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.
Let me get this straight... you don't find it odd that it took human beings about 300,000 years to start domesticating animals?
Who's made that claim? Not me.Except that there's no reason that as soon as humans came onto the scene, we should have just instantly been able to do everything we can do now.
How can you deny that evolution happens? Tadpoles evolve into frogs in a matter of weeks, so bacteria can surely evolve into humans in a few billion years!Tomato / Tomatto
Potato / Potatto
Let me get this straight... you don't find it odd that it took human beings about 300,000 years to start domesticating animals?
I believe in microevolution, not not macroevolution.How can you deny that evolution happens?
Technically they "morph" into frogs.Buzzard3 said:Tadpoles evolve into frogs in a matter of weeks,
Unless they hit a barrier that God ordained they cannot cross.Buzzard3 said:... so bacteria can surely evolve into humans in a few billion years!
Thank you, but it seems to me that your argument contains a fundamental flaw: Lining up a sequence of eyes (of increasing complexity) may well be evidence of EVOLUTION, but it tells us nothing at all about what MECHANISM was responsible for that evolution.You can't test it directly. What you can do is arrange all the known eyes in order of complexity, and see if you can come up with genetic paths from simple to complex. If you do come up with such a genetic path, you can't actually demonstrate that it happened that way, but you do demonstrate that the evidence still fits within the theory.
I think it's fair to say that the science of genetics could still be in its infancy and that what has been discovered so far (as impressive as it is) could be just the tip of the iceberg. And it's entirely possible that some of what scientists "know" now could turn out to be dead wrong in the future.Now, if you were able to find something that blocks development from simple to complex at some points, then the theory has a problem. It would certainly be fun to find something like that, but so far we seem to be out of luck. There's no known limit in the genes to how much accumulated change that can eventually take place.
Oh, so our ancestors were smart enough to use fire 500,000 years ago (so the story goes, at least), but they weren't smart enough to domesticate animals then - that feat wasn't achieved until about 490,000 years later. And his scenario makes sense to you?Our ancestors have been walking upright (on two feet) for over 3 million years, using fire for over 500,000 years. Over the years we have accumulated new technologies and changes to our anatomies.
Not sure if you realized I was joking in that post. Tadpoles don't evolve into frogs and I don't believe humans evolved naturally from bacteria.I believe in microevolution, not not macroevolution.
Technically they "morph" into frogs.Unless they hit a barrier that God ordained they cannot cross.
The Bible only allows for 6025 years of existence.
Not sure if you realized I was joking in that post. Tadpoles don't evolve into frogs and I don't believe humans evolved naturally from bacteria.
Thank you, but it seems to me that your argument contains a fundamental flaw: Lining up a sequence of eyes (of increasing complexity) may well be evidence of EVOLUTION, but it tells us nothing at all about what MECHANISM was responsible for that evolution.
So said evolutionary sequence is NOT a test a test for the theory that the eye is a result of natural selection and mutations. If a theory cannot be tested, it doesn't even qualify as science and is just a story.
What about the scientists at evolutionnews.org?Ive yet to find a creationist who who is not clueless
God gave us free will ... that means humans can choose to do good or to do evil. God does not prevent us from exercising our free will.Finally, if you identify the Creator with the God of the Bible, it seems strange to me that a being who has been able to create this vast and wonderful universe is unable to make the inhabitants of one small planet orbiting a medium-sized star in the outskirts of a medium-sized galaxy behave themselves.
What about the scientists at evolutionnews.org?
In addition to them there are quite a few other scientists who are creationists.
That's beside the point ... the point is that some creationists are scientists.evolution"news".org is a creationist/anti-evolution propaganda site. It is media, and not a group of scientists.
That's beside the point ... the point is that some creationists are scientists.
Take Günter Bechly (evolutionnew.org) for example:
"Günter Bechly is a German paleo-entomologist who specializes in the fossil history and systematics of insects (esp. dragonflies), the most diverse group of animals. He served as curator for amber and fossil insects in the department of paleontology at the State Museum of Natural History (SMNS) in Stuttgart, Germany. He is also a Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. Dr. Bechly earned his Ph.D. in geosciences from Eberhard-Karls-University in Tübingen, Germany."
(discovery.org)
"Günter Bechly is a distinguished scientist focusing on the fossil history of insects. He has authored or co-authored about 150 scientific publications, including a co-edited book published by Cambridge University Press and a popular science book on evolution. He has discovered and named more than 160 new species, and has 10 biological groups named in his honor. He has served on the editorial boards of two scientific journals, and has organized five large public exhibitions on Earth history and evolution. He has been interviewed widely in German media and served as a science advisor for two natural history documentaries on the BBC."
(freescience.today)