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.
Thanks Belk, and you as well. And I am very fallible, just ask my family.A simple "Yes it is impossible for me to be wrong" would have sufficed. There is no reasoning with a man who is unable to admit that he is as fallible as everyone else so I will bow out. While we disagree I wish you well on your journey rjs330.
Yes because it's what the Bible says. No reading into it, no interpretation, no guess work it says God created in six days and he created all things individually according to kinds and he created man unique of all things.Let me guess, it is impossible that you may be duped?
Would that be correct?
If you are referring to evolution then no because that is not reality. It's an assumption and a belief system.
"Evidence"Yes. The Bible is as clear as it can be on this subject. And it's not just me. You make it sound like I am some sort of lone wolf in this but I am not. Genesis has been trusted through the centuries as an accurate account of creation. And once again it is not an interpretation. It IS what the Bible says happened. To dismiss what it says and say it isn't accurate in what it says and that it means something else than what it says IS an interpretation. I merely believe what it says plain and simple no interpretation required.
There is no overwhelming evidence. It is all assumption. As evolution from a common IS squarely set against what God says it is a product of the human mind which is set against God. To disbelieve and dismiss what God says is a clear representation of the ungodly mind of humanity who serve the devil in their ungodly ways. Christians can be duped by worldly ungodly influences. And many are.
You my friend have fallen into a very bad trap.{snip}
Last I checked Asian mated with Asian and produced only Asian. African mated with African and produced only African.
Only when the Asian mates with the African does a new variation (Afro-Asian) enter the species
Last I checked Husky mated with Husky and produced only Husky. Mastiff mated with Mastiff and produced only Mastiff.
Only when the Husky mates with the Mastiff does a new variation (Chinook) enter the species.
Oh you mean theory in where the Asian or African evolves into the Afro-Asian
or the Husky or Mastiff evolve into the Chinook over millions of years. Sorry, but the reality is that neither the Asian nor the African evolved into the Afro-Asian. The Asian stayed Asian and the African, African. Nor did the Husky or Mastiff evolve into the Chinook. The Husky stayed Husky and the Mastiff stayed Mastiff.
Truthseekers should be, let's see, open to the truth. Try it sometime.I understand you want to believe things evolve into other things, but sadly that isnt what we observe in reality. The Asian always stays Asian and the African always stays African. The Husky always stays Husky and the Mastiff always stays Mastiff. You simply mistake the appearance of a new form as a new species in the fossil record. Understandable. If we didn't know the lineage of dogs and only had bones, I am sure they would mistakenly call all of them separate species too. An honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.
And this is why every single fossil ever found from the oldest one to the youngest one found remained exactly the same.
The fault lies in your belief that one evolved into the other, when in reality fossil A simply mated with fossil B and fossil C appeared in the record where it did not exist before. Fossil A and Fossil B remained always the same. And this is why your search for transitory species runs dry, they did not exist. There was no transitory species from fossil A or B to fossil C, fossil C was given birth to by A and B.
I understand you want to believe things evolve into other things, but sadly that isnt what we observe in reality.
The Asian always stays Asian and the African always stays African. The Husky always stays Husky and the Mastiff always stays Mastiff.
You simply mistake the appearance of a new form as a new species in the fossil record. Understandable. If we didn't know the lineage of dogs and only had bones, I am sure they would mistakenly call all of them separate species too. An honest mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.
The Bible takes reality and uses reality as a symbolic representation. Actually we study shadow and types. Paul says that we see dimly as the reflection in a mirror.Granted, a Christian's theology should align with the Bible -- but shouldn't the Bible align with reality?
They do not use the words assumption and belief, they use the words theory and fact. Same thing though.If you are referring to evolution then no because that is not reality. It's an assumption and a belief system.
We say there is a zero chance the Bible is wrong. Your the one putting your faith in yourself. We trust in God. Once again you are projecting.Nailed it!!!
Typically, folks who claim there is zero chance they are wrong, are trying to convince themselves, they could never be wrong. Really, a quite crude (but effective) defense mechanism.
They do not use the words assumption and belief, they use the words theory and fact. Same thing though.
I thought we discussed this already. Even creationists have to accept that a population of Africans, over several generations and a migration to Asia, eventually became a population of Asians. Why are you still parroting this, verbatim, to everyone who explains evolution to you?African evolves into the Afro-Asian; or the Husky or Mastiff evolve into the Chinook over millions of years. Sorry, but the reality is that neither the Asian nor the African evolved into the Afro-Asian. The Asian stayed Asian and the African, African. Nor did the Husky or Mastiff evolve into the Chinook. The Husky stayed Husky and the Mastiff stayed Mastiff.
Can you detail in what way the first statement (cars and living things share a complexity) assures the validity of the second statement (if a car can't evolve then a living thing can't)? This is not at all obvious to me.
I think what you’re getting at is the argument from irreducible complexity. That’s fine, but then you have to point to something in biology that’s irreducibly complex. Can you?yep. both need at least several parts to some of their systems. as i showed with the gps and a minimal car example. if you will remove some parts from one of their system it will be non-functional.
No, we do not see a transformation from sea based lifeforms to land based lifeforms and vice versa, because those species who became extinct, just like the many frogs and the many butterfly transitioning within a life cycle, highlight adaptation over time, rather than cross species contamination. If there was an evolutionary process there would be cross species contamination and countless failed neomorphs leading to xenomorphs along the way, too numerous to count and their fossil remains would be the evidence for evolution. We don't see that in all of Creation.
That is scientifically proven without faith my friend.
All species must have existed simultaneously and had been incorporated a single embedded algorithm within them that allows them to adapt within their own kind/species.
Obviously the insurrection is against the intelligent designer in this case. To believe that there is no intelligent designer in the vastly interconnected and detailed processes of life is a faith statement in itself.
But when they do understand and they acknowledge that they do, then we have a common language to speak in dialogue, otherwise we lie when we continue to say that we do not understand.
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?