|
Post by Dave on Nov 11, 2021 9:30:46 GMT -5
OK so you're not an evolutionist, and here you are mocking the creationist. What theories of creation do you have Dave? God said and a thing appeared – poof! = creation
Where did the species come from after the Great Flood? From the Ark – DUH Or from the waters (fish) – Or from the ground (insects) – Or by another means we do not know Everything was not on the Ark – only the animals God sent to Noah Things survived outside of the Ark
Start by explaining the 300 species of gum trees in Australia, Correction (google) There are more than 700 species of eucalyptus and most are native to Australia; (google) as one of the world's most widely planted hardwoods, eucalypts have high economic value. With 934 native species, eucalypts are often referred to as 'gum trees' (which are a small group of eucalypts with smooth white bark). God’s creation is Amazing – Intelligent Design is so obvious And to answer your next question – NO – there were no trees on the Ark
and why only 4 species of kangaroos in Australia? Why only one species of platypus? Why only one surviving species of man? Why are more than 1 million species of insects? Why are there are about 30,000 formally named species of bacterium that are in pure culture and for which has been investigated. (google) What are the most common organisms on Earth? If you had to guess the most abundant organism on the whole planet, you'd probably think of ants or, maybe, bacteria. But a newly discovered virus might trump them all. Pelagibacter ubique is often cited as the most common organism ever: it's a third of all the single-celled organisms in the ocean
and why only 4 species of kangaroos in Australia? ASK GOD – how did they get there according to creationism = their common ancestor hopped off the ark – then hopped all the way to Australia then evolved into 4 different species
Correction - Academic Honesty - Creationism says that the common ancestor hopped off the Ark - then rode on a log to Australia - then evolved into 4 different species
I say – God made them all – each and every one – it is called creation How did they get to Australia: The Christian in me wants to say – because that is where God wanted them to be What do you have to limit God's ability to encode variety in the geneotype? Why do you need to use evolution in any form to define creation? Why do you have to limit God's ability to create?
Evolution is the increase in brand new geneotype within an animal. Creation Speciation is just the switching on and off of geneotype within an animal, that may be required if the animal choosing these genes over time or not. There is no brand new increase in genetype at all, compared to evolutionary theory; the animal has all the code it requires already.
If this is true according to you – then every species would have the same DNA – some with different parts switched on. If you are correct – PCR technology looking for that specific genetic marker specific only to a thing would test positive for every life form on the planet You are claiming that the specific DNA sequence that makes a pig a pig exist in all mammals – but that part is not switched on
Correction - Academic Honesty - you are making the claim that all the different species within a KIND all has dublicate DNA - different species just have different sections turned on You are saying that any animal called Bear - all have identical DNA - just different sections switched on or off You are saying that all Caines have identical DNA - just different sections turned on or off
Why doesn’t real science validate creationism attempt to explain KINDs Why does creationism need KINDs anyway – because they say the Ark was too small AND – everything is in the Ark – flies – sharks – dinos – insects were all inside the Ark + all the food for 430 days Why does creationism have to INVENT – well they were all baby animals so they would fit
So you see Dave these definitions are completely different from each other. YES they are – one version stands up to any scientific test you give it The other version is based on a religious mythology
|
|
|
Post by Dillon on Nov 12, 2021 13:49:16 GMT -5
Why doesn’t real science validate creationism attempt to explain KINDs Why does creationism need KINDs anyway – because they say the Ark was too small AND – everything is in the Ark – flies – sharks – dinos – insects were all inside the Ark + all the food for 430 days Why does creationism have to INVENT – well they were all baby animals so they would fit So you see Dave these definitions are completely different from each other. YES they are – one version stands up to any scientific test you give it The other version is based on a religious mythology ---------- Creationism maintains the assumption that all life was destroyed in the flood, then all the whales, and fish, and insects, and dinosaurs, and birds, and even bacteria must be on the ark. So their first assumption leads them to the size of the ark problem, which just leads to more assumptions about them all being infants. Creationism also maintains a young earth posture so TIME is their enemy; therefore, they must assume rapid speciation after the flood, because all the species today have been stable for thousands of years. Incremental Creation1- God’s Days are not the same as man’s Days 2- Creation week is 7 Days, 6 Days God created and on the 7th he rested 3- Hen 4:1-11 says Day 7 is there for the faithful to enter, Heb 4:4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. Heb 4:5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. Heb 4:6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, This NT passage says that Day 7 is a lot longer than just 24hrs If Day 7 of creation is not 24hrs that why do Days 1-6 have to be? 6 24hr days seem contradictory to the NT Your jewish guy and Dave both say: there is man’s time and God’s time Scripture says there is God’s time and there is man’s time 2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Psa 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Incremental Creation Dave says, God had the time, to take his time, and enjoy each and every step in creation Dave says, each day was as long as God want it to be, because God controls time Dave says, God had time to play with and/or enjoy the things created each day In private talks, Dave has even suggested that the dinosaurs might have been the first large scale encroachment into biology. I have thought about this myself. Nature kills to feed and grow. Evil kills just for fun or out of anger. Dave says, and I believe, God created everything. Incremental CreationDave says, God created everything one at a time, or in bunches at a time Creation began in the beginning and ended with man Evolution began in the beginning and ended with man Dave says they are both evidence to the same event Therefore all scientific evidence “that looks like evolution’ actually supports Incremental Creation One problem for me was, plant life before the sunMy problem was in thinking that without the sun there would be no light for photosynthesis On a black Colorado night, without the sun or moon, there is light enough to find your way Also, most simple plant life does not even need the sun Fungal forms grow best in no light at all Fungi are dimorphic yeast that sprout vegetative spores that teach out of the grown just like trees Creationist talk about the chalk layer Dave talks about the iridium layer What about the coal layer?youtu.be/b34al8YmQSAWhy almost all coal was made at the same time
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2021 17:02:56 GMT -5
D"If this is true according to you – then every species would have the same DNA – some with different parts switched on. If you are correct – PCR technology looking for that specific genetic marker specific only to a thing would test positive for every life form on the planet You are claiming that the specific DNA sequence that makes a pig a pig exist in all mammals – but that part is not switched on
Correction - Academic Honesty - you are making the claim that all the different species within a KIND all has dublicate DNA - different species just have different sections turned on You are saying that any animal called Bear - all have identical DNA - just different sections switched on or off You are saying that all Caines have identical DNA - just different sections turned on or off R" That is exactly what I am saying
The canine kind, has within that creature, the genes for the wolf, the fox and the dog. The bear kind, has within that creature, the grizzly, the panda and the koala. It should be possible to find within the grizzle the enzyme gene for digesting gum tree leaves, and the same genes to eat bamboo leaves like the panda does. Even the koala will have the genes for being a complete grizzly too.
D"You are claiming that the specific DNA sequence that makes a pig a pig exist in all mammals – but that part is not switched on
R" Arrh no, only the creatures of that kind have the same genes. Inside the poodle is the great Dane, and the wolf, as well as the coyote.
Not sure about fox, some mutations of spoiling has occurred in some animals of kinds related to the dog canine.
But in theory yes, the genes in each kind should be the same, some switched on and some switched off.
An easy hypothesis to test, assuming we can read the DNA fully.
D"Why doesn’t real science validate creationism attempt to explain KINDs
R" you tell me, too many of us are stuck on religion, instead on science. More this reason I am sad to be a SDA at times, we do not validate our faith in God using science. We do not publish our own papers of research.
D"YES they are – one version stands up to any scientific test you give it The other version is based on a religious mythology
R" If science proves the koala genes are not the same as the panda genes and the grizzly genes, than my faith in the Creation Kinds would fall, bringing down all Scripture with this. The Bible has science in it, and the statements must stand scrutiny.
Evolution would argue the genes would not be the same. We would say they are the same, allowing for some to be spoiled by mutations etc, more or less they genes should be the same within each kind.
Shalom
Dillon asks "Why almost all coal was made at the same time? I will get back to you on this video Dillon.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 13, 2021 8:23:27 GMT -5
Interesting, This is exactly how and why I began my ministry - The Bible has science in it, and the statements must stand scrutiny.
And - R" If science proves the koala genes are not the same as the panda genes and the grizzly genes, than my faith in the Creation Kinds would fall, bringing down all Scripture with this YES – people want to throw away the baby with the bath water – do you understand this (pre-WWII) American expression?
Baby is all dirty – so you have a tub of clean water – and wash the baby But in the end – the water is so dirty you no longer see the baby Deciding that the water is dirty – you throw away the dirty water not recognizing that you are also throwing away the baby
People come to church because they want to know God Does church introduce you to God? – NO it introduces you to religion Sure God is in the religion somewhere – but when you get fed up enough with the religion You throw away your religion – and at the same time turning your back on God
My daughters and I just watched a movie where the mean baster landlord hated God – because he prayed and prayed and his wife died anyway Prayers are meaningless – there is no God
my faith in the Creation Kinds would fall, bringing down all Scripture WHY – what is it that you believe – God? - or the man-made science of creationism – or the man-made doctrine of your church
The difference between belief and gnosis One is open to change with new information One where all information just validates your gnosis
Correct – very easy to test – it is called the science of taxonomy
(google) What is genetic basis of taxonomy? Since genetic characterization forms the basis that allows researchers to classify isolates of microorganisms, the most detailed form of typing, full-genome sequencing, should essentially integrate taxonomy, evolutionary and phylogenetic studies, population genetics, and epidemiology.
full-genome sequencing, should essentially integrate taxonomy Has everything been completely mapped – NO - but that map is very consistent
(google) There are seven main taxonomic ranks: kingdom, phylum or division, class, order, family, genus, species
DNA is incredibly long – if you unrolled the DNA from every organism spell out
kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, and then phenotype For all mammals (kingdom, phylum, class, order, family) is spelled identical For all genus of mammals (kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus) is spelled identical For every species of mammals (kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species) is spelled identical
So far – everything you say is true – so let’s talk dogs (google) What species do domestic dogs belong to? = (Canis lupus familiaris) So every dog you have ever met = kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus(Canis), species (lupus familiaris) - + 161 phenotypes = 161 BREEDS = 161 hybrids
So – creationism could say there was one (Canis lupus familiaris) that came off the Ark and then hybrid into 161 different breeds This would be true of a lot of animals – horses, sheep, pigs, even birds Is this what creationism says – NO The canine kind, has within that creature, the genes for the wolf, the fox and the dog. The bear kind, has within that creature, the grizzly, the panda and the koala. Inside the poodle is the great Dane, and the wolf, as well as the coyote. None of these statements are true Wolf and fox are not even the same genus let alone species A koala bear is a marsupial - a entirely different order – let alone family, genus, or species
DNA study clarifies relationship between polar bears and ...https://news.ucsc.edu › 2013/03 › polar-bear-genomics Mar 14, 2013 — Polar bears are genetically a very homogeneous species, with no evidence of brown bear genes in the population.
Genetic comparison of giant and red pandas offers ... - Phys.orghttps://phys.org › Biology › Plants & Animals Jan 17, 2017 — The giant panda is closely related to bears, especially polar bears, while red pandas are more closely related to ferrets.
(google) Are bears and koala bears related? Koalas are not bears—they're marsupials. Learn about koalas' unique traits, including six opposable "thumbs,"downward-facing pouches, and a tendency to sleep nearly all day in tree branches.
But in theory yes, the genes in each kind should be the same, some switched on and some switched off. An easy hypothesis to test, assuming we can read the DNA fully. The test fails – very poorly – and creationism mixes different types of animal into a KIND that make science laugh
Each species, genus, family, order, etc have their own DNA markers, genes, genetic sequences, But species never change into new and different species
2 dogs walked off the ark = 161 breeds – and every one is a dog (same genome) 2 horses walked off the ark = 7 breeds – and every one is a horse (same genome) 2 cows walk off the ark = 14 breeds – and every one is a cow (same genome)
It is a lie FOR creationism to say – two baby bears walked of the ark and evolved or hybrid into different species (different genomic groups) It is a lie for creationism to say – a baby something walked off the ark and fathered the different species of wolves, foxes, and dogs (different genomic groups)
But in theory yes, the genes in each kind should be the same, some switched on and some switched off. Polar bears are genetically a very homogeneous species, with no evidence of brown bear genes in the population.
But in theory yes, the genes in each kind should be the same, some switched on and some switched off. The giant panda is closely related to bears, especially polar bears, while red pandas are more closely related to ferrets.
Rapid Speciation claims multiple species from a common ancestor Rapid hybridization would only yield breeds of a single species – not new and different species
An easy hypothesis to test, assuming we can read the DNA fully.
D "Why doesn’t real science validate creationism attempt to explain KINDs R" you tell me, too many of us are stuck on religion, instead on science. More this reason I am sad to be a SDA at times, we do not validate our faith in God using science. We do not publish our own papers of research.
So what do you do when science does not agree with your religion? Does creationism engage in the discussion – do they attempt to educate – to validate NO – they ask you to take sides – and posture
D one version stands up to any scientific test you give it The other version is based on a religious mythology
But in theory yes, the genes in each kind should be the same, some switched on and some switched off. What exactly is a clone? The term cloning describes a number of different processes that can be used to produce genetically identical copies of a biological entity.
If they all had the genetic make up they would be clones of one another
What you claim is not even true about a singlr species - let alone accross several species
(google) Can brothers have same DNA? brothers and sisters can never have identical genotypes. However, brothers have the same DNA on their Y chromosomes.
Can Two People in the World be Identical? - Sites at Penn Statehttps://sites.psu.edu › siowfa16 › 2016/12/01 › can-two... Dec 1, 2016 — Yes, it is very likely that two human can look very similar, possibly even identical, but they will never be genetically identical.
Is it possible that two persons have the same DNA? - Quorahttps://www.quora.com › Is-it-possible-that-two-persons... Mar 16, 2015 — No, it is impossible for any two humans to have the same DNA sequence. Even identical twins do not have exactly the same DNA sequence!
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 13, 2021 9:14:57 GMT -5
Dave says, and I believe, God created everything. Incremental CreationDave says, God created everything one at a time, or in bunches at a time Creation began in the beginning and ended with man Evolution began in the beginning and ended with man Dave says they are both evidence to the same event Therefore all scientific evidence “that looks like evolution’ actually supports Incremental Creation One problem for me was, plant life before the sunMy problem was in thinking that without the sun there would be no light for photosynthesis On a black Colorado night, without the sun or moon, there is light enough to find your way Also, most simple plant life does not even need the sun Fungal forms grow best in no light at all Why almost all coal was made at the same time CoolHowever - Fungi are the only major organism that can break down or significantly modify lignin. So fungi as we know them cannot be first – however you mention dimorphic fungi (where did you get the term?)This is actually YEAST – that turns into above ground fungi Correct – the first trees were very large – they covered the whole planet – forcing the whole plant to be temperate before the flood Correct – not all plants need sunlight – my mother used to have African Moon Flowers at our front door. All day long they looked like droopy green plants – at dark they stand upright and bloom. cortland.edu/waldbauer-trail/8-non-photosynthetic-plants.html8. Non-Photosynthetic Plants
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2021 15:53:08 GMT -5
You write a lot here Dave. This comment makes a sound for me
D" Can brothers have same DNA? brothers and sisters can never have identical genotypes.
R" Now we come to the details of the geneotype within the kind. Sure the DNA of some places may be different, so the phenotype can change. But we have to evaluate the variety that causes DNA phenotype.
Consider the gene for skin colour, the melanin gene. Does the DNA within this gene change? What exactly changes in the melanin gene? Some of the DNA must be the same. Has to be the same otherwise the skin colour will not be made.
The DNA for kinds has to be located somewhere, so the dog can at will can become a wolf, or the 161 breeds you speak of. Maybe in the hux area, where development occurs. But can we read all the DNA information on the DNA? I don't think so.
This topic is too big for us to fathom as we have not read the whole of the DNA code from man, let alone from other animals. Barely read 4% of the DNA in man, let alone other animals.
So back to your view of the ark Dave, you have on board the ark, 161 pairs of dogs,
so roughly the ark had 100,000 pairs of animals on board, roughly 200,000 animals, one gender of each. Is the ark big enough for this? Yes
But you say the vulture and the kite are different kinds?
Le 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
Most of us read this differently, that the kite and the vulture belong to one kind.
Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 13, 2021 20:41:34 GMT -5
D" Can brothers have same DNA? brothers and sisters can never have identical genotypes. R" Now we come to the details of the geneotype within the kind. Sure the DNA of some places may be different, so the phenotype can change. But in theory yes, the genes in each kind should be the same, some switched on and some switched off. An easy hypothesis to test, assuming we can read the DNA fully.Having a hard time understanding what you believeAre the gnome of all the same KIND the same with some pats switched on and others switched off Or – is the genome of two siblings differentThe DNA for kinds has to be located somewhere, so the dog can at will can become a wolf, or the 161 breeds you speak of. No species can change into a different species – there is ZERO evolution The 161 breeds of dogs are all the exact same species - This topic is too big for us to fathom as we have not read the whole of the DNA code from man, let alone from other animals. Barely read 4% of the DNA in man, let alone other animals.Man has map the entire human genome of man and of about 30 other animals The reason PCR technology works is because of the differences that we do understand There is about 68% of DNA that is common to every one of the animal kingdom Of the parts that are different allow us to identify those differencesSo back to your view of the ark Dave, you have on board the ark, 161 pairs of dogs,Can you possibly stop lying – it hurts your credibility – and it is certainly not ChristianNo species can change into a different species – there is ZERO evolution The 161 breeds of dogs are all the exact same species -But you say the vulture and the kite are different kinds? Le 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Most of us read this differently, that the kite and the vulture belong to one kind.I will share my Greek with you Lev 11:14 καὶ τὸν γύπα καὶ ἰκτῖνα καὶ τὰ ὅμοια αὐτῷ Lev 11:14 (καὶ τὸν γύπα) (καὶ ἰκτῖνα) (καὶ τὰ ὅμοια) αὐτῷ Translation = (and the vulture) (and the kite) (and hompios) αὐτῷ G3664 - ὅμοιος – homoios - From the base of G3674; similar (in appearance or character): - like, + manner. (homo vrs hetero – homogeneous = all alike) Part of Speech: Adjective, Case: Accusative (direct object), Plural, Gender: Neuter (and the vulture) (and the kite) (and homogeneous – direct object ) + αὐτῷ (my favorite word) G846 - αὐτός - the reflexive pronoun self, Part of Speech: Demonstrative pronoun, Case: Dative (indirect object, "with"). Singular, Gender: Masculine (and the vulture) (and the kite) (and homogeneous – direct object ) (the SINGULAR reflexive pronoun self = ITSELF – Indirect object) Grammar Subject + verb + Indirect Object + Object = Where is the subject and verb?Lev 11:13 “Among the birds you should detest the following = the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, Lev 11:14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, Lev 11:15 any kind of raven, Lev 11:16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, Lev 11:17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, Lev 11:18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, Lev 11:19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe, and the bat. the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, Lev 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Lev 11:15 Every raven after his kind; Lev 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, Lev 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, Lev 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, Lev 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. So Robert – all the FOWEL mentioned – not all say – after its own kind do all KINDS have to reproduce after its own kind – or just the specific ones Is an eagle the same kind as a vulture or a swan? Or are pelicans the same kind as vultures or kites Owls and Hawks are the same kind And I am confused about bats – which kind of BIRDS are they? herons or lapwigs What is the genus and species of a Vulture?Integrated Taxonomic Information System – Report - Vulture Kindom, (animal) - Phylum: (Chordata) - Class: (Aves) – Family: (Cathartidae ), Genus (Cathartes Illiger,) = species (New World Vulture ) www.britannica.com › ... › Birds — vulture, large carrion-eating birdsWhat is the genus and species of a kite?Integrated Taxonomic Information System – Report - Kite Kindom, (animal) - Phylum: (Chordata) - Class: (Aves) – Family: (Accipitridae - eagles, hawks, and kites), Genus: (Milvus), species: (migrans) www.britannica.com › ... › Birds - kite, any of numerous birds of preyLe 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Most of us read this differently, that the kite and the vulture belong to one kind.Sorry Robert no one says this except Ken Hamm - and creationismBut in theory yes, the genes in each kind should be the same, some switched on and some switched off. An easy hypothesis to test, assuming we can read the DNA fully.The test fails – very poorly – and creationism mixes different types of animal into a KIND that make science laughEach species, genus, family, order, etc have their own DNA markers, genes, genetic sequences, But species never change into new and different species So what do you do when science does not agree with your religion?Does creationism engage in the discussion – do they attempt to educate – to validate NO – they ask you to take sides – and postureDivide and conquor - very Christian D one version stands up to any scientific test you give itThe other version is based on a religious mythology
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2021 15:29:05 GMT -5
D" There is about 68% of DNA that is common to every one of the animal kingdom Of the parts that are different allow us to identify those differencesR" Yes But this DNA is used to make proteins for animals and plants, all life is made of the same blocks of matterBut what about development code, Build road here and not there. Move this gene to this place, not that place. Look for this food not that food. Make a communication for others. Make a decision. Build a different phenotype, switch genes on or off. These kinds of DNA instructions have not been found yet. SO we haven't found anything remarkable yet. D" No species can change into a different species – there is ZERO evolution The 161 breeds of dogs are all the exact same speciesR" Sorry I don't get you. So why can't you place the wolf in that breed as well? Make it 170 breeds of canines, the dog breeds, the wolf breeds, all the exact same species. RP" Le 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Most of us read this differently, that the kite and the vulture belong to one kind.D" Sorry Robert no one says this except Ken Hamm - and creationismR" Oh, so this is another example of where we disagree too. You don't have a view of "myin" "kind". You say God created all the 4 kangaroos in the Eden Creation, in fact all 7 million species of animals. Le 11:14 (KJV) And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Le 11:14 (ASV) and the kite, and the falcon after its kind, Le 11:14 (BBE) And the kite and the falcon, and birds of that sort; Le 11:14 (DBY) and the falcon, and the kite, after its kind; Le 11:14 (MKJV) and the kite, and the falcon, according to its kind; Le 11:14 (MNT) - Le 11:14 (NKJV) 'the kite, and the falcon after its kind; Le 11:14 (RSV) the kite, the falcon according to its kind, Le 11:14 (TCNT) - Le 11:14 (WEB) and the red kite, any kind of black kite, Le 11:14 (WNT) Le 11:14 (YLT) and the vulture, and the kite after its kind, Funny all these translations seem to follow my view, not your view? I was researching Isaac Newton and if he wrote of the creation kind. No luck. D" D one version stands up to any scientific test you give it The other version is based on a religious mythologyR" Perhaps. Maybe science has not discovered all the DNA code that is required to answer these questions yet. Shalom
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 14, 2021 16:07:54 GMT -5
D" Can brothers have same DNA? brothers and sisters can never have identical genotypes. R" Now we come to the details of the geneotype within the kind. Sure the DNA of some places may be different, so the phenotype can change. But in theory yes, the genes in each kind should be the same, some switched on and some switched off. An easy hypothesis to test, assuming we can read the DNA fully.Having a hard time understanding what you believeAre the gnome of all the same KIND the same with some pats switched on and others switched off Or – is the genome of two siblings different These kinds of DNA instructions have not been found yet. SO we haven't found anything remarkable yet.D"D one version stands up to any scientific test you give it The other version is based on a religious mythology R" Perhaps. Maybe science has not discovered all the DNA code that is required to answer these questions yet.This was also Darwin’s argument – the lack of intermediary species is a real issue for his theory – buthoped the new science of paleontology would prove him correct over time.He was wrong So what do you do when science does not agree with your religion?Does creationism engage in the discussion – do they attempt to educate – to validateNO – they ask you to take sides – and postureDivide and conquer - very Christian - or the subtle move of an enemy The same enemy that teaches satan is the god of evil and changed all of God’s tov Plan against God’s Will – because satan strong and God the One True Creator is weak
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2021 5:01:35 GMT -5
D" So what do you do when science does not agree with your religion?
R" I ignore the science until science verifies the Scriptures.
Somebody has to be right, and the word of God is always right.
I will get back to you on this topic, will research Isaac Newton and Jonathon Sarfetti.
SHalom for now
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Nov 15, 2021 9:29:55 GMT -5
D" So what do you do when science does not agree with your religion? R" I ignore the science until science verifies the Scriptures.Correct you argue against the facts and common sense in support of a failed church doctrine Not only do you ignore the facts – you bend scripture to fit your doctrineSomebody has to be right, and the word of God is always right.Absolutely correct Rom 1:19 + Psa 19:2 all reality points to our One true CreatorThe Logarithmic Days of Creation + Incremental CreationI will research Isaac Newton and Jonathon Sarfetti.Still waiting for you to review my suggested David Ike video
|
|