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.
What's to elaborate? I want to know what the definition of 'kind' is. If you define it as 'species' then we have observed changes between kinds. If you define it as per the Bible (bird kind, fish kind) then I would like to know how those classifications are made. Take an ostrich, a bat, and a crow. Into which kinds do they each fit, and why?
You know a bat isn't a bird. It's not of the same species.
Yeah, I know that. But apparently, the Bible doesn't:
[SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=-0]Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]And you said 'kind' was 'species'. So if we see one species become another, does that not violate your assertion that kind only produces kind?
Yeah, I know that. But apparently, the Bible doesn't:
[SIZE=+1][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][SIZE=-0]Lev. 11:13, 19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]And you said 'kind' was 'species'. So if we see one species become another, does that not violate your assertion that kind only produces kind?
Well I have learned something tonight. I always thought fowls meant birds only. I can see hear it means bats, too. And the Hebrew word also includes flying insects and flying creatures.
Oh forgot! No violation here. Eagles always have eagle offspring and bats always have bat offsprings right on down the line.
When doing science, it's simple for scientists to dismiss creationism because it's not science. Supernatural creation via magic makes no predictions, can't be tested, explains nothing, and introduces a near infinite amount of complexity with absolutely no benefit. It simply doesn't add anything to scientific theories to add "because god did it that way" on the end of every explanation.What I disagree with them about is that it is so simple for them to just disregard and dismiss the idea that it could have been designed that way by God.
Perhaps you should ask God because it's way over my head.
And who is this common ancestor?
Where can this be found? Does it have name? Is it real?
So who is this common ancestor anyhow? And this means there is no God?
I don't trust people but I do trust God to use multiple authors down through the years to bring His Word to us. It has nothing to do with the authors but it does have to do with the Author. Holy men were moved upon by the Holy Ghost and they wrote down what they were inspired to write. If I didn't trust the Words on the pages of the Bible, if I found it to be faulty, if one book didn't agree with another than I would lay it all aside but it does. It works perfectly together from Genesis to Revelation.
Perhaps you should ask God because it's way over my head. And who is this common ancestor?
Where can this be found? Does it have name? Is it real?
So who is this common ancestor anyhow? And this means there is no God?
I don't trust people but I do trust God to use multiple authors down through the years to bring His Word to us. It has nothing to do with the authors but it does have to do with the Author. Holy men were moved upon by the Holy Ghost and they wrote down what they were inspired to write. If I didn't trust the Words on the pages of the Bible, if I found it to be faulty, if one book didn't agree with another than I would lay it all aside but it does. It works perfectly together from Genesis to Revelation.
The Bible is a spiritual book for the spiritual man it is not a science book although, there is some science in it. It cannot be understood intellectually. I has to be understood spiritually. No one can understand the scriptures unless they are born of the spirit.
Communication with God ended in the Garden of Eden. It was not regained until Christ took the sin question out of the way.
No evidence is needed before, that is provided after when a person can now see it.
Because God is God and the Creator can do as He wants.
FishFace;38085551[URL="http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/Jesus3.html" said:The Resurrection Puzzle[/URL]
For people who think the Bible is perfectly self-consistent. Anyway, I don't really want to talk about that - but you should have a read and a think, anyway.
Individuals do not evolve, populations do.Oh forgot! No violation here. Eagles always have eagle offspring and bats always have bat offsprings right on down the line.
Firstly , not only have I already looked at these scriptures and compared them for myself, but there have also been many others who have done the same. Scientists are not the only ones who go through a process of falsifying and proving things BUT...unlike the person who did this on this site, we do it with a different frame of mind.
Although, I do applaud him for his effort, I immediately found that he made false statements and formed erroneous conclusions. These conclusions show his obvious bias. But that does seem to be a common trait within your ranks.
I have not as yet finished the article but I plan to print it out and look it over and will comment on it further at a later time.
But don't get your hopes up about me deconverting.
You will find that the frame of mind is, "The Bible is correct, so how can we cram these clearly contradictory statements together so they just about cohere... if you look at them sideways, in poor light."
What you think is bias is almost certainly just the fact that, if you get a bunch of atheists you will, probably, have a bunch of people who... don't believe in God.
What? You wouldn't deconvert. You might realise how loopy it is to believe in a literal Bible. There are plenty more, by the way.
hey now i know jason and the argo is true. I saw him fighting skeletons on tv and that was way before CG animation so they have to be real.....Its like talking to a brick wall, really.
Don't you people understand that we are not created perfectly in god's image, we have many flaws that we share with our genetic cousins; genes that could be benificial but no longer work (vit C or multiple redundant haemoglobin genes, for example).
But these errors fit quite nicely wiht evolution by natural selection - so which theory is more likely to be true?
genesis is just a story, nothing more.
It is no more true than jason and the argonaughts.
No, but I want to thank you for all the information that you have given me because as I have looked into it I can see that there really is nothing to support the "evolutionism" theory. It is inconclusive just a lot of loose ends with suppositions of what THEY think is the "best" answer. Which of course, is all relative.
But you still can't explain the nested hierarchy, or pseudogenes, or human chromosome 2, can you?
You can say "goddidit," but as I've said - that's not an explanation, it's a get-out.
The only explanation we have for these "loose ends" as you call them, is one big knot-tying machine called evolution.
Don't make empty claims. Tell us exactly what these 'loose ends' are, and how they show there is no 'support' for the theory of evolution.No, but I want to thank you for all the information that you have given me because as I have looked into it I can see that there really is nothing to support the "evolutionism" theory. It is inconclusive just a lot of loose ends with suppositions of what THEY think is the "best" answer. Which of course, is all relative.
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?