YouTube - Special Investigation - Evolution
I'm sure many have seen this, but its accuracy is great.
I'm sure many have seen this, but its accuracy is great.
-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Special Investigation: Evolution
- Thread starter Skavau
- Start date
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,724
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Since we're dealing with 'accuracy' -- care to tell me exactly what this "common ancestor" was?
Upvote
0
leftrightleftrightleft
Well-Known Member
Chimpanzee-human last common ancestor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
They haven't found an exact fossil with all the characteristics necessary to deem it the last common ancestor, although there are some potential candidates mentioned in that article.
Just because there isn't a fossil found yet doesn't disprove the theory.
Think of it this way, the first complete Bible we have is the Codex Vaticanus from 4th century and the earliest shred of the New Testament is the Rylands fragment dated to about 125 AD. So, like biologists searching for the common ancestor of humans and chimps, Biblical scholars/archaeologists are also looking for a potential oldest common ancestor to the Gospels (the alleged Q-source). There is reason to believe such a source exists because of distinct similarities between the first three Gospels. Even if the Q-source is never found (it may have been lost forever), the evidence that such a source existed is still startlingly apparent.
Same goes for the human-chimp link. The evidence for a common ancestor is startlingly apparent. In fact, it is definitely more apparent than the Q-source. In fact, it is so apparent that all you have to do is look at a chimp and realize that if you shaved it and threw it in a pair of trousers with a hat and a cane, you might mistake it for an old man because chimps look so similar to us. And that's just concerning what any layman can see, a biologist or geneticist could bring far more to the table.
Upvote
0
Smidlee
Veteran
It was "Big-foot" ... or maybe "Little-Head"... or maybe both. Basically this unseen mythological creature had two offspring , one went to Harvard and the other went ape.
This video is an imaginary debate... Evolutionist do seem to depend a lot on their imagination.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,724
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I don't buy this explanation, though.
The Bible doesn't hinge on whether or not Q exists, It hinges on whether or not God exists.
In fact, I argue against such a document as Q existing at all.
The evolution of man, on the other hand, hinges on this thing you guys call a "common ancestor"; and the fact that you have a potential lineup of unsubs, isn't a good enough explanation; as far as I'm concerned.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,724
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
CaliforniaSun
Well-Known Member
pssst... When Luke and Matthew weren't copying directly from Mark, they were drawing on "Q." True story.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,724
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
CaliforniaSun
Well-Known Member
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,724
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Yup -- name all the false ones first, then that leaves only the True God.
But this video brings up a good point that I've ran past my pastor.
Notice this verse:
Psalm 14:1a The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
Since God = Elohim here, the true true atheist is one who says in his heart that Elohim doesn't exist.
Thus one can believe in Quetzalcoatl or Allah, and still be an atheist.
Upvote
0
Why do you keep forgetting the definition of atheism? Even when you and me had this talk not two or three threads ago?
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,070
- 16,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
I'v seen that video before. It's pretty funny, and sadly representative of how Creationists "argue".
My irony meter explodeth!
My irony meter explodeth!
Upvote
0
Yeah, Smidlee seems to want to imitate Kent in the video. I can even hear NSC voice acting his outburst.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,724
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Atheism, by my definition, is the belief that the Trinity does not exist.
It's a very broad definition that would include Jehovah's Witnesses, et.al.
They are even depicted in the book of Romans worshiping.
Cal's video indeed makes a good point.
Upvote
0
Then your definition is completely pointless. About as fruitful as the typical Islamic definition of 'pagan'.
Seeing as you're in an environment where effectively everyone else uses the standard definition of atheist - would it not be far more pragmatic to adopt that definition to prevent communication dissonance and to prevent you from incorrectly assuming things about people based on your own personal definition of atheism?
Upvote
0
A
Awesome_Frog
Guest
Am I the only one who seems to think AV is a troll that only hangs out here because he gets a kick out of people who are only trying to help?
He's very inconsistent and will disagree with himself or have the same arguments over and over, and it seems like he is really just trying to see who will fall for it.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
