- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,583
- 52,504
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
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.
You a fan of the JEPD theory, are you?Right, let me be more clear, the flood would have been a local legand familiar to the audience that the newly minted creation narratives were intended for, the dejected, scattered Israelites. Noah's flood never happened as it is written in the scripture. Adam and Eve would have arrived on a previously populated, evolved earth. The A&E story was one of many creation stories in Mesopotamia available during the captivity period.
Nope, sorry. You are the one guilty of sloppy detective work. There is no reason to think that Matthew or Luke wrote the books with their names on them.With detective work like that, I could rob a bank, leaving my name and address behind, and then go home and put a huge sign up that says I robbed it, and never worry about getting caught.
It's stuff like this that makes me glad I'm a literalist -- not to mention a KJVO.Nope, sorry. You are the one guilty of sloppy detective work. There is no reason to think that Matthew or Luke wrote the books with their names on them.
Wrong, you lost that argument long ago, along with many others.
Amazing ignorance and insolence. There were no links to the sources claimed. Creationists are guilty of quote mining many more times than they accurately quote sources. If there are no sources linked then it is more than reasonable to assume that the author in question is guilty of quote mining.Nope. Try mentally processing it for a few minutes before you respond. It reveals a fundamental contradiction in the evolutionist's reasoning for their homology argument, an argument which is presented constantly as evidence for common ancestry. If you don't understand this, then I question whether you even understand the basics of evolution theory.
Again, take a few moments to process what you're reading. Instead of immediately spouting "you should have links to sources", try taking 30 seconds to actually view the sources at the link provided.
No embryologists deny this curious aspect of anatomical development. It has been known since the 1970's but it is simply not discussed when evolutionists are trotting out their arguments to the general public.
You have no clue what you are talking about.When Jesus mentions the Genesis stories it is rather clear that it is a poetic statement. It is not a lie when you use a phrase on the order of "As Old as the Hills".
Nope, you can repeat that fallacy as often as you like. The problem is that you have no scientific evidence that support your views. You don't even have biblical evidence that supports your views. That makes you wrong from all angles.No. I won. The flood was real as real can be. All evidence agrees.
Wrong again, but then you are terribly defeated.You have no clue what you are talking about.
The names were not even affixed to the Gospels until the 2nd century. Your mistake is that you are making a false idol of the KJV. You should study some biblical history some time.It's stuff like this that makes me glad I'm a literalist -- not to mention a KJVO.
You a fan of the JEPD theory, are you?
Jesus didn't reveal any unearned scientific knowledge, but he knew Cain found a wife in the land of Nod among the tribes Cain feared outside of his own.
There was a flood as Jesus said. No evidence opposes that in any way. Only your anti Christ religious belief system that you had thought was mandatory to be sprayed onto all evidences has no support.Nope, you can repeat that fallacy as often as you like. The problem is that you have no scientific evidence that support your views. You don't even have biblical evidence that supports your views. That makes you wrong from all angles.
Amazing ignorance and insolence. There were no links to the sources claimed. Creationists are guilty of quote mining many more times than they accurately quote sources. If there are no sources linked then it is more than reasonable to assume that the author in question is guilty of quote mining.
Jesus revealed plenty that is higher than current science. Now about your made up tribes in Nod, and your made up fear of them by Cain, ( Cain's apprehension was to people in general not some Nod gang) what rubbish. It seems you have an agenda to peddle.
There was a flood as Jesus said. No evidence opposes that in any way. Only your anti Christ religious belief system that you had thought was mandatory to be sprayed onto all evidences has no support.
Kids, relax there really was a flood.
Prove it.Know your Bible, even the Lord agrees with me.
Sediments came later with things like the ice age. What sediments you talking about? Or are you just trying to sound informed?Naaaah, couldn't be. Didn't you hear? The flood would jumble all the sediments up.
JEPD theory is being generous, I think the Hebrew redactors completly recast their entire history, converting ordinary secular history into a miraculous fiction, written to satisfy the child like mind of Bronze Age sheep herders and stubborn nationalistic pride. There are no secular history books of the Hebrews, they destroyed them all leaving only the grossly exaggerated narratives of the OT books.
Wrong again. If you can't admit that creationists quote mine as if it were going out of style then you are not being honest to anyone. And no, the sources are not there. This is the internet age and there is no reason not to have links to the sources. I am not going to do your homework for you. When your source incorrectly cites sources that is a flaw that you need to address.Do you realize how desperate you sound? If you can't discuss something like an adult and are just going to whine "quote-mining!" then just move along and stop wasting people's time.
The sources are right there at the link I provided. One click away but you can't be bothered apparently.
https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/embryology-and-common-descent
Alberch, P. 1985. “Problems with the Interpretation of Developmental Sequences.” Systematic Biology 34:46-58.
de Beer, Gavin. 1971. Homology: An Unsolved Problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Glover, B., S. Bunnewell, C. Martin. 2004. “Convergent evolution within the genus Solanum: the specialised anther cone develops through alternative pathways.” Gene 331:1-7.
Hall, B. 1995. “Homology and Embryonic Development.” Evolutionary Biology 28:1-37.
Kalinka, A., P. Tomancak. 2012. “The evolution of early animal embryos: conservation or divergence?.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27:385-393.
Again, nobody who understands embyrology denies this issue. Even members of the evolutionary priesthood, the NCSE, admits the homology problem exists.
You're just digging a hole for yourself and revealing your ignorance by suggesting it is a fabrication.
Actually it would have. Amateur sedimentology is not too impressive.Naaaah, couldn't be. Didn't you hear? The flood would jumble all the sediments up.
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?