I don't think that since I have joined here that I have ever cited AIG or Creation.com. I may have cited AIG one time but not sure.
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.
Wrong. To a sane person I can explain evolution. At least half of your problem is that your explanation for the theory of evolution comes from lying creationist sites. You still refer to them even after you have been shown some of their open lies. They even openly admit that they will ignore the truth if necessary.
AiG, Creation.com, and other sites openly admit that they are not scientific. Most Christians can't see it, but that is exactly what they do. You can't do science that way.
No. You didn't do any science to come to the conclusions that you have concerning the age of the earth, or the diversity and distribution of life on earth. At least admit that much.
I don't think that since I have joined here that I have ever cited AIG or Creation.com. I may have cited AIG one time but not sure.
I typically ignore childish complaints of someone lying at face value.
Did you?
I will suggest that you can just use your five senses.
Science means knowledge.
We stand on the shoulders of giants. I didn't come up with the theory of evolution on my own, no. I have looked back over the data, and can apply the theory sucessfully to new data, however. You don't reject evolution or deep time because of the science. You reject them because of religious dogma.
Yet the fossil record clearly shows, just as your genetic tests show, kind after kind after kind. There is nothing wrong with a correct interpretation of the Bible at all. The earth was created no-one knows how long ago. Has undergone several creation's and destruction's.
The fossil record is clear on this. In every epoch, only complete and fully formed fossils of creatures are found. They go extinct, and all new creatures never before seen suddenly arise, everywhere on the globe, fully formed and complete.
The Earth was not formless and void. It became desolate and waste and darkness covered the surface of the deep. Meteor, comet, some other catastrophe? Could of been, but clearly recorded in the Bible long before you ever dreamed such a thing. Just as evolutionists took the order of life from the Bible.
That you misinterpret what you then see, is not the Bible's fault, but yours. Just as you once incorrectly believed dinosaurs were reptiles. As we once thought the Milky-Way was the only galaxy in existence. Of course, theories from both incorrect assumptions are still being used by so-called science to this very day.
Exactly as the evolutionary model predicts
Coincidence yah, right, if you say so. Just like it was a coincident that a priest purposed the Big Bang? Disagrees where, in which order of life?The order taught by evolution is the order found in the fossil record. It does not follow the biblical account, except by coincidence, and in fact disagrees with Genesis at least as often as it agrees.
Yet it is, as the Bible is known to be the most historically and scientifically accurate book known. It has even told you that His Power can be known by the things that are made. You have exploded the atomic bomb, showing the energy in all things, that binds the universe together. That same energy that makes human thought possible, that controls the atomic structure, so you have no excuse to ignore it, yet you do.Genesis 1 does not pretend to be nor claim to be scientifically accurate.
Yet it declares that In beginning, God created the heaven's and the Earth. And the Earth became formless and waste, and darkness covered the surface of the deep. That God acted, and heat penetrated the darkness and light reached into the depths and evaporation occurred. And the waters above were separated from the waters below, and dry land appeared. Seeds were planted, but not grown, for there was no man to till the ground yet, and no rain had fallen. So the plants and fish of the sea, and birds of the air came first. then land animals, then man, then plants grew from the mist that came.Even 2Timothy 3:16 does not claim inerrancy, and only provides assurance of Scripture's efficacy in matters of righteousness, not in interpreting nature. Nature, as a word and as a concept, is unknown in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, it is only known in the Platonic sense of a thing's true essence or purer form. The sense of the physical world, of "All Creation" is only used metaphorically (and anthropomorphically --awoman in birth pangs, a witness at a legal proceeding).
Yes, we sometimes oversimplify our assumptions and later have to correct them. I already addressed this when I spoke of Newtonian physics vs Relativity. But filling in the gaps with "I don't understand this, so it must be a miracle of God," as opposed to "We don't understand this bit, yet," only slows down the process and makes us complacent in our ignorance.
Yet it is, as the Bible is known to be the most historically and scientifically accurate book known
I did not at all bring it up as a blow against evolution. If you look back someone gave an example of something that would disprove evolution. I produced an possible candidate for an example.
What you posted about it would have it not fit in with a nest hierarchy.
This is true with other creatures as well.
Yet the nested hierarchy was originally based upon the belief that dinosaurs were cold-blooded reptiles. It is now believed they were warm-blooded mammals, but you still use the same nested hierarchy that you did when you thought they were reptiles.
What nested hierarchy? The one based on the incorrect assumption dinosaurs were reptiles? You have never changed the hierarchy previous to the dinosaurs, or after them, one based upon incorrect data.
Why would a bird ever have arms?
Birds are one kind, not evolved from something else.
Finding a bird with arms would disprove creation, and prove evolution. Not the other way around as you want to twist it.
Same with shrimp and backbones, they never had them, because they have always been shrimp. Not shrimp that evolved from something else into shrimp.
So that leaves out man, apes, whales, dolphin, lion, cat, dog, as none of them lay eggs on land.
I am still trying to figure out where they get mammals from reptiles, since it is now believed dinosaurs were not cold-blooded reptiles, but mammals. Yet birds are not mammals nor reptiles, but aves. Which tells me it is likely half the foregoing creatures they labeled as reptile, are more than likely a mistake, just as calling dinosaurs reptiles was.
That's what got them in a pickle, believing dinosaurs were once reptile, which made them class birds as non-mammal or reptile, since they were not cold-blooded. Then they realized they messed the entire dinosaur evolutionary tree up since they are actually mammals, not reptiles, but use the same evolutionary tree they did when they thought wrongly they were reptiles.
So in all likelihood, the ones they are claiming are reptile that the dinosaur came from, are in reality mammals as well. Which means they no longer have any evidence any mammal evolved from a reptile, because in reality they have no clue as to what was once reptile and what was once mammal. They are simply guessing, like they guessed with the dinosaur, and incorrectly at that.
Yet the fossil record clearly shows, just as your genetic tests show, kind after kind after kind.
1. Kind after kind is a meaningless statement. You cannot define what a kind is.Yet the fossil record clearly shows, just as your genetic tests show, kind after kind after kind. There is nothing wrong with a correct interpretation of the Bible at all. The earth was created no-one knows how long ago. Has undergone several creation's and destruction's.
Strawman. Of course only "complete and fully formed" creatures are found in the fossil record. They represent sucessful living species. Evolution does not predict the existance of any partially formed creatures. You are also wrong when you claim "new" creatures pop up everywhere inthe record. Three-toed horses preceeded two-toed horses, just as whales with legs preceeded whales with no legs. The record shows us what evolution predicts... descent with modification.The fossil record is clear on this. In every epoch, only complete and fully formed fossils of creatures are found. They go extinct, and all new creatures never before seen suddenly arise, everywhere on the globe, fully formed and complete. It is evolutionists misinterpretation of it that led you to your present problems.
How is it "clearly recorded" when even you cannot tell us what it was?The Earth was not formless and void. It became desolate and waste and darkness covered the surface of the deep. Meteor, comet, some other catastrophe? Could of been, but clearly recorded in the Bible long before you ever dreamed such a thing. Just as evolutionists took the order of life from the Bible.
Dinosaurs are still considered reptiles. When did your bible tell us anything about galaxies?That you misinterpret what you then see, is not the Bible's fault, but yours. Just as you once incorrectly believed dinosaurs were reptiles. As we once thought the Milky-Way was the only galaxy in existence. Of course, theories from both incorrect assumptions are still being used by so-called science to this very day.
Data are not wrong. Hypotheses and theories can be wrong. You, however, shouldn't be talking about data, when you never use any.So what can one expect from science that still uses theories based upon data shown to be totally wrong? Your cosmology and evolutionary theories are packed so full of Fairie Dust, you no longer have room for facts.
Uhhhhh... How about you tell me how a bird would evolve arms and wings and then we'll get back to the rest of my list?
Animals don't evolve arms and wings. They are designed that way and give birth to young designed the same way. Over and over until today.
1
You, however, shouldn't be talking about data, when you never use any.
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?