Jump to content


Advanced Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

81 Excellent


About one.opinion

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

648 profile views
  1. Body invaders

    And why would you expect to see the Bible make that differentiation? I think anyone with commonsense knows what breathing is. Sorry, but that is just really weak. again, why would you expect THAT to be in the Bible? Honestly, I don't expect to see it in the Bible. But claims are made as if all the support needed is in the Bible itself. If it isn't in the Bible, how would you possibly know what was or was not present on the Ark?
  2. Body invaders

    Again, I have seen nothing in the Biblical that distinguishes between different types of respiratory systems. And I have seen nothing in the Bible that sets a definition for what "breathing" is. Does "breathing" require an active muscular process like contraction of the diaphragm, or can it be performed passively? Many larger insects actually contract their abdomens to help facilitate their versions of inhalation and exhalation. What actually counts as breathing? As far as I'm aware, this is not in the Bible.
  3. Body invaders

    I don't read anything in those verses that makes any sort of distinction between the respiratory systems of fish/insects and terrestrial vertebrates. But back to the OP - although I 100% believe in God as Creator, Sustainer, and Source of all life, this does pose a living example that is a challenge to young earth creationism. With God's direct intervention in the genetic programming of the wasp, it is certainly possible for a shift to occur from a fruit host to an insect host for the larvae - and it would be much more complicated than a minor behavioral change for this switch to work properly. It just seems unlikely that God would genetically re-program this wasp (and many other living organisms) in response to the fall of humanity and introduction of the corrupting influence of sin.
  4. What is your reason for believing in Christianity?

    Lee Strobel spoke at my church a couple of weeks ago and added more to the reasons I include when people want to know why I'm a Christian. He had "four E's" for reasons to believe in Jesus Christ: 1. Execution - The historical accounts both inside and outside of the Bible leave very little doubt that Jesus Christ was a real historical figure and that He was executed. There are very few historians that still attempt to deny the existence of the real person of Jesus. 2. Empty tomb - The fact that the Romans and religious leaders attempted to cover up the empty tomb, "the disciples stole the body!" is implicit evidence that it was indeed empty and that the empty tomb was quite disturbing to them! 3. Early accounts - The fact that accounts of Jesus' resurrection were passed on verbally and in writing very close to the same time as the event preclude the possibility that His resurrection was only a legend. 4. Eyewitness accounts - Between His disciples and the hundreds of other witnesses, there is very little room for the thought that all of these people just made up or hallucinated the resurrected Jesus. As Vlad mentioned, it is also important to understand that the members of the early church maintained their faith with virtually no earthly benefit in the face of tremendous persecution. There is no logical reason why they should have continued to preach the resurrected Jesus Christ other than the fact that it was/is true.
  5. Body invaders

    I agree, it is curious. How do we know this is what the Bible means? I don’t think it is explicitly explained in the Bible itself.
  6. Body invaders

    I've seen this several times in this thread, so curious how "breath of life" is defined, and how it can be asserted with a degree of confidence.
  7. Why Creation Is Right and Evolution Is Wrong.

    Studying scientific evidence that some believe supports evolution is not forbidden. What is your Biblical support for this?
  8. Why Creation Is Right and Evolution Is Wrong.

    There is a good summary of what is believed to be the evolutionary series here -- https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03. There are several adaptations that would have had to be made if there really was a transition from terrestrial to aquatic mammal, but one of those would be a limb changing form a leg to a fin in the pectoral region and loss of the limb (although vestigial hind limbs are present in some). The limb change may be more of what Darwin had suggested.
  9. Why Creation Is Right and Evolution Is Wrong.

    Would it not be worthwhile to study claims contrary to your beliefs, as Tristen does, in order to explain why you disagree with those beliefs? Not everyone that accepts evolution is opposed to Jesus. He gave His life for me and I will follow Him as long as there is breath in me.
  10. Why Creation Is Right and Evolution Is Wrong.

    Who has always known it to be false? It certainly isn't the people that have the background and curiosity to study fossils for a living.
  11. Why Creation Is Right and Evolution Is Wrong.

    I'm fairly sure the original quote was "rarity". An article from creation.com has Gould quoted as using "rarity".
  12. Why Creation Is Right and Evolution Is Wrong.

    Ok, thanks. Sorry it took me so long to understand what you meant there. How do you counter the claim that the Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Rodhocetus, and Dorudon fossils represent transition from terrestrial mammal to cetacean? And the unusual pelvic anatomy for a swimming animal?
  13. Why Creation Is Right and Evolution Is Wrong.

    Controls are needed for experiments. I am not conducting an experiment, just giving you examples of mutations that have persisted despite your claim that they don't. Most humans do not have the mutation that allows lactase persistence, but this mutation has been around for thousands of years. Most humans do not have the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia (and confers increased malaria resistance), but this mutation has been around for thousands of years. The mutant alleles have not been bred out of the gene pool. I never claimed they did. I am only using them to show you why your claim is incorrect. If you want to argue against the theory of evolution, it would be a good idea to use arguments that are actually true.
  14. Why Creation Is Right and Evolution Is Wrong.

    Did Gould ever say there were no transitional species? I didn't give it a meticulous search, but this is the closest thing I found: Gould commented on the rarity, but that was 30 years ago. Like I mentioned previously, the frequency of what paleontologists believe to be transitional is less than what might have been predicted, but if they are legitimate, even a small number corroborate the theory of evolution, not refute it. What definition do you think is the proper one? Why would an organism with characteristics of two different classes not be considered transitional?
  15. Why Creation Is Right and Evolution Is Wrong.

    Noun 1. genetic mutation - (genetics) any event that changes genetic structure; any alteration in the inherited nucleic acid sequence of the genotype of an organism I gave you two examples of genetic mutations. 1. A change in DNA sequence that confers increased resistance to malaria. 2. A change in DNA sequence that allows the lactase enzyme to be produced not only in infancy, but into older ages. According to the theory of evolution, genetic changes accumulate over tremendously long periods of time and eventually generate more visible changes.