A Very Simple Question For Creationists

[allfoak]

God is not absent from anything.
We live in the mind of God, how can God be absent from his/her own mind.?
It is us who are absent.
We are prodigal children.
Living lavish and reckless lives.

The Bible doesn't validate everything you said in that post, though.

What part of what i said is not validated by the Bible?

 

[Reggie Miller]

What part of what i said is not validated by the Bible?

Nearly all of it:

The Bible confirms that God is very concerned, so much so that He sent His own Son to die for the world so that the world through Him might be saved..

God is not happy with anyone, we all come short of His glory. We can only be saved by His grace and please Him by our faith.

One does have to have Jesus in order to access God and His kingdom.

We need to deny ourselves so that we can have the power to be who God wants us to be.

The only labels are Jews and Gentiles and those labels are meaningless in Christ Jesus.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Evolution says nothing of the substance from which it all came.
The theory is empty of life.

And that answers my question?

 

[allfoak]

We do not know if "in" was intended. It could have been written "with" and in that case, he was referring only to the believing people, probably.

That's just dumb.
Sorry but it is.
The rest of the Bible wouldn't make any sense if what you say is true.
The entire thing is a text book for understanding the workings of our mind.
You should read the book of Ephesians sometime or perhaps do a word study on the word mind in the new testament.

 

[allfoak]

And that answers my question?

Probably not.

 

[shmogie]

I won't even call people human who believe that the Heavens and the Earth have existed for only less than 6000 years.

Wow, someone who doesn't agree with you aren't human. You MUST be a democrat. You are really hung up on young earthers, don't you realize that there are a variety of of beliefs and concepts within the ranks of Creationists ?

 

[savagewind]

Wow, someone who doesn't agree with you aren't human. You MUST be a democrat. You are really hung up on young earthers, don't you realize that there are a variety of of beliefs and concepts within the ranks of Creationists ?

There is 3000 years of known human life. That leaves less than 3000 years for EVERYTHING to have happened. That is crazy! It just is!

 

[savagewind]

How old, I mean young, is this?

 

[savagewind]

I understand that if time can be disproven then I will take back the insult. OK?
.....if it is an insult. Is it? Are you sure?

 

[allfoak]

Wow, someone who doesn't agree with you aren't human. You MUST be a democrat. You are really hung up on young earthers, don't you realize that there are a variety of of beliefs and concepts within the ranks of Creationists ?

Humans come in many varieties.
Some, i think, may be miss labeled.

 

[james bond]

If you believe that small changes can occur within a species so as to slightly alter its population, a process commonly called microevolution, which is accepted by many creationists, and that these changes can well be cumulative over many, many years (say thousands), why can't they eventually culminate in an organism so different from the original parent as to be a new species?.

Microevolution = natural selection, so we're in agreement for the most part.

To answer your question, science shows macroevolution is not possible.

 

[james bond]

I think it can be proved that this existed at least a thousand years ago. For people who believe the Earth is only 6000 years young, it would mean that the cave and its decorations would have to have been created in less than 5000 years. It is just plain impossible.

>>It is just plain impossible.<<

Disproved.

I did this experiment when I was a kid. Watch 0:00 to 1:28.

 

[savagewind]

>>It is just plain impossible.<<

Disproved.

I did this experiment when I was a kid. Watch 0:00 to 1:28.

I watched the whole thing.

Stalagtites and stalagmites (which is what you made) are naturally occurring. For your experiment you gathered the necessary equipment. There is a difference there. Can you make a stalagmite? Probably, with a whole lot more patience. Those cave things were not made by pouring, but appeared very slowly, one drip at a time.

I wonder who would make one of those one drop at a time, and how long it would take?

What about the cave? I think no cave just appeared. Are they not made also?

 

[Brian Schuh]

2+2 doesn't equal 5, maybe if we wait billions of years, maybe it will. Just like saying if it is impossible for a mutation to increase a species chance of survival right now, maybe if we wait billions of years. . .

 

[Reggie Miller]

Microevolution = natural selection, so we're in agreement for the most part.

To answer your question, science shows macroevolution is not possible.

James, do you know of any links that show that macroevolution is not possible? I agree with you, I'm just wondering if you had a specific link.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you believe that small changes can occur within a species so as to slightly alter its population, a process commonly called microevolution, which is accepted by many creationists, and that these changes can well be cumulative over many, many years (say thousands), why can't they eventually culminate in an organism so different from the original parent as to be a new species?


.




.

That is a thoughtful and reasonable question, thank you.

Because there are too many changes that need to happen to systems in simultaneity as to be practical, not regarding species--there are new species of dogs all the time--but regarding macro-changes where species would cross over families.

I'll answer you Socratically:

Name ten things that must change besides gills to lungs or adding lungs to gills for sea creatures to become land creatures!

 

[Reggie Miller]

That is a thoughtful and reasonable question, thank you.

Because there are too many changes that need to happen to systems in simultaneity as to be practical, not regarding species--there are new species of dogs all the time--but regarding macro-changes where species would cross over families.

I'll answer you Socratically:

Name ten things that must change besides gills to lungs or adding lungs to gills for sea creatures to become land creatures!

How many creatures are there with both lungs and gills? That can reproduce both sexually and asexually? Than can both lay eggs and give birth?

One of the intermediate forms would have to in order for macroevolution to work.

 

[rusra02]

If you believe that small changes can occur within a species so as to slightly alter its population, a process commonly called microevolution, which is accepted by many creationists, and that these changes can well be cumulative over many, many years (say thousands), why can't they eventually culminate in an organism so different from the original parent as to be a new species?

The evidence demonstrates this does not happen. "The data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” (g9/06)

 

[Brian Schuh]

That is a thoughtful and reasonable question, thank you.

Because there are too many changes that need to happen to systems in simultaneity as to be practical, not regarding species--there are new species of dogs all the time--but regarding macro-changes where species would cross over families.

I'll answer you Socratically:

Name ten things that must change besides gills to lungs or adding lungs to gills for sea creatures to become land creatures!

Well said. Every mutation must increase the animal's chance of survival for that mutation to be perpetuated, but let us say it might take 100 mutations for the change to be beneficial for survival. A nonfunctional wing doesn't benefit a bird even if in future generations it will benefit the bird; it will not be perpetuated to find out or not.

 

[savagewind]

I really must insist that all the changes at the right time which were needed for life as we know it to exist makes it impossible to prove evolution sans God.