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 that's precisely what I gave you.I asked for an example of a benevolent mutation advancing a species as evolution would require.
Dogs were evolved by us from wolves, however. In at least one laboratory study, bacteria were induced to evolve into a new species of bacteria. So, yes, the evolution of a new species has been brought about and observed in the lab. Foxes have been selectively bread to take on more and more dog traits. Plus, you have tons of evidence from fossils, which are like frozen snap shots of nature at work. Also, you are apparently going on the unscientific distinction of "micro" vs "macro" evolution. In science, the two are one. The laws of nature are universal, include all spaces. that means it is arbitrary to post some sort of Stop sign saying evolution can't occur between the species as well. The laws of nature apply to all spaces, including those between the species. In fact, as AR Wallace observed, you really can't find any sharp, hard-and-fast dividing lines between species. Here, you might want to look at his vast collection of insect specimens.
Yes, but new species of bacteria have been createdI in the lab. That is a major point you overlook. The fact that bacteria remain bacteria does not mean species of bacteria do not evolve.I asked for an example of a benevolent mutation advancing a species as evolution would require. Everyone knows that viruses and bacteria mutate and change. They still, however, remain viruses and bacteria.
Yes, but new species of bacteria have been createdI in the lab. That is a major point you overlook. The fact that bacteria remain bacteria does not mean species of bacteria do not evolve.
Bacteria have been evolved into new species of bacteria in the lab, however. The fact it is still bacteria does not mean a new species has not been produced. What you seem to be talking about is some wild jump, where you have, say, bacteria one moment and then, presto, a human the next. Evolution doesn't go in wild jumps like that. Dinosaurs evolved into birds, but that didn't happen over night. If you are expecting such "over-night" evolution, forget it. That isn't the way it works.All of this evolution has stayed within species and is no more than a variation. Bacteria haven't become mice, mice haven't become horses. It just doesn't work that way.
If the earth really is billions of years old, surely something like this would have happened at least once in nature.
It has been done with bacteria, as I already mentioned several times. Also, even stronger evidence yet is given in the fossil record and also in the similarities between different species. In many cases, there is no absolute dividing line between one species and another. You can't tell where one ends and the other begins. I think I mentioned AR Wallace is a good source to look at here. In addition, as I think I mentioned, the distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution is arbitrary and unscientific.Yes, I can accept that there is evolution within a species, but there has never been any evidence of the occurrence of one species evolving into an entirely different species.
Why does your opinion differ frm those who study ToE?All of this evolution has stayed within species and is no more than a variation. Bacteria haven't become mice, mice haven't become horses. It just doesn't work that way.
If the earth really is billions of years old, surely something like this would have happened at least once in nature.
No that's what evolution teaches. If we all came from a common ancestor then that ancestor evolved into something it was not originally. If all apes evolved from a common ancestor where did dogs come from. Apes and dogs and eagles all evolved from the same ancestor which was not what they are now.Of course dogs are still dogs. They are also still canines and mammals and animals. Only creationists seem to expect dogs to "evolve" into cats or animals into plants. That's not how evolution works, but it seems to be how creationists believe it to work.
Yes, the fossil record, the age of the earth, nested hierarchy, endogenous retrovirus, ALL suggest we share a common ancestor.No that's what evolution teaches. If we all came from a common ancestor then that ancestor evolved into something it was not originally. If all apes evolved from a common ancestor where did dogs come from. Apes and dogs and eagles all evolved from the same ancestor which was not what they are now.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
He's right. What you are saying is not what evolution teaches. If you push way back, b to the very beginning, then yes, we all came from a common ancestor. However, along the way, there were a zillion intermediate steps.No that's what evolution teaches. If we all came from a common ancestor then that ancestor evolved into something it was not originally. If all apes evolved from a common ancestor where did dogs come from. Apes and dogs and eagles all evolved from the same ancestor which was not what they are now.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
I'm not confused its the evolutionist who are. They keep telling us evolution is not something evolving into something else. Then they tell us it is about something evolving into,something else.Yes, the fossil record, the age of the earth, nested hierarchy, endogenous retrovirus, ALL suggest we share a common ancestor.
This is beyond well understood at this point. I'm not sure why you're still confused about this?
They have in the Bible.And yet why haven't their stories continued on?
Because Rome took over and kept it alive.Why haven't lives been changed by them? Why are they no more than distant myths now.
Yes I can.I can't name even one of them without looking it up. Can you?
Millions of people have never heard the name Jesus or Christianity.And yet almost everyone, whether they believe in Him or not, knows the name of Jesus.
You obviously believe everything you are told, all we have are copies of copies of copies, no originals at all."The Bible is comprised of 66 Books written over a period of about 1,500 years by over 40 authors from all walks of life, with different kinds of personalities, and in all sorts of situations. It was written in three languages on three continents, and it covers hundreds of controversial subjects. Yet, it fits together into one cohesive story with an appropriate beginning, a logical ending, a central character, and a consistent theme."
"How does one begin to explain such historical, structural, prophetic, doctrinal, and spiritual congruency (harmony) apart from the fact that its real author was Divine?!"
Why are there no similar writings about these other "gods"? Why are their not also hundreds of complete copies and fragments that have been found over the years, that despite different time and place have no major contradictions between them?
Then something did evolve into,something else. And we have no proof of that ever occuring.He's right. What you are saying is not what evolution teaches. If you push way back, b to the very beginning, then yes, we all came from a common ancestor. However, along the way, there were a zillion intermediate steps.
I don't think you are reading carefully the posts you have been receiving, explaining evolution to you. Evolution is definitely claiming that one species can evolve into another. However, it is not claiming there are wild jumps, where one day, it's a dog and the next day turns into a human. The latter is precisely what those here who do not properly understand evolution are proposing. Some of us have been working hard to correct that.I'm not confused its the evolutionist who are. They keep telling us evolution is not something evolving into something else. Then they tell us it is about something evolving into,something else.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
They have in the Bible.Because Rome took over and kept it alive.Yes I can.Millions of people have never heard the name Jesus or Christianity.You obviously believe everything you are told, all we have are copies of copies of copies, no originals at all.
John 8:7 ‘Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’ was added to the Bible about 300AD as were a lot of other verses all over the Bible.
A few more forgeries in the Bible..........
Mark 9:29: Jesus comments that a certain type of indwelling demon can only be exorcised through "prayer and fasting" (KJV) This is also found in the Rheims New Testament. But the word "fasting" did not appear in the oldest manuscripts. 5 Many new English translations have dropped the word.
Mark 16:9-20: The original version of Mark ended rather abruptly at the end of Verse 8. Verses 9 to 20, which are shown in most translations of the Bible, were added later by an unknown forger*. The verses were based on portions of Luke, John and other sources.
Luke 3:22: This passage describes Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist. According to Justin Martyr, the original version of this verse has God speaking the words: "You are my son, today have I begotten thee." Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, and other ancient Christian authorities also quoted it this way. 1 The implication is that Jesus was first recognized by God as his son at the time of baptism. But a forger* altered the words to read: "You are my son, whom I love." The altered passage conformed more to the evolving Christian belief that Jesus was the son of God at his birth, (as described in Luke and Matthew) or before the beginning of creation (as in John), and not at his baptism.
John 5:3-4: These verses describe how "a great multitude" of disabled people stayed by the water. From time to time an angel arrived, and stirred the waters. The first person who stepped in was cured. This passage seems strange. The process would not be at all just, because the blind could not see the waters being stirred, and the less mobile of the disabled would have no chance of a cure. Part of Verse 3 and all of Verse 4 are missing from the oldest manuscripts of John. 3 It appears to be a piece of free-floating magical text that someone added to John.
John 21: There is general agreement among liberal and mainline Biblical scholars that the original version of the Gospel of John ended at the end of John 20. John 21 appears to either be an afterthought of the author(s) of John, or a later addition by a forger*. Most scholars believe that the latter occurred. 4
1 Corinthians 14:34-35: This is a curious passage. It appears to prohibit all talking by women during services. But it contradicts verse 11:5, in which St. Paul states that women can actively pray and prophesy during services. It is obvious to some theologians that verses 14:33b to 36 are a later addition, added by an unknown counterfeiter* with little talent at forgery.*
Bible scholar, Hans Conzelmann, comments on these three and a half verses: "Moreover, there are peculiarities of linguistic usage, and of thought. [within them]." 2 If they are removed, then Verse 33a merges well with Verse 37 in a seamless transition.
Since they were a later forgery*, they do not fulfill the basic requirement to be considered inerrant: they were not in the original manuscript written by Paul. This is a very important passage, because much many denominations opposition to female ordination is based on these verses.
Revelation 1:11: The phrase "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and," which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts. It is also found in the New King James Version (NKJV) and in the 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) The latter are basically re-writes of the original KJV. Modern English, is used, but the translators seem to have made little or no effort to correct errors. The Alpha/Omega phrase
"... is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation or in Bruce Metzger's definitive 'A Textual Commentary' on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994..." 7
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?