• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The first creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible.

McBell

Unbound
No answer at all then.
Claiming an answer is not an answer simply because you dislike the answer is bearing false witness.
Isn't that a no no according to your God?
Seems to me there is even a verse about it...

Have you figured out which version of the Bible you use?
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Claiming an answer is not an answer simply because you dislike the answer is bearing false witness.
Isn't that a no no according to your God?
Seems to me there is even a verse about it...

Have you figured out which version of the Bible you use?
King James Bible the word of God without error in the originals.
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
which of the hundreds of King James Versions is the Word of God?

And have you figured out which one of those hundreds of versions is the version you use?
There is only one version.
Font change, updated spellings and printing errors do not count.

But the 1769 KJB.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
No answer at all then.
No, that is your position - gained from implicitly believing an old text with little impartial verification. The results from science, and the technology that often results from such, is more than enough to have plenty of trust in science - even though we know it isn't always correct and often requires updating. Travelling a dead-end track as you are doing however is the silliest of decisions.
 

McBell

Unbound
There is only one version.
Font change, updated spellings and printing errors do not count.

But the 1769 KJB.
So God messed up the font and spelling?
Not to mention which words to use,

So there are definitely a whole bunch of different versions of the King James Bible.

Ah, back to the 1769 KJB

Before or after Dr. Benjamin Blayney revised it?
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
So God messed up the font and spelling?
Not to mention which words to use,

So there are definitely a whole bunch of different versions of the King James Bible.

Ah, back to the 1769 KJB

Before or after Dr. Benjamin Blayney revised it?
No the font is just a change of font and the spelling was updated because the spelling of words changed.
No change there.
After.
So 1769 without error and no real change before then anyway.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
And where are all the intermediary species between all these.

All supposed similarity is not evidence for evolution at all. But the inexplicable differences and inexplicable similarities disprove evolution.

Chromosome count
Mankind 46
Chimps 48

Chromosome counts for various fox species.
Red fox 34
Tibetan sand fox 36
Kit fox 50
Bengal fox 60
Fennec fox 64

Amoeba dubia 670 billion base pairs
How did that happen?

The odds against the amoebas code by random chance is 39^640 billon to 1 or 10^trillion to 1.
That is 1 followed by 1 trillion zeros.

It would take at least 1 million books to write that number out,
It would. Too bad that your argument is just a strawman.
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
It would. Too bad that your argument is just a strawman.
Amoeba dubia 670 billion base pairs
How did that happen?

The odds against the amoebas code by random chance is 39^640 billon to 1 or 10^trillion to 1.
That is 1 followed by 1 trillion zeros.

It would take at least 1 million books to write that number out,
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
No the font is just a change of font and the spelling was updated because the spelling of words changed.
No change there.
After.
So 1769 without error and no real change before then anyway.

Except bats aren't birds, rabbits don't chew their cud and a lot of other errors. Not to mention the moral wrongs like killing babies, taking slaves and executing lazy children.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Amoeba dubia 670 billion base pairs
How did that happen?

The odds against the amoebas code by random chance is 39^640 billon to 1 or 10^trillion to 1.
That is 1 followed by 1 trillion zeros.

It would take at least 1 million books to write that number out,
They are the product of evolution over 3.8 billion years. And your odds are worthless because you made an incredibly ignorant assumption. It is the lottery fallacy all over again.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Except bats aren't birds, rabbits don't chew their cud and a lot of other errors. Not to mention the moral wrongs like killing babies, taking slaves and executing lazy children.
Wait a second now . . . what was the children one again? I might be willing to make an exception.
 

McBell

Unbound
No the font is just a change of font and the spelling was updated because the spelling of words changed.
No change there.
After.
So 1769 without error and no real change before then anyway.
download.jpg
 

McBell

Unbound
No the font is just a change of font and the spelling was updated because the spelling of words changed.
No change there.
After.
So 1769 without error and no real change before then anyway.
So if there was nothing 'wrong' with the Word of God from God's own mouth, then why all the revisions?
And given that there are so many corrections to the Word of God from Gods own mouth, what makes you so sure that the one you claim is the current Word of God from Gods own mouth is in fact the current Word of God from Gods own mouth?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
So if there was nothing 'wrong' with the Word of God from God's own mouth, then why all the revisions?
And given that there are so many corrections to the Word of God from Gods own mouth, what makes you so sure that the one you claim is the current Word of God from Gods own mouth is in fact the current Word of God from Gods own mouth?
Well to be fair revisions are necessary because language changes. But he won't own up to not understanding the KJV because English has changed in 500 years. So that is still a loss for him.
 

McBell

Unbound
Well to be fair revisions are necessary because language changes. But he won't own up to not understanding the KJV because English has changed in 500 years. So that is still a loss for him.
So then God is not able to word it in a manner it would apply for all time?
Is God not all knowing?
All powerful?
Etc.?

Perhaps I have unrealistically high standards for an all knowing, all powerful deity..?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Amoeba dubia 670 billion base pairs
How did that happen?

Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

The odds against the amoebas code by random chance is 39^640 billon to 1 or 10^trillion to 1.

Evolution isn't random.

That is 1 followed by 1 trillion zeros.

Irrelevant since based in strawman and falsehood.
Aka, bearing false witness.

Besides, you don't care about odds since you simply ignored it when I told you the odds of sharing ERV's with other species.
And unlike your odds, those were NOT based on strawmen and falsehoods.

It would take at least 1 million books to write that number out,
Great. Doesn't matter though.
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.



Evolution isn't random.



Irrelevant since based in strawman and falsehood.
Aka, bearing false witness.

Besides, you don't care about odds since you simply ignored it when I told you the odds of sharing ERV's with other species.
And unlike your odds, those were NOT based on strawmen and falsehoods.


Great. Doesn't matter though.
Evolution has no way to produce the code of the amoeba.

The odds against the amoebas code by random chance is 39^640 billon to 1 or 10^trillion to 1.
 
Top