Why do so many Atheist and Christians misunderstand what Hell really is ?

[Youwerecreated]

A bland, generic line like that could be interpretted to mean a million different things.

Simple question, you can't give an honest answer to.

Let me simplify it for you.

Human offspring are humans.

Ape offspring are apes.

Science has already answered what we are. We've mapped the genome.

Mapping the genome showed the differences between humans and chimps. It put them further apart thank you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

A bland, generic line like that could be interpretted to mean a million different things.

Simple question, you can't give an honest answer to.

Let me simplify it for you.

Human offspring are humans.

Ape offspring are apes.

Science has already answered what we are. We've mapped the genome.

that the degree of similarity between the human and chimp genome might be as low as 70%:

To compare the two [human and chimpanzee] genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2400 million of the human genome's 3164.7 million 'letters' align with the chimpanzee genome - that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless "junk DNA". However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.
Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.

In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single 'letter' is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.

We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This "copy number variation" causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.


Chimpanzee? - Reformatorisch Dagblad

 

[Douger]

According to the script, Hell is the absence of Gawd.
I need to take my dogs and horses out for a run after 19 daze of rain. Gawd isn't invited.1000 homes destroyed because " he loves you". These morons are out praying for help.
****'em.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Simple question, you can't give an honest answer to.

Let me simplify it for you.

Human offspring are humans.

Ape offspring are apes.

It's not a simple question, i repeat that line could mean a million diff things.

You then provided 2 ways you interpretted it, the Bible could be saying something completely different.

And if that is what the line means, then it's another example of me taking scientific facts seriously, and you denying science and replacing it with dogma.

Still dancing ?

No, you think everything is black and white, I'm sorry to reveal that's not the case.

Fact is the line you provided is bland, generic could mean anything. See I can play your game too.

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Maybe the word kind meant a different species and he's talking about evolution. Beast of the earth after his kind could've simply meant one wolf later evolving into another species.

Maybe you're possessed by the devil and you're on here trying to spread lies about God's true word. Satan works in strange ways and he tries to appear good, the way you do.

Now when you read the above paragraph with what I said, it sounded crazy and delusional, right?

 

[Youwerecreated]

A bland, generic line like that could be interpretted to mean a million different things.

Simple question, you can't give an honest answer to.

Let me simplify it for you.

Human offspring are humans.

Ape offspring are apes.

Science has already answered what we are. We've mapped the genome.

Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see “A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution”). Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:

The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the “pentadactyl” [five bone—BH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale—and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).

Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differences—differences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this difference.

Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapiens—wise wise man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees (1989, pp. 17-18, emp. added).

Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

You said related, but they are still distinct. Or are you also your mother because you are related? Do you now concede the point that evolution has nothing to do with how the universe or life began?

If you think DNA would prove ancestry, why is it that you deny all the genetic evidence that does just that? DNA perfectly matches fossil evidence, and shows that apes and humans share common ancestry. Now is where you say "similarity doesn't prove ancestry" once again, and retreat back to your usual circular reasoning that doesn't actually address anything.

You're saying because a chimps DNA is close to a humans DNA that proves we are related ?

What about other animals having similar DNA to a human ?

You're are saying similarity proves ancestry and it does not.

How do they prove who a parent is of a child ? genes that is how they prove it.

But you can't point to one gene that shows humans and chimps are related, not one.

It's hilarious because you did exactly what I predicted.

So you say they can prove a parent of a child through genes. But really they're just showing that they share identical copies of certain genes. That's all. It just shows similarity. Nothing more, nothing less. But you claim similarity can't prove ancestry. So how do you pretend to claim similarity works for paternity tests or forensic science?

I have gone over this with you before. I have shown not only that we share identical genes in countless places, but that we have oddities in our chromosomes that no intelligent designer would desire that can only be explained by evolution. In your usual fashion, you pretend they don't exist, and conveniently forget about these things after every time i show them to you. I think the stroke may have something to do with it, but honestly it may just be your deep seated denials.

You said related, but they are still distinct. Or are you also your mother because you are related? Do you now concede the point that evolution has nothing to do with how the universe or life began?

If you think DNA would prove ancestry, why is it that you deny all the genetic evidence that does just that? DNA perfectly matches fossil evidence, and shows that apes and humans share common ancestry. Now is where you say "similarity doesn't prove ancestry" once again, and retreat back to your usual circular reasoning that doesn't actually address anything.

But I also have a father who i look like.

Do humans look like humans or chimps ?

Your argument makes no sense.

Of course the argument makes no sense. I'm simply rehashing your own argument. Or do you think you are your father too because you are related to him?

Similarly, the relation between evolution and the beginning of the universe are related in that they both happened, but they aren't the same thing. You continue to pretend as if they are the same thing to make your usual morally bankrupt arguments. Or do you finally concede that evolution does not involve the beginning of the universe or life?

The bible say's "kinds bring forth after their own kind" is that what science see's,does science agree with this ?

Here's another one of your usual underhanded misleading remarks. We could just as easily rephrase it as "stuff brings forth after their own stuff." Does that make it any more right? Or wrong? As someone else mentioned, you and other religious loons purposely use these vague statements without any actual meaning or definition to the terms to muddy the waters, all while claiming it's so straight forward!

So in summary once again: science is using transparent methods, defined terms, and reproducible verifiable evidence to draw logical conclusions. Religious nuts are using vague terms without real meaning, misdirected questions, circular reasoning, and unsupported guesses to draw their opinions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You said related, but they are still distinct. Or are you also your mother because you are related? Do you now concede the point that evolution has nothing to do with how the universe or life began?

If you think DNA would prove ancestry, why is it that you deny all the genetic evidence that does just that? DNA perfectly matches fossil evidence, and shows that apes and humans share common ancestry. Now is where you say "similarity doesn't prove ancestry" once again, and retreat back to your usual circular reasoning that doesn't actually address anything.

You're saying because a chimps DNA is close to a humans DNA that proves we are related ?

What about other animals having similar DNA to a human ?

You're are saying similarity proves ancestry and it does not.

How do they prove who a parent is of a child ? genes that is how they prove it.

But you can't point to one gene that shows humans and chimps are related, not one.

It's hilarious because you did exactly what I predicted.

So you say they can prove a parent of a child through genes. But really they're just showing that they share identical copies of certain genes. That's all. It just shows similarity. Nothing more, nothing less. But you claim similarity can't prove ancestry. So how do you pretend to claim similarity works for paternity tests or forensic science?

I have gone over this with you before. I have shown not only that we share identical genes in countless places, but that we have oddities in our chromosomes that no intelligent designer would desire that can only be explained by evolution. In your usual fashion, you pretend they don't exist, and conveniently forget about these things after every time i show them to you. I think the stroke may have something to do with it, but honestly it may just be your deep seated denials.

But I also have a father who i look like.

Do humans look like humans or chimps ?

Your argument makes no sense.

Of course the argument makes no sense. I'm simply rehashing your own argument. Or do you think you are your father too because you are related to him?

Similarly, the relation between evolution and the beginning of the universe are related in that they both happened, but they aren't the same thing. You continue to pretend as if they are the same thing to make your usual morally bankrupt arguments. Or do you finally concede that evolution does not involve the beginning of the universe or life?

The bible say's "kinds bring forth after their own kind" is that what science see's,does science agree with this ?

Here's another one of your usual underhanded misleading remarks. We could just as easily rephrase it as "stuff brings forth after their own stuff." Does that make it any more right? Or wrong? As someone else mentioned, you and other religious loons purposely use these vague statements without any actual meaning or definition to the terms to muddy the waters, all while claiming it's so straight forward!

So in summary once again: science is using transparent methods, defined terms, and reproducible verifiable evidence to draw logical conclusions. Religious nuts are using vague terms without real meaning, misdirected questions, circular reasoning, and unsupported guesses to draw their opinions.

Let me help you out with this whatever can reproduce they reproduce what they're,yes or no ?

I will tell you what is hilarious,by your reasoning and argument we are 75% identical to a nematode worm. Oh yeah during the Genome project they studied the Genome of the nematode and that is what they came away with.

So I ask you does your argument still prove ancestry between chimp and human ?

If you say yes you have to admit we are 75% worm.

that the degree of similarity between the human and chimp genome might be as low as 70%:

To compare the two [human and chimpanzee] genomes, the first thing we must do is to line up the parts of each genome that are similar. When we do this alignment, we discover that only 2400 million of the human genome's 3164.7 million 'letters' align with the chimpanzee genome - that is, 76% of the human genome. Some scientists have argued that the 24% of the human genome that does not line up with the chimpanzee genome is useless "junk DNA". However, it now seems that this DNA could contain over 600 protein-coding genes, and also code for functional RNA molecules.
Looking closely at the chimpanzee-like 76% of the human genome, we find that to make an exact alignment, we often have to introduce artificial gaps in either the human or the chimp genome. These gaps give another 3% difference. So now we have a 73% similarity between the two genomes.

In the neatly aligned sequences we now find another form of difference, where a single 'letter' is different between the human and chimp genomes. These provide another 1.23% difference between the two genomes. Thus, the percentage difference is now at around 72%.

We also find places where two pieces of human genome align with only one piece of chimp genome, or two pieces of chimp genome align with one piece of human genome. This "copy number variation" causes another 2.7% difference between the two species. Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.


http://www.refdag.nl/chimpanzee_1_282611

Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see “A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution&#8221. Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote:

The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the “pentadactyl” [five bone—BH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale—and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).

Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differences—differences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this difference.

Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapiens—wise wise man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees (1989, pp. 17-18, emp. added).


http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1038

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's not a simple question, i repeat that line could mean a million diff things.

You then provided 2 ways you interpretted it, the Bible could be saying something completely different.

And if that is what the line means, then it's another example of me taking scientific facts seriously, and you denying science and replacing it with dogma.

Still dancing ?

No, you think everything is black and white, I'm sorry to reveal that's not the case.

Fact is the line you provided is bland, generic could mean anything. See I can play your game too.

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Maybe the word kind meant a different species and he's talking about evolution. Beast of the earth after his kind could've simply meant one wolf later evolving into another species.

Maybe you're possessed by the devil and you're on here trying to spread lies about God's true word. Satan works in strange ways and he tries to appear good, the way you do.

Now when you read the above paragraph with what I said, it sounded crazy and delusional, right?

Oh yeah seems pretty clear oh and i'm using a Hebrew bible translated to english.

11. And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.
12. And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.

For better understanding replace the word kind or kinds with species.

21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.


24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.

25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.

19. And of all living things of all flesh, two of each you shall bring into the ark to preserve alive with you; they shall be male and female.
20. Of the fowl after its kind and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing upon the ground after its kind; two of each shall come to you to preserve alive.

You can also replace the word seed for genes. Anyways it is a particular kind.


Seems very clear to me,how bout you , are you still having problems understanding what's being said ?

 

[JScott]

Still dancing ?

No, you think everything is black and white, I'm sorry to reveal that's not the case.

Fact is the line you provided is bland, generic could mean anything. See I can play your game too.

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Maybe the word kind meant a different species and he's talking about evolution. Beast of the earth after his kind could've simply meant one wolf later evolving into another species.

Maybe you're possessed by the devil and you're on here trying to spread lies about God's true word. Satan works in strange ways and he tries to appear good, the way you do.

Now when you read the above paragraph with what I said, it sounded crazy and delusional, right?

Oh yeah seems pretty clear oh and i'm using a Hebrew bible translated to english.

11. And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.
12. And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.

For better understanding replace the word kind or kinds with species.

21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.


24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.

25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.

19. And of all living things of all flesh, two of each you shall bring into the ark to preserve alive with you; they shall be male and female.
20. Of the fowl after its kind and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing upon the ground after its kind; two of each shall come to you to preserve alive.

You can also replace the word seed for genes. Anyways it is a particular kind.


Seems very clear to me,how bout you , are you still having problems understanding what's being said ?

How many bibles do you rely on? Seems to me that youre cherry picking.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, you think everything is black and white, I'm sorry to reveal that's not the case.

Fact is the line you provided is bland, generic could mean anything. See I can play your game too.

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Maybe the word kind meant a different species and he's talking about evolution. Beast of the earth after his kind could've simply meant one wolf later evolving into another species.

Maybe you're possessed by the devil and you're on here trying to spread lies about God's true word. Satan works in strange ways and he tries to appear good, the way you do.

Now when you read the above paragraph with what I said, it sounded crazy and delusional, right?

Oh yeah seems pretty clear oh and i'm using a Hebrew bible translated to english.

11. And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.
12. And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.

For better understanding replace the word kind or kinds with species.

21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.


24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.

25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.

19. And of all living things of all flesh, two of each you shall bring into the ark to preserve alive with you; they shall be male and female.
20. Of the fowl after its kind and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing upon the ground after its kind; two of each shall come to you to preserve alive.

You can also replace the word seed for genes. Anyways it is a particular kind.


Seems very clear to me,how bout you , are you still having problems understanding what's being said ?

How many bibles do you rely on? Seems to me that youre cherry picking.

I have and use many different bibles so I get the right message,but when I quote the O.T. I prefer the Jewish version after all ,who else would know the Hebrew scriptures better ?

Those were all taken from Chabad.org online bible. I don't cherry pick when it comes to God And his word.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Still dancing ?

No, you think everything is black and white, I'm sorry to reveal that's not the case.

Fact is the line you provided is bland, generic could mean anything. See I can play your game too.

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Maybe the word kind meant a different species and he's talking about evolution. Beast of the earth after his kind could've simply meant one wolf later evolving into another species.

Maybe you're possessed by the devil and you're on here trying to spread lies about God's true word. Satan works in strange ways and he tries to appear good, the way you do.

Now when you read the above paragraph with what I said, it sounded crazy and delusional, right?

Oh yeah seems pretty clear oh and i'm using a Hebrew bible translated to english.

11. And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.
12. And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.

For better understanding replace the word kind or kinds with species.

21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.


24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.

25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.

19. And of all living things of all flesh, two of each you shall bring into the ark to preserve alive with you; they shall be male and female.
20. Of the fowl after its kind and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing upon the ground after its kind; two of each shall come to you to preserve alive.

You can also replace the word seed for genes. Anyways it is a particular kind.


Seems very clear to me,how bout you , are you still having problems understanding what's being said ?

I have no reason to blindly assume your interpretation is better than someone elses, ESPECIALLY when yours is the one that goes against science and facts.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, you think everything is black and white, I'm sorry to reveal that's not the case.

Fact is the line you provided is bland, generic could mean anything. See I can play your game too.

24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Maybe the word kind meant a different species and he's talking about evolution. Beast of the earth after his kind could've simply meant one wolf later evolving into another species.

Maybe you're possessed by the devil and you're on here trying to spread lies about God's true word. Satan works in strange ways and he tries to appear good, the way you do.

Now when you read the above paragraph with what I said, it sounded crazy and delusional, right?

Oh yeah seems pretty clear oh and i'm using a Hebrew bible translated to english.

11. And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.
12. And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.

For better understanding replace the word kind or kinds with species.

21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.


24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.

25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.

19. And of all living things of all flesh, two of each you shall bring into the ark to preserve alive with you; they shall be male and female.
20. Of the fowl after its kind and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing upon the ground after its kind; two of each shall come to you to preserve alive.

You can also replace the word seed for genes. Anyways it is a particular kind.


Seems very clear to me,how bout you , are you still having problems understanding what's being said ?

I have no reason to blindly assume your interpretation is better than someone elses, ESPECIALLY when yours is the one that goes against science and facts.

How did it go against science.If you want to learn Hebrew who do you go to ? if you want to learn greek who do you go to ?

The problem is you cherry picked scripture that you thought would muddy the waters and I used scriptures that very clearly showed you, you were wrong.

To actually use the term seed which contains the genes for each kind. By replacing the word kind or kinds for species it is clear enough so you could understand it. Remember there was no word in Hebrew at the time of the writing the scriptures for species or genes.

I'm just planting the seed my friend the bible is a reliable source the more I show you the more you will eventually weaken.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Oh yeah seems pretty clear oh and i'm using a Hebrew bible translated to english.

11. And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, seed yielding herbs and fruit trees producing fruit according to its kind in which its seed is found, on the earth," and it was so.
12. And the earth gave forth vegetation, seed yielding herbs according to its kind, and trees producing fruit, in which its seed is found, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.

For better understanding replace the word kind or kinds with species.

21. And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that crawls, with which the waters swarmed, according to their kind, and every winged fowl, according to its kind, and God saw that it was good.


24. And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kind, cattle and creeping things and the beasts of the earth according to their kind," and it was so.

25. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kind and the cattle according to their kind, and all the creeping things of the ground according to their kind, and God saw that it was good.

19. And of all living things of all flesh, two of each you shall bring into the ark to preserve alive with you; they shall be male and female.
20. Of the fowl after its kind and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing upon the ground after its kind; two of each shall come to you to preserve alive.

You can also replace the word seed for genes. Anyways it is a particular kind.


Seems very clear to me,how bout you , are you still having problems understanding what's being said ?

I have no reason to blindly assume your interpretation is better than someone elses, ESPECIALLY when yours is the one that goes against science and facts.

How did it go against science.If you want to learn Hebrew who do you go to ? if you want to learn greek who do you go to ?

The problem is you cherry picked scripture that you thought would muddy the waters and I used scriptures that very clearly showed you, you were wrong.

To actually use the term seed which contains the genes for each kind. By replacing the word kind or kinds for species it is clear enough so you could understand it. Remember there was no word in Hebrew at the time of the writing the scriptures for species or genes.

I'm just planting the seed my friend the bible is a reliable source the more I show you the more you will eventually weaken.

No I didn't cherry pick scripture, I used the exact scripture YOU introduced, not me.

I stand by what I said, no reason for me to take your interpretation over mine or anyone else's.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I have no reason to blindly assume your interpretation is better than someone elses, ESPECIALLY when yours is the one that goes against science and facts.

How did it go against science.If you want to learn Hebrew who do you go to ? if you want to learn greek who do you go to ?

The problem is you cherry picked scripture that you thought would muddy the waters and I used scriptures that very clearly showed you, you were wrong.

To actually use the term seed which contains the genes for each kind. By replacing the word kind or kinds for species it is clear enough so you could understand it. Remember there was no word in Hebrew at the time of the writing the scriptures for species or genes.

I'm just planting the seed my friend the bible is a reliable source the more I show you the more you will eventually weaken.

No I didn't cherry pick scripture, I used the exact scripture YOU introduced, not me.

I stand by what I said, no reason for me to take your interpretation over mine or anyone else's.

You are purposely denying the the obvious. Do seeds carry the genes of a particular kind ?

You are coming off looking kind of foolish to others by your denial it surely at the least shows your inability to reason.

seedingpresent participle of seed (Verb)Verb:1.Sow (land) with seeds: "the shoreline is seeded with a special grass".
2.Sow (a particular kind of seed) on or in the ground

kin·dred/ˈkindrid/

Noun:One's family and relations.
Adjective:
Similar in kind; related.
Synonyms:noun. kinship - affinity - kinsfolk - relationship - family

adjective. related - allied - cognate - akin - similar

 

[Dr.Drock]

How did it go against science.If you want to learn Hebrew who do you go to ? if you want to learn greek who do you go to ?

The problem is you cherry picked scripture that you thought would muddy the waters and I used scriptures that very clearly showed you, you were wrong.

To actually use the term seed which contains the genes for each kind. By replacing the word kind or kinds for species it is clear enough so you could understand it. Remember there was no word in Hebrew at the time of the writing the scriptures for species or genes.

I'm just planting the seed my friend the bible is a reliable source the more I show you the more you will eventually weaken.

No I didn't cherry pick scripture, I used the exact scripture YOU introduced, not me.

I stand by what I said, no reason for me to take your interpretation over mine or anyone else's.

You are purposely denying the the obvious. Do seeds carry the genes of a particular kind ?

You are coming off looking kind of foolish to others by your denial it surely at the least shows your inability to reason.

seedingpresent participle of seed (Verb)Verb:1.Sow (land) with seeds: "the shoreline is seeded with a special grass".
2.Sow (a particular kind of seed) on or in the ground

kin·dred/ˈkindrid/

Noun:One's family and relations.
Adjective:
Similar in kind; related.
Synonyms:noun. kinship - affinity - kinsfolk - relationship - family

adjective. related - allied - cognate - akin - similar

Yep, you're not even arguing with me. The definitions you're using agree with me.

Seeds do carry particular genes, evolution shows particular genes in the in different but similar species, kindred means similar in kind when a new species evolved it is similar in kind to another species.

See I can scientifically interpret that passage to mean actual science. You wouldn't sound like such a fundamental science/math denying loon but you CHOOSE the loony interpretation instead of the rational one backed by facts.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No I didn't cherry pick scripture, I used the exact scripture YOU introduced, not me.

I stand by what I said, no reason for me to take your interpretation over mine or anyone else's.

You are purposely denying the the obvious. Do seeds carry the genes of a particular kind ?

You are coming off looking kind of foolish to others by your denial it surely at the least shows your inability to reason.

seedingpresent participle of seed (Verb)Verb:1.Sow (land) with seeds: "the shoreline is seeded with a special grass".
2.Sow (a particular kind of seed) on or in the ground

kin·dred/ˈkindrid/

Noun:One's family and relations.
Adjective:
Similar in kind; related.
Synonyms:noun. kinship - affinity - kinsfolk - relationship - family

adjective. related - allied - cognate - akin - similar

Yep, you're not even arguing with me. The definitions you're using agree with me.

Seeds do carry particular genes, evolution shows particular genes in the in different but similar species, kindred means similar in kind when a new species evolved it is similar in kind to another species.

See I can scientifically interpret that passage to mean actual science. You wouldn't sound like such a fundamental science/math denying loon but you CHOOSE the loony interpretation instead of the rational one backed by facts.

Deny the truth if you must.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You are purposely denying the the obvious. Do seeds carry the genes of a particular kind ?

You are coming off looking kind of foolish to others by your denial it surely at the least shows your inability to reason.

seedingpresent participle of seed (Verb)Verb:1.Sow (land) with seeds: "the shoreline is seeded with a special grass".
2.Sow (a particular kind of seed) on or in the ground

kin·dred/ˈkindrid/

Noun:One's family and relations.
Adjective:
Similar in kind; related.
Synonyms:noun. kinship - affinity - kinsfolk - relationship - family

adjective. related - allied - cognate - akin - similar

Yep, you're not even arguing with me. The definitions you're using agree with me.

Seeds do carry particular genes, evolution shows particular genes in the in different but similar species, kindred means similar in kind when a new species evolved it is similar in kind to another species.

See I can scientifically interpret that passage to mean actual science. You wouldn't sound like such a fundamental science/math denying loon but you CHOOSE the loony interpretation instead of the rational one backed by facts.

Deny the truth if you must.

Again, not even arguing with me. You've chosen to submit for the first time i've ever seen you do it on this board.

You choose the loony interpretation because the want to be seen with the loony crowd, has nothing to do with it being the correct interpretation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yep, you're not even arguing with me. The definitions you're using agree with me.

Seeds do carry particular genes, evolution shows particular genes in the in different but similar species, kindred means similar in kind when a new species evolved it is similar in kind to another species.

See I can scientifically interpret that passage to mean actual science. You wouldn't sound like such a fundamental science/math denying loon but you CHOOSE the loony interpretation instead of the rational one backed by facts.

Deny the truth if you must.

Again, not even arguing with me. You've chosen to submit for the first time i've ever seen you do it on this board.

You choose the loony interpretation because the want to be seen with the loony crowd, has nothing to do with it being the correct interpretation.

I want you to break down each scripture you posted and explain it if you don't mind.

Please forgive me for putting you to the test I am in a teaching mood.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Deny the truth if you must.

Again, not even arguing with me. You've chosen to submit for the first time i've ever seen you do it on this board.

You choose the loony interpretation because the want to be seen with the loony crowd, has nothing to do with it being the correct interpretation.

I want you to break down each scripture you posted and explain it if you don't mind.

Please forgive me for putting you to the test I am in a teaching mood.

Scroll back a page or two, the scripture and my explanation are already provided and you've already responded to them.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Let me help you out with this whatever can reproduce they reproduce what they're,yes or no ?

Mostly, yes. Not always. We've gone over this before. You conveniently forget every time. New mutations during reproduction create changes. This is not only the driving force behind evolution, but is easily observed in humans.

I will tell you what is hilarious,by your reasoning and argument we are 75% identical to a nematode worm. Oh yeah during the Genome project they studied the Genome of the nematode and that is what they came away with.

So I ask you does your argument still prove ancestry between chimp and human ?

If you say yes you have to admit we are 75% worm.

I would like to say this is the most absurd conclusion you have ever given, but that would be wrong. My speakers and my lamp both require a power cord. Does that mean my speakers are 50% lamp? No, that's ridiculous. It means they share similar components because a long time ago a standard was produced, and it pervaded all electronics moving forward. Similarly, standards in genes are produced that work well, and are passed forward.

In this post, you use two types of bad reasoning simultaneously. First is your usual comparison fallacy that goes something like: "if a firetruck is red, and an apple is red, an apple is a type of firetruck." The second is belief that humans evolved from an animal alive today, such as worms or apes. As if my speaker evolved from my lamp because they share something in common.

I have and use many different bibles so I get the right message, ... I don't cherry pick when it comes to God And his word.

Actually that pretty much defines cherry picking.