Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

I'm sure it is irrelevant to your theories but it is not to science as I quoted scientists using it. Are your credentials large enough to cite yourself?

Additionally DNA studies are showing evidence of the likelihood of a single source for humans.
Here’s the Cliffs Notes version: According to the authors all our mitochondria came from a very small population about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, perhaps as small as a population size of two, though later in the paper they qualify that number. According to Stoeckle and Thaler, the same timeframe is true for 90 percent of animal species. No wonder so many people in the theistic evolution/creation dispute got irritated or excited. Theistic evolutionists saw it as an occasion for fanning the flames of anti-evolutionary sentiment. Young earth creationists saw it as evidence for the ark.

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/12/does-barcoding-dna-reveal-a-single-human-pair/

I'm citing an evolutionary site so you don't choke on this possibility.

By that reasoning, God could be a "She" instead of a "He"?

Geno

Nice twist of my words. I said truth is self-existent meaning we do not make it true or untrue--we can only discover it.

He represents both genders because the image of God is not merely a physical image, but mind, will, emotions, and most importantly a spiritual dimension that includes a conscience. Expanding further, the characteristics of the human race are best represented by acknowledging both genders.

You guys are all over the place with your logic. First you want scientific evidence--well that usually comes from scientists right? When we cite scientific sources then you don't want any copy and pastes. Do you want plagiarisms? Do you know what is that you want?

In other words, historically in our collective "Western" languages we just use the male pronoun out of convenience?

Geno

theological discussions and logic in the same sentence. Bet thats a first.

Oh my .. the guy from Harvard who wrote the standard legal textbook for the laws of evidence to be employed in a courtroom applied those same laws of evidence to investigate the evidence of the resurrection event. Not to mention the logic and faith of our founders... Unbelief of the heart has the potential to prejudice the mind against objectivity.

And Aristotle who did much to develop logic and its rules said:
"God is a supreme and eternal living being, so that to God belong life and continuous and eternal duration. For that is what God is."

All religious arguments start from an assumption of authority. God said it I believe it. then follow up, with you said, they said, he said. Thats a definite prejudice of the mind against objectivity.


then compare it to a metric, (geology, phylogenetics,mitochondria DNA,) then expect a Harvard lawyer to interpret it. Got it.

He represents both genders because the image of God is not merely a physical image, but mind, will, emotions, and most importantly a spiritual dimension that includes a conscience. [/quote]

In other words, historically in our collective "Western" languages we just use the male pronoun out of convenience?

Geno[/quote]

indeed. patriarchy has been the choice ever since the rabbi's took over the hebrew religion and related discussions.

that was about 10,000 years ago, the last time there was a massive climate change?

we moved from a land based god to a sky god, more or less.

You are changing your original premise because you can't sustain it. You inferred theology and logic do not correlate. I showed you where the Aristotle employed both logic and theism. Belief or unbelief can be logical or illogical. If you can't see that then yes you have no objectivity in your thinking.

Does your starting assumption assume that you have the authority to discern facts?

can facts be fully ascertained in the english language and it's variations, or should it be converted back to der hebraic language?

there's arguments on both sides of this issue.

Aramaic Gus,

let's get to the root of this.

A time machine would allow us to go back and examine the oral record from pre-written history too.

Geno

not changing anything, Im just not playing (and have no need to) play on your ballfield

yes, agreed on all accounts.

a time machine would be good.

a jot and a tittle was added later on.

before that it was still the hebraic language.

once the greek language came into play, things changed?

and observe what really happened, and stick our fingers in and change things, and come to a present that would be completely unfamiliar.

revive a dead language

i'll go with latin as a middle ground

make my two semesters in high school meaningful

used to work for grand discussions before they tried french

well, we're smarter now right? Smart phones even.

Perhaps we could arrange it so the world is still familiar but all the silliness is gone. Evolution could be written into holy books maybe?

Geno

Maybe it is just semantics, but I would not agree that all religious arguments start from an assumption of authority. Many indeed do.... but.... In my own case, my “religious” conviction stems from the “recognition” of Jesus’ authority. From my viewpoint, there is no assumption.

Yet, YMMV