22 Nov 10
Originally posted by galveston75No, what it proves is that your particular argument against evolution is poorly thought out. Also, it is not the reason why you don't believe evolution took place. You are giving an argument against evolution that you don't really believe yourself.
What? Are you serious? Are you implying that this proves evolution?
They are all of the canine family and can be crossbread as can be done within most species.
So what is the point your trying to make exactly?
I was pointing out that Robbie had the definition of species wrong.
And personaly I don't care what term or word evolutionist use or play with but the Bible clearly says that they were created "according to their kinds" and this is still a clear fact today.
So what are "kinds"? In what way is this 'still a clear fact today'? What is the 'fact' in question? That there are different types of animals? That isn't under dispute.
22 Nov 10
Originally posted by galveston75Your opinion is that knowledge about what are discussed is not important?
Whatever. Go ahead and believe in "maybe, could be, could have happened, possibly, we percieve" stuff. Your on a sinking ship so you'd better hang on.
Does that mean that I can without hesitation can say that - JW is sprung out of the voodoo religion, and therefore every elder is homosexual (*) - and get away with it? By proudly showing ignorance is a merit to ideas?
That my opinion above has the same weight as your opinion about evolution?
I cannot agree with you in this case. I say that you shouldn't have such a strong opinions without knowledge.
(*) (This is of course not my opinion, but is shown to show what strong opinion without knowledge can lead to.)
22 Nov 10
Originally posted by galveston75No. Animals evolve as a group without needing to be bread from a single pair. For example, when it comes to breeds of dogs or other domestic animals, the breeding process takes place over many generations within a population of dogs, not one single pair. They do interbreed, so your suggestion that they evolved separately is incorrect.
This is quite interesting as it states that the human population has never dropped below some tens of thousands. Hummm..... If not from an original two parents, where did we all begin? From mulitple humans that all evolved from seperate lines that just happened to evolve at the same time and to the same place on earth and that they just happened to be compatible and able to reproduce?
And it says that one generation had no females at all? Humm....How did the human race continue with no females?
I read it wrong the first time too. It doesn't say one generation had no females. It says the descendent's on the female line of all but one of the females in one generation died out. This doesn't mean that those females had no living descendent's: they do. It means that if you follow the female lines, there are no descendent's. Their genes still got passed on, but not the special genes that are only passed from mother to daughter.
22 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75But yet the bible says so itself.
And it says that one generation had no females at all?
First generation: Adam and Eve. One man, one woman.
Second generation: The sons of A&E, no daughters. Only men, no females.
Third generation: ???
The only way the humanity can go further to the third generation and further is that one of Eve's sons slept with Eve, their mother, and produced a new generation.
Isn't this incest? Is this allowed in the eyes of the christian god?
22 Nov 10
Originally posted by galveston75And it says that one generation had no females at all?
"""However nuclear DNA studies indicate that the size of the ancient human population never dropped below some tens of thousands;[9] there were many other women around at Eve's time with descendants alive today, but somewhere in all their lines of descent there is at least one generation with no female offspring (and men do not pass on their mothers' mit ...[text shortened]... eration had no females at all? Humm....How did the human race continue with no females?
No it doesn't. Go and re-read it.
22 Nov 10
Originally posted by galveston75No cows with some stage of a wing or a tree with a hoof as a root, or a snake with a a gill.
Not good enough at all. Again we see nothing on this planet in anyway shape or form that there is a process of anything in one of thousands of phases needed to change from one species into another. No cows with some stage of a wing or a tree with a hoof as a root, or a snake with a a gill. Every animal is complete in all ways and in ways that fit it perf ...[text shortened]... condemn me for not believeing in something I can't see? Isn't that what atheist say about God?
For a man who has 'alleged' to have studied evolution all his life, that has got to be the dumbest statement i've ever read, and the final nail in the coffin for your dubious claim on your evolutionary knowledge (and i use that word loosely).
22 Nov 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobHe doesn't have much knowledge about evolution, we already know that. He doesn't have to. He know everything already, he already knows that.
For a man who has 'alleged' to have studied evolution all his life, that has got to be the dumbest statement i've ever read, and the final nail in the coffin for your dubious claim on your evolutionary knowledge (and i use that word loosely).
22 Nov 10
Originally posted by galveston75Actually too I believe we're regressing genetically which kinda flys in the face of classic evolution. Things go from order to chaos. People can argue we live longer these days but 70-80 or 90 years if we believe the biblical account we lived 100's of years.
Good points Manny for sure but for some strange reason the can't explain that simple observation.
My son brought up a point to me the other day and I'd never thought of it this way but according to evolution theory all life forms progress and change for the better as outside influances dictate.
But if you think of evolution in reverse from what we s ...[text shortened]... Try that simple test on all life forms and it proves evolution is completely impossible.
Manny
22 Nov 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyou have stated that scripture is uninspired, evidence, nil. Indeed archaeology has provided ample evidence that the contents are trustworthy.
you have stated that scripture is uninspired, evidence, nil. Indeed archaeology has provided ample evidence that the contents are trustworthy. It appears to me that you know not of its contents, for it contains not only so called 'myths', (your term), but history, proverbial utterances, cultural aspects, prophecy, poetry, practical principles, moral ...[text shortened]... ciples etc etc . To state that its 'myth', is well, you know, rather ignorant to be honest.
This is a highly disingenuous argument Robbie. You might equally claim that King Kong really existed because there is film of him on the Empire State Building, or that the existence of a town called Hamelin proves the truth of the Pied Piper story. There is no archaeological support at all for any of the miraculous events detailed in the bible. Archaeology simply confirms that some of the stories of the bible were set in the real world.
22 Nov 10
Originally posted by menace71The average age at death has certainly increased over the last century or so, but this is not because people are living longer, it's simply because fewer of them die prematurely. As for the extraordinary ages of some of the biblical personalities, well, I'm sure these present no difficulty to believers.
Actually too I believe we're regressing genetically which kinda flys in the face of classic evolution. Things go from order to chaos. People can argue we live longer these days but 70-80 or 90 years if we believe the biblical account we lived 100's of years.
Manny
22 Nov 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatumm i don't know why you have stated this, i never claimed there was archaeological evidence for every miraculous Biblical event.
[b]you have stated that scripture is uninspired, evidence, nil. Indeed archaeology has provided ample evidence that the contents are trustworthy.
This is a highly disingenuous argument Robbie. You might equally claim that King Kong really existed because there is film of him on the Empire State Building, or that the existence of a town calle ...[text shortened]... . Archaeology simply confirms that some of the stories of the bible were set in the real world.[/b]
22 Nov 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI stated this in response to your suggestion that "archaeology has provided ample evidence that the contents are trustworthy."
umm i don't know why you have stated this, i never claimed there was archaeological evidence for every miraculous Biblical event.
I am not aware of a single instance where archaeology has provided any evidence for any miraculous biblical event.
22 Nov 10
Originally posted by menace71Not entirely. Evolution only implies change. It doesn't guarantee positive change. Natural selection does encourage positive change, but not guarantee it, and evolutionary dead ends are common place. Longevity is not necessarily considered positive from an evolutionary standpoint.
Actually too I believe we're regressing genetically which kinda flys in the face of classic evolution.
However, I rather doubt your belief is based on evidence (or even religion).
Things go from order to chaos.
No they don't.
People can argue we live longer these days but 70-80 or 90 years if we believe the biblical account we lived 100's of years.
Recent improvements in longevity are largely due to medical advances. But do we measure genetic success in terms of longevity? Or were people cleverer, taller, healthier, in the past? What other characteristics are regressing?