No. Go look in a mirror and repeat these words: "I have been deceived by Satan. I don't know a truthful explanation when I see it." Repeat the process until you get it.
Upvote
0
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.
Shall we agree to consider each other heretics then, and mutually ignore each other? To my eyes you're a heretic because you're calling God a liar by saying that God's Creation falsely suggests evolution, to your eyes I'm a heretic because I'm calling God a liar by saying the Creation account in Genesis isn't literally true. You disagree with the previous statement because you in fact think that Creation doesn't suggest evolution, and I disagree with the previous statement because I think Genesis was never intended to be literal.
So you want me to go back in time and and show you some kind of living, breathing trasitional creature?Kirkwhisper said:Name it and then demonstrate an observed change from one type into another type over any length of time. No artwork or chart work, please.
I've seen many Creationists say evolution is unscientific, or atheistic. But you're the first one to say it was invented by Satan.Kirkwhisper said:No. Go look in a mirror and repeat these words: "I have been deceived by Satan. I don't know a truthful explanation when I see it." Repeat the process until you get it.
It's hard to take your word for it when you write silly things like this:
What most Creationists fail to realise is that if a dog mated with a chimp and created some kind of pan-canis hybrid, it wouldn't prove evolution. It would completely and utterly disprove it.
So you want me to go back in time and and show you some kind of living, breathing trasitional creature?
Sorry, my time machine's in the shop.
I've seen many Creationists say evolution is unscientific, or atheistic. But you're the first one to say it was invented by Satan.
You're not saying Christian evolutions are actually closet satanists are you Kirkwhisper ... ?
It's silly because you seem to think that if evolution was true, dogs would be able to mate with chimps. Like I said - that wouldn't prove evolution, that would disprove it.Kirkwhisper said:That tells me you aren't reading carefully nor thinking carefully. Of course it's silly. But the fact is that scientists can't do that nor can they perform any experiment to demonstrate the stages in between organisms to ANY degree
No I can't use that example, since neanderthals aren't gorilla-chimps hybrids. The fact that they had DNA almost identical to us is not a surprise either, as they were one of the last members of the Homo genus. If that didn't have DNA like us? Now that would be a surprise.Kirkwhisper said:how about a chimp that mates with a gorilla that could give us perhaps (gasp!) a neanderthal-like creature?
uh, oh. Guess you can't use that one either
Actually today (post 2010) most scientists believe neanderthals could speak and frequently interbred with modern humans. In fact every ethnic group outside of Africa has neanderthal DNA.Kirkwhisper said:Despite the genetic evidence, some ruling paradigm scientists are still insisting that Neaderthals couldn’t speak and that there certainly was no interbreeding.
Kirkwhisper said:Every change will be 'within his kind', a la Genesis one.
You said "No charts". But if you want an example: Evolution of the horse (I hate using Wikipedia but this had good pictures of the fossils)Kirkwhisper said:Wouldn't it be easier just to submit some observed step-by-step change in the fossil record? But you can't do that either.
That would explain a lot.Kirkwhisper said:That shows how far from reality you are. I have heard that spoken or preached from pulpits since I was a child. I am by no means the first.Notedstrangeperson said:I've seen many Creationists say evolution is unscientific, or atheistic. But you're the first one to say it was invented by Satan.
You said "No charts". But if you want an example: Evolution of the horse (I hate using Wikipedia but this had good pictures of the fossils)
That would explain a lot.
I don't know if they stopped. The point was that having white fur was NOT an advantage to a change in circumstancesI tough fur was out of fashion now, they still carry out the cull to stop the competition for fish stocks, nothing to do with the colour of their fur. Does Greenpeace still dye the seals green, or was it just in the 70s and 80s? Isn't that kind of a short time for them to evolve a completely different fur colour?
So you may think. But you're examples such as whitness in fur seal pups is faulty.Again all you are doing is showing a complete lack of understanding about evolution.
Why? If Darwin could example pigeon breeders doing the selecting?Wouldn't they need a mutation that produces a green pigment before it could be selected?
Based on what?Not sure green would be a terribly good colour for a seal anyway.
That's not a meaningful sentenceAnd have pups of their own who have white fur when white is an advantage.
No it is a conclusion from what we know about evolution and natural selection. Nor is it circular reasoning to realise a white seal pup is harder for a polar bear to spot than a brown one.
We are 98% similar to chimps but at the same time 80% difference as well. This is like a movie star "look-a-like" but for a total different family. The last sentence tries to make some sense why the proteins are so different. Scientist has known for a longer time the big differences are not due to genes.Smidlee: I did say genetic differences varied depending on what you measure. Besides:ABSTRACT: The chimpanzee is our closest living relative. The morphological differences between the two species are so large that there is no problem in distinguishing between them. However, the nucleotide difference between the two species is surprisingly small. The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species. Still, the number of proteins responsible for the phenotypic differences may be smaller since not all genes are directly responsible for phenotypic characters.How exactly does this show that humans and chimpanzees aren't closely related?
Dodos died out because they couldn't compete with invasive wildlife - that, and desperate sailors will eat anything. Not because they were unsuccessful breeders.Montalban said:Like the dodo?Notedstrangeperson said:I didn't claim that. I claimed that if a species is thriving, the only thing which would suddenly wipe it our would be a major natural disaster. Asteroids generally don't change DNA.
No, not all differences are due to genes. This particular study was looking at particular types of genes - to put it simply, phenotypic genes are responsible for our appearance. Chimps and humans obviously look very different.Smidlee said:We are 98% similar to chimps but at the same time 80% difference as well. This is like a movie star "look-a-like" but for a total different family. The last sentence tries to make some sense why the proteins are so different. Scientist has known for a longer time the big differences are not due to genes.
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?