GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
Evolution is not necessary to explain via scripture for it to be true, the evidence is all around us, it is the way that God created.

I am a passer byer & your thoughts felt good

note: views and statements I make may change over time
.,,.,.,.,,as I age

All I can say is the most recent is the closest too the truth.

Well, maybe (:-

Why do they teach evolution as fact in public schools?

Personally I do not see a problem with the term "evolution"

There is an "evolutionary" process whereby things our fathers have learned
we can now wright down
to pass onto our children

May you and yours be happy
& content
& live long
With a smile..,  I am no less (:-
Finally, the perfect opportunity for you to show us how God's word teaches evolution just as it is written.

No one said that it did.   It is merely consistent with evolution.    The Bible doesn't talk about DNA, either.   But evolution and DNA are observable facts.

Please do expound, we eagerly await the profound revelations of evolutionary theory in scripture we have missed.

This is why it's O.K. to be a YE creationist.    You opinion of evolution is not a salvation issue.  Unless you make some kind of an idol of creationism, it won't matter at all.

My statement about the banana was a tongue-in-cheek comment,

There are actually creationists who think it's an issue.

You say that watermelons and clouds share a common treat,

Trait?   No, having water is not a trait.   

Can you claim that since watermelons and clouds have a common ancestor, water,

They don't have a common ancestor.   I'm pointing out the fallacy of thinking all things are traits.

In my book your statement would be a statement against evolution, humans and apes share a common treat...

It's the homologies and genetic relationship that matter.    And we know that they indicate common descent, since we can check that with organisms of known descent.

but that does not make them the same thing, or even related.

Genetic information does indeed indicate relationships.   Would you like to learn how we know?

Besides that, the fact that life forms share DNA and are therefore related, has already been debunked scientifically.

Someone's misled you about that.   The degree of genetic identity has been demonstated to show relatedness.

Have a look at this famous DNA of yours, the claim that since humans and chimps share 98.5% of it...they must have a common ancestor.

It's far more than mere genetic similarity.   That, by itself is sufficient, but there's more.    Humans have one less chromosome than other apes, even though they have almost exactly the same genes as other apes.    It was found that one human chromosome looks almost exactly like two chimpanzee chromosomes linked together.    And when examined, the remains of telomeres (DNA found at the ends of chromosomes) were located exactly where they would be if there had been a fusion in humans after they diverged from other apes.

That's stunning confirmation of our relation to other apes.

1. Some time after DNA was discovered back in the 1950's, science found that of all that DNA we have only 2% was actual functional DNA.

By the time I was an undergraduate, in the 1960s, there were already articles showing that non-coding DNA (what creationists call "junk DNA") had other functions than protein synthesis.   

And all the evolutionists jumped up and claimed: See all that useless DNA, these are leftovers from evolution and it is undeniable proof that evolution is true. They called it "junk DNA".

There is a lot of non-coding DNA that seems to have no function.    The GULO gene in humans, for example, is the remains of a gene that makes vitamin C in other organisms.   But since primates were fruit-eating, they got plenty of vitamin C from their diet, and there was no need for it.   So a random mutation inactivated it early in primate evolution.   

One researcher showed that huge amounts of non-coding DNA could be removed from a genome with no noticeable change in an organism:

Mice born without large portions of their 'junk DNA' seem to survive normally. The result contradicts the beliefs of many scientists who have sought to uncover the function of these parts of the genome.

More than 90% the genome of organisms such as mice and humans does not appear to code for any proteins. And yet this DNA shows striking similarities between species. If they had no function, over time mutations would scramble the sequences. Why have these bits of the genome remained so highly conserved?

These mice lost about 3% of their genome, with no effects.    So yeah, a lot of it is junk.   But a lot of it also has been adapted to other purposes.

2. Science discovered that the second strand of DNA was doing absolutely nothing. Again proof of evolution

I think you got that one garbled.   It there were not two strands, replication would be impossible.   It has to be that way.

5. Today it has been found that there most likely is no "junk DNA" at all.

GULO gene in primates.   Does nothing whatever.   Random removal of 3% of the non-coding DNA of mice had no discernable effect on them.   So your assumption is wrong.

You have in fact no proof that there is such a thing as genes that have no function

See above.  You've been misled on that.

What has been discovered is also that the amount of DNA one shares, bears no relevance to what is actually produces or does!

For example, the timing of gene expression.   Humans mature much more slowly than other apes, and never fully mature compared to them.   We look like immature apes.  But the growth of our skulls continue longer, and the size our our teeth and jaws is relatively smaller.   So a little difference can mean a lot.   

And then a whole lot of DNA is used for communication purpose.

All coding DNA is like that.  That's what "coding" means.
The claim that humans and chimps are related because they share common DNA is completely debunked by science.

See above.   You've been misled.   I've spent a lifetime learning about biology, and you really don't understand what this is about.

DNA cannot rewrite itself.

Happens all the time.   You have dozens of changes in your genes that were not present in either parent.

The genetic code cannot produce a new code that produces another species.

Speciation is an observed fact.   Even creationist organizations admit that it is.

DNA must have originated from intelligence

The universe originated from intelligence.   However living things came about from that initial creation, as God tells us.

The chance that the different segments of the DNA strands came together by natural processes is abysmally small

God said it did.   You should believe Him.

And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out to his brothers,
 and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brothers.
 And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian,
and hid him in the sand. And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews
 strove together: and he said to him that did the wrong, Why smite you your fellow?
Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of
 Pharaoh, and dwelled in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well.
                               This marks the great EXIDIOUS

Folks, our Moses murders a man in cold blood
Christian Politics Forum / Re: 2020
« Last post by Jaime on Today at 19:50:39 »
I hope he does. I'm looking forward to his RINO butt flaming out again. I am really hoping Susan Collins from Maine puts herself in the position.... as long as she resigns from the Senate to make said run for President. Same with Lindsey Grahamnesty. I'm not Sure I could contain my giddiness if Jeb runs again!
Christian Politics Forum / 2020
« Last post by Rella on Today at 19:44:24 »
The first hat back in the ring....

Willie Geist, host of NBC’s Sunday Today, said via his Twitter account that sources from Ohio Gov. John Kasich’s office are saying the Republican governor feels a sense of “moral imperative” to run a primary campaign against the president following the events in Charlottesville, Virginia.

General Discussion Forum / Re: The empty-headed myth of Evolution
« Last post by 4WD on Today at 19:31:11 »
What good would the word of God be 4WD, if anyone and everyone is able and allowed to make it say whatever they wish?

Gen 3:1  Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?"

Rev_20:2  And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years,

So Amo, is Satan really a serpent like it says there, a reptile such as a snake, a lizard, or maybe an alligator or a crocodile?  What do you think?  Is the reference to the serpent in Genesis 3 to be taken literal or symbolic?  How about in Revelation 20?  Same serpent?   Literal or symbolic?
And I reiterate: except you become (believe) as a small child.

I think Jesus was referring to the innocence of the small child and not his ignorance, his lack of knowledge.  Also you really shouldn't change the words of Scripture to mean something completely different.  The words become and believe  are not interchangeable; they have two completely different meanings.
Seventh Day Adventist Forum / Re: Who are the 144,000...?
« Last post by Hobie on Today at 18:11:57 »
The millennium is the 1000 year reign of Christ with His resurrected and living saints in heaven.
Everyone of the saints will be resurrected in a physical body, Jesus spoke clearly to those who did not believe it.

 "23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
 24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
 25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
 26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
 27 And last of all the woman died also.
 28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
 29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
 31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
 33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine. "Matthew 22:23-33 King James Version (KJV)

Now this 1000 years is between the first and second resurrections and during this 1000 year time the wicked dead will be judged with the earth completely desolate, without any living human.

1 Corinthians 6:2-3King James Version (KJV)
"2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall cjudge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?

Jesus Christ taught two resurrections...

 ....at the end. One of the righteous saints who he raises up and takes with him to heaven, and are reigning in heaven with Jesus. "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished." (Rev 20:5) The unrighteous are dead. "And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth". (Rev 20:7-8) Although not explicitly stated, it is obvious the unrighteous dead were resurrected after the 1000 years ended. "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection". (Rev 20:6) Specifying the "first" resurrection implies a second resurrection.

 First lets see what resurrection is from the Bible, as some are teaching error saying people are being resurrected now as spirits or floating playing harps on a cloud but that is not correct as the resurrection of all the saints that are sleeping is at the end and has not happened yet.

2 Timothy 2:18
 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

 The ressurection of the saints from the grave is at the second coming, and it is in bodily form like Lazurus, not some spirit floating around, and it is from the grave not being plucked from the fields or rooftop.

John 11:24
 Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

 Jesus taught that even if people died they would be raised up.

John 11:25
 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

 And when he died at the cross, there were firstfruits of the saints that were raised from the grave, but the resurection of the saints is when Christ comes.

Matthew 27:52-53
 52And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

 The saints who believed would be ressurected by Christ just as he was resurrected in bodily form.

 Acts 4:2
 Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.

1 Corinthians 15:12-13
 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

 And this was being taught as a firm doctrine to the belivers along with the final judgement.

Hebrews 6:2
 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

 Some did not believe even back then in resurrection from the grave of the saints as seen in these verses.

 Acts 17:32
 And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

 Acts 23:6-8
 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.7And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. 8For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

Jesus Christ taught two resurrections.“

 "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of damnation"”(John 5:29). The apostle Paul did too.“"[T]here shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust" ”(Acts 24:15). Thus both Jesus Christ and Paul taught two resurrections, the first being “the resurrection of life” for the saved, the second being “the resurrection of damnation” for the lost.

 When Jesus comes at the end of the world to collect His Saints, He gathers them together from all the parts of the earth. Here we have two parallel accounts of what Jesus told His disciples about His second coming:

 29. Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
 30. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
 31. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Matthew 24:29-31. 24.

 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
 25. And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.
 26. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
 27. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven. Mark 13:26-27.

 When Jesus comes in the clods the wicked will be extremely confused at who, and what is happening, and they will be fearful of Christ and what is to happen to them. The righteous, on the other hand, know what is happening as Christ comes to take them to heave and who the Saviour is so have no fear.

 Paul tells us in Thessalonians that God will not forget those who have died. If we believe that Jesus has risen from the dead, we can believe that God will bring them with Him.It is clear from the next few verses that Jesus will not only take all the living saints to heaven, but He will also raise from the dead all of His chosen ones who died, when He comes again, at His second coming,

 'For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.' 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17

 Jesus Himself comes down from heaven at His second coming. This is the event, the second coming which all shall see Christ come in the clouds not any 'secret rapture', at the end of the world before the 1000 years when Jesus comes to get His people and take them back with Him.

 And here we have the two resurrections at the end of time in a nutshell..
 Acts 24:15
 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
 and supported by many verses..
Luke 14:14
 And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.
John 5:29
 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

 And the first resurrection is of the saints not the wicked as the verses make clear. The wicked are going to suffer the second death which is damnation in the lake of fire.

Revelation 20:6
 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Only the Devil and his angels roam the earth, then after the 1000 years the dead are judged and the books are closed and all the saints see God is just in His justice, the wicked dead will now be resurrected for their final destruction. So at the end of the 1000 year or its close Christ with His saints and the New Jerusalem will descend from heaven to earth.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10