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.
I don't really see how that verse disproves theistic evolution in any way. There is still a genetic Eve and a genetic Adam.
Again, this really doesn't disprove my view in anyway. There is part of me that believes mankind was created to be physical immortal, and the other part, which is likely, that Paul is talking about spiritual death. I don't believe in the traditional view of Hell as a place of eternal torment, but that people Hell will result in complete and total non-existance (spiritual death).
He cited symbolic scripture to prove a point, I cite Genesis 1-3 all the time to prove points, that doesn't mean theistic evolution is wrong.
You do realize it is your bias and speculative assumption that labels it as a mutant gene.
Reading your post....I see you already dismiss many portions of the bible.
I told you how we know that they started as new mutations here. You don't seem to be interested in pursuing the information you request, or incorporating your understanding of evolution.I would think it worked the other way around....it was a mutation that caused humans to lose the ability to digest the lactose in milk rather than establish the ability.
But, I do understand the need for you to have it your way.
That'sridiculous. I've replied to more than one of your threads. Answered your questions. And you literally ignore them...Why is it when I post about ID...show the organelle inside of a cell.....then ask how they evolved via a process that uses random chance to change the information in the DNA code...all I hear is crickets?
I agree; it overwhelmingly points to intelligence being behind the origin of life!The overwhelming evidence can be found in DNA and molecular genetics
A bit like evolutionists then. At least the Christian faith has a miracle maker for it's miracles, so it's not a blind faith.So you'd rather believe based on no evidence.
The Bible can't get it wrong because it's the word of God. You would need to speak to experts of Biblical hermeneutics to get the full story. There is a useful comment about this on the following link, although it doesn't go into any great depth: https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/contradictions-hanging-on-pillars-of-nothing/But it's not. The bible got it wrong here.
You mean, like love or kindness or moral truth; or perhaps you mean Dark Matter / Dark Energy, which I would say, are very likely to be imaginary? Can you observe or test the origin of the universe or life? If not, does that mean we don't really exist then, or even the universe for that matter?If we cannot observe or test something, it is by definition, imaginary
You can, by using your own powers of logic and observation.But wait, I thought you said that you can't test for God? But now you're saying there are clues. Then we should be able to test them
"It" yes, but they can't be certain what they are watching from so great a distance. And even if they are correct and we'll probably never know that for sure, what does it prove in the grand scheme of things? Absolutely zilch, nada, nothing.they have observed it. They are WATCHING IT HAPPEN.
Mutations are not smart enough for evolution. All they can lead to is
sterility and death.
So if I had a machine, dropping a tennis ball totally at random [the "random event"] and I had another machine trying to hit the dropping balls with a cricket bat say once every 15 seconds [the "nonrandom force"], you are saying that the amount of times the machine hit the ball would not be random? Can you explain that, because it makes no sense to me?When you combine a random event with a nonrandom force the result is not random.
I apologise for butting into your conversation, but isn't red-headedness just a trait that has come about by natural selection (presumably resulting in a loss of information for dark hair)?As a red head could you possibly explain to me how the mutations that make my hair its color
I apologise for butting into your conversation, but isn't red-headedness just a trait that has come about by natural selection (presumably resulting in a loss of information for dark hair)?
I apologise for butting into your conversation, but isn't red-headedness just a trait that has come about by natural selection (presumably resulting in a loss of information for dark hair)?
it is not obvious what evolutionary advantage red-headedness might bestow,
I gave you a list of examples once before,
here. What was wrong with them?
That'sridiculous. I've replied to more than one of your threads. Answered your questions. And you literally ignore them...
The big problem with evolutionism besides the loss of information when a mutation occurs...is the ability to add to the results of the mutation in future generations to the point that a new morphological feature that enhances the fitness of an animal is observed.
It's been explained what's wrong with them...as I said before "So, what you have is chemical adaptions. Eh. It can be argued that the genes already existed. I was hoping for some sort of morphological evolution."
In those instances you assumed they were a result of mutations. I disagree. The genetic material was already there or there was a loss of information which caused the situations you presented.
I then responded by asking you how something such as a dolphins echo-location system could evolve....and you used MADE UP numbers...pulled out of the air in your feeble attempt to answer the question.
If the two byte sequence 0cdh, 021h in the machine code of a computer program "mutates" to 0cdh, 019h is information lost?
Nope. With the different information, the computer might (would) behave differently, but information is not lost - except in the sense of being replaced by new information.
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?