Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christforums

.... an orthodox (true and correct when contrasted with Liberal theology) Protestant forum whose members espouse the Apostolic doctrines in the Biblical theologies set forth by Augustine, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, John Calvin and John Knox etc. We do not "argue" with nor do we solicit the membership of people who espouse secular or cultic ideologies. We believe that our conversations are to be faith building and posts that advance heretical or apostate thinking will be immediately deleted and the poster permanently banned from the forum. This is a Christian Protestant community for people to explore the traditional theologies of Classical Protestantism.

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
Innerfire89

Living fossils.

Recommended Posts

The modern cockroach was said to have evolved 180 - 200 million years ago.

For 180 or so million years the cockroach hasn't evolved though, it must be a slow learner.

 

The coelacnth, a fish that was said to be extinct for 70 million years was discovered in Africa.

 

Here's a few more.

 

Ctenplores, unchanged for 700 million yrs.

 

Elephant sharks, unchanged for 420 million yrs.

 

Crocodiles, still the same for 55 million yrs.

 

Horse shoe crabs, 450 million yrs.

 

Fig wasp, 34 million yrs.

 

Nauilus, 500 million yrs.

 

So what are we observing here? Animals aren't evolving for supposibly millions of years.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The modern cockroach was said to have evolved 180 - 200 million years ago.

For 180 or so million years the cockroach hasn't evolved though, it must be a slow learner.

Apparently you don't realize that "cockroach" refers to an entire order of organisms (Blattodea), and there are eight different families of them, each containing many, many species. So your term "the modern cockroach" isn't really meaningful.

 

The coelacnth, a fish that was said to be extinct for 70 million years was discovered in Africa.

As above, "coelacanth" is an entire order of organisms. The one discovered in Africa is in the family Latimeriidae, whereas most of the fossils are within the family Coelacanthidae (because they are anatomically different).

 

As Christians we are to be truthful in everything we say and do, regardless of the consequences. So in the future, you should avoid relying on whomever you copied these arguments from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently you don't realize that "cockroach" refers to an entire order of organisms (Blattodea), and there are eight different families of them, each containing many, many species. So your term "the modern cockroach" isn't really meaningful.

As above, "coelacanth" is an entire order of organisms. The one discovered in Africa is in the family Latimeriidae, whereas most of the fossils are within the family Coelacanthidae (because they are anatomically different).

As Christians we are to be truthful in everything we say and do, regardless of the consequences. So in the future, you should avoid relying on whomever you copied these arguments from.

 

I didn't copy any arguments. I just read from a few sites to get my information on these animals, nation geographic was one.

I'm can from my own arruements, I'm not an idiot.

 

We see a change in the the kinds all over the world but we don't see them change kinds.

Cockroaches are still cockroaches.

Coelacanths are still coelacanths.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't copy any arguments. I just read from a few sites to get my information on these animals, nation geographic was one.

I'm can from my own arruements, I'm not an idiot.

I don't recall Nat Geo ever saying anything that would give the impression that the coelacanths from the fossil record are the same as the ones alive today. I have however seen many, many creationist sources make that argument and I've seen many, many creationists repeat it with no clue as to the deception behind it.

 

We see a change in the the kinds all over the world but we don't see them change kinds.

That's true.....because no one can say what a "kind" is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A kind is the original animal or the family of that animal.

Dogs come from dogs, cats come from cats. A dog didn't come from another kind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe macro-evolution is a fallacy and micro-evolution is true. I do not believe a dog evolves to become another species over tens or hundreds of millions of years. There is no evidence for this. However, within a species there is a ton of evidence of change over time which is part of the implementation of God's design.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not believe a dog evolves to become another species over tens or hundreds of millions of years.

 

Species or Genus?

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Species or Genus?

 

God bless,

William

 

Species, like the fallacy of man evolving from ape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A kind is the original animal or the family of that animal.

So humans, chimps, orangutans, gorillas, and bonobos are all the same "kind"?

 

Dogs come from dogs, cats come from cats. A dog didn't come from another kind.

How did you determine that "dog" and "cat" are "kinds"?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe macro-evolution is a fallacy

A fallacy? Which one?

 

I do not believe a dog evolves to become another species over tens or hundreds of millions of years.

That's interesting, because other creationists (e.g., those at creation.com) insist that speciation is a must under young-earth creationism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So humans, chimps, orangutans, gorillas, and bonobos are all the same "kind"?

 

 

How did you determine that "dog" and "cat" are "kinds"?

 

Humans, chimps, orangutans.... are different kinds.

 

Dogs are dogs and always have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A fallacy? Which one?

 

 

That's interesting, because other creationists (e.g., those at creation.com) insist that speciation is a must under young-earth creationism.

 

I believe in Old Earth Creationism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Humans, chimps, orangutans.... are different kinds.

 

Dogs are dogs and always have been.

 

How did you determine that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How did you determine that?

 

Because there's no evidance to suggest otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clarifying.

 

So again, how is macroevolution a fallacy?

 

There was an explosion of life 500 million years ago of all different species, not some slow evolution of one species changing form into another and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was an explosion of life 500 million years ago of all different species, not some slow evolution of one species changing form into another and so on.

 

Well.....sort of. But I still don't understand how that's a fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well.....sort of. But I still don't understand how that's a fallacy.

 

It's a fallacy because species do not evolve into other types of species over a period of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a fallacy because species do not evolve into other types of species over a period of time.

 

Sure they do. We've seen it happen in insects, microorganisms, birds, fish, plants......and we've seen it happen in the wild and in the lab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sure they do. We've seen it happen in insects, microorganisms, birds, fish, plants......and we've seen it happen in the wild and in the lab.

 

An insect became what? A bird became what?,... I believe there was some change over time (micro-evolution) but not one species evolving into a different type of species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An insect became what? A bird became what?,... I believe there was some change over time (micro-evolution) but not one species evolving into a different type of species.

 

Unfortunately this is a common theme in these discussions. The creationist will argue that "no new species have evolved", I counter with examples, and the creationist responds by saying "It's still a bird/bug/fish!" But all that does is reveal that the problem isn't with the science, but is with the creationist's understanding of it. You see, "bird", "insect", and "fish" are not species designations. So when we talk about the observed evolution of new species and give an example of say, speciation within fruit flies, we're referring to the evolution of a new species of fruit fly, and not some sort of "fly turning into a lizard" bizarro scenario that seems to only exist as a straw man propagated by creationists.

 

Does that make sense? Do you understand that speciation (the evolution of new species) is not "a dog turning into a cat" or anything like that, but instead is something like one species of fruit fly giving rise to a new species of fruit fly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

An insect became what? A bird became what?,... I believe there was some change over time (micro-evolution) but not one species evolving into a different type of species.

 

I believe you mean no genus have ever evolved into a different genus: https://answersingenesis.org/creatio...ds-in-genesis/

 

An insect may indeed "evolved" into a different species, but it is still an insect of the same kind (genus). Likewise, a bird may indeed evolved into a different species, but it is still an insect of the same kind.

 

I think it important to also note, that both genus and species are man made terms.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Unfortunately this is a common theme in these discussions. The creationist will argue that "no new species have evolved", I counter with examples, and the creationist responds by saying "It's still a bird/bug/fish!" But all that does is reveal that the problem isn't with the science, but is with the creationist's understanding of it. You see, "bird", "insect", and "fish" are not species designations. So when we talk about the observed evolution of new species and give an example of say, speciation within fruit flies, we're referring to the evolution of a new species of fruit fly, and not some sort of "fly turning into a lizard" bizarro scenario that seems to only exist as a straw man propagated by creationists.

 

Does that make sense? Do you understand that speciation (the evolution of new species) is not "a dog turning into a cat" or anything like that, but instead is something like one species of fruit fly giving rise to a new species of fruit fly?

 

I understand that. My point was, one species does not become another totally new species. A bird is still a bird, an ape is still an ape,... This is no straw man argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
Articles - News - Registration Terms