The Barbarian Posted December 17, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, Prodigal Son said: @one.opinion Thanks for providing those links. I knew the facts about the theory of evolution over 10 years ago and don't really know the latest. Is there any falsifiable evidence that man evolved from apes and/or that one species evolved into another? Yes. DNA analyses show precisely the same lines of descent first noticed hundreds of years ago by Linnaeus (who didn't know about evolution, and wondered why they formed a family tree). Numerous transitional forms in the fossil record also indicate this. 6 minutes ago, Prodigal Son said: Is there any falsifiable evidence that man evolved from apes and/or that one species evolved into another? Yes. For example, humans and chimpanzees are more closely related genetically than either is to any other ape. And the predicted transitionals between apes and humans were later found, as predicted. Most creationist groups now admit that new species, genera, and families evolve from other organisms. They don't like to say "evolve" though. Most say that common descent only works within "kinds." Since the Bible describes bats and birds as being of the bird kind, that would admit the evolution of new classes of organisms. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 17, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 17, 2019 11 minutes ago, Prodigal Son said: What can scientists demonstrate in the laboratory that supports large scale evolution? Recently, a bit of heme (fragment of hemoglobin molecules) was found in a T-rex fossil. Lab analysis showed that it was closer to the heme of birds, and not as close to modern reptiles, confirming birds evolved from dinosaurs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 17, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 17, 2019 13 minutes ago, Prodigal Son said: Are there more fossils now that support the theory of evolution? Yes. When I was younger, we didn't have transitionals between: Frogs and other amphibians Fish and land animals Land animals and whales Turtles and other anapsids Ants and other hymenopterans Cockroaches and termites To name a few. Now we have all of those. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 17, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 17, 2019 (edited) 16 hours ago, The Barbarian said: As you see, God says otherwise. I'll go with Him on this. Sorry. If you think you can keep the law good enough to get to heaven, you are listening to Satan, not to God. Phil 1:6 - I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will PERFECT it until the day of Christ Jesus 1 Pet 1:23 - For you have been born again not of seed which is perishable, but imperishable, that is the through living and abiding word of God. I Jn 5:13 - These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life. Love, peace, joy Edited December 17, 2019 by omega2xx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 17, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 17, 2019 12 hours ago, one.opinion said: Try me out, provide some support for your assertion and see whether or not I agree. Honestly, I would just like to see you think about providing support when you do make assertions. This one is pretty serious in claiming that the version of the Bible that English speakers used for over 300 years was flawed. No thanks. If you knew anything about Bible,s you would know the KJ is not a very accurate translation. You know this isn't true. I suspect that you don't actually know any Biblical scholars that have made this claim and can't bring yourself to admit error. Don't take my word for it, that info is readily available on line. When is the last time you used "thou" or "thine" in a conversation? No, the English language has indeed changed, you knoweth this. I would say it has been updated, I wont quibble over the changes. Ok, I will be happy for you to show me the flaws, as long as you explain those flaws. No counting "because NASB uses a different word". I am only going to give you one. The word for "kill" in the 4th commandment is known to be "murder." Some of the problems are like Geisler saying yom does not have definite articles, but in the better translations , they do. The language is outdated and can be difficult for modern English speakers to understand. I prefer more modern translations. I don't know if I would call that a flaw, or just a translation that can be difficult to use. Agreed. If you don't may saying, what translation do you use? Love, peace, joy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 17, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 17, 2019 11 hours ago, one.opinion said: Usually, someone that makes an assertion like that would at least attempt to support the assertion with evidence. I would be happy to discuss that evidence with you. Wonderful. Show the evidence that causes a mutation to change the species. I addressed the point you selected and you had no meaningful reply. Are you suggesting you wish to discuss science again? I would be happy to explain more to you, provided you are interested in learning. I'm sure you did, but I missed it for some reason and i can't find it. If you know where it is and will tell me, I will address it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 17, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 17, 2019 9 hours ago, The Barbarian said: Yes. When I was younger, we didn't have transitionals between: Frogs and other amphibians Fish and land animals Land animals and whales Turtles and other anapsids Ants and other hymenopterans Cockroaches and termites To name a few. Now we have all of those. There are no transitional fossils. Evolutionists have named some out of necessity, to try and keep the lie alive. This is especially true in whale evolution. Especially since you can't explain, genetically of course, how a leg became a fin and a nose became a blowhole. If evolution was true, the great majority of fossils would be transitional. If it takes 5 steps, and that is verify conservative, for an "A" to become a "B", 80% of the fossils would be transitionals, You can't show 5 steps between pakicetus and whales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 17, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 17, 2019 10 hours ago, The Barbarian said: Recently, a bit of heme (fragment of hemoglobin molecules) was found in a T-rex fossil. Lab analysis showed that it was closer to the heme of birds, and not as close to modern reptiles, confirming birds evolved from dinosaurs. How about a link to that claim. It is hard to believe hemoglobin is still available after several million years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted December 17, 2019 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 447 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 80 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/26/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 17, 2019 16 hours ago, The Barbarian said: "In Adam and the Genome, the scientist Dennis Venema explains our origins as most scientists understand it, with special attention to genomic data and human evolution. Assuming this science is correct, the theologian Scott McKnight, “rethinks” Adam and Eve using historical and cultural context of the original authors as a guide, but with evolution in view. Ironically, their ambitious proposal is surprisingly concordist: “accepting the reality of genetic evidence supporting a theory of evolution along with an understanding of Adam and Eve that is more in tune with the historical context of Genesis” (p. 173). A historical Adam can neither be identified in science nor in Scripture; both concord in refraining to teach (or deny) that Adam and Eve are real people from whom all mankind descends. Venema is a gifted scientific writer. As most scientists would, I agree with the science in this book and urge skeptical readers to take this account seriously. However, Venema omits important scientific information that materially affects the theological response. Compounding these omissions, the introduction articulates the “assumption” that Venema’s science is correct (p. xii). Consequently, it appears that McKnight believes genetics rules out Paul’s genealogical Adam, even though this is not the case. This scientific error seems to unduly shape his interpretive goals. " Yes. I cannot find anything in genetics that would rule out Adam and Eve as actual people. The evidenced they were actual people is in God's inspired and inerrant word. Science is not needed to prove that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted December 17, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.10 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 17, 2019 1 hour ago, omega2xx said: Agreed. If you don't may saying, what translation do you use? I prefer to use a variety of translations. I know the scholars that do the translation work are qualified and diligent, but I still like to get input from multiple versions. I like New King James, NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman, and possibly even a few others (Bible Gateway is remarkably useful!). I often read passages in The Voice (I had some friends involved with this project), just to get a modern English viewpoint, although I rely on the more traditional translations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts