one.opinion Posted November 21, 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 21, 2019 5 minutes ago, omega2xx said: From this I have to conclude you do not understand what constitutes verifiable evidence. You may have forgotten, but I am a PhD biologist and I am quite familiar with verifiable evidence. I can also identify feigned interest in evidence, no PhD required. 1. You asked for evidence. 2. I provided it. 3. You didn't look at the evidence you requested. 4. You still won't look at the evidence provided, claiming it is just dogmatic talking points, while having no way to verify your claim. The obvious conclusion - you don't really care about evidence. You may as well just admit that to yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted November 21, 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 21, 2019 2 hours ago, one.opinion said: You may have forgotten, but I am a PhD biologist and I am quite familiar with verifiable evidence. I can also identify feigned interest in evidence, no PhD required. 1. You asked for evidence. 2. I provided it. 3. You didn't look at the evidence you requested. 4. You still won't look at the evidence provided, claiming it is just dogmatic talking points, while having no way to verify your claim. The obvious conclusion - you don't really care about evidence. You may as well just admit that to yourself. have a nice day. Lo ve, pece, joy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 22, 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 22, 2019 1 hour ago, omega2xx said: have a nice day. Lo ve, pece, joy Thanks, you too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted November 23, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,041 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 969 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted November 23, 2019 23 hours ago, omega2xx said: 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. Seventh-day Adventists believe that Ellen G. White, one of the church's co-founders, was a prophetess, understood today as an expression of the New Testament spiritual gift of prophecy.[1] Seventh-day Adventist believe that White had the spiritual gift of prophecy, but that her writings are inferior to the Bible, which has ultimate authority. According to the 28 Fundamentals the core set of theological beliefs held by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, states that Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and can be read online on the website of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.[1] The 18 of the 28 Fundamentals states the Adventists viewpoint on the Gift of Prophecy: "One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)."[1] According to one church document, "her expositions on any given Bible passage offer an inspired guide to the meaning of texts without exhausting their meaning or preempting the task of exegesis".[2][3] In other words, White's writings are considered an inspired commentary on Scripture, although Scripture remains ultimately authoritative. Adventist believe she had the spiritual gift of prophecy as outlined in Revelation 19:10. Her restorationist writings endeavor to showcase the hand of God in Christian history. This cosmic conflict, referred to as the "Great Controversy theme", is foundational to the development of Seventh-day Adventist theology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_in_the_Seventh-day_Adventist_Church Perhaps you should do your homework. 23 hours ago, omega2xx said: 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. Well, let's look at that... ‘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 again. It lists bats as birds. Barbarian observes: 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted November 23, 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 23, 2019 6 hours ago, The Barbarian said: Seventh-day Adventists believe that Ellen G. White, one of the church's co-founders, was a prophetess, understood today as an expression of the New Testament spiritual gift of prophecy.[1] Seventh-day Adventist believe that White had the spiritual gift of prophecy, but that her writings are inferior to the Bible, which has ultimate authority. According to the 28 Fundamentals the core set of theological beliefs held by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, states that Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and can be read online on the website of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.[1] The 18 of the 28 Fundamentals states the Adventists viewpoint on the Gift of Prophecy: "One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)."[1] According to one church document, "her expositions on any given Bible passage offer an inspired guide to the meaning of texts without exhausting their meaning or preempting the task of exegesis".[2][3] In other words, White's writings are considered an inspired commentary on Scripture, although Scripture remains ultimately authoritative. Adventist believe she had the spiritual gift of prophecy as outlined in Revelation 19:10. Her restorationist writings endeavor to showcase the hand of God in Christian history. This cosmic conflict, referred to as the "Great Controversy theme", is foundational to the development of Seventh-day Adventist theology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_in_the_Seventh-day_Adventist_Church Perhaps you should do your homework. Well, let's look at that... ‘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 again. It lists bats as birds. Barbarian observes: 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. How does salamanders and gulls remaining salamander and gulls , support evolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted November 23, 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 23, 2019 1 hour ago, omega2xx said: How does salamanders and gulls remaining salamander and gulls , support evolution? Show the research, friend. Where did you read about this? It is impossible to discuss this evidence without looking at the actual research done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted November 24, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,041 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 969 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted November 24, 2019 19 hours ago, omega2xx said: How does salamanders and gulls remaining salamander and gulls , support evolution? Populations of salamanders and gulls changing over time, demonstrates evolution. You already learned this. Remember what evolution is. Genetics, fossil transitionals, observed speciation, embryology, and anatomy show common descent. Which as you learned, its a consequence of evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted November 24, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,041 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 969 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted November 24, 2019 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Cletus said: another interesting fact about evolution is to study the people who were involved most heavily during the period of time of evolution's inception. A good many of them were deeply involved in the occult and were pretty "high in the ranks". Darwin was an Anglican. I don't that as "occult." Huxley was a free-thinker, skeptical of anything supernatural. Asa Gray, the most prominent of American Darwinians, was a Christian. So, I don't think so. On the other hand, YE creationism was the result of visions of a self-proclaimed "prophetess" in the 20th century. That's a lot closer to "occult", I think. Edited November 24, 2019 by The Barbarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omega2xx Posted November 24, 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 24, 2019 4 hours ago, The Barbarian said: Populations of salamanders and gulls changing over time, demonstrates evolution. You already learned this. Remember what evolution is. Genetics, fossil transitionals, observed speciation, embryology, and anatomy show common descent. Which as you learned, its a consequence of evolution. That's the point. It was called speciation and they did not changed. Maybe it is you who need to remember what evolution is. Genetics refutes common descent. there are no transitional fossils. Things you have accepted by faith alone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted November 24, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,041 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 969 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted November 24, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, omega2xx said: That's the point. It was called speciation and they did not changed. No, that's wrong. Maybe you need to remember what evolution is: "A change in allele frequency in a population over time. " Microevolution is evolution within a species,and macroevolution is speciation. So in this case, it was macroevoution. 2 hours ago, omega2xx said: Genetics refutes common descent. No,you have that wrong, too. For example, common descent is shown by the analysis of DNA, giving us the same family tree first noticed by Linnaeus (who didn't know about evolution). And we know it works, because we can check it with organisms of known descent. 2 hours ago, omega2xx said: there are no transitional fossils. Your fellow YE creationist, Dr.Kurt Wise disagrees with you: Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf 2 hours ago, omega2xx said: Things you have accepted by faith alone Dr. Wise says: Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds. (same source) He's an honest creationist. Listen to him. Edited November 24, 2019 by The Barbarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts