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 would be the exception. Do you have anything worthwhile to discuss other than whether I read every post of this 11 page thread?
46AND2 said:"You would be the exception."
You sure about that? I suspect it would be pretty common.
The point is not whether you have read all the posts. The point is that you introduced documentation that has been thoroughly picked apart. So the better question would be, do YOU have anything worthwhile to discuss?
Try me. You have wasted 5 responses, nearly a third of your total post count, concerning yourself about whether I have read every post in this thread. Do you agree or disagree that male nipples present more questions than answers for evolutionists?
Where the first set came from.What questions do you think male nipples raise that scientists have not answered?
46AND2 said:I wasn't aware that posts were something to be preserved...
Your question is meaningless. How would you even quantify it? What conclusion could possibly be made based on the answer?
What questions do you think male nipples raise that scientists have not answered?
By raising this question what are evolutionists saying the implications of the male nipples are? Is this supposedly a vestigial organ? If so, would they be suggesting that males are more evolved than females or that males once nursed babies?
By raising this question what are evolutionists saying the implications of the male nipples are? Is this supposedly a vestigial organ? If so, would they be suggesting that males are more evolved than females or that males once nursed babies?
CabVet said:Yeah, or what came first, the chicken or the egg?
There was no first set.
Individuals do not evolve, populations do.
It's like asking who the first French speaker was.
Platypusses don't have nipples, but they are considered mammals. They do have specialized lactation glands, but no nipples.
Also, why don't we find an animal with feathers and nipples?
FWIW, usually I don't even click on threads if they are so long that I'm not willing to read them."You would be the exception."
You sure about that? I suspect it would be pretty common.
In a literal Genesis 1 creation, there was.
I understand that, and this bears repeating:
Non-theistic creationism deals with individuals (Adam & Eve), whereas evolutionism deals with whole populations at a time.
He was a descendant of Gomer.
46AND2 said:A literal Genesis 1 creation is only possible in one way...God is a deceptive trickster.
I see this all the time, how is a literal Genesis God a "deceptive trickster"?
46AND2 said:If the literal interpretation of Genesis is true, then God made the earth and universe look exactly like it is extremely old, that all living beings share common ancestors, and that the flood never happened.
The evidence for all of these is overwhelming.
It's overwhelming by your interpretation. If you follow Genesis literally, you'll find that same evidence has another explanation. In Genesis it says that God created light, and then on another day created a source for the light. This would debunk the "billions of light years" issue I'm sure you're referring to. A global flood could easily create the rock strata we see today by the depositing of immense amounts of sediment over nearly a year. This could also easily account for the incredible number of fossils we find,considering animals do not readily fossilize.
If you're referring to creation as a whole, remember, God created in a series of miracles, and not by the natutalistic way science views things.
I would also agree with you, if God had not given us the manual of how He created. However, He did. It would've been deceptive and even slightly malicious if He had created in 6 days and then left us with no clues.
Edit:
Sorry, missed the spot about common ancestry. Would it not make sense that if a certain way of creating life worked, that God would stick with it? Also, there would've been an enormous genetic bottleneck after the flood, so the animals of today would've all come from those "common ancestors" if you will.
Suit yourself, I know who to place my faith in, and your approval isn't required.
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?