It's as simple as going back to the previous posts.
what? You have mutations, there for not all mutations are fatal, not adaption or what ever you want to call them, but actual mutations to your DNA.
Upvote
0
It's as simple as going back to the previous posts.
You don't need the experts to figure this out. All you need to do is list all the multiple required simultaneous random miraculously lucky stages of mutations. And you will quickly realize 3 billion years would not be enough of a time if all these life on earth came up from evolution. Even forever would not be enough.
Your claim was that you knew about evolution.
it is their own atheist evolutionist scientists making these claims...
Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history
Collin Patterson (atheist and diehard evolutionist to the day he died in 1998) - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history. Patterson’s own beliefs are as he stated “. I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school curricula.” So he meets in some sense the obligation put upon him by classic evolutionist orthodoxy.
So then -- speaking at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 - said:
Patterson - quotes Gillespie's arguing that Christians
"'...holding creationist ideas could plead ignorance of the means and affirm only the fact,'"From: Silence of the Geoscience Research Institute
Patterson countered, "That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying): 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"
"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...
"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."
=========================
No "too surprising" then that we find a result such as we see in the OP of an atheist neurosurgeon finding that his observations in nature in the case of the complexity of the human brain - lead him to reject his atheist evolutionism and turn to the Christian God as a more well reasoned explanation for the source.
Like finding the laptop in the deep woods and finally admitting to the obvious "trees, rocks and dirt did not do this - and do not the ability to explain its presence here in the woods. That would be a dead end."
It is always an error to use a lying site to try to support your beliefs. Those all appear to be quote mines and are worthless without a link to the original source. By posting them in this manner you as much as admitted that you do not have a clue about evolution.I did claim that. But I did not claim I "believed" in it.
So for example -- in this post we see a leading atheist evolutionist declaring himself to be a "true believer" in evolution...
Note that Patterson makes this statement about his "belief" .. his "faith" in what appears to be competing doctrine on origins to what I find in the Bible
"That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying): 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"So while it is true I do know about evolution -- I am not a "believer" in it.
"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...
"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."
It is always an error to use a lying site .
Your site did not properly link the sources of their quotes. That tells us that they are lying. Why is that so hard to understand?It is always an error to falsely accuse others -- do you have a detail to address... yet??
The scientific idea of biologic evolution starts with a population of living organisms. The compatibility of life with the cosmological constant is a given at that point.
Note that Patterson makes this statement about his "belief" .. his "faith" in what appears to be competing doctrine on origins to what I find in the Bible
"That seems to summarize the feeling I get in talking to evolutionists today. They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying): 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"So while it is true I do know about evolution -- I am not a "believer" in it.
"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...
"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."
What "problem"?It is the atheist evolutionist scientists themselves admitting to the problem.
Your site did not properly link the sources of their quotes. That tells us that they are lying.
What "problem"?
Once again, find a valid site.
Nope, it is true. Unless you are willing to admit that by your standards the Bible itself denies the existence of God.False.
It tells us you don't like the link they provide. Now back to "the details" of Patterson's actual statement - what is it you were not able to find even atheist sites admitting to ??
Oh no, I have more than proved my claim. You simply do not understand evolution and cannot support your claim that you do.So then you have no claim--- no fact other than you cannot find a site with that quote other than the one I already gave you? Make a statement of fact please.
It is the atheist evolutionist scientists themselves admitting to the problem.
We already saw that here...
Where there? You're not making sense. If you have a population of living organisms, they have to be compatible with the cosmological constant, otherwise they wouldn't be alive.
It is the atheist evolutionist scientists themselves admitting to the problem.
They plead ignorance of the means of transformation, but affirm only the fact (saying): 'Yes it has...we know it has taken place.'"https://origins.swau.edu/temp/classes/patterson.pdf
"...Now I think that many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here...
"...,Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge , apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics..."
Edwards v. Aguillard, Amichs Brief, National Association of Evangelicals
Adaptation is driven by your body's reaction to a prolonged exposure to an environment. But it doesn't turn you into a different creature.An example of a beneficial mutation right there. Evolution in action. Increased melanin levels help protect the skin in hotter climates.
All of my quotes are from atheist scientists aware that "they exist" (no matter what the cosmological constant says about that being more an act of God than random chance.)
My estimate is just a few generations, depending on the environmental difference, and the resulting diet. Skin color is the first to show signs of change, you don't have to wait for the succeeding generations to see it.How many years does it take for this adaptation to occur ? Is it in 10s of generations, 100s ?
Adaptation is driven by your body's reaction to a prolonged exposure to an environment. But it doesn't turn you into a different creature.
I didn't say human form is the goal. You are making a strawman argument. But if you work backwards through your Evolution Theory, you would immediately see the amount of simultaneous lucky mutations that needed to happen you would see 3 billion years would not be enough, unless Someone made it happen deliberately and intelligently.You made two huge errors. First it looks like you think that people as we know them now was the goal. Evolution does not have that sort of goal. Once we get rid of that strawman the rest is easy. There were no "miraculous mutations". There were only mutations.
You should look into the lottery analogy. The odds that one particular person would win the lottery can be hundreds of millions to one. The odds that someone would win is almost one. Your common sense fails because you do not understand evolution.