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.
No it wasn't. You see what you want to see. It all interpretation of the evidence. There is evidence that creatures can evolve to sustain existence. Such as the bird mentioned previously. I see that as evidence that God created life to do that. You see evidence that we all came from a common ancestor.
Columbus didn't discover that the earth was round, everyone with a basic education at the time already knew that; we've known this in the West since at least the time of Eratosthenes who demonstrated the spherical shape of the earth 2300 years ago.
Except of course this fusion would be a requirement under the Theory of Evolution - if it were any other way, then it would suit Creationism more than Evolution...false. as you can see in my figure above- it's possible to get a fusion under the creation model too. so we dont need to involve evolution.
Well you didn't work very hard, you didn't address any of it. As to what you did write, that's nice, I'm not trying to tell you how life began or dissuade you of you faith in God, why not comment on the evidence I presented instead, maybe ponder what I've written below?
No.1 - "The horse thing"
Everything I posted was based on observation, there were no assumptions. Literally thousands of fossils have been found that, when lined up chronologically, show a clear transition from eohippus to the modern horse. These have been and can be observed in the fossil record. I wouldn't be surprised if you reject the dating of such fossils (with no scientific justification, just proclaiming it's based on assumptions no doubt) but Eohippus is found in the oldest strata and the fossils can be seen progressing gradually in sequence towards the modern horse as we observe them in more recent strata. This is clear as day, there are no mysterious gaps, no huge leaps in difference that can't be accounted for, which is why I chose the "horse thing".
Now, If we look at this sequence and wonder why these fossils are deposited as they are what logical conclusion can we draw? That the populations gradually adapted over time in response to selective pressures? Given that we can observe, in real time, the mechanisms by which such changes occur (remember the Blackcaps which have been observed to adapt and change in response to environmental pressures?) such a conclusion is inescapable.
But no, you say, despite all these observations confirming the theory formulated by Darwin from his observations of nature all those years ago, they are all just "assumptions"!
So I will ask again (you ignored the question last time) how do you explain these observations?
Again we can clearly observe many species of Equidae appearing in the fossil record with slight differences to preceding species chronolgically with all those changes adding up to significant differences over longer periods of time - As far as I understand it the creation "model" would suggest that over long stretches of time a slightly different species was created out of dust of the ground, only to go extinct and be replaced by another and another and another, is that what you think? I can't figure it out?
Well you didn't work very hard, you didn't address any of it. As to what you did write, that's nice, I'm not trying to tell you how life began or dissuade you of you faith in God, why not comment on the evidence I presented instead, maybe ponder what I've written below?
No.1 - "The horse thing"
Everything I posted was based on observation, there were no assumptions. Literally thousands of fossils have been found that, when lined up chronologically, show a clear transition from eohippus to the modern horse. These have been and can be observed in the fossil record. I wouldn't be surprised if you reject the dating of such fossils (with no scientific justification, just proclaiming it's based on assumptions no doubt) but Eohippus is found in the oldest strata and the fossils can be seen progressing gradually in sequence towards the modern horse as we observe them in more recent strata. This is clear as day, there are no mysterious gaps, no huge leaps in difference that can't be accounted for, which is why I chose the "horse thing".
Now, If we look at this sequence and wonder why these fossils are deposited as they are what logical conclusion can we draw? That the populations gradually adapted over time in response to selective pressures? Given that we can observe, in real time, the mechanisms by which such changes occur (remember the Blackcaps which have been observed to adapt and change in response to environmental pressures?) such a conclusion is inescapable.
But no, you say, despite all these observations confirming the theory formulated by Darwin from his observations of nature all those years ago, they are all just "assumptions"!
So I will ask again (you ignored the question last time) how do you explain these observations?
Again we can clearly observe many species of Equidae appearing in the fossil record with slight differences to preceding species chronolgically with all those changes adding up to significant differences over longer periods of time - As far as I understand it the creation "model" would suggest that over long stretches of time a slightly different species was created out of dust of the ground, only to go extinct and be replaced by another and another and another, is that what you think? I can't figure it out?
"It's not just wrong, it's evil! Make sure you guard your minds against the evil doubters; don't let them poison your minds with their reasoning."Not only is the argument wrong the logic and reason is the product of a reprobate mind.
actually we know about many examples where even sceintists cant tell if some traits are the result of convergent evolution or a common descent. this fact alone falsified this claim.
I have a mate of mine who tells me Islam is definitely the last true religion and that Christianity is just confused, and the Prophet Jesus (may peace be upon him) will be back to tell you all so too...Christianity is it ... anything else is just fiction.
Not really sure which one you're referring me to, so I'll assume you meant this one?:Hey bugsy
This one answered in reply to subby.
I have young kids, so I'm prime for this scenario you propose... a 3 year old doesn't know any better let alone realise the correlation between not touching the stove because a parent said so, and an unburnt hand being a reward for not doing so. This is an unrealised result for the child. All it's doing is exploring the world, so as parents, we necessarily have to set ourselves up as their undeniable authorities. In time, learning about their world involves testing our authority over them too, and they learn what they can and can't get away with - my children's mother is an example - she used to have problems with them all the time not listening to her because when they went shopping, or out and the child saw something he/she wanted, they'd chuck tantrums and because their mum was a strict non-confrontationalists, she'd give them whatever it was they were chucking a tantrum about - which of course led them to learn that chucking tantrums would get them their desires (just like rewarding a puppy for doing something right, it reinforces the behaviour). This challenging their authority (us in this case) is a dangerous place to be because when either of us told them to do something (i.e. Don't go out onto the road!) they wouldn't listen and in one instance, I had to do a sharp sprint to collect a wayward child running roadward, getting ready to throw a fit at being told what to do, so yes, a parent does indeed have to earn a child's respect to listen. They're great now(not that I ever really had the same issues with them their mum did), but I know they treat us differently in isolation and their mum still has problems with them even though they're both closing in on double digit ages. These days, they trust me and my guidance based on experience even though it still in part comes down to respect as their authority figure... so again, experience and reason.Your reasoning here is incredible
I disagree with you re earned trust if we are talking a child before puberty lets say 11-12. I can see an older child being rebellious to 'just' parents.
If you are a 3 yr old child and your mother says do not go on the road. Do you seriously think that mother needed to earn that childs respect to listen?
Ok then lets set up the goalposts.
We have an abused child. We have a mother. The child is 6 years old and all round average. The mother tells him not to touch the stove or he will get burnt.
If the mother abused him regularly wouldnt it be strange to the child that all of a sudden she cared for his safety?
So the abused child will touch the stove regardless because the mother has not earned enough respect?
Again, not sure which one you intend me to look at, so I'll assume this is it?:Answers in reply to sub z
So did as instructed - I see you included the first definition from Google, which was the non-religious definition of Faith, but you for some odd reason, didn't include the definition of Faith as it relates to religion - that is "2. strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." - ...."rather than proof"!! so, still back to evidence free beliefWell there is a easy way to prove if i made up the definition of faith friend. Type faith and meaning into google!
The word faith means complete trust in something or someone. Complete trust in God is christian 101!?!
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
Faith here ie is a complete trust in a God - who is not a thing in the natural universe. It is an intangible feeling and experience that can be personal. Hebrews 11:1 is a declaration.
It shows that we should have confidence to hope - believe in the God's promise. Faith in God leads to a relationship and the assurance that what seemed invisible is now too real. Faith leads to the evidence but first you must follow the formula.
Atheists get it just fine, this is why we don't just believe without evidence first. Put 'Theory' in front of it all you like, but the evidence still won't be there to support it. Again, every religion out there has this kind of unevidenced "Faith"Atheists just dont get it. Atheists need to see the evidence first, then they will have faith.
You need faith (complete trust) first then you get the evidence.
Or do you only agree when the word theory proceeds it?
I go into construction sites all the time. Back to this point though because this is hilarious, if I see a chair work, see other people use a chair, have the operation and purpose of a chair explained to me, how is my use of that chair as prescribed then some kind of Assuption?? Are you trying to tell me that everyone's reality is only real for them? Do we not share this same reality with everyone else??So therefore this is an assumption. Because someone else did it and it worked for them. Naturally it should work for you. This is like monkey see monkey do.
This is trust in someone elses experience and an assumption. Man do not go near a construction site!
...and of course, Trust (you literally just said "No you have trust in their abilities"!!).... There is no such thing as 100% Trust, we deal in degrees of certainty. I wouldn't trust someone straight off the bat if I didn't have evidence of their abilities/capabilities...No you have trust in their abilties and they have a good reputation. They can still fail - this shows hope they wont
Because I have experience of such, and is therefore not Faith. Unless of course you still insist that Faith & Trust are the same thing?Exactly. Its not like cars and airplanes to crash!
When I was younger, yes. Not that I really had any direction, so nothing ever popped into my head as being something I should take notice of... this point alone should be cause for concern - if there is an all-omnipotent, omnipresent being who wanted to have a relationship with me, I would've been all in, hook, line and sinker! but nuthn....Have you tried?
Don't know about Visions (perhaps you should see someone about that??) but Fairies answer prayers and perform the miraculous at exactly the same rate as intercessory prayer does.Do fairies answer prayers, give Visions and perform the miraculous?
Yes, Of course you can take that on faith - and here is the crux - people all over the place, and increasingly in positions of power are taking all kinds of things on Faith and making decisions on that for other people who don't have that same faith. You may think it fine in your position if you agree with their religious position but how different might you feel if the people in power were Islamic? Given extreme forms of Islam (read: ISIS and Taliban among many) consider Christianity to be Polytheism, and punishable by Death.Now that would be cool
Thor. Awesome!
How about this. I have faith if i jump off the empire state i wont die!
I already have. I have friends in a number of other religions and they tell me Exactly the same thing you're telling me - literally, "You just gotta have Faith..."! So I guess you were wrong to assume I hadn't looked into this.Ok go ask, find for yourself.and then get back to me. I think you will find not all religions teach the same thing. Please excuse me, if you knew that you would not have just made that last comment
Cheers hey
That's why it's called faith. But for me it's also experience. I have a relationship.wih the Almighty. I wish you did too.
Again we didn't observe anything. In fact there is evidence what is claimed cannot be true. Here's one bit.
The evolution of the horse - CMI Mobile
Just who observed this? We are guessing.
His opinion does not line up with the teaching of his book.I have a mate of mine who tells me Islam is definitely the last true religion and that Christianity is just confused, and the Prophet Jesus (may peace be upon him) will be back to tell you all so too...
I don't know what your second sentence means, but this is a start. Now, how long has it taken for these mutations to accumulate?
You and many creationists have said things like this, but as I noted before, I don't believe you. I don't believe you because no creationist ever shows how the predictions fit well with creation.
There are circles in nature. Human-designed things have circles. Thus, natural circles must also have been designed. If you can see the flaw in this argument, you can see the flaw in yours.
Just because you believe it, doesn’t mean it’s true. One can look at what happens here, in reality, and observe that fair isn’t a universal consequenceChristians when they die go to their reward so whatever consequences we have we suffer in this life.
In Luke we read the story of the Rich man and Lazarus: Luke 16:22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment," Here we see that those who are unsaved and not redeemed are punished for their sin and transgression.
We see that Lazarus said: "I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
We have the Bible and everyone will be held accountable.
Except of course this fusion would be a requirement under the Theory of Evolution - if it were any other way, then it would suit Creationism more than Evolution
Under Creation, not a required observation at all.... in fact, that it is obvious is a problem for Creation, since this shows how it is possible to have so many organisms with so many different numbers of Chromosomes pairs
and still humans. so this fusion isn't evidence for a common descent after all, as i said.
And maybe one day you'll provide actual sources to back up this claim. Can you provide sources?
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?