God used Evolution to 'create' man

[The Barbarian]

46 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

You didn't show me anything.  

I showed you a statement from an Adventist website:

"The Bible says that animals would reproduce after their kind. "

That's right and evolution says at some point they will reproduce not after their kind.

http://www.adventistonline.com/forum/topics/amalgamation-1?page=2

No point in denying it.   Everyone sees it.

(Barbarian notes that the Bible classifies bats as birds)

47 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Not true.  

Well, let's take a look...

"Leviticus 11:13-19 New International Version (NIV)

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."

Sorry, you're wrong.   It's right there for you.   Do you not think Leviticus is part of the Bible?

50 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Even if what you said was true, it still does not support evolution. You must show how an A can become a B and you can't do that, because it is genetically impossible. 

No, that's wrong, too.  Even most creationists now admit that new species are a fact.  Many of them now admit new genera new families, and sometimes new orders of living things from older ones.   Since speciation is directly observed, there's no question about "A becoming B."

If you'd just let God have it His way, the evidence would show you these facts.

[omega2xx]

53 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I showed you a statement from an Adventist website:"

You need to do your homework.  Ellen G. White was a discredited "prophet" by most SDA.  She questioned if Negroes(Her word) were human.  You have put yourself on the wrong horse quoting her on anything.

"The Bible says that animals would reproduce after their kind. "

That's right and evolution says at some point they will reproduce not after their kind.

http://www.adventistonline.com/forum/topics/amalgamation-1?page=2

"No point in denying it.   Everyone sees it.

(Barbarian notes that the Bible classifies bats as birds)"

Well, let's take a look...

"Leviticus 11:13-19 New International Version (NIV)

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."

Sorry, you're wrong.   It's right there for you.   Do you not think Leviticus is part of the Bible?"

No, everyone doesn't see it.  You are reading something in that verse to try and strengthen your view.  I explained it to you once but you don't really understand that verse.  It is  not about classifying life forms,it is a list  of winged life forms the Jews were not allowed to eat.  The fact that it is listed with some other winged life forms, does not say it is a bird.

"No, that's wrong, too.  Even most creationists now admit that new species are a fact.  Many of them now admit new genera new families, and sometimes new orders of living things from older ones."

No you are dead wrong.  First, as usual, you offer no evidence to support your claim.  Second, you have no evidence those making the claims are really Christians,  If  they are, they are liberal Christians who accept God used evolution instead of what He literally says says about each of His  classifications of life,.  ---"after their kind."  This includes man.although the phrase ins not used for man, but it  is more powerful when Go says, "Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness.  If you want to interpret that as God made apes, then man, you need a lesson in basic reading comprehension.

"  Since speciation is directly observed, there's no question about "A becoming B."

I have ask you several times, to explain how salamander and gulls, remaining salamander and gulls, prove evolution.  Unless you answer that question, I am thru with this discussion.

"If you'd just let God have it His way, the evidence would show you these facts."

Amusing.  I take "after their kind" literally.  You try to shoehorn evolution into that very simple to understand phrase and make it say "eventually, not after their kind.

To date you have  not presented any scientific evidence to support evolution.  You have only presented statements by man that you have accepted by faith alone.

Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.

God said all life forms reproduce after their kind.  This i know for the
Bible tells me so.

Love, peach, joy

 

[one.opinion]

@omega2xx, it is not arguing in good faith when you ask for evidence, but refuse to look at it when it is provided. This indicates that you are only pretending to be interested in evidence.

[Eman_3]

On 11/20/2019 at 9:01 AM, omega2xx said:

Nothing evolution preaches has ever been observed.

I suggest you talk to a dog breeder. The sole difference between a dog breeder and the environment is that the breeder is selectively forcing the change.

[omega2xx]

7 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

@omega2xx, it is not arguing in good faith when you ask for evidence, but refuse to look at it when it is provided. This indicates that you are only pretending to be interested in evidence.

What is worse is pretending most of what you and the others say is evidence  when it is usually what you have accepted by faith alone because that what you  and the others before you were taught since about the 6th grade.

So I will ask you for the scientific evidence for one thing that any biologist with only an under graduate degree  should be able to present---How does a mutation change a species?

I have put on my prophecy hat and predict you will give the usual evo talking points and not give a scientific explanation.

I also resent your false accusation that I am  only pretending to b e interested in evidence.  Can you read minds.?  You makes such accusations because i ask for evidence, which any capable scientist should be able to do easily.  IMO you do not understand what verifiable evidence  is.

Let me give you an example---when a cat has kittens and those kittens grow up and have more kittens and nothing else,  that proves "after their kind."  A biological truth proved thousands of times every day and can't be falsified., which evolution rejects and that with no EVIDENCE.

If you reject creationism in favor of a man made unproven theory, that's fine with me, but don't accuse me of something for which you have no evidence.

Love, peace, joy

 

 

[one.opinion]

9 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

So I will ask you for the scientific evidence for one thing that any biologist with only an under graduate degree  should be able to present---How does a mutation change a species?

Why would I care enough to provide evidence now when you wouldn’t look at it earlier?

10 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I also resent your false accusation that I am  only pretending to b e interested in evidence.

You can prove your sincerity by reading what I have already provided for you and discussing it. I am willing to change my mind about your interest if you do this. I’m pretty sure my perception is accurate without any mind-reading ability. You may resent it if you like, just ask yourself if it is true.

[omega2xx]

21 minutes ago, Eman_3 said:

I suggest you talk to a dog breeder. The sole difference between a dog breeder and the environment is that the breeder is selectively forcing the change.

I suggest you talk to a dog breeder and ask if he has ever seen, no matter what the environment and his selective forcing of change, ever had a dog produce something other than a puppy dog and if that puppy dog produced something other than another puppy dog.

I would also ask you to get some education about  varieties in a species is not a new species.

Love, peace, and joy

Edited November 21, 2019 by omega2xx

[omega2xx]

2 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

"Why would I care enough to provide evidence now when you wouldn’t look at it earlier?"

To show you are right and I am wrong.  To date you have only offered the usual evo talking points  which  you think was evidence and are not.  You can' give even one example of a mutation being the mechanism for a change of species.

You would if you could, but you can't.

"You can prove your sincerity by reading what I have already provided for you and discussing it. I am willing to change my mind about your interest if you do this. I’m pretty sure my perception is accurate without any mind-reading ability. You may resent it if you like, just ask yourself if it is true."

I don't have to prove my sincerity.  You jade the claim, it is up to you to prove your statement.  "Pretty sure" is an admission you are not sure.   I do resent anyone masking an accusation about me they can't prove.  I don't have to ask myself, I KNOW, and you only guess because I reject something you believe.

Love, peace, joy

 

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, omega2xx said:

To show you are right and I am wrong. 

You've already proven I am right. I don't need to do it again.

2 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

To date you have only offered the usual evo talking points

I sent multiple links with evidence and you refused to look at them. Ignoring the evidence I presented to you does not mean that the evidence was not presented, it just means that you have zero desire to investigate evidence that contradicts what you already believe.

4 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I don't have to prove my sincerity.

You have already proven how sincere you are about looking at evidence. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

[omega2xx]

17 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

You've already proven I am right. I don't need to do it again.

I sent multiple links with evidence and you refused to look at them. Ignoring the evidence I presented to you does not mean that the evidence was not presented, it just means that you have zero desire to investigate evidence that contradicts what you already believe.

You have already proven how sincere you are about looking at evidence. You are fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

I have been with this for over 40 years.  IO use to look at links until l discovered they only made dogmatic statements, the usual evo talking points and NEVER provide any verifiable evidence.  From this I have to conclude you do not understand what constitutes verifiable evidence.

I have ask you to prove how mutations can be the mechanism for a change of species.  You change the subject.

Until you do, don't expect a reply from what has become a merry-go-round.

Love, peace. joy