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.
There are a few that oppose it. But most of them are not in a position where their opinion has any credibility.declaring "victory" over your own statements that are of the form "somewhere some place there exists a text that has the right answer to what you posted" regarding abiogenesis is not the compelling everyone-goes-for-that solution you may have at first supposed.
The evidence for evolution. It is almost endless. There is no evidence for your beliefs.
The difficulty here is that you are arguing against two different processes. Evolution requires the existence of creatures which reproduce with randomly distributed heritable variation. Once such creatures exist then, yes, there is an "ecosystem" which will allow a bacteria to become a horse. You may want to argue that this cannot be a natural process, but it will be a different argument than one you might make against the possibility that such creatures came to be by natural causes in the first place.There is no "ecosystem" that will turn rocks into a horse or into bacteria.
All of the facts are against you. That is why you are admitting that you are wrong when you use an old refuted argument.I played that game for a day in pre-school -- now we look for facts.
The ones with the failed arguments? Yeah, those were refuted a long time ago if you paid any attention.Hint... first two posts of this thread.
On the contrary - I point to real life observations of over 50,000 generations.. you point to "I hope" arguments about some text book that you hope might have an answer... (an answer which you don't post).
So then "blind assertions" hmmm...
The Taj Mahal can be had - when basic materials are "arranged".
Creationists have no argument with God forming an animal from the dust of the ground.
The "point of debate" is when the claim is made that the dust of the ground will do that by itself.
It is also likely that the event that produced eukaryotes has been repeated. What creationists so often forget is that life evolves and fills available niches. The first eukaryote was likely not much of an upgrade. But after millions of years of evolution it would have improved and filled available niches. If the event happened again it would likely run into competition that it could not handle. Much like when the first life arose it would have driven out other competitors out through evolution the same would apply to any Johnny come lately eukaryotes.Yes, I saw your claims about the long-running E.coli experiment.
I'm not sure why you think that helps your case, because it should be evident to anyone that the scale and scope of a handful of bacteria cultures in beakers in a lab for a couple dozen years is *not* the same thing in scale and scope to an entire ecosystem evolving for 4 billion years.
All you're doing is reinforcing that you don't understand the difference between a beaker and the entire planet.
And is "observed" over 50,000 generations (more than all of human evolution) - to NOT even make it to eukaryote
The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel.
Isn’t a big part of the end of that book about having to take a leap of faith?I recommend that you read "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. He is a former atheist who is now a devout Christian.
"My road to atheism was paved by science...but, ironically, so was my later journey to God." - Lee Strobel
What are you talking about? What exactly are you credentials in biology? I find it hard to believe anyone who knows what alleles are would state what you have stated.Indeed brown hair vs white hair distribution changes in rabbits that remain rabbits... not evolution because a bazillion brown-hair white-hair ratio changes in phenotype over billions of years of time -- that leave you with "rabbits still" is NOT the salient point proven for evolutionism... it is the "salient point refuted"
What are you talking about? What exactly are you credentials in biology? I find it hard to believe anyone who knows what alleles are would state what you have stated.
Yes, I saw your claims about the long-term E.coli experiment.
I'm not sure why you think that helps your case
What are you talking about? What exactly are you credentials in biology? I find it hard to believe anyone who knows what alleles are would state what you have stated.
Looks like he fell into the old "evolution is speciation" trap, sorry rabbit hole. (It's not of course.)
1. The "claim" is that those prokaryotes did not turn into eukaryotes not even over 50,000 generations with "direct observation".
2. The "claim" was that in less than 50,000 generations the human race supposedly evolved.
3. The "claim" was that bacteria are by design farrrrr more genetically adaptive to their environment than are humans.
Did you actually refute any of those "claims"? IF so I have not seen that post of yours on this thread ... feel free to link to it
read the OP ... first two posts.
But if it is your clam that bacteria never advance up the taxonomy ladder to get to horse... I am not one of those that complain about that.. I too state the very same thing.
Pick a lane.
You never did tell us what the environment was, what the selection criteria were like.1. The "claim" is that those prokaryotes did not turn into eukaryotes not even over 50,000 generations with "direct observation".
2. The "claim" was that in less than 50,000 generations the human race supposedly evolved.
3. The "claim" was that bacteria are by design farrrrr more genetically adaptive to their environment than are humans.
50,000 generations is approximately the number of generations since we split from the other great apes.
You write too much to say too little.
.
You write too much to say too little.
Your first post list 3 things (ABC) that certainly are true. The third is silly (C)
First Premise -- on a combined complexity, power, wisdom and creative capability scale of 0 to infinity.
A rock: is at zero.
God: is at infinity
rocks ---------------------------------------atheist---------------------------God
Where "God" is the term defined in Websters as: "1 God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as. a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped". The concept of a being infinite in wisdom, power, capability etc.
=============================== now we begin
A. Everyone (both Creationist and atheist) agrees that there was a time on Earth where it is a barren planet - no LIFE of any kind on it.
B. Everyone (both Creationist and atheist) agrees that we exist on earth today with lots of diverse life forms.
There exists Creationists (as we all know) that claim that the Bible Creation account shows that an infinite Being (infinite in wisdom and power) created all life on earth - with all land animals appearing in a single evening-morning "day" like the days in the Legal Code found here Ex 20:9, 11 - at Sinai.
C. Everyone agrees that a man can turn a rabbit into dust in a single day. That is a given. (at something far below blast-furnace temp 3400 degree F)
So then clearly - an infinite being with infinite power and wisdom such as the Bible Creation account speaks of - can turn dust into a rabbit in a single day. As noted here #2
But rocks, dust, gas, and sunlight will never turn into a horse ... nor even be able to turn a bacteria into a horse ... in all of time. They don't "have that as a property of matter" and they don't have the ability to "acquire that skill over time"
The contrast noted in more detail here -- #12
=====================
Atheists will argue that no such being "exists".
Creationists will argue that "no such talented rock exists" (nor would an aggregation of rocks be able to do it)
Here we see one of the many times that point gets illustrated on this thread -
here we see the point that rocks don't have the property to do that --#211
here we see the claim rocks should be able to do that 203
.
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?