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.
We do not know the evolutionary origin, yet.Um, your lack of knowledge regarding the origin of the loggerhead's sophistication. You do not know the evolutionary origin,
He does show himself through things such as the loggerhead sea turtle. You admit there is no evolutionary explanation,
And I alway thought god was so found of beetles. :oSo the Loggerhead sea turtle was created by god while all other life evolved. Ok cool... i guess.
Organisms exhibit the same type of limited adaptability found in ceiling fans when reproduction is taken into consideration.
We do not know the evolutionary origin, yet.
There is no evolutionary explanation, yet.
Organisms exhibit the same type of limited adaptability found in ceiling fans when reproduction is taken into consideration.
The genetic code very rarely changes.The genetic code is changing just like the speed setting is changing. But they are limited.
The genetic code very rarely changes.
Pet hate of mine, this is. Everyone keeps using that word, but it doesn't mean what they think it means.
But how did those DNA-creating enzymes come about? It is impossibly circular for the evolutionist, since those enzymes require the existence of DNA to code for their formation. Explain that!DNA arises without intelligent agents all the time (unless enzymes are "intelligent"), and its complexity mostly boils down to the stuff proteins and RNA do with it. At its heart, DNA is just a string of nucleotides, the same four components repeated over and over and over again. Nucleotides are chemistry, nucleic acid oligomers are chemistry, and the rest of the machinery of life, ribosomes and proteins and all the rest, have quite plausibly simple beginnings.
For example...
YouTube - ‪The Origin of the Genetic Code‬‏
Given all the extra layers of complexity that have been heaped on life since it first appeared, it's easy to forget that everything need not have popped into existence fully formed...
And there are some things creationists can't explain...yet. So, you see, both positions require faith.We do not know the evolutionary origin, yet.
No, they don't require DNA. RNA is perfectly fine, so long as there's a genetic code to translate it. Presumably, DNA polymerases came from RNA polymerases, which replaced RNA polymerases that were made of RNA themselves. (You didn't watch the video, did you? The whole thing is precisely about that - how proteins encoded by a genome might have come about in an RNA world.)But how did those DNA-creating enzymes come about? It is impossibly circular for the evolutionist, since those enzymes require the existence of DNA to code for their formation. Explain that!
And there are some things creationists can't explain...yet. So, you see, both positions require faith.
this tired old argument? only one side requires faith (the creationists). The other side only makes claims when it has the evidence.And there are some things creationists can't explain...yet. So, you see, both positions require faith.
And there are some things creationists can't explain...yet. So, you see, both positions require faith.
"We learn nothing...."? Not so. Isaac Newton, a man who could be considered the father of modern science actually wrote more on theology than science and would have been a firm believer in "Goddidit."That's called "God of the Gaps," and all it does is make God a place-holder for what we don't know yet. It also closes the door on further research. "Goddidit.. we're done, now." We learn absoultely nothing about the physical world around us by finishing with, "Goddidit.. end of story."
You have apparently failed to notice the two words I placed before the term "Grand Canyon." I had said the absence of structures such as the Grand Canyon would be hard on creationism.So you really mean to tell me if there was no Grand Canyon, that it would disprove biblical creationism? Really? What part of biblical creationism is directly dependant on there being a Grand Canyon? Does the bible say anything about the Grand Canyon?
Ummm, why shouldn't there be? A worldwide flood is a big event. Big enough to leave fossils everywhere.As far as fossils are concerned, the Flood was only supposed to have happened a couple of thousand years ago... why would there need to be fossils everywhere?
Nobody likes to claim that brain activity is random. But in your worldview, why shouldn't it? If all we see around us has advanced from mere pond scum by lucky coincidence, should our brains not operate only on coincidence/chance? Where in the process from pond scum to people did chance stop existing as a factor? These are serious questions for your worldview, friend. I suggest you ponder it seriously before answering. And while doing so, why not allow the suggestion of a creator of your ability to ponder penetrate your organ that is pondering? In short, the human brain is too complicated for anyone to completely understand. Anyone, that is, besides a Being that would have created it complete in the first place.That is a ridiculous statement. No one claims that brain activity is random! How is that logical? No wonder you are not an agnostic or atheist.. youa re very confused about what that entails.
I have given you logical hypothetical evidence that would falsify evolution. So far, your response for falsification of creationism has not been convincing. The absence of the Grand Canyon or even any canyon would hardly persuade you or any one else that creationism is wrong.
It has not been convincing because I claimed that creationism hinges on the existence of Grand Canyon? My claim was not that creationism hinges on the Grand Canyon. Simple enough?
Those two words are easy to list. Documentation is another story.Mutation and selection.
So Isaac Newton never explained the law of gravity? He was a creationist.Actually, there isn't anything creationists can explain... yet or ever. You never progress in understanding anything, once you accept Goddidit.
The claim of the evolutionist is that the vertebrate eye would be better fitted to life if it were created by an intelligent source. Since I suppose you would consider yourself intelligent (as opposed to the brute force of natural selection), please support this claim with evidence that there is a better design to be found that man would be capable of creating.this tired old argument? only one side requires faith (the creationists). The other side only makes claims when it has the evidence.
so you see, your wrong.
I'll admit I may have been wrong in asserting that the origin of DNA is "impossibly circular". But what about the origin of DNA repair enzymes? They require DNA information to exist, yet they repair errors in DNA which would then rely on the repair enzyme. So this, I believe it would be safe to say, is at least almost impossibly circular. And this is only beginning to get into the problems of the origin of the first living cell, something not required of evolution, per se, but of the atheistic evolutionist nonetheless.No, they don't require DNA. RNA is perfectly fine, so long as there's a genetic code to translate it. Presumably, DNA polymerases came from RNA polymerases, which replaced RNA polymerases that were made of RNA themselves. (You didn't watch the video, did you? The whole thing is precisely about that - how proteins encoded by a genome might have come about in an RNA world.)
The solution for the DNA/enzyme chicken/egg problem (that RNA can play both roles) was proposed decades ago, so it's about time to stop pretending it doesn't exist.
The claim of the evolutionist is that the vertebrate eye would be better fitted to life if it were created by an intelligent source. Since I suppose you would consider yourself intelligent (as opposed to the brute force of natural selection), please support this claim with evidence that there is a better design to be found that man would be capable of creating.
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?