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.
You're confusing physiological adaptation, which occurs in individuals, with evolutionary adaptation, heritable changes which occur in populations over generations.... A lot of adults transitioning from farm life jobs (that made them physically stronger) to city life jobs (where they may become more sedentary) is a form of microevolution (adaptation & variation). But, the city life eventually changing them into a different physical entity altogether (macroevolution) is just connecting dots that are too widely spaced in my opinion.
If for the purpose of this discussion you accept the Genesis account, then you are also accepting that every living thing was created and multiplied according to their kind. To me, that seems to rule out changes of magnitude (macroevolution).
If for the purpose of this discussion you accept the Genesis account, then you are also accepting that every living thing was created and multiplied according to their kind. To me, that seems to rule out changes of magnitude (macroevolution).
Most English speakers probably know more Japanese than old-English...Its like kids speak their parents' language but
over the generations, it changes.
More generations, and it changes a lot....
They may not stop, but that doesn't mean they will have the magnitude of change TOE proposes.But you say microevolution is currently happening. My question is: what is going to stop the changes? At what point does evolution cease to work?
Most English speakers probably know more Japanese than old-English
Hwæt. We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum,
monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah,
egsode eorlas.
Capiche?
They may not stop, but that doesn't mean they will have the magnitude of change TOE proposes.
I've enjoyed it... are you absolutely sure that pebble wouldn't completely wear away before it reached the Pacific???Again, that is just an empty claim. And it defies logic. You're still arguing that the pebble never gets to the Pacific. If you have nothing to add then I think we're done. Thanks for your input.
I've enjoyed it... are you absolutely sure that pebble wouldn't completely wear away before it reached the Pacific???
That would be the equivalent of an extinction. The Pacific represents the present. If I may, I'll change the pebble to a small toy with wheels. And there are millions of people setting off on the journey with their toy. You can make changes to it to suit the terrain but you're never certain what the terrain is likely to be. So changes are a bit hit and miss. And sometimes people will hit upon an improvement, purely by chance. But most others won't and will fall by the wayside.
But if your improvement works, you add something else. Or remove something you think isn't necessary. And sometimes it does nothing. But sometimes it works a lot better. So over time (and remember we were talking of tens of thousands of years) your little toy looks less and less like the one you started with. Until it looks nothing like it did. But it works a lot better than it did. But you still pass all the tens of thousands that didn't make it.
OK, you might say that it will still be something that moves along the gound, so it's the same 'kind'. But after tens of thousands of years of development, it might look more like a tank than a toy. Just like the Wrights first means of flight was a toy compared to a Space Shuttle. You'd be stretching this definition of 'kind' well past the breaking point if you try to convince anyone that the Wright Flyer and the Shuttle Atlantis are the same.
Not the same, but the same kind... in this case a flying machine.That would be the equivalent of an extinction. The Pacific represents the present. If I may, I'll change the pebble to a small toy with wheels. And there are millions of people setting off on the journey with their toy. You can make changes to it to suit the terrain but you're never certain what the terrain is likely to be. So changes are a bit hit and miss. And sometimes people will hit upon an improvement, purely by chance. But most others won't and will fall by the wayside.
But if your improvement works, you add something else. Or remove something you think isn't necessary. And sometimes it does nothing. But sometimes it works a lot better. So over time (and remember we were talking of tens of thousands of years) your little toy looks less and less like the one you started with. Until it looks nothing like it did. But it works a lot better than it did. But you still pass all the tens of thousands that didn't make it.
OK, you might say that it will still be something that moves along the gound, so it's the same 'kind'. But after tens of thousands of years of development, it might look more like a tank than a toy. Just like the Wrights first means of flight was a toy compared to a Space Shuttle. You'd be stretching this definition of 'kind' well past the breaking point if you try to convince anyone that the Wright Flyer and the Shuttle Atlantis are the same.
A few weeks ago, a creationist claimed:
"God placed within each species genetic information which allows the different kinds of plants and animals God created to adapt in various situations and environment."
I asked for evidence for this claim, no response. I provided a link for a genome database search tool to help this creationist find the evidence he apparently thought existed, to no avail.
Can any creationist provide what your creationist brother was incapable of doing?
Or shall we chalk this u to lame 'winessing'?
Not the same, but the same kind... in this case a flying machine.
You got me there.Yeah, just like a penguin, an eagle, a bat, a butterfly, an emu, a chicken...
Nothing against thinking, for sure... and yes this world will provide you with all kinds of assistance in dismissing what the bible says.Seems to but why?
TOE never anywhere disagrees with
" after their kind"!
No offspring are exactly like either parent.
Its always " after their kind " and always a little
different- right?
Its like kids speak their parents' language but
over the generations, it changes.
More generations,and it changes a lot.
Is not so?
As for what it seems to say, consider that it seems to say
that Pi=3.
So it must be 3?
A Jesuit priest told me God gave us brains to think with,
and he expects us to use them.
So we do a little thinking and some math and
realize that the evidence
goes against what the bible seems to say.
Nothing against thinking, for sure... and yes this world will provide you with all kinds of assistance in dismissing what the bible says.
If you mean Jesus is the door (metaphor) to our salvation, yes, I believe it. I know what Pi is, but I'm not familiar with it in this context.You totally misunderstand.
Who wants to " dismiss" it?
Im talking about attempting via brains
to understand it.
Surely you wont go with " jesus is a door" and Pi=3
just because you read it?
Or do you?
Your statement was "You only think creation can't be true because you hold that God is not true." is rendered false by the existence of evolution accepting Christians.
Nothing against thinking, for sure... and yes this world will provide you with all kinds of assistance in dismissing what the bible says.
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?