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.
or from a wormoneday the next generation will find fossils of extinct lions...they will write books proving lions evolved from tigers.
Funny story about that. I have geologist friend who I recall telling about the time he sent off core samples taken from the site and according to him geologists who were unaware of where they were taken from thought differently. If you are interested I will text my friend and see if I can find out the specific details.
Right because "common design" isn't accepted. Yet it's premise is exactly what is used in medical research. Evilution from a common ancestor is NOT necessary. Only what is necessary is to understand that life had commonalities which we can draw upon to conduct medical research and so on. The theory that we all came from a common ancestor is irrelevant as I pointed out for our survival. If it was we wouldn't have survived up until "evolution from a common ancestor became a belief. We don't need it to grow food or manufacture electronics or build buildings.All you did was make allusions to the fact that there was a time when we survived with less knowledge than we have now. Which is true, but unless you're actively advocating for stopping the quest for knowledge to improve our technology, society and general well-being, you really don't have a point.
And yet evolution (inc. phylogenetics which is the study of evolutionary relationships) is an applied science within those very fields, particularly with respect to modern genomics.
You won't find any evidence of a "common design" scientific model in any medical research.
You are not reading my posts are you. I have always said I didn't believe creatures can evolve based upon their need to survive on because their environment changes. Such as the change of a finches wing in order for it to fly better for longer flights. But the finch will always be a bird and never anything else. It does not have the same ancestry as we do. We and the finch do not have a common ancestor.You missed the point completely.
Saying things like "fish has always been fish" or "spider has always been spider" is like saying "mammals have always been mammals".
You're implicitly accepting a level of evolutionary change far beyond something like common ancestry between humans and other primates.
Right because "common design" isn't accepted.
Yet it's premise is exactly what is used in medical research.
The theory that we all came from a common ancestor is irrelevant as I pointed out for our survival. If it was we wouldn't have survived up until "evolution from a common ancestor became a belief. We don't need it to grow food or manufacture electronics or build buildings.
You are not reading my posts are you. I have always said I didn't believe creatures can evolve based upon their need to survive on because their environment changes. Such as the change of a finches wing in order for it to fly better for longer flights. But the finch will always be a bird and never anything else. It does not have the same ancestry as we do. We and the finch do not have a common ancestor.
if we will take stalactite growth rate for instance, it may point to a young earth. for instance: an average stalactite growth rate is about 1 cm per 100 years. so if the earth is indeed so young we expect to find that most stalactites (dont be confuse with stalagmites) should be no more then 1 meter long. i think its indeed what we find in most stalactites caves:
I SHALL CAST OUT THAT FOWL DEF AND DUMB SPIRIT HALLAHLUYAH! Just kidding.
In all earnest though, when Jesus said "Go into all the world a preach the gospel" I don't think the word carried the same connotation it does today. Today we think of "preaching" as strictly the emotional proclamation of something religious in nature. But at the time it simply meant to publically proclaim or teach a truth requiring a course of action. Jesus was simply telling us to go everywhere and teach His truth which requires the hearers to take action. In Isaiah 1:18 God tells sinners "Come and let us reason together." He wants to discuss our human condition of sin with reason or understanding. In Romans 1:20 we are called to come to an understanding of God's existence through an examination of the physical scientific evidence of creation. In 1 Peter 3:15 God calls Christians to be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you. Again this call isn't for some sort of hyper emotional pep talk like we see in most churches today, but rather it is a call to reason with people and their understanding. It's a call to proclaim or teach publically the truth of Jesus Christ in a reasonable way that requires those who hear it to take a course of action. God even tells us we cannot truly have faith that pleases Him without first coming to an understanding that He exists, and that He will reward those who earnestly seek Him. Hebrews 11:6
By that definition... yes I am preaching my brother. Those who resort to only "preaching" in a way that just tugs on emotional strings, are copping out so they don't have to actually "study to show themselves approved. They are also condemning their converts to walk away after the pep rally is over and wonder if they really have the truth? This causes the state we classically call back sliding which is false because they never truly believed to begin with. They were just "trying something." I've even seen bumper stickers that say "TRY JESUS," like one would try on a shoe to see if it fits. Yet Jesus commended the one who takes time to really count the cost. To really examine the facts and see if he has what it takes to truly commit.
Blessings to you friend.
No they don't. Well, they do look like ash and mud layers (because that's what they are), but in no way do they resemble limestone, shale, sandstone, marble, granite, etc.
Because there is no scientific model of "common design" to begin with.
Nope. Again, you won't find a "common design" as a scientific model applied to anything in medical research.
And where you do find references to shared similarities in the literature, invariably the credit goes to evolution and common ancestry.
By the same token, we don't need electricity or computers or telecommunications or modern sanitation or mathematics or any of the other advancements in human knowledge from the last few thousand years if all we're talking about is gathering food, building shelter and reproducing.
So unless you're trying to advocate for turning our back on the pursuit of knowledge, you still have no point.
Of course I have a point you just refuse to acknowledge it. Don't be silly, no one is advocating going back to the stone age.Because there is no scientific model of "common design" to begin with.
Nope. Again, you won't find a "common design" as a scientific model applied to anything in medical research.
And where you do find references to shared similarities in the literature, invariably the credit goes to evolution and common ancestry.
By the same token, we don't need electricity or computers or telecommunications or modern sanitation or mathematics or any of the other advancements in human knowledge from the last few thousand years if all we're talking about is gathering food, building shelter and reproducing.
So unless you're trying to advocate for turning our back on the pursuit of knowledge, you still have no point.
You're still missing the point.
"Bird" is a entire class of organisms (Aves) comprised of thousands of individual species. Saying that "birds stay birds" is like saying "mammals stay mammals". If you're accepting that the evolution of birds can produce the diversity of bird species we see today, then you're implicitly accepting the diversity of mammal life from the same process. And that includes humans diversifying from earlier mammalian ancestors.
And fools were never other than fools.Humans from humans. Birds from birds. Monkeys from monkeys, beetles from beetles are the only way things change. Birds were never anything else but birds. Spiders were never anything else from spiders.
Foolishness evolved from blindness. Those with open eyes are inspired by the slpendour of the evidence. Time for you to open your eyes.Birds and spiders never evolved from the same ancestor. You have no evidence of that.
What makes "common design" a falsifiable proposition?You can continue to pursue knowledge and admit there is a common design. You don't need evolution from a common ancestor to do that. All you have to admit is there is a common design. Evolution from a common ancestor is irrelevant.
And fools were never other than fools.
Foolishness evolved from blindness. Those with open eyes are inspired by the slpendour of the evidence. Time for you to open your eyes.
Show that all life didn't come from a common design.What makes "common design" a falsifiable proposition?
Exactly. It can't be done; that's what makes it an unfalsifiable proposition. No matter what science discovers, all we have to do is say "God designed it that way."Show that all life didn't come from a common design.
Exactly. It can't be done; that's what makes it an unfalsifiable proposition. No matter what science discovers, all we have to do is say "God designed it that way."
Humans from humans. Birds from birds. Monkeys from monkeys, beetles from beetles are the only way things change. Birds were never anything else but birds. Spiders were never anything else from spiders. Birds and spiders never evolved from the same ancestor. You have no evidence of that.
Of course I have a point you just refuse to acknowledge it. Don't be silly, no one is advocating going back to the stone age.
Of course there is no scientific model of common design because by the very definition that science uses it won't fit because once you admit there is design you MUST address who or what the designer is.
Evolution is the ONLY answer for science today because there is no need to address a designer.
Evolution from a common ancestor is irrelevant.
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?