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.
They shouldn't. Evolution moves at supersonic speeds anytime the pressure is great. Near extinction causes the fastest changes in populations. Common evolution knowledge.
If evolution is true, then death is in the world long before humans. That is in stark contrast to what the Scriptures say. The Bible says that death entered by the sin of one man.
How do you "harmonize" that?
If evolution is true, then thorns and thistles have existed for millions of years (as evidenced in the fossil record), while the Scriptures say that thorns and thistles only came about after the sin of one man and the subsequent curse placed upon all the earth and inhabitants thereof.
How do you harmonize that?
I'm still looking for the Crocoduck!
Humans cannot synthesise vitamin C, ascorbic acid.Look in simple terms evolutionists have nothing more than misrepresentation and instability to offer as evidence for anything.
I think you mis-understand the buren of proof, as you are the one challenging the accepted scientific fact of evolution by natural selection then you have to provide evidence.You lot really have to realise this. Even if any of you bothered to post some research in refute to me I can easily find a refute to that. There is nothing about evolution that is not contested with vigour.
Birds before dinosaurs is an interesting concept, but I fail to see how that is what a creationist would expect.The data supports a creationist paradigm.eg, Bird footprints that predate the dinosaurs they were meant to evolve from is what a creationist would expect to find and not in line with current evolutionary theory.
If A. natans is a sea lion ancestor, it would still have to evolve to become a sea lion.Ambulocetus natans the supposed whale intermediate while it more closely resembles a sea lion is an example of gross misrepresentation and wishful thinking and in fact shows that sea lions have changed little, you have found indohyus that closely resembles a mouse deer that is known to dive to escape prey and demonstrates that small deer have been around for 48my and has changed little,
That looks more like a rant to me.the myth of 1% where huge chunks of DNA are missing, insertions, relocations really means DNA comparisons are unquantifiable and indeed chimp DNA is nothing like human DNA and the Y chromosome supports this also, this also supports NO COMMON ANCESTRY, and I do not need to evoke excuses such as homoplasy, convergent evolution, accelerated genomic regions or any of the other hand waves evos need to realign clear and convincing evidence for the creation into an evolutionary mystery, ....the list can go on and on.
National Institute of HealthThe consortium found that the chimp and human genomes are very similar and encode very similar proteins. The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence. At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans. In fact, the typical human protein has accumulated just one unique change since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.
Conservation of Y-linked genes during human evolution revealed by comparative sequencing in chimpanzeeBecause the Y chromosome does not participate in sexual recombination with a chromosome homologue, natural selection acts on the chromosome as a unit. Deleterious mutations in some Y-linked genes can be carried along, even to the point of fixation in a population, by physical linkage to strongly beneficial mutations in other Y-linked genes. In addition to their X-degenerate genes, primate Y chromosomes contain many families of ampliconic genes, which have testes-restricted expression patterns and critical functions in sperm production. Because of this central role in spermatogenesis, the Y chromosome's ampliconic genes may be subject to powerful selective pressures, especially in species such as chimpanzees where females usually mate with multiple males, the sperm of which then compete for a limited number of oocytes
One small point you have missed here; there are more extinct species than there are alive today.Why would evolutionists not look to what species alive today any fossil most closely resembles? I'll tell you why. Because if they did TOE would die. Evolutionists need to invent intermediates and they need to ignore genomic differences to support their cause.
If you knew anything about biology, you would probably know that the Y chromosome is usually the one that shows the most variation between species. The link I gave earlier helps explain why.Your DNA comparisons are one of the biggest misrepresentations that you throw at creationists. The chimp genome is 10% larger than the human genome just for a start. The surface of the genome is of different composition, there are huge chunks of genomic material missing in human/chimp comparisons as well as insertions and reorganisations. The Y chromosomes are 30% different. They are not 'the same' at all and far from it. It is only algorithmic magic, which ignores the majority of differences and zeros in on tiny similarities, that can scam the public with such obvious nonsense.
I'm rubbish at maths, as are most biologists I am led to believe.How on earth do you evolutionists do your maths?
Yup, its all made up.Does this mean evolution from bacteria to man is impossible? NO. What it does mean is that, for now, evolutionists have absolutely nothing of substance, that is based on reality, to offer.
What research?Any research or support that a creationist may present could not possibly be worse than the misrepresentation and instability evolutionists have to offer.
This is an excellent letter!Let me know what you all think of the letter, and what kind of responses you might have to an actual letter like this.
Originally Posted by Astridhere
It was just a play on words on my part.You are not a "crreationist"?
How do you know that it is only speaking of human death and not death for all things? Paul states,Very easily. You have replaced what the Bible says with what your tradition says.
The Bible says that HUMAN DEATH entered humanity by the sin of one man. Only your TRADITIONS say that ALL DEATH (not just human death) came from the fall.
God planted a special garden as an atypical paradise for the man. So it protected man from the DEATH AND DISEASE THAT EXISTED OUTSIDE OF THE GARDEN!
If ALL of the earth was a garden paradise, God wouldn't have had any reason to plant a garden in Eden for the man! God planted that garden and placed THE TREE OF LIFE there so that the fruit would prevent Adam from dying of old age as did the animals outside of that garden in Eden!
----> Tell me, good brother, if death didn't exist at that time, why did God place a Tree of Life in the garden which would PREVENT the man's death? (Why PREVENT something if it doesn't even EXIST?) If death didn't exist anywhere on the planet (among any animal), why was the Tree of Life necessary? And if the animals weren't dying atthat time, was that because God provided a Tree of Life everywhere on the earth so that the animals could eat its fruit and avoid death?
Romans 8 indicates that all of creation was placed under the Curse.1) Where does the Bible say that NO ANIMALS died prior to the fall?
They could have munched on the Tree of life all day, but they chose to munch on the one fruit that had been forbade them.2) If no death at all was in the world prior to the fall, why was a Tree of Life necessary? Why did Adam and Eve have to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life to stay alive and avoid aging?
Not necessarily, no. God told them that in the day they ate of it they would surely die. Not before, only after they had ate of it.For the Tree of Life to be NECESSARY, Adam and Eve had to already possess the capacity for death, right?
Why does the animal world have to have trees of life to keep from death? That is a issue of your own making.3) And where does the Bible say that multiple Trees of Life existed throughout the planet to prevent animal death?
There was no "new" creation, but look at what God said to the serpent:4) Where does the Bible say that AFTER the fall, God produced a NEW CREATION where death was introduced to animals for the first time?
I didn't know that the Bible was in harmony with millions of years of death before sin.5) Why does the Bible harmonize with the evidence we find today in God's Creation but your traditions and interpretations do NOT harmonize with that evidence?
Actually, God implied there weren't any before the fall because6) Where does the Bible say that no thorns and thistles existed before the fall?
I never said thorns and thistles have existed for millions of years, I said they exist in the fossil record. I believe the fossil record to be a record of judgement of a world wide flood where in death and disease and thorns and thistles can plainly be seen as all parts of the Curse.7) And even you admitted above that "thorns and thistles have existed for millions of years (as evidenced in the fossil record)", so why do you think God would fill his creation with evidence that contradicts your Bible interpretations?
I guess because God is a God ofthe living and not of the dead, and someday He will throw death and hell into the Lake of fire. You know waht that means? It means death will be no more. Why would it also not mean that it was not part of the original plan?8) Why do you pretend that the entire earth was a death-less paradise before the fall? The Bible never says it was.
I don't pretend, I listen to what the Bible says:9) And why do you pretend that the fall of Adam and Eve was the first act of rebellion against God on the earth?
Satan is an unredeemable creature. I do not believe his fall had happened before the creation week was over. I really feel (and this is my own supposition, I am not stating as dogmatic fact) that Satan's act of rebellion was when he tempted Adam and Eve. He truly thought that they (and he) could become like God and ascend above God if they did this one thing of eating that fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. It was that haughty spirit that lowered him down to "eat dust".Do you not agree that Satan (as the serpent) experienced a fall of his own first, when he rebelled against God? Are we agreed on that? So if sinful Satan was already on the earth, would you really expect the entire earth to be an idyllic paradise, rather than just the garden paradise?
Me thinks you assume alot. You know what happens when one assumes?(I assume you believe the Bible when it says that Satan is "the prince of the power of the air" and that Satan truly OWNED the earth's kingdoms that he offered Jesus in the temptation. So why would you think that the world outside of Eden would be so "perfect" and without death when Satan controlled it as an aftermath of HIS fall?)
I have quoted nothing but the Bible in rebuttals to you. What makes you think I am steeped in tradition?You are trying to live as a double-minded man, because it is only your TRADITIONS which create the problems you've brought up. If you put aside your church's traditions and focus on the Bible instead, all of your contradictions go away!
I would rather know all the Bible and none of creation than to know all creation. I know that I could not have found Jesus Christ without His written word to us. I refuse to downplay it now.You don't have to pretend that God's Bible is an honest statement of truth but God's Creation is not. Accept both as God's work and you will find them in perfect harmony.
I think evolutionists forget that God stepped back and pronounced His creation, 'very good.'[/b] How do you know that it is only speaking of human death and not death for all things?
What's wrong with dying?I think evolutionists forget that God stepped back and pronounced His creation, 'very good.'
If TE is true, then God is pronouncing death, 'very good.'
Then they complain that God sanctions death.
What's wrong with dying?
Exactly my point. :rollseyes:Oh, nothing -- :rollseyes: -- people do it all the time.
I think evolutionists forget that God stepped back and pronounced His creation, 'very good.'
If TE is true, then God is pronouncing death, 'very good.'
Then they complain that God sanctions death.
Did you take time during your break to study the science behind the theory of evolution to determine this "fact"?It was just a play on words on my part.
I've brought up the fact before that evolutionists cannot daisy-chain atom-to-adam evolution, because there are so many missing links it can't be done.
Yes, better to go with something that is all gaps.This makes evolution nothing more than a connect-the-dots game; and I, for one, will not jettison my belief in a literal Genesis 1 creation, to go with something so flimsy as to require that much faith to fill in the gaps.
And goddidit has so much more explanatory power. Why did God offset the moon's center of mass?It's like the moon.
People expect us to jettison our belief in a moon created ex nihilo, in favor of six (count'em ... six) theories as to how we got our moon.
If theists claim to know, but are repeatedly unable to demonstrate that they actually do, they should not expect me to join their ranks.No, thanks.
If evolutionists don't know, then don't expect us to join your ranks.
It was just a play on words on my part.
I've brought up the fact before that evolutionists cannot daisy-chain atom-to-adam evolution, because there are so many missing links it can't be done.
This makes evolution nothing more than a connect-the-dots game; and I, for one, will not jettison my belief in a literal Genesis 1 creation, to go with something so flimsy as to require that much faith to fill in the gaps.
It's like the moon.
People expect us to jettison our belief in a moon created ex nihilo, in favor of six (count'em ... six) theories as to how we got our moon.
No, thanks.
If evolutionists don't know, then don't expect us to join your ranks.
[/B] How do you know that it is only speaking of human death and not death for all things? Paul states,
Romans 8:20 "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.Romans 8 indicates that all of creation was placed under the Curse.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."
They could have munched on the Tree of life all day, but they chose to munch on the one fruit that had been forbade them.
Not necessarily, no. God told them that in the day they ate of it they would surely die. Not before, only after they had ate of it.
Why does the animal world have to have trees of life to keep from death? That is a issue of your own making.
There was no "new" creation, but look at what God said to the serpent:
14 So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,The serpent was cursed more than any other creature, more than the livestock was cursed, and more than the wild creatures were cursed. All the animals were cursed, but the serpent was cursed more.
“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!"
I didn't know that the Bible was in harmony with millions of years of death before sin.
Actually, God implied there weren't any before the fall because
Genesis 3:17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’Notice it says that ground WILL produce thorns and thistles? It hadn't up til then, but from then on it would.
“Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat food from it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
I never said thorns and thistles have existed for millions of years, I said they exist in the fossil record. I believe the fossil record to be a record of judgement of a world wide flood where in death and disease and thorns and thistles can plainly be seen as all parts of the Curse.
I guess because God is a God ofthe living and not of the dead, and someday He will throw death and hell into the Lake of fire. You know waht that means? It means death will be no more. Why would it also not mean that it was not part of the original plan?
I don't pretend, I listen to what the Bible says:
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Satan is an unredeemable creature. I do not believe his fall had happened before the creation week was over. I really feel (and this is my own supposition, I am not stating as dogmatic fact) that Satan's act of rebellion was when he tempted Adam and Eve. He truly thought that they (and he) could become like God and ascend above God if they did this one thing of eating that fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. It was that haughty spirit that lowered him down to "eat dust".
Me thinks you assume alot. You know what happens when one assumes?
I have quoted nothing but the Bible in rebuttals to you. What makes you think I am steeped in tradition?
I would rather know all the Bible and none of creation than to know all creation. I know that I could not have found Jesus Christ without His written word to us. I refuse to downplay it now.
In Christ, GB
He didn't bring up Pluto over there, did he?We went over that on CARM, AV, and you surely know that there are NOT six real theories regarding how the moon got there. All but two have been rejected by science. I know you from there, and I know you are not so dishonest as to continue to push the "six theories" thing, and I know you understand that science goes with the weight of the evidence. I know you understand that science is a human form of knowledge, and that all of its benefits derive from that: The cures for diseases; the ability to actually land on the moon; all of it.
Tell me you are not going back to the ridiculous "science is bunk" mantra!
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?