Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
P.S. Jesus spoke of being set free, but then there still obligations. Many of which we generally cannot let go of (such as working for a living) and some of which are harshly or unfairly imposed. The true freedom is yet to be.
How about daughter? Jesus called a woman who approached him daughter. And yes, I am mentioning something not quite on target yet but saying that words can have different contexts. to be discussed. It's a good question. Yet i could have a grandson and call him son. Dad and I do not agree on many things well hopefully dad will answer. I'll get back to you.
Ok again later. No time now being as I am a slave to circumstances. I'm not being beaten yet. But have obligations. Never know what the future holds though, do we, specifically for each one of us. Before death, that is.
Your so called science religion is small minded.
Inevitably, when dyed in the wool evos start trying to preach about God's word, we see a descent into depraved foolishness.
God's people are never rudderless. Noah was in direct communication with God, and got the exact design for the ark. He got the timing of the start of the flood. God called the animals to the ark. God closed the door of the ark as it had no mechanism to close it. God sent the water and dried it up. God watched over the whole operation. Your baseless insane fears that Noah may have floated to an area with too much turbulence is nothing more than doubting God.
Please demonstrate the existence of satan.
I figured that's what was going on, so no problem.I'm a bit confused.
Perhaps I should have made a special note, informing you, that this is the response to the questions you asked in the thread "New Ohio law allows students to be scientifically wrong."
Sorry about that.
You probably know by now, I am quite particular about organization.I like to package things appropriately.
So first, I like to give respect to the OP's poster, by not clustering it with a different topic, and so I didn't think this discussion belonged on that thread. I think it fits here nicely. Moreover, it makes it easier for me to keep track of topics I am more interested in.
If you recall from that thread, we were discussing UCA. Am I right?
So, in other words, we are discussing a concept, of the theory of evolution.
No, it's fine. It just doesn't apply to evolutionary theory.
I understand that when you say "evolutionary theory" you're also referring to UCA.
Well, let me see if I can explain to you how what you wrote above comes across to someone like me.I don't believe there is. From my observations there is none. Zero, Zilch, Zip.
There are good stories though, and I can understand why someone might imagine that creatures can evolve a completely different body, over millions or billions of years, but that's only imagination.
It still requires faith to think that, just because animals adapt different traits, and features, they can somehow .evolve to a completely different creature It is still a belief.
Surely you must agree with me, to be reasonable. Right?
A trans who?
Just playing dumb.
Okay, fair enough. Let's take the specific example you provided (A. afarensis). If humans shared an evolutionary ancestry with other primates, what do you think a "transitional fossil" in that scenario would look like? What sort of characteristics would you expect it to have?
Yes, very much so. If someone says "there are no transitional fossils" it stands to reason that they would have some idea of what a "transitional fossil" is, don't you think? Whether you believe they exist or not, you should have some idea of what they would be. Otherwise, how can you know whether they exist or not, if you don't even know what they are?
To be blunt....because they have been found, by the thousands....in fact, by the hundreds of thousands. I know you believe otherwise, but paleontologists are not stupid, delusional, or habitual liars.Wasn't transitional fossils based on an idea by a dude named Darwin? Should he not be the one to identify what his idea should look like? Did he?
As far as I know, he only said they should exist, in more quantity than their ancestor...
Page 124 - On the Origin of Species
...so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.
Oh yeah. He also said that not finding them would falsify his theory, and what do you know, over a century later, what he proposed was not found, and falsification never happened. The theory endured decades after.
That's an interesting claim. Can you support it?
Sticking with human/primate common ancestry, a transitional fossil would be a specimen that exhibits shared characteristics between primitive apes and modern humans. Does that seem reasonable to you?
Well, to be accurate here, all you've done so far is say that this is so. You've not done anything to show it to be so. I mean, anyone can go online and say pretty much anything. I can say "the moon is made of cheese", but have I actually made any sort of case that the moon is made of cheese?
Of course, but not all interpretations are equally valid, are they? If a flat-earther "interprets" a NASA photo as a fraud perpetrated by Satan, is that on equal footing with the interpretation that it's a real photo of a spherical earth?
As I noted above, a "transitional fossil" under human/primate common ancestry would be a specimen that has a mixture of primitive apelike and humanlike characteristics. Does A. afarensis show that?
But circumstantial evidence is a type of evidence, just like fingerprints or DNA at a crime scene. So what you wrote above isn't consistent with your earlier statement that there is zero evidence for UCA.
Thanks for explaining...very informative.If God appeared in front of you, would your first reaction be, I must be dreaming, or in a quantum hologram?
See how easy a hypothetical can be to answer.
All the evidence I have seen presented for UCA is, as I said before, circumstantial, and interpreted to fit one conclusion. Aside from the fact that the evidence causes - even to this day - the theory to have adjustments, and additions made to it, and the mechanisms are still not certain, it has some major challenges.
You really have no idea the level of amazement I have experienced when I consider that people actually believe this stuff.
Whenever I look over the lines of evidence presented as an argument - because that's what it is - in support of UCA, I actually feel like... 'why are you wasting my time with this
There is only one thing keeping me from going out my mind. If I did not have that, I would probably be asking myself, "Am I blind? What are they seeing, that I am not?"
However, having these scriptures in mind, I can understand why people believe in the idea of UCA.
(2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12)
11 That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, 12 in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.
(2 Corinthians 4:3, 4)
3 If, in fact, the good news we declare is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, 4 among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through.
(Revelation 12:9)
9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him.
It also is clear to me why it happened to them -
(Romans 1:18-23)
18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened. 22 Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish 23 and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles.
So it actually connects to what I said earlier about knowing the truth.
One who remains in the word is set free. I fully understand what it means when the scripture says...
Jehovah is the Spirit, and where the spirit of Jehovah is, there is freedom. (2 Corinthians 3:17)
I understand that one can disconnect from God's spirit by rejecting the truth. So when religious people cling to these ideas... like UCA, it's no surprise. They already rejected the Bible anyway.
Besides,anything that is so attractive as to have Atheist like piranha in a feeding frenzy,
...can't be good.
Being completely honest with you. I would even go as far as the "Cross my heart and hope to die" thing, but I don't do that, but from where I am sitting, all the evidence points to creation by an intelligent designer, with a specific purpose.
I mean, the fact that the earth is just right for life, is in harmony with what the Bible says at Isaiah 45:18 - For this is what Jehovah says, The Creator of the heavens, the true God, The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it, Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited: “I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.
Just think of that - an enormously vast universe with billions of galaxies, stars, and perhaps millions of planets, and only one is inhabited... only one supports life, that we know of. The Bible got it right... again.
Time and again the Bible proves true in what it said ages ago, and people reject it. That is more convincing to me than someone saying the Bible is full of myths. Because the Bible even said that people would reject it, and gave the reason why.
Even the foods we eat are precisely what we need for living long healthy lives. Do you know that it matters what foods you eat, and there are actually brain foods, heart foods, fingernail and toenail foods, etc...
I mean...
I would think that I would have to be absolutely blind, and led by the hand of a con artist, to accept the story telling from the Darwinian concept.
Even if I were an Atheist, I don't think I would remain one, after looking at all this evidence. At least that's what I think.
I can see how one may be led to believe in Darwinism though, but again, it goes back to whether one knows the truth, or if one is misled... in my view.
So given everything you described earlier in this post, I have to wonder.....why do you care about the science? Why do you feel compelled to try and counter it, if this is primarily a theological issue for you?
Honestly, it's just as easy for you to go back through our conversation and find the posts where that's covered. And given the recent turn our conversation has taken, I'm not really sure what the point would be. I think you've explained your viewpoint very well.
Hard to say, since I don't know what you mean by "genetic adaptation".
Again, it's very difficult to say without a specific example of what you're talking about.
Apparently not.
You said "All cells carry genes. They all have different purposes.... by design." What do you mean by "design"?
Just to help out as far as the description of circumstantial evidence goes, is there anything beyond surmised evidence for the first cell (unicell, to be more particular)? Is there concrete, actual evidence for that? Let's consider that for a while.
Here's some interesting information about peer review I have found.
We have all seen that. That applies largely to medical science,but let's say just for kicks that it applies to all science.
I love this part. Great stuff.
i want to come back to it. Some phrase.... They may not be "cat fights" or physical blows, but you probably know what I mean.
I don't even do that. Maybe I said worst, by mentioning Satan as the ruler of the world, and behind the worldly philosophies. Creationists are not suppose to speak what they believe to be the truth, apparently. Only scientists canAll the data is available for the layman to research. Because the person is a layman, doesn't mean they can't understand and learn something new. Some scientists unfortunately have this view that a layman is not supposed to know what a scientist knows, or more.You said: