he's kept on preserving his word through all the late versions and translations as well?

 

[AV1611VET]

So that means that he's kept on preserving his word through all the late versions and translations as well?

Nope.

He stopped after the quota set in Psalm 12.

Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

 

[W2L]

Gods word is preserved, for those who have ears to hear it. His sheep know his voice and follow it. Are there false teachers and doctrines as well? Of course, its always been that way.

 

[Nicky Blass]

Gods word is preserved, for those who have ears to hear it. His sheep know his voice and follow it. Are there false teachers and doctrines as well? Of course, its always been that way.

How are people supposed to tell the difference between them all? it all sounds a bit hit and miss to me.

 

[AdamSK]

How are people supposed to tell the difference between them all? it all sounds a bit hit and miss to me.

Search the scriptures. Galatians 1 - if any preach a Gospel other than what has been received, let him be accursed.

 

[mark kennedy]

It's more complicated than I said in my post. Sharing DNA is a key piece of evidence for evolution. I suggest you look up ERVs and how they are evidence for common ancestry. There have been threads about it in the past. DNA is used to prove common ancestry in paternity tests, basically the same principle is used when examining species.

So if the ERVs we have in common are evidence for common ancestry then the most abundant family of ERVs being absent from the human genome is an argument against right?

PtERV1-like elements are present in the rhesus monkey, olive baboon and African great apes but not in human, orang-utan or gibbon, suggesting separate germline invasions in these species. (Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome, Nature 2005)​

With more than 100 members, CERV 1/PTERV1 is one of the most abundant families of endogenous retroviruses in the chimpanzee genome. (Genome Biol. 2006).

Genetic evidence for evolution is the best that there is, that's before I even get into things like nested hierarchies. If you want to learn about what science actually says about evolution (from your posts it seems you know little or nothing) I'll be glad to help

You can help him with this one:

The 118-bp HAR1 region showed the most dramatically accelerated change, with an estimated 18 substitutions in the human lineage since the human;chimpanzee ancestor, compared with the expected 0.27 substitutions on the basis of the slow rate of change in this region in other amniotes. Only two bases (out of 118) are changed between chimpanzee and chicken, indicating that the region was present and functional in our ancestor at least 310 million years (Myr) ago. No orthologue of HAR1 was detected in the frog (Xenopus tropicalis), any of the available fish genomes, or in any invertebrate lineage, indicating that it originated no more than about 400Myr ago See FIGURE 2 from An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans. (Nature 443, 167-172 14 September 2006)

​

Genetic evidence is by far the strongest evidence against Darwinian logic. The way most, if not all Darwinians deal with it, they simply ignore the differences. They appear to have abandoned fossils because not people can find out for themselves what the features are and that throws the argument into a tail spin.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[W2L]

How are people supposed to tell the difference between them all? it all sounds a bit hit and miss to me.

Read the scriptures, and seek for the Lord. He said seek and you will find.