one.opinion Posted November 9, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 9, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, omega2xx said: Ok, then explain what I don't know about evolution and what constitutes verifiable evidence. I'm going to give you a link, and ask that you check it out. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/ You are under exactly zero obligation to do so. But if you really want to learn more about why about 99% of biologists accept evolution (including the many Christians in the field, like me), this might be a good place to start. Edit - there are several pieces of evidence in that link Edited November 9, 2019 by one.opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted November 9, 2019 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,158 Content Per Day: 7.98 Reputation: 21,444 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted November 9, 2019 31 minutes ago, one.opinion said: I'm going to give you a link, and ask that you check it out. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/ You are under exactly zero obligation to do so. But if you really want to learn more about why about 99% of biologists accept evolution (including the many Christians in the field, like me), this might be a good place to start. Edit - there are several pieces of evidence in that link It's very simple you either believe in the verbal plenary aspects of inspiration of God's Word or you don't... God warned all of us about this 2 Thess 2:7-11 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: KJV It is the foundation of us that are redeemed and adhere to His Word alone and not the opinion of man... for you can have the whole world support you and yet be opposed to the verbal plenary inspiration that His Word teaches us.... as clear as God says Gen 2:16-17 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. KJV Rom 5:12 12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: KJV We understand evolution has their god building upon death before man ever was and that the god of the evolutionist is the god of this world... no matter how one tries to twist it... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 9, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 9, 2019 27 minutes ago, enoob57 said: 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Isn’t it interesting that Adam and Eve did not physically die that day? I argue that this is strong evidence of spiritual death, not physical death. 29 minutes ago, enoob57 said: Rom 5:12 12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: I would argue that this, too, is better interpreted in spiritual terms, not physical. The context of the chapter refers to life in Jesus Christ, which is of course, spiritual life. Until you can show me why my interpretation is inferior according to the Bible, please keep your condemnation to yourself. This is the third time recently that you have started with this argument. The Bible hasn’t changed. You still cannot provide evidence from the Bible that nothing dies before the Fall of Adam. Please base your preaching on what the Bible actually says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted November 10, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,050 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 969 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted November 10, 2019 11 hours ago, omega2xx said: You may be right , but it is irrelevant. Mutations are not a mechanism for a change of species. The life form, man, animal or plant remains the exact same species as its parents, and its kids will be the exact same species is its parents and grand parents, proving "after them kind. Also, the trait caused by the mutation may not show up in the next generation No, that's wrong. For example, the first directly-observed speciation involved a polyploidy mutation; the resulting organism was completely unable to reproduce with the old species. Would you like to learn about that? 11 hours ago, omega2xx said: You may be right again, but it is still irrelevant and DNA actually refutes evolution because the DNA of every species is different. That is how you can tell a man from an ape What's more important is that the similarities in DNA sort out precisely as in the family tree of living things first noticed by Linnaeus (who wasn't aware of evolution, and couldn't explain it). Today, we know that DNA relatedness shows how closely related living thigns are to each other. And we know it works, because we can test it by looking at the DNA of organisms of known descent. 11 hours ago, omega2xx said: I don't believe Answers in Genesis says that, but i can't check your link until i send this message. When I do, I will get back to you. It's very true. 11 hours ago, omega2xx said: The only way to defeat ignorance is to base what you believe on evidence. As you now realize, even knowledgeable YE creationists admit that the large number of transitional forms in the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Would you like me to show you that, again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted November 10, 2019 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,158 Content Per Day: 7.98 Reputation: 21,444 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted November 10, 2019 12 hours ago, one.opinion said: Isn’t it interesting that Adam and Eve did not physically die that day? I argue that this is strong evidence of spiritual death, not physical death. They did physically begin death. When the Spirit of Life left them (when they ate) they died spiritually instantaneous and physical death began immediately as well... 12 hours ago, one.opinion said: I would argue that this, too, is better interpreted in spiritual terms, not physical. The context of the chapter refers to life in Jesus Christ, which is of course, spiritual life. The only life that has ever been life is spiritual life John 4:24 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." NKJV John 1:1-4 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. KJV Gen 2:7 7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. KJV Biogenesis is an observable fact / law and God began it -as at that time the only life was God and it was eternal! John 14:6 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: KJV 12 hours ago, one.opinion said: Until you can show me why my interpretation is inferior according to the Bible, please keep your condemnation to yourself. Matt 19:4 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, KJV 12 hours ago, one.opinion said: This is the third time recently that you have started with this argument. The Bible hasn’t changed. You still cannot provide evidence from the Bible that nothing dies before the Fall of Adam. Please base your preaching on what the Bible actually says. John 1:1-4 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. KJV John 14:7 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: KJV God has only described Himself as Life and that Life 'IS' eternal without begin or end thus it is you that must prove there was death before God said there was! Gen 2:17 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. KJV 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted November 10, 2019 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,158 Content Per Day: 7.98 Reputation: 21,444 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted November 10, 2019 Theistic evolution has it's real dangers: https://answersingenesis.org/theistic-evolution/10-dangers-of-theistic-evolution/ snip However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. ‘Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus cannot be regarded as teleonomical.’5 Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted November 10, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,050 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 969 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted November 10, 2019 2 hours ago, enoob57 said: However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. If so, it's hard to understand this... There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origion of Species This is yet another creationist superstition about science. Science can neither assert nor deny such things. If your faith won't do it for you (as it did for Darwin), then science won't be able to help you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted November 10, 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 November 10, 2019 20 hours ago, one.opinion said: I'm going to give you a link, and ask that you check it out. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/ You are under exactly zero obligation to do so. But if you really want to learn more about why about 99% of biologists accept evolution (including the many Christians in the field, like me), this might be a good place to start. Edit - there are several pieces of evidence in that link There was not piece of evidence in that link. Only the usual evolution talking points. Fell free to cut and past what you consider evidence and we can discuss them if you wish. 99% of biologist accept evolution because from about the 6th graded through and through graduate school college, they were only taught one thing---evolution is based on science and has been proven. The opposite view was not allowed to be taught, so all generations from at least the 60's Was never introduced to the creation side of the debate. Those who only hear one side of different views are not fully educated. You don't need 99% to agree, you need 100%. As long as there are some jut as well qualified scientist who reject the popular view, you can't claim victory. Keep in mind that I was taught in our public education system.I never heard the creationist view until I became a Christian and started looking into the other side of the debate, and I found it more convincing. Until then I did not care who was right. Neither side would change the way i lived. I ask you to show me what I do not know about evolution and you did not do that, because you can't. You think I don't know about evolution because I reject it. I reject it because I do know about it. Although I did not take biology, I was required to take 3 ologies to graduate. I know I took zoology and archeology, but I can't remember the third one. They all pushed evolution as science and fact. So my level of science is not as high as yours, but it is not zero, and I have the ability to read and evaluate evidence in this subject. What can you disprove in the creation model? I would like you to do 2 things. First In the speciation of salamanders the salamanders remained salamanders, and some of the could still mate and have kids. If salamanders remain salamanders, where is the evolution? Second, I would like to to provide the scientific evidence that mutations are a mechanism for evolution. I already know your answer so I know you can' prove it with they usual way it is done. Peace and joy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 10, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted November 10, 2019 6 hours ago, enoob57 said: They did physically begin death. When the Spirit of Life left them (when they ate) they died spiritually instantaneous and physical death began immediately as well... This spiritual death is substantiated by the Bible. The slow physical death is not. This is hypothesis that goes beyond what is evident in the Bible. I have no problem with you making this determination on your own. What I do have a problem with is you insisting that everyone else either believes exactly as you believe or reject the truth of God. I do not think that the Bible teaches "no death before the fall" and it is inconsistent with what God has made evident about creation. You have no basis to claim "believe as I do, or be wrong." None of verses you have quoted are strong enough to definitively support your position. 6 hours ago, enoob57 said: John 1:1-4 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. KJV John 14:7 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: KJV God has only described Himself as Life and that Life 'IS' eternal without begin or end thus it is you that must prove there was death before God said there was! Yes, the "perfect" life of Jesus Christ is eternal. This does not necessarily mean the "very good" life was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted November 10, 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 November 10, 2019 13 hours ago, The Barbarian said: No, that's wrong. For example, the first directly-observed speciation involved a polyploidy mutation; the resulting organism was completely unable to reproduce with the old species. Would you like to learn about that? The inability to reproduce does not make a new species. In fact it refutes evolution. If a species can't reproduce, it can't evolve. What I want you to explain, and I have ask you to do this several times, and you keep ignoring it, is to explain how a salamander remaining a salamander, is evidence of evolution. I will not respond to any of your post until youdo this. What's more important is that the similarities in DNA sort out precisely as in the family tree of living things first noticed by Linnaeus (who wasn't aware of evolution, and couldn't explain it). Today, we know that DNA relatedness shows how closely related living thigns are to each other. And we know it works, because we can test it by looking at the DNA of organisms of known descent. The only common thing about DNA is that for a few exception, all living things, plant and animals, have DNA. However DNA doe no link species, it actually separates them. That is why the DNA for an ape is distinguishable from the DNA for a man. The are close, but no cigar. It's very true. As you now realize, even knowledgeable YE creationists admit that the large number of transitional forms in the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Would you like me to show you that, again? Admitting something is easy. Proving it is difficult. There are some Christians who believe in theistic evolution. That does not make it true. If there are some Christians who believe there are transitional, no matter how many, that does not make it true. There are some evolutionists who admit there are none. Evidence, which seems to be a dirty word for you, is needed to support comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts