• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Loch Ness Monster debunks evolution

Inan3

Veteran Saint
Jul 22, 2007
3,376
88
West of the Mississippi
✟27,875.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Oh, so "things evolving" is not the same as evolution? I have heard pretty wild claims by creationists before, but this one beats even AV's "embedded age".

I never said that. As a matter of fact my point was just the opposite. I was referring to your explanation and trying to make the point that it didn't explain anything. It wasn't informative enough. Just as telling someone, who might not know what evolution means, that it means "things evolving." That still doesn't give them enough information to understand what evolution is. It is explaining it's meaning by basically using the same words to define itself. Redundant, in other words. NOT ENOUGH INFO. I do hope you can understand this. You seemed to miss many of my points and got them all mixed up. Sort of like those poor people who couldn't understand what sperm were.

So, no people were not predicting common ancestry that long ago.

I wasn't talking about people predicting common ancestry. I was talking about people being able to predict that "junior" was going to look/act/think be like his mama or papa or relatives just by simple observation. You were wrong about what I was saying....again.

And yes, the DNA of your cousin being at the exact distance where common ancestry predicts it to be is evidence that common ancestry is a sound scientific hypothesis. Your cousin's DNA being closer to yours than it is to his mother would weaken support for common ancestry, but that is not the case.

Please explain on both points how it does so. Now remember I'm looking for you to explain HOW it does that, not just repeat that it does that.

The same holds for relationships that are deeper in time, the absolute same principle. A lion and a tiger have DNAs that are closer to one another than either are to dogs. If everything was "designed", things that look alike would have similar DNA, and things that don't would have different DNA, regardless of ancestry, but that is not the case.

Well, it seems like you just contradicted yourself. Please elaborate on this because what I'm reading suggests that you disagree with yourself. What I'm saying is, YOU just said that the lion and the tiger have SIMILAR DNA's ... more so than they do to dogs ... and then you said if they were "designed", things that LOOK alike would have SIMILAR DNA and things that don't would have different DNA. Well, I know we differ on a lot of things but in my opinion Lions and Tigers LOOK more SIMILAR to each other and they DON"T look as similar to dogs!!! What am I missing?
 
Upvote 0

Inan3

Veteran Saint
Jul 22, 2007
3,376
88
West of the Mississippi
✟27,875.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
[/COLOR]

Here is the paper I linked to earlier.

Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

Can you please show how this is conjecture and speculation?

Well, I will admit that this one does not use that much if any but there are many others out there that do. And just because I admit this, does not mean that I give credibility to the whole article. I can't because I do not know enough about it but I do know enough about science to know that not EVERYTHING that is written is 100% the whole story.... not a lie but just not the whole story.
 
Upvote 0

Inan3

Veteran Saint
Jul 22, 2007
3,376
88
West of the Mississippi
✟27,875.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Retroviruses insert randomly amongst millions of potential insertion sites. Therefore, the chances that two retroviruses will insert into the same position in two genomes (even identical genomes) is quite low.

What do we see in the human and chimp genome? We find hundreds of thousands of old retroviral insertions called ERV's (endogenous retroviral insertions). If humans and chimps do not share a common ancestor then these insertions came about through separate infections in each species. Therefore, we would expect to find few, if any, ERV's at the same position (i.e. orthologous) in each genome. If humans and chimps share a common ancestor then we would expect to find many, if not most, ERV's to be found in the same position since these ERV's would have been inherited from a common ancestor. If you have siblings, for example, you would find that you share ERV insertions at the same position in each of your genomes. This is because you inherited them from your parents.

So what do we find? When the human and chimp genomes were sequenced they found over 200,000 ERV's in the human genome. When they comapred the chimp genome to the human genome they found that only a few hundred were not found at the same location. Nearly all of the ERV's were found at the same location in both genomes. This is smoking gun evidence for common ancestry.

Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) - YouTube

We observe evolution with each and every generation.

We observe God and creation in each and every generation.

I see creationists claiming this all of the time, but they never ever present this evidence to us. Wonder why that is?

Because you won't accept what we tell you and you refuse to believe because you can't "observe" it with your natural eye. You think your intelligence is the way and the answer to all but it is NOT the answer to finding God.

1Co 1:19 The scripture says, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise and set aside the understanding of the scholars."
1Co 1:20 So then, where does that leave the wise? or the scholars? or the skillful debaters of this world? God has shown that this world's wisdom is foolishness!
1Co 1:21 For God in his wisdom made it impossible for people to know him by means of their own wisdom. Instead, by means of the so-called "foolish" message we preach, God decided to save those who believe.

Perhaps you can tell us how ERV's are evidence of creation.

Maybe someday, LM!!

Over 99% of biologists accept evolution as an accurate theory. The ones with the most in depth knowledge of the evidence accept evolution, and this crosses all faiths and philosophies.

That is a bogus number. There are far less than people declare.



So you have no empirical evidence to back up your claims, correct?

Not so!!

According to Wikipedia
"Empirical research is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience. Empirical evidence (the record of one's direct observations or experiences) can be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively"

And according to this definition, I can give you plenty of Empirical evidence. There have been millions of lives changed and effected when they came into contact with God by believing in Him. So we can predict that if someone will actually believe in God and receive His Son Jesus Christ as the own personal Saviour they too will be changed and and effected by that contact with God. And beyond that many have heard from God both audibly and inaudibly, many have been miraculously healed by believing in what Jesus Christ did for them, many have been set free from bondages of many kinds and on and on. This has been observed for THOUSANDS of years.

If you are looking for some physical ocular evidence of God or of His Kingdom you will have to wait for awhile... not long now. When Jesus comes back you will see a physical evidence but for now you will just have to take the evidence above.

Luk 17:20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh NOT with observation: Greek meaning = inspection; ocular evidence.

Luk 17:20 Some Pharisees asked Jesus when the Kingdom of God would come. His answer was, "The Kingdom of God DOES NOT COME in such a way as to be seen.
Luk 17:21 No one will say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!'; because the Kingdom of God is within you."


What God? Evidence please.

If you want to see God you must believe first and I can't show you Him until you do. For you to come or approach God you must FIRST believe in Him then you will have all the evidence you need. God is a Spirit and our approach to Him is in spirit and in truth. God is invisible and has created both things visible AND invisible. Some things you just can't see with the naked eye. You have to see them first by the eye of faith then you will understand and know they are real.

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Heb_11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a Rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.

Col_1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col_1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and for Him:
 
Upvote 0

Inan3

Veteran Saint
Jul 22, 2007
3,376
88
West of the Mississippi
✟27,875.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How about you stop making general speculations and conjectures, why don't you post exactly what you read about evolution that you think is "wrong"? No evolutionist believes in "proof".

Just so you know CabVet I am not new to these debates so please stop trying to throw your weight around. It is not necessary or effective. I have posted these before but IF and I strongly say IF I feel like looking up a bunch of these things I will.

As to "proof", I know they say that but if that be true then why do they require it of creationists? And you say that in this post but chances are that in another post you'll be calling for "proof" or suggesting certain things "prove" evolution is true. I'm just saying....
 
Upvote 0