look up nylon eating bacteria on wikipedia. (I can't post links yet)
They aren't specifically nylon eating bacteria, they're bacteria that developed over time the ability to digest the nylon in their environment.
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.
look up nylon eating bacteria on wikipedia. (I can't post links yet)How can you tell the nylon-eating bacteria was not already there? So when nylon appeared, they just started to eat it?
I can't tell if you're serious or not; please give me evidence for yec (Im assuming thats why you responded to this thread)So, why didnt those primitive Bible-written people make a similar suggestion?
Why Scientists Should NOT Dismiss Intelligent Design | Uncommon Descentlook up nylon eating bacteria on wikipedia. (I can't post links yet)
They aren't specifically nylon eating bacteria, they're bacteria that developed over time the ability to digest the nylon in their environment.
How can you tell the nylon-eating bacteria was not already there? So when nylon appeared, they just started to eat it?
No -- and you're welcome to take my challenge to prove it: 1Is there ANY solid creation evidence?
C'mon AV, enough of your silly counting games. You're a grown man for cryin' ou' loud.No -- and you're welcome to take my challenge to prove it: 1
YEC is as meaningless as salvation, as far as having faith in what we interpret the word/testimony of God to be. If faith in YEC is meaningless, I assume you consider faith in Jesus Christ as meaningless.
Doctrinal interpretations aside, it is the power of faith in a testimony that I am connecting to your description of 'meaningless'.
As far as faith being an 'antiquated idea', then the American judicial system would be considered the same.
It is not YEC that is on trial in your statement, but the method by which one believes YEC, a method that well predates the Scientific Method, and is still used today.
I would say solid evidence would be the equal dispersal of fossils throough the geological column, eg a human fossil in precambrian rocks for starters..May be you can give me an example on what does a "solid evidence" look like. After I understand what do you mean by it, I might consider to give you an evidence to match that? Fair enough?
Yes -- please read it for yourselves in the Bible.Don't get AV started.
look up nylon eating bacteria on wikipedia. (I can't post links yet)
They aren't specifically nylon eating bacteria, they're bacteria that developed over time the ability to digest the nylon in their environment.
I can't tell if you're serious or not; please give me evidence for yec (Im assuming thats why you responded to this thread)
Because they didn't "just start eating it". There was bacteria. Nylon was introduced. They did not "eat" the nylon right away; that came later. If the bacteria already had the ability to "eat" nylon, they would have been doing so as soon as it was introduced. But they didn't, because they couldn't. It wasn't until they evolved the ability to "eat" nylon that the nylon started getting "eaten."
I would say solid evidence would be the equal dispersal of fossils throough the geological column, eg a human fossil in precambrian rocks for starters..
How can you be sure on that is what really is? May be they don't like the taste at the first, but get used to it at later time.
Megan Fox.If you are to create this universe, what is the first thing you like to create?
That would be philosophical naturalism. MN doesn't reject the supernatural - it merely rejects the use of supernatural hypotheses as a way of acquiring knowledge. I.e. someone operating on MN doesn't say God doesn't exist, only that God can't be used to figure things out about nature.That said, the mindset in which you are trying to achieve an answer is called Methodological Naturalism. MN absolutely rejects anything supernatural...
Still, it is certainly a dead end to try to prove or disprove YEC by MNaturalism means, since I see it as a faith based belief.
He's quite good at doing that himself.Don't get AV started.
So, why is it a solid evidence of evolution? If you give the bacteria benzene, would you expect some bacteria also start to eat benzene? Why is this feature an evidence of anything?
Do not side track your argument. I just want an example of so-called "solid evidence". It seems this so-called evidence is not clear on what is evidenced and it is also not very solid. If this quality of evidence is what you want to see on creation, then there are too many of them.
How can you be sure on that is what really is? May be they don't like the taste at the first, but get used to it at later time.
You are assuming that human is just another animal. If you adopt YEC, then that assumption is wrong to begin with. So your proposed solid evidence may never happen.
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?