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.
Do you have an 800 number for Science?You can ask anything your imagination congers up, chances are you will not like the answer.
Conger away!
Either that, or call it magic.Scientists who do not believe in miracles would attribute them to cause unknown.
Or history.Belief is fine as long as it's not introduced as science.
Is Israel the Pro...You can ask anything your imagination congers up, chances are you will not like the answer.
Conger away!
1-800-666-MUSEDo you have an 800 number for Science?
I have some questions.
If you do not believe in a world wide flood then you need to be educated.University? Uninformed?
You believe in a world wide flood and
think I'm the one who needs an education?
I know the story so you are referring to faith,If you do not believe in a world wide flood then you need to be educated.
Yet the same thing is found entirely within one generation of other birds as well. And not just turning scales into feathers but gradually turning legs into partial wings. Again, in one single generation. Pigeon foot feather genes identified: Study hints how scaly dinosaur legs could get birdlike feathers
'The study found that in pigeons with feathers on their hindlimbs or feet, a hindlimb-development gene named Pitx1 is less active than normal, while a forelimb-development gene named Tbx5 is active in the feet, where it normally is not.
In other words, "pigeons' fancy feathered feet are partially wings," says biologist Mike Shapiro, senior author of the study published today by the journal eLife.
In mutant pigeons with foot feathers, "the hindlimb is clearly recognizable as a leg, but it has taken on more forelimb characteristics," he says. "It's not a complete transformation of a leg into a wing. Rather, components of the leg are more winglike, including feathers and a larger leg bone."
So you've been show an example of a bird with scales, a process whereby it can happen to transform one to the other, another bird where this happens as a common mutation and we see the results in one generation caused by changes to two identified genes. Notwithstanding that there were actually some dinosaurs with feathers: 9 Dinosaurs With Feathers
'Birds are the closest relative to dinosaurs that are presently alive, and they are a type of reptile. Birds may look different than some of the dinosaurs you see in the movies, but many species of dinosaurs had feathers and resembled the feathered animals we see today.
In this article, you will learn about 9 dinosaurs with feathers. Birds and dinosaurs are closely related, and feathers are a common trait that both animals share. '
To deny that this actually happens would really be perverse.
So we have four answers in one.
One, you can see no problem in drowning children that have done no wrong.
Two, you believe that God knew that every single child would turn out so bad that you feel the acts were justified.
Three, He knew what was going to happen, so you think that He allowed them to be born with the express purpose of killing them for sins that they had no choice in avoiding (there went free will).
And four, you think that He was quite prepared to drown young children because He knew how they'd turn out but has not shown the slightest interest in removing people who are considered the most inhuman animals that have ever walked the planet (and we also have the advantage of knowing who they were), responsible for millions of deaths.
Interesting.
That's another problem that you have to add to your others. When we get a good answer, you'll know about it.
Spoken like someone who has no idea what they are talking about. The evolutionary explanation is this:
The blood groups evolved before the chimp/human ancestor. When the population of this ancestor was split and one group evolved into chimps and the other evolved into Humans, the blood groups remained. The Chimp A type gene is more closely related to the Human A type gene because the chimp/human split was much more recent than the A type/O type gene split.
The genetic evidence is there for anyone to test. The fact you don't understand does not mean it's not valid evidence.
Here are some sources that show it:
"Whether this recurrence of A and B antigens is the result of an ancient polymorphism maintained across species or due to numerous, more recent instances of convergent evolution has been debated for decades, with a current consensus in support of convergent evolution. We show instead that genetic variation data in humans and gibbons as well as in Old World monkeys are inconsistent with a model of convergent evolution and support the hypothesis of an ancient, multiallelic polymorphism of which some alleles are shared by descent among species." In other words, there was some argument about whether humans and apes have the same kinds of blood types because they just happened to evolve it independently, or because the blood groups existed in an ancestor species. The paper shows that the best explanation is that the different genes for different blood groups is that the blood groups evolved in an ancestor species that both Humans and apes are descended from. You can read the paper HERE.
"The A, B and O blood types in people evolved at least 20 million years ago in a common ancestor of humans and other primates, new research suggests." SOURCE
"The result was startling: an A gene from one species (e.g. humans) was more closely related to the A gene from other species (e.g. gibbons) than to the B variant from the same species. These results support a scenario in which the A and B blood types first arose in a distant common ancestor and have persisted across species." SOURCE
If you think you are qualified to show that these scientists are incorrect, then by all means, present us with your qualifications and the research you have done to show that creation is a better explanation.
Evidence for evolution - massive, objective, validated, quantified, etcThey could just as easily said, look how things are designed. And look at how God created all his creation with similarities of design. But they have chosen not to.
Please demonstrate your massive, objective, validated, quantified, etc. evidence for abiogenesis. Please, take your time. I have all day.Evidence for evolution - massive, objective, validated, quantified, etc
Evidence for design - superficial, colloquial, unconvincing
Other than that you are correct.
I didn't mention abiogenesis.Please demonstrate your massive, objective, validated, quantified, etc. evidence for abiogenesis. Please, take your time. I have all day.
Uh oh....someone is dodging the question because they can't answer it. Now let me educate you.I didn't mention abiogenesis
Darn tootin' it's interesting. First you say something can't happen then you are shown it can. Then you deny it and you are shown that it actually does happen in nature. Then you are shown that not only does it happen now but it likewise happened when dinosaurs were about.This is very interesting.
Don't be silly. I'm an atheist. You might as well say that I think Zeus could do something I thought to be evil.What I find interesting as the you seem to think God couldn't do any of that.
Evidence for evolution - massive, objective, validated, quantified, etc
Evidence for design - superficial, colloquial, unconvincing
Other than that you are correct.
We know it happened. If you want to claim that God did it, that really is fine with me.We already have the answer. You just have chosen to believe the other man made answer. That's why it's a belief system.
Darn tootin' it's interesting. First you say something can't happen then you are shown it can. Then you deny it and you are shown that it actually does happen in nature. Then you are shown that not only does it happen now but it likewise happened when dinosaurs were about.
So your response? It's effectively 'Well, I may be wrong but it doesn't matter anyway 'cos they might have been designed that way'. Why gee, you're correct. So when you have the evidence for that proposal that will counter the galactic amount of scientific evidence, please feel free to post it. And anything that starts with or even is based on 'it says in Genesis...' will be discounted.
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?