N
Noose001
Guest
This is a blank statement.
Can i ask you, when did the creator create you?
- Status
Can i ask you, when did the creator create you?
O
o_mlly
Guest
At last, an admission contrary to your prior post stating, “nothing I can further do”. It took quite a while to get you to finally respond. So, by all means, get started, what do you got to validate macro as a scientific hypothesis?
E
EndTimes
Guest
No. It’s a true statement.
I’m a son of Adam who was Created by the Creator of Creation
I don’t know the time…
N
Noose001
Guest
You are at best implying the time of Adam’s creation. I wasn’t talking about your father Adam, i just want to know if you were indeed created, if so, when?
E
EndTimes
Guest
But I’m a living continuum . of Adam… who was the one Created…
Do you not understand?
_
N
Noose001
Guest
I think i understand but just a simple yes or no will help me understand further; Did God create you?
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
I’ve answered you…
You see… You do not as yet
understand the difference between creation and pro-creation
Consider not Adam for a but a sec
- but rather of yourself and how you first became a living entity…
As opposed to Adam who was Created by the Word of God,
you as a Zygote were as the result of the living seed of your father
- entering into and then growing in the earthly egg of your mother.
_
F
Freddy
Guest
I can’t do any more. I can just repeat what I have done before. But what if I linked to a page that explained everything I believed to be true about evolution? All that would do is give you more opportunity to avoid giving your version by chipping away at any one of dozens of the available explanations. Would that be the case?Freddy:
At last, an admission contrary to your prior post stating, “nothing I can further do”. It took quite a while to get you to finally respond. So, by all means, get started, what do you got to validate macro as a scientific hypothesis?
So let’s say I did. That would be an opportunity for you to show an honest interest in putting forward your position. Is that right? You don’t even have to explain it in your own words. You coukd link to information that you believed to be the answer.
Can we do that?
N
Noose001
Guest
I have read the bible but i did not see any implication of procreation or this so called continuum, all i see is a very strong affirmation that in 6 days God finished all His creation work and rested on the 7th and even calls on all men to honor the 7th day for the same reason.
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
“Adam” and or your entire list of ancestry on the side burner for a sec
Procreation is biological science…
and Continuum (speaking of Time) is a wide view of time
of all your actual grand-daddy’s (and mommies)
and the actual sperm-egg manner in which they came to be…
None of course being created in the Biblical manner of Creation
Anything else?
_
E
EndTimes
Guest
One commonality of all living organisms
- is that they’re living and share some commonalities
their Diversities far outweigh their commonalities
which is why any Searching for the occasionally speculated
yet never shown to have ever existed Common Ancestor
appears to be foolishly futile.
_
Last edited:
N
Noose001
Guest
Aha.
This notion is against the bible of course which confirms that God created everything with no one helping Him besides His own wisdom. And in 6 days, everything was created - my parents did not help God create me.
Read the bible and find out how.
E
EndTimes
Guest
No.
It’s not.
Beyond simple Biology
You also appear to not know the bible in spite of reading it did you say?
God has zero problem with true opinions of homo sap
Last edited:
N
Noose001
Guest
Ok, just a sample of how God created and it has nothing to do with Biology or Homo sap:
Ecc 3: 9 What does the worker gain from his toil? 10 I have seen the burden that God has laid on the sons of men to occupy them. 11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men, yet they cannot fathom the work that God has done from beginning to end.
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
OK…
I’m unsure as how that connects with our discussion on Creation of Adam; Etc…
How about - God said - “Let there be Light!” - and there was Light.
Last edited:
N
Noose001
Guest
The above verse already shows that God only created the human heart (consciousness) or spirit from His own Spirit. It is man’s weakness that made the physical appear.
From Genesis account, we know that this happened when they sinned because it says “…and their eyes were opened…” when they sinned. This doesn’t mean that they were created with their eyes closed but rather sin changed everything from the spiritual dimension to the physical.
In the spiritual sense, it is just an understanding and not really spoken words the way you know them in the physical sense. God does not have a physical mouth through which he utters words.
Pro 3:19The LORD founded the earth by wisdom and established the heavens by understanding.
Last edited:
R
rossum
Guest
So, you accept science. Excellent. What is the science that leads to the presence of rabbits on earth today?
R
rossum
Guest
No, life does not create chemistry. Chemical processes run perfectly well independent of life. You will not win any argument with obviously incorrect statements like this.
R
rossum
Guest
No He did not. God is omnipresent, so the first life on earth was God Himself, being omnipresent and so also present on earth before any other living thing was created.
G
Gigantals
Guest
I’m undermining evolution here with its own logic. The fossil record that it so critically needs to support itself does not.
I know that for all the bird baramins (with their complete feathers) to have differentiated out would only need a few thousand years.
I also know that the fossil record will not support the idea of feather evolution, as there hasn’t been a single fossil supporting a scale-feather transition, let alone a creature covered in them (otherwise you’d pull out something that clearly looks like a protofeather, without a framework of interpretation needed to explain it)
Bacteria differentiate too quickly due to their fast mutation rates to successfully form a community of cells with the same DNA that specialise into specific roles to function as a single multicellular organism. Those cells would have to overcome their ‘natural urge’ (cellular selection) to randomly divide and instead work with the community (organism selection). Yet this opposes. Serial differentiation is required for a multicellular organism to survive, yet its origin is unknown.
There is a large discontinuity between the early tetrapods and their aquatic ancestors in the fossil record. Devonian tetrapods turned out to have more aquatic than previously thought, and their limbs are fully developed with developed digits for their semi-aquatic purpose. Acanthostega has a fully developed lateral line and internal gills (it’s not an incomplete creature with primitive or developing biological systems). There is no fossil evidence to show how a fish’s head disconnected from its ‘shoulder’ to allow it to move as it does in an amphibian, shown in those early tetrapods.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
It’s no surprise we have some similarity with animals in our DNA. Do we not need to code the same proteins sometimes? (Like the keratin we were talking about before, we may not have feathers but we both need proteins from the same group).
And then there’s the fact that we share barely half of our MS ampliconic sequence( on the Y chromosone) with them. (Hughes, J.F. et al. , Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature)
I may not believe a word of it, but if I don’t study evolution, then how will I be able to point out its flaws? Just answering ‘there isn’t enough time’ is not a valid argument, as I’m sure you would’ve pointed out if I had done so. Evolution isn’t something that will be thrown over in one night. I first need to pull on all the loose threads to start making the framework of interpretation loosen and then exploit them.
I know that for all the bird baramins (with their complete feathers) to have differentiated out would only need a few thousand years.
I also know that the fossil record will not support the idea of feather evolution, as there hasn’t been a single fossil supporting a scale-feather transition, let alone a creature covered in them (otherwise you’d pull out something that clearly looks like a protofeather, without a framework of interpretation needed to explain it)
Bacteria differentiate too quickly due to their fast mutation rates to successfully form a community of cells with the same DNA that specialise into specific roles to function as a single multicellular organism. Those cells would have to overcome their ‘natural urge’ (cellular selection) to randomly divide and instead work with the community (organism selection). Yet this opposes. Serial differentiation is required for a multicellular organism to survive, yet its origin is unknown.
There is a large discontinuity between the early tetrapods and their aquatic ancestors in the fossil record. Devonian tetrapods turned out to have more aquatic than previously thought, and their limbs are fully developed with developed digits for their semi-aquatic purpose. Acanthostega has a fully developed lateral line and internal gills (it’s not an incomplete creature with primitive or developing biological systems). There is no fossil evidence to show how a fish’s head disconnected from its ‘shoulder’ to allow it to move as it does in an amphibian, shown in those early tetrapods.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
It’s no surprise we have some similarity with animals in our DNA. Do we not need to code the same proteins sometimes? (Like the keratin we were talking about before, we may not have feathers but we both need proteins from the same group).
And then there’s the fact that we share barely half of our MS ampliconic sequence( on the Y chromosone) with them. (Hughes, J.F. et al. , Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature)
I may not believe a word of it, but if I don’t study evolution, then how will I be able to point out its flaws? Just answering ‘there isn’t enough time’ is not a valid argument, as I’m sure you would’ve pointed out if I had done so. Evolution isn’t something that will be thrown over in one night. I first need to pull on all the loose threads to start making the framework of interpretation loosen and then exploit them.
- Status