• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

6days

New member
Barbarian said:
natural selection has been directly observed to produce new information
You obviously don't understand genetics...or natural selection, or you wouldn't say such goofy things.

Barbarian said:
All evolution is consistent with God's word.
God created man from the dust. He created woman from mans rib. He created the great sea creatures before land animals. He created everything in six days.
Barbarian said:
Individuals don't evolve. Populations evolve.
You still don't get it. Populations adapt, but monkey's will always be monkey's. God made all sorts of wild animals, livestock, and small animals, each able to produce offspring of the same kind. Gen. 1:25
Barbarian said:
Nice try. But as you learned, there are numerous favorable mutations. Want me to show you some more?
As I learned... you don't understand genetics. Mutations destroy or alter the pre-existing genetic info. This can in rare ( 1 in several hundred thousand) have a beneficial outcome).
Barbarian said:
6days said:
Early fish? Primitive? The fish God created on the 5th day would have had had lots of variety.

Sorry, your modern revision of scripture isn't evidence.
My Bible says "So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that scurries and swarms in the water, and every sort of bird—each producing offspring of the same kind" Gen. 1:21

Barbarian said:
You're a sucker...
Sucker fish were created on the 5th day that had an evenIng and morning. Humans were created in the image of God on day 6.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
It's a hypothesis, which is nice. But there aren't any accounts outside of the Bible of anybody living anything close to 900 years.

No, perhaps not, but even so, if the Bible is to be believed in regards to the Fall of Man, then we should expect that ages would slowly get shorter and shorter over time because of corruption. If we were to graph the age of every person who's age is recorded in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, we would see, immediately after the Fall, that the ages top out around 900-1000 years, with the first man, Adam, and then slowly those ages decreased, with Methuselah being the exception.

Having someone live to be 122 today is not the norm (though it's certainly becoming more likely, through advancements in medicine and technology.

To put it in a nutshell, shorter lifespans today but exceptionally long lifestyles in Genesis are consistent with what the bible teaches, that all of creation was corrupted and is suffering.

If Genesis said unicorns were real, would you automatically assume them to be even though no unicorn has ever been found?

I'm not seeing your point...
 

Greg Jennings

New member
No, perhaps not, but even so, if the Bible is to be believed in regards to the Fall of Man, then we should expect that ages would slowly get shorter and shorter over time because of corruption. If we were to graph the age of every person who's age is recorded in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, we would see, immediately after the Fall, that the ages top out around 900-1000 years, with the first man, Adam, and then slowly those ages decreased, with Methuselah being the exception.

Having someone live to be 122 today is not the norm (though it's certainly becoming more likely, through advancements in medicine and technology.

To put it in a nutshell, shorter lifespans today but exceptionally long lifestyles in Genesis are consistent with what the bible teaches, that all of creation was corrupted and is suffering.



I'm not seeing your point...

Ok cool, you made a theory in which people died younger and younger, in order to explain a 900 year old person.

You have yet to show any EVIDENCE of one. That's why 6000 year old Earth isn't science. It doesn't come FROM the evidence. The entire field of science once thought as you do: that the Earth was created as is by God in 7 days somewhere between 6-10,000 years ago. Then over the last 400 years, that changed: now all of science is overwhelmingly convinced of a 4.5 billion year old planet

Tell me, why would gathering more and more evidence over centuries lead to the right conclusion being dropped in favor of an incorrect one?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Do you consider a genealogy list of 900 year old people to be scientific?
Scientific?

It exists. It can be tested scientifically.

You really need to improve your use of terminology if you want to claim expertise in science communication.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
You assume they are true?

No. You don't. We don't assume every manuscript is factual or non-fiction
If you want to examine something from a text (such as a geneology), but there's no direct way to test it, the next best thing is to look at the text as a whole, and to test to see if what it says is true. For example, lets say you have a history book, and it tells about Joan of Arc, but you have no body to examine, you look at what she did, and then you look at examples from history, and see if they line up with what the text says.

Basically, see if it lines up with reality.

So in the case of the Bible, we look at what it says as a whole, for example, it says that egypt fell and that a semitic people left around that time, and we see that (per the Ipuwer Papyrus) this very similar to what we see in reality, and another example are cities, coinage, etc.

Taken as a whole, the Bible has been largely proven correct, at least as far as what can be proven scientifically/archaeologically, etc.
 

6days

New member
Greg Jennings said:
Do you consider a genealogy list of 900 year old people to be scientific?
I asked if you were a Christian and wanted a Biblical answer. Your reply was 'dodge'. Why?

So... from a science standpoint, it is possible people could live 1000 years according to secular scientists. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...ars-old-is-alive-today-weekend-feature-1.html

Did some humans live 900+ years before genetic load started decreasing lifespans? You betcha! God's Word confirms it.
 
Top