Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't know how universes come into being. That I don't know does not mean the deity answer wins by default.Actually it does if you really think about it withe an open mind. Nothing cannot become something on its own. It needs a Creator. The only possibiliy is that matter is eternal but hat seems very unlikely. Randomness cannot account for teh order we see in the universe.
Moreover, I'm not convinced that the deity answer qualifies as an explanation. It merely masks our ignorance by putting God into the gaps in our knowledge. Beyond that, it doesn't do any explanatory work.Yes it does. It presents an omnipotent Creator. It really is the only logical eplanation.
How do you know that God is eternal?
Well think about this. If you have no matter, no energy and no eternal God, what is left? Once you have something, you can't say it created it self out of nothing. God really is the only explanaion.
Duuh. That's the point. The mutation ALTERED the trait it would have gotten.
Not only that the mutation DID NOT cause the person to become something other than what it parents were and it will only produce what it is and the mutation may or may not be passed on.
Atheist also believe in the supernatural , for example Frankencell. I can't think of anything more supernatural than a mindless purposeless universe creating a mind.
Wonderful. Now tell us all wher the matter that went bang came form.
After that tell us all where the energy for the BB came from.
You cn google until the cows come home and they will not answee eiher of those question. They may give the usual evo rhetoric but try to check it out.
I'm guessing that either you are using "species" and "kind" as basically equivalent, and based on your definition of kind. In which case, you are saying common ancestry is only within a
But "all apes" -- or even just the great apes -- are not the same species, they are five or six separate species, and according to your definition of kind, they are just as many different kinds.
Actually, that is a good question. What is the difference between a plant and an animal, especially at the single-cell and undifferentiated colony level? Because of the difficulty of answering questions like these, we now recognize more kingdoms than just plant and animal. We have common ancestors with plants, but we are not descended from plants.
I am not familiar with the exact definitions of the various kingdoms, especially the newer kingdoms. One of the posters who is a professional in the field might have a better answer to the first question. The answer to the second is that a mutation or insertion or ERV, or some other gene-altering event resulted in an organism that had not met the definition of a plant now meeting it.
He has. We all have. But you dismiss it as not showing you exactly what you ask, or if it does, you claim that it is "above your pay grade."
Yes, if the mutation occurs in the middle of a gene, and does not change the beginning or end, you still have the same gene, say a gene for eye color, but a new allele, and a new trait, say blue eyes instead of brown.
But it was originally a mutation. That is why it is far more prevalent in Caucasians than in other races. It occurred after the races spread into Europe and Asia, and the people in Africa and Asia (and from Asia into the Americas, Polynesia, and Australia) only bred with Europeans occasionally, and blue-eyed Europeans even more rarely.
And those folks keep producing after their kind and their kids do the very same thing. A new species never come out.
It is not a question of a single mutation, otherwise the first mutant would die without issue. It is an accumulation of mutations. Despite the cliche, I doubt you could point out the one straw in a heap that was the one that made the heap heavy enough to break the camel's back.
Have as many as you like. Now name one in which these mutations occur and the species changed. That is the bottom line.
DNA refutes such an idea. How can we have a common ancesor with plants but did not dewscend for them?
That is speculation a its best. One problem evolutionist have is that protect the theory they must speculate because nothing they say is really a proven mechanism for evolution, so they make up things such as you just posted.
No onle hs presented a mutaion, an example of naural selecltion or an ERV that is a mechanism for a species to evolve into a different species.
Right but the offspring comes out as the exacdt same species as it parents and only produces aftger its kind.
See there you go having to make up something. No matter what you start with, it is a ALWAYS traced back to a gene from one or both parents. The mutation will not change the species.
Why can't DNA be used to evidence common ancestry between species?
Please present your evidence for this claim
Those are the differences between humans and chimps. Those are the mutations that have resulted in two different species.[/quote]Yes, I have. I have presented studies that demonstrate that every child is born with mutations:
That is not worth quibbling over. Did any of the mutations cause an ape to produce a homo-saian?
I have shown that mutations are responsible for new traits in humans:
Actually you haven't. You have show where mutations alter the trait the offspring would have gotten without the mutation.
n altered trait is a new trait.
It is not. albino skin is not a new trait. It is an alterred trait.
There are changes caused by mutations, and I have cited them for you.
Of course that are but none, not one, has resulterd in th offsping being the exact same species as it parents.
That is a God of the Gaps fallacy.
That is the real argument from ignorance.
God is self-existent.Sure, as soon as you tell us where God came from.
Where did you show that matter had to create itself out of nothing in order for our universe to come about through natural means?
f you don't have evidence for your claims, how can you say you are right? Your claims require just as much evidence as anyone else's.
Then the energy that produced the matter in our universe is also eternal, problem solved.
All known "natural" living cells are very complex with machines like ATP syntheses. Matter and energy alone creating a genetic code from scratch would be a supernatural event. There is nothing natural about Frankencell .. the atheist creator.That would be a natural process, not a supernatural one.
Have as many as you like. Now name one in which these mutations occur and the species changed. That is the bottom line.
The Bible tells us that death entered into this present world through Adam. This does not mean there were no former worlds, or former ages, in which death occurred, including the age of the dinosaurs.Hilarious idea but I don't think any scripture supports that as there was no death before Adam sinned.
You are onto the right idea though. The same materials and design were used for man as humans and apes share a very similar body plan. So in a sense you are correct.
Okay, so we know matter came from the Creator. We just need to figure out where the Creator came from.Neither do creators spring out of nothing.Easy. Matter cannot create itself out of nothing.
DNA refutes such an idea. How can we have a common ancesor with plants but did not dewscend for them?
The deity caused the BIG BANG. Now get use to it.BIG BANG! Now get over it!It does unless you have a better explanation as to how the universe came into being. If you don't likek the deity answer, present your own.
The deity caused the BIG BANG. Now get use to it.
When you keep responding with questions it suggests you have no answers.Where did you show that matter had to create itself out of nothing in order for our universe to come about through natural means?
Cause and effect. We call the effect "matter" and we call the cause "God".If you don't have evidence for your claims, how can you say you are right? Your claims require just as much evidence as anyone else's.
Yes, we call it God-energy.Then the energy that produced the matter in our universe is also eternal, problem solved.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?