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.
Oh! You edited. I can't even see your link right now since I see your original but my quote shows your edited post.
No. Evolution begins with first life. Life has to be self reproducing. Self reproducing is not perfect, therefore variation was "built in".
The problem with first life is the same as the problem of the first mammal. There is no hard line between mammals and their predecessors just as there is no hard line between life and non-life. How many traits must a cell have to be called "alive"?
Oh! You edited. I can't even see your link right now since I see your original but my quote shows your edited post.
EDIT: Okay you replaced your question mark with the article that you did not understand. My previous comment stands. That article makes sense. You can't allow yourself to understand it.
It seems to me that the key to 'understanding' evolution is...belief in evolution.
We do not know. It is possible we shall never know. It is an interesting question. Several scientists are seeking to provide an answer. Provisional answers have already been found.How complex was the first life form?
No.Or do you believe that complex organisms appeared first then some 'devolved' into simpler ones?
Certainly. But the simplest lifeform is much more complicated than the very first life form. There have been three and a half billion years for the initial life form to evolve to that condition. That is roughly 3 x 10^13 generations.? And isn't even the simplest life form we know of highly developed and very complicated?
I don't think the impossibility (overall, as well as so many things like this one) can be refuted. Not honestly.The recent observation of molecular convergence in many species poses impossible mathematical challenges to evolution. I would be interested to know how this can be refuted...
How complex was the first life form? No circular reasoning please, no 'must have been'. Or do you believe that complex organisms appeared first then some 'devolved' into simpler ones? And isn't even the simplest life form we know of highly developed and very complicated?
The allele frequency of the genome.What changes during evolution? And how did the thing that changes come to be without evolution?
Did you ever notice that many writings about evolution begin with, "This should help you better understand..."? If evolution is so simple why hundreds of 'examples' to help us understand? It seems to me that the key to 'understanding' evolution is...belief in evolution.
If you want to claim certain things that he did then the burden of proof is upon you. In fact to even claim that he exists you are taking on a huge burden of proof.God is always present. We don't need to know anything to invoke Yahweh.
No worries.If you want to claim certain things that he did then the burden of proof is upon you. In fact to even claim that he exists you are taking on a huge burden of proof.
If that was the case we would not be having this discussion. And whether a god exists or not does not really enter into the discussion. Many Christians accept the fact that life is the product of evolution. Evolution does not disprove the Christian God, it only changes how Genesis is interpreted.No worries.
He Himself already provided all the proof that is needed. (available for everyone )
It is the case, for it is impossible for God to lie. (and I have not lied, btw)If that was the case we would not be having this discussion.
Again you put a huge burden of proof upon yourself. Your word is not good enough for this clam, just as if I said that God did not exist that would put a huge burden of proof upon me. If you claim that there is "proof" then as a Christian you should give it. Now it is a mistake to interpret the Bible literally since as you said God cannot lie. The problem with a literal interpretation is that can only be done if God did lie and cover up his acts. I do agree with you that if a God exists he would almost certainly be honest. That is why no matter what I cannot take the first book of the Bible literally.It is the case, for it is impossible for God to lie. (and I have not lied, btw)
The discussion is only because of unbelief. That is not God's Problem.
If that was the case we would not be having this discussion. And whether a god exists or not does not really enter into the discussion. Many Christians accept the fact that life is the product of evolution. Evolution does not disprove the Christian God, it only changes how Genesis is interpreted.
....hmmm.....That is why no matter what I cannot take the first book of the Bible literally.
I think most argument against believing the Bible is just because of rebellion, not fact.
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?