Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[Astrophile]

Sounds very like the Principle of Reproductive Similarity, straight from Darwin: Cows don't give birth to sheep and figs don't grow on apple trees. What gives you the idea that they are immutable? Why are they different than the taxonomy Adam (we) created?

Two Manx (cats or people) don't give birth to a Siamese kitten or baby. Two Great Danes don't give birth to a German Shepherd. Do creationists deny that Manx cats or Manx people share a common ancestor with Siamese, or that Great Danes share a common ancestor with German Shepherds?

 

[pat34lee]

Is there intelligent action in a tree growing from a seed?

There is intelligent action in every living thing, right down to
single-cell creatures.

 

[pat34lee]

And yet you have never once supported your claim that DNA is degenerating and you have also never once given an actual scientific example of what a 'kind' is.

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/th...ally-lead-to-the-total-extinction-of-humanity
http://www.educatetruth.com/featured/dr-john-sanford-lectures-on-inevitable-genomic-deterioration/

And didn't you say that kind wasn't scientific? That's like
asking for a biblical example of evolution. Wrong format.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is it some of you can't make a simple post without adding insults?

No storm means no warden.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/th...ally-lead-to-the-total-extinction-of-humanity

Here's the thing: When I ask for evidence for a supposedly scientific claim, I would like the evidence to be FROM something scientific. Not some idiotic "THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH!" crackpot site.

And didn't you say that kind wasn't scientific? That's like
asking for a biblical example of evolution. Wrong format.

You said that those evidences I provided shows only 'adaptation between kind'. If you're going to use a scientific fact for a Biblical claim, then you should be the one to attempt to try and stick to one format.

 

[Astrophile]

Horseshoe crabs remain unchanged for hundreds of millions of years.

Have primates remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No storm means no warden.

That comes across as weirdly philosophical if you just read that one comment.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Have primates remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years?

no.

 

[Astrophile]

So your basic argument is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You do know that doesn't apply to biological systems, only to physics?

In fact the second law of thermodynamics does apply to biological systems. Biological processes operate according to the ordinary laws of physics and chemistry, and they can be replicated in laboratories. There is no supernatural 'spark of life' that turns a complex chemical system into a living thing; on the contrary, life is an emergent property of complex chemical systems.

 

[pat34lee]

Have primates remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years?

The oldest known bacteria fossils are the same as those living.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/bacteriafr.html

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In fact the second law of thermodynamics does apply to biological systems. Biological processes operate according to the ordinary laws of physics and chemistry, and they can be replicated in laboratories. There is no supernatural 'spark of life' that turns a complex chemical system into a living thing; on the contrary, life is an emergent property of complex chemical systems.

To be fair, the way he's talking about it is that DNA is subject to entropy on like a greater system. At least that's what I'm taking away from it. He really just seems to write down whatever h's read in creationist literature that he things somehow disproves evolution. So a lot of it is nonsensical.

 

[Astrophile]

It does not apply to a biological system since a biological system is a CLOSED system. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to an OPEN system.

I think that you have got this the wrong way round. Living things are open systems, since they absorb energy from their environment. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to both open and closed systems.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There is no supernatural 'spark of life' that turns a complex chemical system into a living thing; on the contrary, life is an emergent property of complex chemical systems.

For those who TRUST IN YHWH, this is certainly not even remotely to be considered true - it is blatantly deceptive for all people on earth to keep them from finding LIFE and FORGIVENESS IN CHRIST JESUS.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think that you have got this the wrong way round. Living things are open systems, since they absorb energy from their environment. The Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to both open and closed systems.

Yes, you have made it clear that I was wrong. But the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not mean that DNA is degenerating as he claims it is.

 

[Astrophile]

There is intelligent action in every living thing, right down to
single-cell creatures.

So if this intelligent action operates to make a seed develop into a tree, why can't it also operate to make various species of fish evolve into species of amphibians, or various species of dinosaurs evolve into species of birds?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So if this intelligent action operates to make a seed develop into a tree, why can't it also operate to make various species of fish evolve into species of amphibians, or various species of dinosaurs evolve into species of birds?

Because it seems that their own God is limited by their own imagination.

 

[Astrophile]

The oldest known bacteria fossils are the same as those living.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/bacteriafr.html

Even if that is true, it doesn't answer my question: have primates remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

So if this intelligent action operates to make a seed develop into a tree, why can't it also operate to make various species of fish evolve into species of amphibians, or various species of dinosaurs evolve into species of birds?

So simple, glad you asked.

YHWH CREATED EVERYTHING THE WAY IT IS. It doesn't evolve.

YHWH did not created creatures to evolve.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So simple, glad you asked.

YHWH CREATED EVERYTHING THE WAY IT IS. It doesn't evolve.

YHWH did not created creatures to evolve.

And yet from what we see from the ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF HIS CREATION, we plainly see numerous animals evolving over time.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Even if that is true, it doesn't answer my question: have primates remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years?

You asked this before, and the answer is still "no".

They didn't 'remain' changed or unchanged at all until YHWH created them -
since then they have remained "unchanged" (never evolved the way the communists used to teach young people to prevent them from having a conscience about torturing and killing people (i.e. they had a "system" that required 'evolution' to de-humanize people as much as possible).