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.
No I just didn't want to get off topic burning up all your other strawmen.
This statement does not make sense.
The whole point of ID is to make your religious dogma sound less silly. Nevertheless, it isn't much different. "owwww.... that looks complex, therefore my god, *opps* the unknown intelligent designer must have done it." It doesn't change how silly your creationism is, and you have the gall to come here and try to make the theory of evolution look silly. Look in the mirror first, creationist.go ahead and do it but do it with ID not creationism.
thats a little harder.
like I said, no arguments. Thats okay.
But evolution does not exist on a macro level, only micro evolution exists.
You wrotelike I said, no arguments. Thats okay.
Again irrelevant to this thread. See above.But evolution does not exist on a macro level, only micro evolution exists.
You wrote
and
attacking evolution attacks OEC though, else there is no mechanism to grow.
I said this statement does not make sense. What more argument is needed? There is no point to trearing down your other strawmen. Do you know what the logical fallacy of the false dilema or false dichotomy is? It is one of creationism favorite logical fallacies. I suggest you look it up if you don't know.
Again irrelevant to this thread. See above.
The whole point of ID is to make your religious dogma sound less silly. Nevertheless, it isn't much different. "owwww.... that looks complex, therefore my god, *opps* the unknown intelligent designer must have done it." It doesn't change how silly your creationism is, and you have the gall to come here and try to make the theory of evolution look silly. Look in the mirror first, creationist.
Define "macro evolution" for us.
Ok, let me try to explain it to you this way. Romans 11:28 says: "for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." Lets take Lady Gaga for an example. No one would question that she has talent or what we could call a gift from God. She has a choice, she could use that gift to honor God, but she does not have to honor God. She is free to dishonor God if she wants. He will not take away her gift.Oh, I'm a Christian. I'm just not one who dances to your tune.
Show us evidence that sickness and disease all come out of mutations and errors.
I am not wrong because there was NO mutation. You have a recessive gene and you have a bottleneck so that recessive gene was not being expressed. It was there all along. With some selective breeding that recessive gene could turn into a dominate gene and you would call that evolution. Call it whatever you want, no mutation took place in the hamster. Scientiests are just throwing the word around and they are wrong, they are in error. Was it that difficult for you to look at the artical so you knew what we were talking about? Believe what you want, you just have no evidence to show a mutation because the difference in color comes from a recessive gene. We are talking about 5 th grade science and a clear example of where Phd's can not be trusted.Sorry Jazer, but you are wrong. I did a Google Scholar search for "hamster hair color mutation," and look what I found
I am not wrong because there was NO mutation. You have a recessive gene and you have a bottleneck so that recessive gene was not being expressed. It was there all along. With some selective breeding that recessive gene could turn into a dominate gene and you would call that evolution. Call it whatever you want, no mutation took place in the hamster. Scientiests are just throwing the word around and they are wrong, they are in error. Was it that difficult for you to look at the artical so you knew what we were talking about? Believe what you want, you just have no evidence to show a mutation because the difference in color comes from a recessive gene. We are talking about 5 th grade science and a clear example of where Phd's can not be trusted.
The text book also says that speciation represents macroevolution. Do you agree?macro evolution is a text book term, it's not a creationist term. so youll have to look it up to get all the info you want on it. I was just giving an example of macro evolution.
Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
as wikipedia suggests macro evolution would be a transition between a bird and a dinasaur, and while there much talk about feathered dinasaurs they are still cold blooded while birds are warm blooded.
There are dinosaur feathers much better developed than the fuss ones. Here are some examples:the difference between reptilian and feathers
also some dinasaurs have fuzz that resembles feathers but is not actually feathers under a microscope....
scales are a continuos sheet while feathers are a tube follicle so there are no compatibilities...Thus, while feathers grow and are shed individually (actually in symmetrically matched pairs!), scales grow and are shed as an entire sheet of skin.
also birds have a different style of lungs for aviation and this in not the same in dinasaurs....
BIRD LUNG
dinasaur lung
Those have both been verified by Science. dust6083 of 4480 the ground 127. Notice all three of these word have a word in the origional Hebrew. We know today that Moses is talking about the Elements. Science 3500 years ago was not as advanced as Science today. Even though Moses was a very well educated. He got the best Education Egypt had to offer. In fact his brother was the Pharaoh. or King of Egypt. (Moses was adopted) They both got the same rich boy upper class education. "99% of the mass of the human body is made up of only six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Every organic molecule contains carbon. Since 65-90% of each body cell consists of water (by weight), it isn't surprising that oxygen and hydrogen are major components of the body." Elements in the Human Body So What is the going rate for a body's worth of these elements? One US dollar! If you are only worth a dollar then dust maybe a good word to use. How Much Are the Elements in Your Body Worth?dirt-man, a rib-woman
Don't BS me, show me your evidence. Talk is cheap and to say: "new mutation" does not mean nothing. If that is your theory, then prove your theory. I am not going to accept it without evidence.Read again These are new mutations
I am GAP a day is 1000 years. Adam and Eve were in the Garden on the Eighth Day that was 6,000 years ago. The man in 1:26 was created on the 6th day and that would have been 8,000 years ago. He was told to populate the whole earth. Actually the word was replenish: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it"Then, after peace was restored, Genesis 1 resumes at 1:26 -- 6000 years ago.
Is this correct?
Thanks for the correction.I am GAP a day is 1000 years. Adam and Eve were in the Garden on the Eighth Day that was 6,000 years ago. The man in 1:26 was created on the 6th day and that would have been 8,000 years ago. He was told to populate the whole earth. Actually the word was replenish: "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it"
Notice: "Gen 2:4 These are the generations" Adam was the First Hebrew. [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs/ref/?stgh=greek&stnm=2316[/FONT]
Yes, I corrected that. I do not like to use the word Jewish. So I do not know what word to use for Adam.Just out of curiosity though, I was under the impression that Abraham was the first Hebrew.
I like "Adamite".Yes, I corrected that. I do not like to use the word Jewish. So I do not know what word to use for Adam.
We are adopted into the family of God. The Hebrews call them Gentiles, Jesus called them dogs. This is a very strong theme with Abraham: the children of freedom and the children of bondage.I like "Adamite".
We're not Homo sapiens -- we're Adamites.
Don't BS me, show me your evidence. Talk is cheap and to say: "new mutation" does not mean nothing. If that is your theory, then prove your theory. I am not going to accept it without evidence.
You do not accept anything from me without evidence and so I produce scientific evidence to back up what I say. Now it's your turn to produce your evidence.
The text book also says that speciation represents macroevolution. Do you agree?
There are dinosaur feathers much better developed than the fuss ones. Here are some examples:
http://amog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/fossil-feather1.jpg
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks//fossilized feather.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_RndMjaetB8Q/THacBnhKGUI/AAAAAAAAAv0/PFpIZ3RkWXs/s1600/1000000200.JPG
The fact that we have different stages in the development of feathers among different dinosaur species lends further credence to the theory.
Yep and they are all bogus because coat color has nothing to do with mutations. You have given me a fine example of the mis information you find in Evolutionary theory. What you want to do is a study on equine coat color genetics This will explain to you how it all works. You will see that it has nothing to do with mutations. All the syrian hamsters came from ONE common ancestor. There are lots of them but the reason the color was so limited was because of a bottleneck. So you may also want to do a study on population bottleneck (or genetic bottleneck).I gave you an entire list of references.
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?