After talking with many biologist over the years, it seems to me that from Biology 101, they’ve been indoctrinated with Dobzhansky’s delusion that Darwin’s tree of life is essential to biology. Evidently, as intelligent as they are, the vast majority of these biologists have never thought to question that dogma - for if they did, they’d realize that the D-tree is completely useless and irrelevant to applied science.
If that bush starts burning yet isn’t consumed, and then a voice comes out of it, we will know it’s the truth.
Nothing else reads like the Bible. It has the ring of truth about it, imo.
Thanks, this is a fascinating subject. How do we know that Otzi was actually 5300 years old and that Cro-Magnon was 28,000 years old? Carbon-14 dating?
But despite the “improbability of evolution of life from non-life” (the understatement of the century), atheist scientists (of which there seem to be many) believe life did in fact arise naturally from inanimate matter and then evolve into what we have today. This is why such scientists obsessively devote inordinate amounts of time and energy studying such things.
As a progressive creationist, I agree that the history of life reveals an overall evolution of species (as testified by the fossil and geological records), but I’m not at all convinced that a contiguous process of biological evolution is the mechanism that allowed that history to proceed.
I wouldn’t suppose to know how the Almighty would create.
Because God loves everything He creates and wants to be intimately involved in its progress.
I won’t be taking on Aloysium in a philosophical debate anytime soon.
Man is made in the image of God - therefore, for starters, it is a contradiction-in-terms to claim that man is the result of a natural process alone.
Fascinating.
It doesn’t take an expert to realize that humans and chimps are miles apart genetically. The “98% DNA in common” mantra, so beloved by evolutionists, is very misleading and obviously doesn’t tell the whole story.
Once upon I believed that Picasso himself evolved from paint … but then I realized that I was wrong.
The last words of the verse (Gen 2:7) are sometimes translated as, “and he became a living soul”, but this is somewhat misleading, as these exact words are also used in reference to non-human creatures elsewhere in the OT. In many Bibles the same words are translated as “and he became a living being”, which is a less-confusing translation. Furthermore, non-human creatures are also referred to in the OT as having “the breath of life”.
Impressive - but a human being (or any living creature) is infinitely more complex than a cube of rock.
So your argument is: It sounds true to me.rossum:
Nothing else reads like the Bible. It has the ring of truth about it, imo.
It’s good to admit one’s limitations. I commend you for that.Wozza:
I won’t be taking on Aloysium in a philosophical debate anytime soon.
Carbon dating and other methods.
We should be grateful that you fit the bill and can point us in the right direction.o_mlly:
It doesn’t take an expert to realize that humans and chimps are miles apart genetically.
Would it make a difference if they were 99.99% identical? This comparison is important to those who believe in the primacy of matter. How we differ is in our soul, what we are existentially, the nature of our being, that which organizes the matter which we are into a person, someone who can know, and through the exercise of free will, someone who can love and thereby know God.