one.opinion Posted December 19, 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 19, 2019 11 minutes ago, Alive said: The above is only a small portion of the relevant probability mechanics involved in ‘first life’ occurring by ‘chance alone’. Staggering, isn’t it? I agree! But it doesn't refute the concept of evolution in God's hands in the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alive Posted December 19, 2019 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 22 Topic Count: 195 Topics Per Day: 0.11 Content Count: 11,054 Content Per Day: 6.51 Reputation: 9,018 Days Won: 36 Joined: 09/12/2019 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/09/1956 Share Posted December 19, 2019 3 minutes ago, one.opinion said: I agree! But it doesn't refute the concept of evolution in God's hands in the least. No--but I have used this in conversations with unbelievers. It can be a starting point to lead to the gospel. Some minds of a particular type need a slap in the head. :-) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alive Posted December 19, 2019 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 22 Topic Count: 195 Topics Per Day: 0.11 Content Count: 11,054 Content Per Day: 6.51 Reputation: 9,018 Days Won: 36 Joined: 09/12/2019 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/09/1956 Share Posted December 19, 2019 Well--anyway. It doesn't seem to be my calling to debate such things, but I generally always seem to come back to 'kind'. I think that 'kind' is an immutable fundamental. :-) I prefer the foolishness of the cross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 19, 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 19, 2019 29 minutes ago, omega2xx said: Who has science identified as the first 2 people They aren't the first 2 people. They are the last male and last female ancestors of all people living today. 30 minutes ago, omega2xx said: how did they identify them Genetic analyses of human populations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve 31 minutes ago, omega2xx said: why do you reject what God says? You aren't God. This is entirely consistent with scripture. It's just inconsistent with your modern revision of scripture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 19, 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 19, 2019 8 minutes ago, Alive said: I think that 'kind' is an immutable fundamental. The Bible says bats and birds are of the same kind. So that means new classes can evolve. Which is a lot of evolution, more than most creationists would like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alive Posted December 19, 2019 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 22 Topic Count: 195 Topics Per Day: 0.11 Content Count: 11,054 Content Per Day: 6.51 Reputation: 9,018 Days Won: 36 Joined: 09/12/2019 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/09/1956 Share Posted December 19, 2019 4 minutes ago, The Barbarian said: The Bible says bats and birds are of the same kind. So that means new classes can evolve. Which is a lot of evolution, more than most creationists would like. Please show me that in scripture. I have seen a bat and I have seen bird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 19, 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 19, 2019 Barbarian observes: I'm just accepting Genesis as it is, without the revisions of creationism. 42 minutes ago, omega2xx said: You are not. You must ignore The word "created" which means ex nihlo, out of nothing, for sea life, birds, cattle, beasts and man. That's a good example of your revisions of God's word. He does not say life was created ex nihilo; He says the earth and waters brought forth life, not from nothing. Because your new doctrines require life to be created from nothing, you will not accept His word in Genesis. Which is, as I said, not going to cost your your salvation. If you make a idol of your new doctrines, and insist that any other reading of Genesis is "anti-God", that might not go so well for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 19, 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 19, 2019 4 minutes ago, Alive said: Please show me that in scripture. I have seen a bat and I have seen bird. Leviticus 11:13 These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle,[a] the vulture, the black vulture, 14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, 19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alive Posted December 19, 2019 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 22 Topic Count: 195 Topics Per Day: 0.11 Content Count: 11,054 Content Per Day: 6.51 Reputation: 9,018 Days Won: 36 Joined: 09/12/2019 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/09/1956 Share Posted December 19, 2019 That is funny... עוֹף (ʿôp), flying creatures (H6416). ANE Sem. cognates: Ugar. ʿp, Aram. עוֹפָא, Sam., Syr. ʿaupāʾ, Arab. ʿauf. OT 1. In the OT עוֹף is a generic term for flying creatures, including insects (Gen 7:14, 21; Lev 11:20–23; Deut 14:19). In God’s creation the flying creatures were designed, along with animals, to be controlled and governed by man (Gen 1:26, 28). After the Flood, flying creatures were also allowed as food for humankind (Gen 9:2–3). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 19, 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 19, 2019 41 minutes ago, Alive said: The above is only a small portion of the relevant probability mechanics involved in ‘first life’ occurring by ‘chance alone’. Staggering, isn’t it? The relevant information borrowed from sources cited in the book by Stephen Meyer ’Signature in the Cell’. The error is like finding an arrow in a tree, and drawing a bulls-eye around it. Staggeringly unlikely things happen all around us. Take a deck of cards and shuffle it well. Then deal out the cards, noting the order. The likelihood of that is about 1.24 x 10^-68, or 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000124. So Meyer has "proven" that evolution and shuffled decks of cards are impossible. Does that suggest to you what's wrong with his argument? If you predicted the order of cards in the shuffled deck, that would be one thing. To look at it after the fact,and think it was amazing, that's the error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts