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 difference does it make, 6,000 years or 6 billion years old?
Yes, I've heard of Billy Graham. Does he embrace Godless Darwinist evolution? From the quote above, it doesn't seem that he does
I'm not sure what you mean by the question. I don't expect to have a better life based on a particular age of the earth. On the other hand, I'm partial to knowing the right answer as to what really happened. The age of the earth is scientifically estimated to be about 4 and a half billion years.
Personally, I don't embrace Godless Darwinist evolution. I embrace Godly Darwinist evolution.
That suggestion keeps coming up over and over. Can anybody think of any reason in the world that God would create the universe in such a way? How does one accept this idea and exonerate God from the accusation of being deceptive?
This explanation has absolutely nothing going for it except that it reconciles the findings of science with an earth only 6000 years old. There's no other reason to suggest it. There is no religious reason to predict it and no scientific reason to predict it. It only has its merit as a rescue mechanism for the young earth hypothesis in its favor.
You must hang out with different Christians then I do! Oh RIGHT!!!! You're Agnostic.There is no conflict between the theory of evolution and Christianity. The majority of Christians are just fine with it. Certain groups of Christians might have problem with it, but that does not represent all if Christianity. The question is malformed.
Yes, they are. I have no problem with microevolution in biology. No problems with classifications. Only when evolutionist extrapolate their findings into lies. Then I have a problem.Physical laws are descriptions of what we observe in the universe. There are not only laws on physics, there are also laws in biology and evolutionary biology.
Really it's not. Microevolution....good science. Macroevolution....bad science. Say this three times and you might get it.To say that macroevolution (really just evolution) violates physical laws and aging is based on circular reasoning betrays a lack of understanding of not only biology, but also physics and chemistry as well.
Of course he doesn't! Science backs up the bible time and time again. Good science does of course -- that is testable, verifiable & falsifiable that is.Have you heard of Billy Graham?
"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."
Where did you get that idea from? You mean all dogs share (two) ancestors, as all cats share (two) ancestors. That you confuse some cats that breed and produce fertile offspring in front of your eyes as separate species is a personal problem you have yet to deal with in your Fairie Dust classification system.
That you think it's ok to call birds that mate and produce fertile offspring separate species is also a personal problem you have yet to deal with.
That you then expect others to ignore what is right in front of their eyes is when it becomes my problem - and I am not going to let you ignore it. I mean come on In situ - the whole reason Darwin's Finches were classified as separate species is because they believed they were re-productively isolated. But the DNA data - not just their eyes - told them they had been interbreeding from the start. Yet here you are, trying to ignore that "in situ" data in favor of pure theory.
You are going to ignore Asian mating with African producing an Afro-Asian, or Husky mating with Mastiff producing a Chinook. And instead claim the tiny variations between all Husky is what causes variation - when Husky always remain Husky. Just as T-Rex remained T-Rex. As Asian will always remain Asian - no matter how many mutations they undergo.
The Husky will NEVER become a Chinook, nor will the Mastiff. The Asian nor the African will ever become an Afro-Asian. Until they mate they will all always remain the same as they always were, with but minor variation from that genome damage.
And the Asian will still remain Asian, the Husky the Husky - the only thing that will change is a new infraspecific taxa (within the species) will appear suddenly.
First you want to separate everything into separate species - now you want to make them all one. Make up your mind what you want to do?
Not me. But you know there are those who do make that assumption.You are assuming the Bible says the earth was created in six days as others wrongly assume this.. . . ..
Then freshman Zoology 101 would be quite a stunner for you. Guess what I looked at in my Zoo101 course? Animals with half an eye that needed it for survival. Planaria have just half an eye. It is a photosensitive patch in a depressed pit. There is no enclosed eyeball. There are no lenses. It is half an eye, and it works. I love it when creationists use well known quote mines. What better way to demonstrate the dishonesty of the creationist movement than their own words.
I will ignore you penchance for quote mining and refer you to the following.....
Modern researchers have been putting forth work on the topic. D.E. Nilsson has independently put forth four theorized general stages in the evolution of a vertebrate eye from a patch of photoreceptors.[5] Nilsson and S. Pelger published a classical paper theorizing how many generations are needed to evolve a complex eye in vertebrates.[6] Another researcher, G.C. Young, has used fossil evidence to infer evolutionary conclusions, based on the structure of eye orbits and openings in fossilized skulls for blood vessels and nerves to go through.[7] All this evidence adds to the growing amount of evidence that supports Darwin's theory.
I have highlighted the keys words which are theorized, theorising, infer and theory. Notice, no facts only supposition. Please forgive me but I don't base anything on supposition or theory.
And this is the typical verbiage used in the 'evidence' presented by Darwinists.
Look mate. Who are you arguing with? I said your post, your own words, implies a common ancestor. I then asked you a simple question if you are pro or against evolution. That was my question. To that question I get this long reply. But what kind of question or claim do you think you are trying to address with your answer?
Dogs and cats are both mammals. They share a common ancestral species.Where? Show me? Yes it implies a common ancestor (two) of them for all Creotopsia. (Two) of them for all humans, (two) for all dogs, (two) for all cats. You then took it upon your own to then assume this means dogs and cats share a common ancestor - when no data backs that up. So the assumption of a common ancestor beyond the species is totally upon you, and you alone.
Dogs and cats are both mammals. They share a common ancestral species.
Where? Show me? Yes it implies a common ancestor (two) of them for all Creotopsia. (Two) of them for all humans, (two) for all dogs, (two) for all cats. You then took it upon your own to then assume this means dogs and cats share a common ancestor - when no data backs that up. So the assumption of a common ancestor beyond the species is totally upon you, and you alone.
You just contradicted yourself. First you said it wasn't an ape, then you said it was an infraspecific taxon among the ape species. Make up your mind. Either its an ape, or a human, or you agree with the science that says humans ARE apes so that its both.It is neither man or ape. It is a separate infraspecific taxa among the ape species.
You go back far enough, and you will eventually get to the non-mammalian ancestors of dogs. Heck, go back far enough, and you get to single cell pond slime.Let me ask you, when did Dogs not have an ancestor which was a mammal?
Your answer didn't comment on Homo Habilus. You simply waxed eloquent on how human beings are created above the animals. Completely irrelevant to the question. My guess is that you are avoiding answering the question because you don't want to admit you can't, thus being forced into admitting Homo Habilus is a transitional form.No, I must not answer man or ape. There's a third option, which I posted.
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?