Thanks for the clarification; I don’t even know where that poster even came from. The statement wasn’t even in context of anything. I guess anyone can call themselves whatever they want, but thanks for cluing me in; I was just a little baffled.
Nope; this attack came out of nowhere-land. I did say somewhere if you chose to reject the God of the Bible, you will be in hell - something to that effect, but the conversation with the poster was flat out mocking the idea of God; so like I said I have no idea where the attack came from.
Or you are being lied to with all the vast assumptions going into your theories or both are being lied to, but you see the nature of the Christian is being truthful. If you look closely enough of the DNA of the Christian, then you would see the one example where things have actually improved…LOL You must first identify who a Christian actually is, since most that make the claim are not unfortunately.
Have you ever stepped back and just looked and said to yourself is man improving or getting worse; using some plain commonsense - turn on the TV once in a while and watch the news or better yet; find your news sources on the internet for more reliable and comprehensive news.
Given enough time and resources; yes I could climb faster than a chimp, stronger than the Orangutan; Smith & Wesson will handle that with ease.
Can an eagle see a spot less than a square meter from outer space? Nope Can a dolphin swim faster than speed boat? Nope Most humans smell better than the average dog, but there are those exceptions when the human smells worse than the dog. According to your own theory; adaptation & survival of the fittest; the human stand far superior to all animals because of intelligence, which many humans, we won’t point fingers, seem to be lacking.
Not more correct, more comprehensive version. according to your theory, if you went back far enough, at some point the ape mutated from the monkey or vice versa…right?
He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes will have eternal life. So to say He is evil when He provided a way of escape, it is you that is evil, not God. You, like gene Roddenberry, do not understand the nature of God, He is merciful, kind, but also just. He did not create evil or sin, but did allow creatures to make that choice; if He had not allowed it, then wouldn’t we all just be robots? Or like the cyborg? Do you see in order to understand live, you must understand hate, to understand grace, you must understand evil. He gave the way of escape and it is a gift, not something you can merit nor earn, but you must accept it.
Will the tooth fairy send you to hell for failng to believe in her?
How can you say there is no evidence? Have you ever looked outside? How you ever looked the pictures from the Hubble telescope? The evidence is all around you; don’t be a fool, open your eyes.
Why would 12 men go to their death for a cause they knew was a phony? 1 or 2 might for personal gain, but these men had zero personal gain and were always being beaten, torchered and imprisoned because they knew Jesus was the real deal - just wanted to add that.
There is a wingless beetle that lives on an Island in the Pacific and is very windy; the mutation that occurred was the loss of wings. Somehow these wingless beatles made it to this Island and because the winged ones were blown into the sea, the wingless ones were able to survive and reproduce = natural selectionIf what I’ve written is not natural selection, argue against what I’ve written. Its not worth you posting something just telling me I don’t understand it. Where is your wonderful scientific brain. Use it to argue against me, to enlighten me. Put some effort into it. Off you go now and research your argument against me.
Now I get it; you believe God is going to save everyone regardless. Good luck with that theology; you will not find that in Scripture without a serious twisting or two.
Do yourself a favor - do a search on StA’s last 50 posts or so.Now I get it; you believe God is going to save everyone regardless. Good luck with that theology; you will not find that in Scripture without a serious twisting or two.
So I can’t safely assume the group of people with red hair are more closely related than those with darker features?
Your reasoning has all the theological nuance of a sledgehammer!Now I get it; you believe God is going to save everyone regardless. Good luck with that theology; you will not find that in Scripture without a serious twisting or two.
Er, not really.
disagree completely. One doesn’t choose to fall in love. It’s involuntary. And it needs the subject to exist before it can occur. Here’s a challenge for you which, by your argument, you should have no trouble achieving: fall in love with Santa.
Not true. I just can’t believe in something for which no evidence exists. I might be able to immerse myself in religious practices, go through the motions until one day, I might even brainwash myself into believing in God… maybe even using the same tired old arguments to defend my ‘faith’ that I see here all the time. But that would not be intellectually honest, and it certainly wouldn’t be proof that God exists.
Again, your creationist sources are taking advantage of you by telling you lies. If we saw a cat give birth to a dog then the theory of evolution would be in big trouble. Cats give birth to cats and dogs give birth to dogs. What evolution says is that in the past there was a population of generalised mammalian carnivores. Some of that population evolved into modern cats while others of that same population evolved into modern dogs. That group was so successful that it now has enough species in it to be classified as an Order.
In colloquial English “ape” means “all the Hominidae, excluding man”. In scientific English “ape” means “all the Hominidae, including man”. What meaning of “ape” do you intend here?
In terms of the theory of evolution there is only one “kind”, the “life on earth” kind. That kind has repeatedly partitioned itself into all the different groups of animals we see today. As I said above, cats give birth to cats, also carnivora give birth to carnivora, mammals give birth to mammals and so on up the tree.
I would instead place the emphsis on “Let the earth sprout …”. This is not a direct creation by God, there is no “let there be…” This is an indirect creation, “Let the earth sprout …” Moreover earth is made from inanimate rocks and chemicals. Here God is saying “Let the inanimate chemicals sprout …”
Again this is an indirect creation starting from non-living chemicals.
There is no “original dog that God created” because we have fossils from times when there were no dogs at all, no Carnivora, no Mammals, no land animals, no multicelled animals.
Have you taken any anger management classes lately? You are very unhappy person; how is your god going to change that?
That takes a great deal more faith. I believe in one big miracle - God; you appear to believe in several miracles to get from muck to the man. Furthermore, based on that proposition, ultimately one species would dominate all others and kill them off, leaving only the dominate specie, which would eventually only survive by plant life or cannibalism. Technically, man is the only specie that has the power and opportunity to do just that.
My point is that based on your faith, they all came a pool of chemical muck; therefore all is related, where the Bible says that all dogs are related after their kind, all cats after there kind, tress etc. One big miracle versus miracle after miracle after miracle. I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.
This is what I mean by the monkey & ape thing - go back far enough and it is all related, must have been a hell of DNA muck pool. You theory suggest just the opposite of what is observed concerning DNA; contradicts your earlier post as well for you appear to apply the genetic code a 95% neutral and most of the rest as degradation, but on this theory you reverse this and things are getting superior do to mutation; just not what we observe. You have greater faith than I do.
Who am I that I would determine differently than what God said? Your formula for all existence looks like this: Nobody + Nothing = Everything, whereas mine looks like this, Creator + Nothing = Everything, now you tell me which is the more logical; you don’t have to be a rocket scientist.
You are right, I trust in God, He is moral and their is a standard, which means there is a source for that standard, He is living, He is all powerful, He is every where and his Creation is His testimony. If you were hiking and a trail and came across a piano in the middle of nowhere; you wouldn’t look at that and say; wow look how that evolved; you would say some nut put this piano out here but the point is you would see something created and know that something created it, a creator. Likewise with the universe and the earth, like at its beauty and perfection and you know there has to be something far bigger than ourselves and far more intelligent and someone who creates. No friend, you have a much greater faith that I could ever have.
Actually, not really, no! Incidentally, racialism was invented by seeking hardline definition of humanity as a set of sub-species! Not the first time I’ve seen that being sneaked back in…
Ah, an armchair psychologist, are we?
I don’t know about rossum’s faith, but from his writing it is evident that he does have a university education.
It takes a lot less faith than your lying creationist sources say. I have some experimental evidence to support abiogenesis, and I have a lot of experimental and observational evidence to support evolution. Every time a disease bacterium evolves immunity to an antibiotic I have more evidence for evolution. Where is you experimental observation of God directly creating even one kind? You have faith, because faith is all you can have in the absence of any experimental or observational evidence.
Please, for your own sake, learn something about biology before posting: “Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.” - Proverbs 17:28
Make it look very different to the fossil record we see today. Did your lying creationist sources tell you that we have fossilised dunes from ancient deserts? Deserts are just the sort of thing that are not seen in a global flood, yet we see them at many levels in the fossil record. Fifty years before Darwin published geologists were realising that the Noahic flood story did not reflect the geology they were seeing in the real world. Even Leonardo da Vinci had his doubts about the flood:"If the Deluge had carried the shells for distances of three and four hundred miles from the sea it would have carried them mixed with various other natural objects all heaped up together; but even at such distances from the sea we see the oysters all together and also the shellfish and the cuttlefish and all the other shells which congregate together, found all together dead; and the solitary shells are found apart from one another as we see them every day on the sea-shores.
Correct. Name one living organism that does not use RNA somewhere in its life cycle. All life on earth is related. You might also note that as a Buddhist I do not see the great separation that Christian doctrine imposes between humans and other animals.
The Bible has many different interpretations. Only someone with little knowledge of science would interpret the Bible as a science textbook.
Again, you are mistaken to trust your creationist sources when they tell you that it is impossible for the information in DNA to increase. It can increase. It has been shown to increase. It has been measured to increase. For an example read a scientific review paper such as Long et al (2003) The Origin of New Genes
Your problem is that you are not trusting in God, you are trusting in Answers in Genesis, in the Institute for Creation Research, in the Discovery Institute and all the other fallible human lying creationists who are misinforming you about evolution. God made the world, and if you take God to be trustworthy then you can accept what God’s world tells you about itself. To quote Saint Thomas Aquinas:“In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing.”