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.
And you are basing all that on sketchy details that have been assumed
by man. The snake evolution is still a mystery to scientists.
The same with turtles. They don't even know what the creature was that
led to modern turtles.
You are believing in man's assumptions instead of God's word.
Do you have a video of this experiment, or are you just speculating on some old bones?For instance, common ancestry requires that, since snakes and other lizards share a common ancestor, we should find evidence of snakes losing their legs over time. And that's exactly what we find.
Do you have a video of this experiment, or are you just speculating on some old bones?
Do you have a video of this experiment, or are you just speculating on some old bones?
Perhaps. But that does not mean snakes evolved. It may simply mean that the newer species of snakes were designed without legs.We have bones of snakes with legs.
I'd say a fossil of snakes with legs is pretty good evidence that snakes, at one time, had legs. Wouldn't you?
Perhaps. But that does not mean snakes evolved. It may simply mean that the newer species of snakes were designed without legs.
Perhaps. But that does not mean snakes evolved. It may simply mean that the newer species of snakes were designed without legs.
By the way, the frogamandar was gerobatrachus. Don't bother going on Evolution News and Views to look it up - I already did. Casey Luskin has one blog post on it, and it's already been refuted by an actual biologist.
The Human Fossil Record, Part 1. The Nature of Transitional Fossils | The BioLogos Forum
You still don't realize you are choosing to believe man's assumptions
about the past over God's truth.
And every single example of so called evolution has creatures with more
complexity and features going to what we have today...Less complexity
and lost features.
Kinds created fully complex
with lots of diversity and after the flood evolving into different, lesser
forms (variety) within their kinds.
Yes, I too am puzzled by the way God does things sometimes.So God just so happened to make a new species of snakes without legs, and it just so happened that the old species died out, and it just so happens that the new snakes all have bones in their lower halves that look, suspciously, like a leg should be attached to them. Some of the new snakes just so happen to even have claws.
Genesis 1. Even though it may not have been the second creation event. They could have been many more creation events before. Genesis 1 is the most recent.When was this second creation event?
What assumptions?
Are you saying that these jawless vetebrates with no bones, no limbs, and no lungs are more complex than human beings?
If they were fully complex, then why doesn't that vertebrate above have legs or lungs? Why is it lacking complexity?
What is that and why are you comparing it to humans?
How do you know it isn't a human? You aren't comparing similarities, now are you?
Also, you said these species were created fully complex. How can it be fully complex when it is lacking complexity?
The simplest form of life is highly complex. Bacteria.
All life forms are highly complex. None show a step wise evolution.
They
just appear in the fossil record fully functional and complex.
The simplest form of modern life. The earliest lifeforms would have been much simpler than the ones we see today.
Yes, they do, but what exactly do you mean by the word 'complex'? Like, if you had to figure out if, say, a dog or a cat was more complex, how would you go about figuring that out?
They don't 'just appear', there's a very clear progression. The deepest organism we've ever found in the column are quite simple things, especially compared to ones that come higher up
And of course they're fully functional. Evolution doesn't predict otherwise, and if you think it does, I suspect the biology book you claimed to be reading requires crayons.
Any examples?
If you can't understand that then you can't understand anything.
Sure, what they put on paper and you believe. Reality is different.
Those first creatures are very complex and fully formed.
So nature wrote the DNA programs?
The simplest form of life is highly complex. Bacteria.
None show a step wise evolution.
They
just appear in the fossil record fully functional and complex.
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?