Why not both?

[dad]

Hello, the Bible gives a description of a creation .
the Bible gives a description of God providing salvation through Jesus
Shall we acept all of the Bible or just part? Which part ?
If the Bible is not true then neither is Christianity so why call yourself a christian if it is all not true?

Why? because most churches pay for folks like that. Itchy ears for what is false. Money. Even in keeping up appearances, it means money and or power in many cases.

 

[SLP]

Classic non-response. A favorite at CF.

By your ilk, yes.

Ah immediately going for the jargon to try and impress people. I've noticed that about you.

I've noticed a rather shallow understanding of science and a reliance upon denigration and aspersion casting in you.

And yes, you were most assuredly trained that Evolution is not to be questioned.

And you are most assuredly brainwashed into believing idiotic lies.

So long.

 

[SLP]

Heck, the only training I got was in high-speed electronics, mathematical methods, particle physics and the like. Physicists really don't care what biologists think about, well, much of anything.

Careful now - all that jargon you are using is obviously to distract from the FACT FACT FACT that your were indoctrinated into anti-theist materialist atheistic evolution from k-12 and all through liberal elite-run college!

 

[Harry Morant]

No disagreement there because you accept creation and what you are describing is what may be termed 'micro-evolution' - the ability within a species to adapt. This has been observed and verified as fact. What Godless evolutionists propose is that life arose from non-living matter by chance processes, without a design or designer and then went on to change from one species into another - termed 'macro-evolution' which has neither ever been observed or deemed possible by science. Therein is the distinction that must be made.

 

[SkyWriting]

As a first time poster here, I have to wonder why everyone seems to ignore this simple question?

If you can accept that God is wise and great enough to Create everything, why can't you accept that He also gave His creations the ability to adapt, over time, to changing environmental factors (which is known as evolution)?
Why does it have to be one or the other, when BOTH makes sense, both Biblically and scientifically...

He did do that. But the process was not involved in our origins.

 

[Loudmouth]

No disagreement there because you accept creation and what you are describing is what may be termed 'micro-evolution' - the ability within a species to adapt. This has been observed and verified as fact. What Godless evolutionists propose is that life arose from non-living matter by chance processes, without a design or designer and then went on to change from one species into another - termed 'macro-evolution' which has neither ever been observed or deemed possible by science. Therein is the distinction that must be made.

First, abiogenesis is not evolution. If the first simple cell was created by a deity, and all the biodiversity we see today evolved from that first cell, then the theory of evolution would be unchanged. The theory of evolution doesn't require abiogenesis anymore than the Germ Theory of Disease requires abiogenesis.

Second, micro-evolution is evolution. The process of adaptation occurs when mutations are filtered through natural selection. Macro-evolution is the same process with the addition of a speciation event which causes the two populations to diverge over time. Abiogenesis and macro-evolution are two different things.

 

[Loudmouth]

He did do that. But the process was not involved in our origins.

What evidence do you have for this claim?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Adaptation through mutation, yes.

Evolution (changing from one species into another altogether), no.

Man evolving from lower life forms, no.

I think you might have your terminology wrong.

There's a possibility you might have a lot more than that wrong.

Do you mind explaining your second idea a bit more clearly:

Evolution (changing from one species into another altogether). no.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread has had a clean up. If your post is missing, it is because it was in violation of the rules or responding to a post that was. The site rules include:

Flaming and Goading
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
● Do not attack another member's character or actions in any way, address only the content of their post and not the member personally.

and

Statement of Purpose and Off-Topic
Read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread. Start threads that are relevant to that forum's stated purpose. Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.

The topic is not the Anti-Christ nor is it other members. Stick to the topic
​

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I think you might have your terminology wrong.

There's a possibility you might have a lot more than that wrong.

Do you mind explaining your second idea a bit more clearly:

Evolution (changing from one species into another altogether). no.

Then show where one species has changed into another? Not conjecture - not wishful thinking - but actually?

According to evolution there should be only one species - from which all other infraspecific taxa arose (subspecies, varieties and formae.) If so, then why do you have a million species which violates your own theory?

According to evolution everything that exists should be classified as a subspecies or infraspecific taxa - not separate species.

But I guess you really don't believe in evolution that much.

 

[crjmurray]

Then show where one species has changed into another? Not conjecture - not wishful thinking - but actually?

According to evolution there should be only one species - from which all other infraspecific taxa arose (subspecies, varieties and formae.) If so, then why do you have a million species which violates your own theory?

According to evolution everything that exists should be classified as a subspecies or infraspecific taxa - not separate species.

But I guess you really don't believe in evolution that much.

You don't understand the theory of evolution.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

You don't understand the theory of evolution.

I was going to say that, but T's reply was so authoritative (or that's how it seems) that I think I need to go back and begin studying what I missed in Evo. 101.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then show where one species has changed into another? Not conjecture - not wishful thinking - but actually?

According to evolution there should be only one species - from which all other infraspecific taxa arose (subspecies, varieties and formae.) If so, then why do you have a million species which violates your own theory?

According to evolution everything that exists should be classified as a subspecies or infraspecific taxa - not separate species.

But I guess you really don't believe in evolution that much.

For sexual species, separate species are two populations that do not interbreed when given the chance. Why can't evolution produce separate species from a common ancestral population?

 

[dad]

For sexual species, separate species are two populations that do not interbreed when given the chance. Why can't evolution produce separate species from a common ancestral population?

Even if it could in some cases, and we knew this, that doesn't mean all life came about that way. You might catch a train, that doesn't mean all life came about because someone caught a train.

 

[Loudmouth]

Even if it could in some cases, and we knew this, that doesn't mean all life came about that way.

Then what evidence should we see if it is the case? How should the fossil and genetic evidence be different if evolution really did happen?

 

[dad]

Then what evidence should we see if it is the case?

Don't cry to us because you have none to present. No one has ever seen any such so called evidence, so how would anyone know what it would look like?

How should the fossil and genetic evidence be different if evolution really did happen?

Evolution did happen. The created kinds evolved and fast. It looks perfectly thanks as it is. You don't own the word evolution any more, I stole it. Thanks.

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't cry to us because you have none to present.

You have refuted none of the evidence that has been presented.

No one has ever seen any such so called evidence, so how would anyone know what it would look like?

If you can't define what the evidence should look like, how do you know that you haven't already seen it?

Evolution did happen. The created kinds evolved and fast. It looks perfectly thanks as it is. You don't own the word evolution any more, I stole it. Thanks.

Then why is there evidence for humans sharing a common ancestor with other apes? How do you explain the shared ERV's and transitional fossils?

 

[dad]

You have refuted none of the evidence that has been presented.

Better still I have seen none. Was there something you missed somewhere? Perhaps you offered some belief nonsense and thought folks would swallow that it was somehow 'evidence'?


Get over it.

If you can't define what the evidence should look like, how do you know that you haven't already seen it?

It should look like Jesus and His word. It should not look like same state past religion spayed onto rocks or other things.

Then why is there evidence for humans sharing a common ancestor with other apes?

There isn't. You are dreaming.


Just because you have no clue how God created, or how transfer happened in the former nature, or how genetics worked..etc..does not mean you are related to worms as you think.

How do you explain the shared ERV's and transitional fossils?

Easy. You can't really say for the most part what was transitional, or what came from what. As for the transfer of pre viri in the former nature, apparently you think it happened as it now does. Religion pal.

 

[Loudmouth]

Better still I have seen none.

That's because your eyes are closed.

Please address the evidence.

It should look like Jesus and His word. It should not look like same state past religion spayed onto rocks or other things.

Then why does the evidence look like a same state past?

Just because you have no clue how God created, or how transfer happened in the former nature, or how genetics worked..etc..does not mean you are related to worms as you think.

I know exactly how genetics works. That is how I know that ERV's are evidence for evolution. Why can't you even address them?

Easy. You can't really say for the most part what was transitional, or what came from what. As for the transfer of pre viri in the former nature, apparently you think it happened as it now does. Religion pal.

We know eactly where ERV's come from. They come from retroviruses. We can observe how retroviruses act and insert into the host genome. It is no different than finding a fingerprint at a crime scene.

 

[dad]

That's because your eyes are closed.

Please address the evidence.

I see plainly you have no evidence. Talking as if you did won't work. My eyes are not closed to evidence, but they are not open to godless and insane interpretations of it.

Then why does the evidence look like a same state past?

It doesn't to those with open eyes. It looks like God created it when and How he said.

I know exactly how genetics works. That is how I know that ERV's are evidence for evolution. Why can't you even address them?

You just shot your case in the foot. You say you know how evolution 'works'. That is not even part of the creation debate and irrelevant.

We know eactly where ERV's come from. They come from retroviruses.

"The process of reverse transcription is extremely error-prone and it is during this step that mutations may occur."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase#Process_of_reverse_transcription

Now if that is the case here, imagine what a difference existed in a different nature! Also were there even any viri in Noah's day?!


"
Where Did Viruses Come From?


There is much debate among virologists about this question. Three main hypotheses have been articulated: 1. The progressive, or escape, hypothesis states that viruses arose from genetic elements that gained the ability to move between cells; 2. the regressive, or reduction, hypothesis asserts that viruses are remnants of cellular organisms; and 3. the virus-first hypothesis states that viruses predate or coevolved with their current cellular hosts."

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/the-origins-of-viruses-14398218

In short science doesn't know!


Bing and a bam and a boom.

We can observe how retroviruses act and insert into the host genome. It is no different than finding a fingerprint at a crime scene.

False comparison because we don't even know the virus burglar was alive and robbing in Noah's day, or how he moved around.

How sweet it is.