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.
-_- fyi, Aman777 would agree with you on this... well, the idea that the "sons of god" aren't human, that is.
That untrained people such as yourself would pontificate on what natural scientists are doing incorrectly, is laughable.
Please, carry on. The lulz are strong.
Goliath and his brothers were from Gad (weren't hey?)False Scripturally since Angels are not made of flesh as the sons of God (prehistoric people) WERE. Gen 6:3 Jesus tells us that Angels don't marry. Mat 22:30 Also, the Angels who left their first estate (heaven) are held in chains under darkness until the Judgment. Jde 1:6
Chapter and verse on the giants from Gad? Amen?
Where do you think Asians came from? Did God create someone in Asia looking "Asian" or did people migrate to Asia from somewhere else? I'm utterly bewildered as to where you're going with this as someone arguing against common descent. Even as a creationist you have to agree that Asians, Europeans, Africans, Latinos, Indians, and every other variety of human you can imagine originated with some common ancestor. A population of Africans eventually became a population of Asians by moving to Asia. Somewhere between the first generation and now, the population resembled something you'd identify as "Afro-Asian." Again, even creationists have to accept this.
Supposition and heresay. Have you seen with your own eyes these minimal mutations cause changes over millions of years? No.Variations from one generation to the next will almost always be minimal, that's true. But over time, small variations build into large ones. Let's take the dog for example, since you mentioned different breeds. It's accepted by creationists and scientists alike that nearly if not all dog breeds today evolved from ancient wolves. No wolf ever gave birth to a chihuahua, but over hundreds of years of selective breeding, chihuahuas have in fact emerged. Selective breeding works precisely because like begets like, with only slight variation or mutation. Natural selection is exactly the same mechanism, only the selector is environmental pressures like climate, predators, and food availability rather than people purposely causing only certain individuals from each generation to reproduce.
You have observed the emergence of new subspecies. That you incorrectly classify them as a new species is the error. Just as you refuse to accept those finches are the same species, even if they are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of the researchers noses. Even if the DNA told them they had always been interbreeding and so were never reproductively isolated and so never underwent speciation. You deny the truth even to yourself. Are you so lost that you cant even face the truth set before your eyes?Do you need people that lie to you to tell you what to think? Learn the lesson dogs have taught you and apply it. Think for yourself.We have directly observed that kind of change over time. This can be considered "proof of concept" for evolution. Yes, there are limits to how much change we can directly observe simply because it takes more than a human lifetime for those changes to occur. Even so, because the concept of evolution is proven and the concept of a life-designer is not, universal common descent - even at face value as a hypothesis - is a better explanation than "common design."
Your task here is to provide an example of a life-designer you can demonstrate exists.
I have long since given up on refuting your "truth". I more seek to establish internal consistency within your bible interpretation, because a story that confuses itself is much, much harder to remember and tell other people about.
Wrong, Kemosahbee.Very strong. What if the shoe were on the other foot. I mean are you so smart you dare disagree with bible scholars, or even the word of God?
You have to know by now that one will always end in a touché. cancels itself out as an argument.
It actually seems like you are saying unless we are all scientists, we should just accept evolution...kinda like you accept the bible because you are no scholar? Right?
The Nephilim, weren't humans, at least not fully.
O, so now you just mix some atheistic / naturalistic beliefs into the mix?Amen. They did not change from prehistoric to Human until they married and produced children together. This is ALSO why today's Humans (descendants of Adam) have God's superior intelligence Gen 3:22 AND the DNA of prehistoric people inside our bodies. Gen 6:3 explains the the sons of God and Adam were BOTH made of flesh. Science agrees and so do the bones of prehistoric people who were on planet Earth for Millions of years before the Ark arrived.
Who else could Noah's grandsons marry since there were NO other Humans? Amen?
And we’ve come full circle. If you’re not interested in substantiating your wild claims, just say so. Don’t jerk us around with bible verses and non sequiturs.
Do kind of get what I'm actually saying?
O, so now you just mix some atheistic / naturalistic beliefs into the mix?
No, sorry, not amen.
But let's not bicker about this, i don't think it's that important.
I will agree it's strange there is little to no mention of female children though, but when you have 8 people 4 male and 4 female, the grandsons had to have married their nieces.
It creates a fascinating narrative of antideluvian Earth. There's magic and warfare; monsters and holy scribes; beautiful women and their cannibal abominations; all ruled over by indolent fallen angels handing over forbidden knowledge to humanity.What specifically did you like about it?
Maybe you can articulate what you think your point is?Eeeyup, just what I thought you were saying. Just trying to figure out who is the Pot and who is the kettle.
Since over 100 breeds of dogs came about from wolf stock, those original wolf genes contained within them all the genetic code necessary for the creation of all the breeds we see today.
Now, as to the Asian, you may like to pretend in fantasy land they came about from one evolving into more than one. But like dogs, the original human genome contained all the genetic code needed to create every race we see today. There was no mutation involved, no evolution. Learn the lesson dogs teach you and apply it.
Supposition and heresay. Have you seen with your own eyes these minimal mutations cause changes over millions of years? No.
You have observed the emergence of new subspecies.
That you incorrectly classify them as a new species is the error. Just as you refuse to accept those finches are the same species, even if they are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of the researchers noses. Even if the DNA told them they had always been interbreeding and so were never reproductively isolated and so never underwent speciation. You deny the truth even to yourself. Are you so lost that you cant even face the truth set before your eyes?Do you need people that lie to you to tell you what to think?
You have no god to offer so its alleged word is worth nothing. Sorry.I have God's Word for it while you have nothing, nada, zip to offer. It's because today's Science has rejected God's Truth that Humans first occupied a world surrounded by water, which was later totally destroyed in water. ll Peter 3:6 How can you get the Bumpkins to realize that their incomplete view of the origin of Humans is nothing but a made up Lie which can NEVER tell us of our true beginnings?
It creates a fascinating narrative of antideluvian Earth. There's magic and warfare; monsters and holy scribes; beautiful women and their cannibal abominations; all ruled over by indolent fallen angels handing over forbidden knowledge to humanity.
It's like if Genesis was written as a back story for Conan the Barbarian.
Try school with its evolutionists teachings.....I think evangelical churches and Fox News provides the confusion factors.
All canidae are of the same species/Kind. You may if you wish divide them into subspecies if it helps you keep track of them.Yes, all domesticated dogs are of one species.
What about foxes?
Jackals?
Are they their own Kind?
If so, why?
What was the plan to have so many so very similar 'kinds'?
Those that couldnt even bring themselves to call races subspecies....Who is 'they'?
PUMA/OCELOT HYBRIDSCan cheetahs interbreed with ocelots?
No, they are the same Kind/species, not several.Yup. But they are descended from a single species. Sorry - Finch Kind.
Speaking of birds, is "kind" at the level of the Finch? Or are ALL birds of one Kind?
Can parrots breed with emus?
If not, why not?
No, my Bible classifies a bat as a flying creature. You chose to put the term bird in the Hebrew word for flying creature in its place.Your bible classifies bats as birds. Can creationists admit that even THAT is in error?
Whats cute is your repeated denial of what is right before your eyes.It is so cute, in an 'aw, look at that little feller' sort of way, that you seem to think that because subspecies exist that evolution is false and the creation tales of Hebrew tribesmen are therefore correct.
Yet the only change in form in the species you have ever observed is when two mate and produce a new form...One of the distinguishing characteristics of even Darwin's 'primitive' version of the ToE was that he proposed a mechanism for change. Genetics provided the raw material (the discovery of the hereditary material, mutations, etc.) for selection to work on.
An observational fact. And all you assert is that one can split into two, even if never once observed in the real world.All you are offering is an assertion in which you co-opt evidence of variation and declare, in effect, 'Kinds gave off sub-kinds'.
From the genome, where that variation already existed. Variation is nothing but what already existed copied into a different format.How?
Where did the variation come from if they were 'created' AS a 'kind'?
All canidea are of one kind. All felidae are of one Kind. Surely you can figure out the rest.WHAT IS A KIND???
Are there any living examples of common ancestors or even any fossils of them? How can you tell?Are there any living examples of created Kinds, and how can you tell?
Agreed, this is what evolutionists are fond of doing.Anything other than very, very misplaced and unwarranted declarations of victory?
Why should it, they were all created from the same dust. The same protons, neutrons and electrons.And why, if genetic analysis should come to an arbitrary HALT when going from one Kind to another, does this not actually happen?
Sort of like you refuse to rethink your position about finches, declaring as above they are many species, even when presented with the DNA evidence they were never reproductively isolated?Many years ago, a creationist declared that if I could show a 'smooth gradation of genetic identity between 2 species' that she would be forced to reconsider her rejection of evolution. I did just that. Did she re-think her position? of course not - she made excuses.
You cant admit to the truth of the mistake in classification with finches, even with the DNA evidence. As stated in my post above, if they cant or wont admit to what is before their eyes, when it is clear they are lying, how are you going to convince me anything else they say has any truth?Will you make excuses, too? Or will you provide evidence FOR your claims (as opposed to declarations of victory based on rejecting evidence for evolution)?
Havent copied or pasted a single sentence. I am just forced to retype Asian mates with Asian and produces only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian and African mate is a new race seen in the species. Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. Only when Husky mates with Mastiff is a new form seen in the species.Copy-pasting your own previous posts that do not actually support your position is a rather sad way to engage in grown-up discussion.
Factually incorrect. Canidae is a family, not a species. There are in fact 34 diverse species that fall under the family Canidae. Look it up. You can't make up your own taxonomy.All canidae are of the same species/Kind. You may if you wish divide them into subspecies if it helps you keep track of them.
Wrong, Kemosahbee.
It actually seems like I'm saying, you should have a rudimentary understanding of the basic principles of any discipline, before you criticize it. I'm actually saying that a hallmark of the scientific method is falsifiability. In this case, ToE has not even been close to showing it's false. In fact, at this point in time, ToE is considered to be a fact. I'm actually saying that it's not enough to say something is wrong, but in the real world, you have to demonstrate it's wrong.
Do kind of get what I'm actually saying?
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?