Irony of the evolutionary belief

[YoursTrue]

Oh it definitely has mythical ancestors. But why is a special lineage required?

Before I even get into that -- (about a "special lineage") -- my point is if someone who claims to be a "Christian" does not believe what's between the pages (or scrolls) from Genesis down to the gospel accounts about the birth of Jesus, then it simply cannot be true or real -- however you want to put it. Therefore -- oh, I'll let you figure the rest out because I believe you understand what I'm saying even if you don't see it the way I do in regard to the history of lineage from Adam to Jesus. I'm slow so I go detail by detail sometimes. The lineage also details what happened to those LIKE Abraham and others. Including his wives and their offspring.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Before I even get into that -- (about a "special lineage") -- my point is if someone who claims to be a "Christian" does not believe what's between the pages (or scrolls) from Genesis down to the gospel accounts about the birth of Jesus, then it simply cannot be true or real -- however you want to put it. Therefore -- oh, I'll let you figure the rest out because I believe you understand what I'm saying even if you don't see it the way I do in regard to the history of lineage from Adam to Jesus. I'm slow so I go detail by detail sometimes. The lineage also details what happened to those LIKE Abraham and others. Including his wives and their offspring.

You keep making that claim but cannot support it at all. Let's say that Jesus was just your average Joe that was born in Nazareth. He could still be spiritually "the Son of God". He could still die pointlessly for the sins of others. He still could have been magically resurrected. What difference does it make? You keep abusing the Bible by treating it as a magic book.

 

[YoursTrue]

The discussion of sorts reminds me of the very distinct "change" scientists made as to their new'er hypothesis about feathers and how they evolved. See, "Feathers are complex and novel evolutionary structures. They did not evolve directly from reptilian scales, as once was thought. Current hypotheses propose that they evolved through an invagination of the epidermis around the base of a dermal papilla, followed by increasing complexity of form and function." Bird - Feather Evolution, Flight, Adaptation

 

[YoursTrue]

You keep making that claim but cannot support it at all. Let's say that Jesus was just your average Joe that was born in Nazareth. He could still be spiritually "the Son of God". He could still die pointlessly for the sins of others. He still could have been magically resurrected. What difference does it make? You keep abusing the Bible by treating it as a magic book.

I'll get into that once we establish that those who believe it's a myth about Adam & Eve and their written progeny are in effect denying the Bible in all its historical data and therefore do not/ will not establish any reasonable credibility for Jesus as (1) the one who descended from heaven, and (2) the Messiah. I will get back to this later --

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll get into that once we establish that those who believe it's a myth about Adam & Eve and their written progeny are in effect denying the Bible in all its historical data and therefore do not/ will not establish any reasonable credibility for Jesus as (1) the one who descended from heaven, and (2) the Messiah. I will get back to this later --

What "historical data"? The Bible is rather lacking on that and is sometimes shown to be wrong by historical data.

And please, make a point or move on.

 

[Pogo]

Before I even get into that -- (about a "special lineage") -- my point is if someone who claims to be a "Christian" does not believe what's between the pages (or scrolls) from Genesis down to the gospel accounts about the birth of Jesus, then it simply cannot be true or real -- however you want to put it. Therefore -- oh, I'll let you figure the rest out because I believe you understand what I'm saying even if you don't see it the way I do in regard to the history of lineage from Adam to Jesus. I'm slow so I go detail by detail sometimes. The lineage also details what happened to those LIKE Abraham and others. Including his wives and their offspring.

A Christian is simply a follower of Christ all else is peripheral and ultimately unnecessary.

 

[leroy]

You ask questions that keep telling us that you should not be debating about evolution. Remember the concept of scientific evidence. There is only scientific evidence for evolution. There is more than enough to accept it as factual. In fact there is so much that to deny evolution is irrational if one understands the basics of science at all. We see good sized jumps in the differences of various lines of descent. Some, bats for example, due to their fragile nature or where they die we have almost no records. Terrestrial fossils in general from very very rarely. Show me where there is even one terrestrial sedimentary area of deposition today. The logical conclusion of this is that most terrestrial species do not get fossilize.

Yes granted, the red text above is granted. But that doesn’t mean I can´t ask questions…….. I now an understand that accepting evolution in a dogmatic way (no questions) is an imperative in your atheist cult. … but of us “normal people” evolution is just like any other theory, and there is nothing wrong nor inappropriate in asking questions.

You can only get estimates. There is no way to get the "correct number".

ok, what would be the estimate for mammalian families?

Really? I am assuming that you mean non-avian dinosaurs. We know the extinction event that kills almost all dinosaurs. We know that there are no non-avian dinosaurs to be found after the asteroid strike. That was about 66 million years ago. Large dinosaurs, unlike teeny tiny bats, are large enough so that there bones have a much better than average chance of being preserved. In fact the large ones are more likely to be preserved than almost any mammal bones. Just in case you did not know, 66 million years is a long time. Man did not evolve until very very recently.

I am just following the logoc.

If 98% of species don’t get fossilized (as some else claimed) why would it be unlikely for some non-avian dinosaurs to have coexisted with humans, even if no fossils remains are left?

Large dinosaurs, unlike teeny tiny bats,

some dinosaurs where tiny

By the way, there is no rule saying that the dinosaurs had to die out. But we can be pretty sure of it.

And why are you so “pretty sure”? where is your evidence?

 

[leroy]

You keep nattering along about how we don't see bat fossils. That article was there to help you. You should have admitted that it was beyond your understanding. I can't help a person that refuses to learn.

Strawman, nobody is nattering about not seeing bat fossils.

This is why I constantly ask you to quote my actual words,

 

[Pogo]

Yes granted, the red text above is granted. But that doesn’t mean I can´t ask questions…….. I now an understand that accepting evolution in a dogmatic way (no questions) is an imperative in your atheist cult. … but of us “normal people” evolution is just like any other theory, and there is nothing wrong nor inappropriate in asking questions.


ok, what would be the estimate for mammalian families?





I am just following the logoc.

If 98% of species don’t get fossilized (as some else claimed) why would it be unlikely for some non-avian dinosaurs to have coexisted with humans, even if no fossils remains are left?


some dinosaurs where tiny


And why are you so “pretty sure”? where is your evidence?

 

[leroy]

I wont watch the video,……………. Do you have an answer? How do you know that all non-avian dinosaurs died out, before any humans evolved?

 

[leroy]

Examples are in many, many posts already. You have a habit of ignoring corrections to your errors. Why should I bother pointing out what you get wrong when you have no interest in truth? That’s on you.

Well why did you bother in writing that comment?



If I have soooooooooooooooo many errors as you claim, then quoting my words and explaining the error would have require less effort than writing that post

 

[leroy]

The phrase “fully evolved” is an oxymoron. That you seem confused by why this phrase is absurd and irrelevant is an example of something else you get wrong.

Quote my wrods and explain why am I wrong………………….. from your comment it is obvious that you are misunderstanding what I said……………..quote my words.

 

[F1fan]

Well why did you bother in writing that comment?



If I have soooooooooooooooo many errors as you claim, then quoting my words and explaining the error would have require less effort than writing that post

Why didn’t you bold the part where you ignore others correcting you? Why not explain why we should bother correcting anyone who is in denial about what science reports?

Quote my wrods and explain why am I wrong………………….. from your comment it is obvious that you are misunderstanding what I said……………..quote my words.

Why? You have no interest in learning anything from anyone with better understanding than you.

 

[leroy]

Why didn’t you bold the part where you ignore others correcting you? Why not explain why we should bother correcting anyone who is in denial about what science reports?


Why? You have no interest in learning anything from anyone with better understanding than you.

If you bothered and took your time in writing this post……….why wouldn’t you quote any of the multiple posts where I was supposedly corrected if this would have taken less time?

My only conditions are

1 quote my actual words

2 explain why is it wrong

According to you this has been done multiple times , so finding a post where that was done, should be hard.

Why? You have no interest in learning anything from anyone with better understanding than you.

i have been corrected many times and I usually admit my mistakes and thank the user that corrected me.................so your accusation is just a lie

 

[F1fan]

If you bothered and took your time in writing this post……….why wouldn’t you quote any of the multiple posts where I was supposedly corrected if this would have taken less time?

Your reputation is already ruined. Why should anyone bother correcting your errors when you habitually ignore them?

You have no interest in knowledge.

My only conditions are

1 quote my actual words

2 explain why is it wrong

According to you this has been done multiple times , so finding a post where that was done, should be hard.


i have been corrected many times and I usually admit my mistakes and thank the user that corrected me.................so your accusation is just a lie

This is Lucy with the football. You bait everyone with knowledge.

 

[leroy]

Your reputation is already ruined. Why should anyone bother correcting your errors when you habitually ignore them?

You have no interest in knowledge.


This is Lucy with the football. You bait everyone with knowledge.

Your reputation is already ruined

Even if true that is not an excuse..... You should still support your accusations.

 

[F1fan]

Even if true that is not an excuse..... You should still support your accusations.

You do. You prove my observations constantly. The fact so many other members are correcting you means what? That you are magically right and every educated member is wrong?

 

[leroy]

You do. You prove my observations constantly. The fact so many other members are correcting you means what? That you are magically right and every educated member is wrong?

Then why do you have so much trouble in quoting a mistake made by me?

When you where wrong about the hypothesis of evolution and random mutations I was capable of proving you wrong by quoting your actual words and then a paper that refutes your claims………………why can you do the same with my supposed errors?

 

[McBell]

When you where wrong about the hypothesis of evolution and random mutations I was capable of proving you wrong by quoting your actual words and then a paper that refutes your claims………………why can you do the same with my supposed errors?

link please
I mean a link to the post where you "proved" them wrong.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'll get into that once we establish that those who believe it's a myth about Adam & Eve and their written progeny are in effect denying the Bible in all its historical data and therefore do not/ will not establish any reasonable credibility for Jesus as (1) the one who descended from heaven, and (2) the Messiah. I will get back to this later --

The Bible lacks historical, archaeological and scientific data to justify the Creation myth with Adam and Eve and Noah's flood and provenance of authorship, time and text of the Pentateuch.

There are contradictions in your belief of Old Earth Creationism. It is well accepted that the authors of the Pentateuch, the NT and the Church Fathers believed in a literal Genesis. Apparently the Jehovah Witnesses are being selective as to what fits science in the Pentateuch. The elephant in the room is no version of YEC and OEC remotely fits science.