Especially in light of the fact that if they can find two scientists disagreeing about evolution, they immediately present it as PROOF that evolution must be wrong.
Upvote
0
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.
dad vs. Aman777 vs KWCrazy...
I love watching YECs squabble among themselves. It certainly showcases the problems of the YEC position.
Yes.
A failure to explain how a global Flood is consistent with observed genetic diversity. As in, it explains nothing at all about observed genetic diversity.What do you think post 550 is?
You can say sorry till the cows come home it won't do you any good. You have no knowledge of the former nature or any observation of any tree that grew then!!Sorry but tree rings represent seasons, not days or weeks. Seasons.
Genesis 1 has plants created on Day 3, land animals created on Day 5. Adam created on Day 6.
Genesis 2 has Adam created on the same day as plants and the land animals created later.
It's the story of the creation of man, who God created from the dust of the earth and placed in the garden of Eden. Since man was created of day six, Eden had to have been created no later than day 6.Eden had to be created no later than Day 4 because the animals are created afterwards.
Dear Readers, Adam was "formed" of the dust BEFORE the plants of the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4-7 Adam and Eve were both "created" in God's Image or born again Spiritually on the 6th Day. Gen 5:1-2 Eden was made the 3rd Day Gen 2:8 and then the LORD planted the first trees in Eden.
Adam was formed physically the 3rd Day and born again Spiritually or created in Christ on the 6th Day. 1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. Amen?
They did grow naturally, just not in our nature. Here it takes more time.Because tree rings represent tree growth during different seasons. If there were no seasons, why would there be rings?...
Rapid evolving and adapting of the kinds from the ark.Meanwhile, no creationist has explained how the Flood is consistent with observed genetic diversity.
just sit quietly for a moment and think about that emboldened section. If you are a person of average intelligence, it should eventually dawn upon you that something doesn't make sense.
How could the light from stars, billions of kilometres away, be instantly available to be seen here, if those stars had only just been created? Remember, that starlight is not like an instant snapshot or photographic slide that your God could display on a screen. Light is a constant stream of waves/particles. They must have originated from somewhere. And we know that that 'somewhere' is extremely far away, from where that stream takes thousands of years to reach us.
Sorry, but your claim just doesn't add up.
Perhaps I'm missing it but I see nothing whatsoever in that verse that indicates God chose the animals that would be on the Ark, which was after all, your original assertion.
No? Why not? You do claim it all came from evolution, don't you? Just put that on fast forward, and it comes from the created kinds and evolution.Doesn't matter. Rapid evolution won't produce the distribution of genetic variation that we observe.
Do you honestly think that the above addresses the issue of necessary hyperfast evolution of animals in the 4,400 years since the Flood?
Doesn't matter. Rapid evolution won't produce the distribution of genetic variation that we observe.
How quickly can new species arise?
Meanwhile, no creationist has explained how the Flood is consistent with observed genetic diversity.
Putting on fast forward is fine. A rapidly expanding population, though, leaves very clear genetic traces. Whatever genetic variation was in the original tiny population remains, at a frequency not too different from what it started with. For Noah and family, that would mean a minimum frequency of 10%, since there were 10 independent copies of the genome on the Ark. As the population expands, some of those variants will drift down in frequency some, so that you'll find lots of variants in around 10% of chromosomes (and around 20%, etc), some around 5%, and fewer and fewer as you look at rarer variants. There will also be a sprinkling of rare variants, from new mutations.No? Why not? You do claim it all came from evolution, don't you? Just put that on fast forward, and it comes from the created kinds and evolution.
Bring it.
Especially in light of the fact that if they can find two scientists disagreeing about evolution, they immediately present it as PROOF that evolution must be wrong.
Neither do you but you seem quite happy to assert things anyway.You can say sorry till the cows come home it won't do you any good. You have no knowledge of the former nature or any observation of any tree that grew then!!
Correct, because there would be no rings. For example, bamboo grows in weeks and days yet has no rings.You are flailing in the dark. When trees take days and weeks to grow, obviously seasons is not what the rings represented.
I have reasons for everything I believe.You just believe for no reason it is.
But it's OK for you to peddle your unreasoned beliefs here?Do not peddle your beliefs as anything more here.
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?