Search results

I agree that we should be able to read what ever version we like but calling them idolators is going a bit far in my opinion. If their happy to read the KJV then fine but don't force that medieval English on everyone else. They should just accept that people prefer to read it in modern English...

So if I want to start a general discussion thread on non-relegios topic where should I start it?

No, what are you talking about. Are you denying a UCA again. Maybe you didn't properly read what I said. I said Darwin suggests a UCA and he also suggest multiple common ancestors. He makes these two suggestions We both agreed on this. You admitted this yourself in your post just before. See...

Do you remember writing these things just yesterday? Considering to say evidence shows that a universal common ancestor (UCA) is correct, I'd like to ask you about the creation account in Genesis. It says that God created all the animals. So then how can there possibly be a UCA?

Hey @Debp Why can't I post threads on non-Christian general discussion forum?

Tsss Fahrenheit. You Americans crack me up with your ancient imperial system of measurements. Get with the times already the metric system is much better. Even some American engineering companies use the metric system now cos it's so much easier. The imperial system is a nightmare to use with...

You must have a short memory as you keep on repeating these things that we have already covered. LoL. Don't you remember we agreed on that just yesterday

Oh my goodness not this again. LoL. We've been through this already, remember. Darwin suggests multiple ancestors and he also suggests a single common ancestor. We both agreed on this.

I personally don't understand why people insist that the KJV is the only version you should use. Why? What's the difference? I myself was always good at maths but never good at reading. I remember how hard it was. I would start a page and by the end of it I would forget what I read at the...

Your were claiming many common ancestors all along while denying UCA was Darwins suggestion and part of TOE You were rejecting my assertion that Darwin claimed UCA. You clearly say its not part of TOE Again you made this assertion while denying Darwins suggestion of UCA Again you are...

Pfft. Yea sure You said that genetics claimed UCA. You remained adamant that it wasn't part of TOE or Darwins theory. You were arguing this all along, several common ancestors, and denying that Darwin suggested UCA or that it was part of TOE

I'm sorry but I'm skeptical that Jesus returned in 1914. WW1 didn't involve the whole world. Most of the worlds nations didn't fight at all, most of Africa, most of South America and most of Asia didnt fight. Even most North American nations didn't fight when you include the Carribean islands...

So now your agreeing with universal common ancestor, even saying there is evidence for it, after denying it for all this time and claiming there was several common ancestors. All this time you were denying that. Now you finally admit it. I wish you would of just admitted it sooner. It would of...

Well that's exactly what I'm saying. Darwin makes two assumptions. If anyone is contradicting themselves it's Darwin. On one hand he assumes it came from one ancestor on the other hand he assumes it came from several ancestors. Do you agree with that at least? I'm not being dishonest because...

Fair enough

Possibly just means that Darwin is assuming it "Possibly all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" Denying that Darwin said this just makes you a blatant liar. Satan is the father of lies and you are abetting him. That's all I have...

I thought you were against the death penalty but many things you say makes it look like you actually support the death penalty

Now your making a false accusation about me as well. I'm not contradicting myself at all. Darwin says "into a few life forms or into one". His assuming that either can be true You accept he said a few life forms but you deny he also says into one life form. It's confirmation bias on a level...

You keep repeating this but even it says into new forms or into one. He assumes them both. He assumes a universal common ancestor. And you just ignore what I repeatedly quoted what Darwin said. He assumes a universal common ancestor. You know its true. It's very egregious of you to deny this...

I agree. The world has seen much worse times than today. It's interesting that you say nukes are old tech and that there are more devastating weapons. Do you think a world war between the big powers, Russia or China vs USA, can bring the end of the world as we know it and bring about the return...