What about vegetarian animals?

Infidel posts:

Yes, to a certain extent, we are similiar to various other creatures, especially the apes. We have livers, intestines, eyes, ears, appendixes, etc. and it's that similarity that evolutionists argue we descended from apes, and have a common ancestor. Similarity is called "homology" in evolutionary parlance...but similarity really proves nothing at all for evolutionists as they need evidence of species change not evidence of simliarity.

I agree only on the point that similarities exist....I think they are similiar because they all have the same Creator!

Look at types of cars. Porche, Volvo, Datson, Volkswagon and Mustang have similarities...Does this give evidence that Porche descended from Volvo and so forth and so on to a common ancestor or does it show that someone intelligent made them all according to a common design....which is to roll down highways powered by engines?

lula posts:

It's not only similarity in shape and form but here, I'm talking about biochemical similarities. Biochemicals are common to all living things. Human cells do some of the same things yeast cells do. That is the code for the enzymes and proteins do the same kind of job.

So, even though we humans share similarities with apes, does not legitimize that we are related in an evolutionary sense.  You are wonderfully created in the image and likeness of Almighty God and apes are just animals. You can know, love and serve God and read this which no ape will ever be able to do. 

leauki posts:

No.

What I'm saying is that the similarities in all living things points to Creator God and the unity of the Creation is testimony to the one true God Who made it all.   

lula posts:

Leauki posts:

Who says similarity is evidence for evolutionary descent and common ancestors? Only evolutionists and those duped by their propaganda claim that...and the argument from similarities (homologies) is circular reasoning. 

It goes to biochemicals which are in all living things, including plants and vegetables.

Before the Fall of Adam and Eve, they and all the animals were vegetarians as death hadn't entered the world until they rebelled against God and disobeyed His command.  

We happen to know where cars come from. It's usually written on the things. That's what "Volvo" means.

If human beings had a "made by G-d" stamp, we wouldn't have this discussion.

Incidentally, the design of modern cars did descend from the design of the first car. Each designer looked at the designs of previous designers.

You're a better man than me, Leauki.  All I could do was laugh.

Ya, from someone intelligent....someone intelligent made them. Scripture tells us the very same thing....some Intelligent Being made all living things.

But unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that scripture is true, all it is is propaganda from your choice of religion.

Note, I'm not picking on just christianity with this statement but all organizations currently recognized by most governments as religions.

Two things...

We don't know whether scripture is true. We don't even know which scripture is true. On the basis of your argument we could teach Hinduism in science class.

Either way, scripture is not disprovable and thus doesn't qualify as science.

Secondly, scripture was written for everyone, including people like you who don't (apparently) have the mental capability to understand evolution. I am not talking about your belief in Creationism, I am talking about your inability to explain evolution when you try to state why you reject it.

You are still not getting it. Science is not looking for explanations that cannot be disproven. Such explanations are useless because they do not define boundaries.

If you understood evolution you would understand science and if you understood science you would understand evolution. But since you understand neither, there really isn't much you can contribute. Creationism is just an escape for the ignorant which allows them to think that they understood something as complicated as science and are thus as clever as all these scientists.

That's why you don't understand evolution. You simply cannot imagine that it is more complicated than Creationism and hence you know only a parody of it, basically as much as you can grasp and as Creationist propaganda is willing to "explain" to you.

That's why you believe that evolution claims that species "turn into" other species or that "transitional fossils" make sense as a concept (in reality evolution denies the existence of "transitional" anything since there are no absolutes between which anything could be "transitional"). You just dont know any better but you believe that this is all there is to know.

If you actually understood evolution, you would talk quite differently.

But it wasn't God!

Well, Nissan descended from Datsun.

lula posts:

DOOMBRINGER90 POSTS:

Sacred Scripture is true because Almighty God is the Principal Author and God is omniscient, Truth Itself and incompatible with all error.  I know the information about the Creation events of Genesis is true God was the only witness, incapable of deception. God is both Creator of all living things and the Principal Author of Scripture.  

So this brings us back to the basic questions.....Did the existence of all living things come about by naturalistic evolution or by Divine Creation?   It really boils down to who do we believe...man's philosophy of Godless evolution or the revealed Word of Creator God?

Leauki posts:

Speak for yourself.

...

I am free to speak facts.

Neither you nor I know whether scripture is true.

Yes, but which book is that sacred scripture? We don't know which book G-d wrote.

Was it the Avesta? The Quran? The manual of a 1960 Porsche?

Either way, even if we knew which scripture really was authored by G-d, it still wouldn't be scientific, unless you want to claim that your god can err. Remember that scientific theories must be disprovable.

Ironically you keep claiming that evolution has been disproven, thereby adding to the argument for it being science.

The Evolutionist states that all life gradually evolved froma single cell.  The evidence the Evolutionist needs to establish his claims is fossils showing a gradual step by step development of lower animal life into more and more complex forms. 

The evidence needed to support creation is fossils showing complex life appearing suddenly with no fossil evidence of lower animals developing into new and complex forms of life. 

So which makes more sense?  Which shows more evidence?  Creation or Evolution? 

All higher categories of living things such as complex invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, flying reptiles, birds, bats, primates and man, appear abruptly. 

The case for Evolution to be taught in school (Scopes Trial) was based on a lie.  Reminds me of the whole abortion issue as well.  The right to abort went into law in 1973 based on a lie as well. The hoaxes revealed later were buried under the rug.  We know who the father of lies is don't we? 

Then there's the whole universally accepted laws of thermodynamics which totally contradicts the theory of evolution.  The second law of Thermodynamics says that all things left to themselves always tend to go from the complex to the simple, from the organized to the disorganized.  Evolution would require the exact opposite which is the continually building up from the simplest to the more complex forms. 

and I want to say a literal reading of the text (taking in the WHOLE context) does give us a flooded world.  But you're right been there; done that