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.
Hold it right there, cowboy.
Actually the huge Coconino sandstone layer has been shown convincingly to be of eolian (windblown) origin. We have found great numbers of fossil footprints in the layer. How can there be animals walking around in sand that is being deposited by a flood? Also we see marks of rain falling on the sand, and signs of the slump of the sand on the downwind side of the dunes. All this strongly suggests this was a large wind blown sand formation. How this can appear in the middle of deposits of Noah's flood is beyond me. See Small-Scale Structures in the Coconino Sandstone of Northern Arizona on JSTOR .
I have a suggestion. Before you start critiquing evolution, would it be too much to ask that you first understand what evolutionists say?The evolution tree is as a joke because you have no fossil links joining any of them to each other. I thought evolution had even abandoned that in the theory.
Simple. Mutations and selection.Why don't you explain how the leg of a land animal can become the fin of a sea creature. Genetically of course.
Simple. An animal like an otter can start to go into the sea to find food or protection from predators. Under the right conditions, it could spend more and more time at sea, and begin to favor any mutations that enhanced life at sea. Eventually you get this:Maybe you can include how and why land animal surviving quite well on land could become a sea creature. That refutes natural selection, another evolution fantasy that should start with "one upon a time."
in this case i dont even need a starting point. i only need to show a conservation as evidence for important rule. if we will look at many genes in several species, and we will find out that one specific gene is the same were other are different- we can conclude that this sequence has an important rule. otherwise why its so conserve compare to other genes?
i think we may even find such examples in human- made objects. a wheel shape for instance is very conserve among vehicles (car\truck\airplane) were other parts such as steering wheel is less conserve (in airplane for instance its different- a joytsick). this is because a wheel shape is very important when a steering wheel can be made in many shapes without a real problem. so here you have a functional reason under the design model.
To understand, just means to look at human psychology. When someone, has a very close personal belief they have held, that is rooted in a deep need to believe the same, it is quite painful to abandon this belief, even if presented with boatloads of evidence, that belief is wrong. Then, you see the defense mechanisms kick in to protect the belief, in the face of all the contradicting evidence and this thread is a terrific example of the same.
When and if the point ever comes, where it becomes too painful for a person who holds these beliefs to keep denying well evidenced reality, then they will adjust their belief and accept the evidence. Some get there, some don't.
I rather think people who defend such positions with only the evidence of their faith in the Bible for support, tend to lose their faith altogether when they accept that even a small part of it is untrue.
A faith that accepts from the start that error is both likely and possible, are far more resiliant and are more likely to hold on to their faith.
Such volt face, is a danger to their whole fragile mental health
The whole thing is strange to me. As a Christian, my faith is--as it should be--in salvation in Christ. Creationists have erected a huge rattletrap structure of apologetics to show that belief in a literal Genesis is necessary for that faith and so, as you say, they have to protect it at all costs. I cannot for the life of me figure out why anybody would do such a thing.Indeed. These types of beliefs are built on a house of cards, when there is so much well evidenced reality, that contradicts the belief.
If the person has to acknowledge that even one small part of their belief is wrong, the entire house comes tumbling down. This is why, the defense mechanisms of these folks, is so robust and they have to expend so much energy, to continuously; deny, use confirmation bias etc., to ward off the cognitive dissonance.
The whole thing is strange to me. As a Christian, my faith is--as it should be--in salvation in Christ. Creationists have erected a huge rattletrap structure of apologetics to show that belief in a literal Genesis is necessary for that faith and so, as you say, they have to protect it at all costs. I cannot for the life of me figure out why anybody would do such a thing.
You can't show that ever happened. You can't test it and it has never been observed.I have a suggestion. Before you start critiquing evolution, would it be too much to ask that you first understand what evolutionists say?
Here for instance, is what they say about fossil links:
ttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
So if you thought they abandoned fossil links, you are mistaken.
Simple. Mutations and selection.
For instance, embryos typically have flesh growth stretching between their finger bones and later this gets removed to form fingers. So if you genetically inhibit the processes that eat that flesh away, you are left with a crude flipper. That is one way.
Simple. An animal like an otter can start to go into the sea to find food or protection from predators. Under the right conditions, it could spend more and more time at sea, and begin to favor any mutations that enhanced life at sea. Eventually you get this:
since you didnt gave any evidence for evolution so far, and since they didnt gave any evidence that this gene realy lost, i think the answer is clear. but again: you are welcome to believe anything you want...Except all the evidence as pointed out in the peer reviewed research paper you don't want to acknowledge...
Delusions of grandeur and self-deception aside, are you seriously expecting me to believe all the evolutionary biologists, molecular biologists, medical researchers and geneticists who have decades of education and experience in this field, producing tangible results from their endeavours are all wrong and You, an armchair amateur, who produces nothing of substance in this field whatsoever, is the one that has it right?
LOL! Where's your peer reviewed paper then?? You're the one going against the mountains of evidence in favour of evolution, so it's up to you to substantiate your claim.
The whole thing is strange to me. As a Christian, my faith is--as it should be--in salvation in Christ. Creationists have erected a huge rattletrap structure of apologetics to show that belief in a literal Genesis is necessary for that faith and so, as you say, they have to protect it at all costs. I cannot for the life of me figure out why anybody would do such a thing.
It is correct. Is not wrong. Folks love to poke holes at the Bible because it gives them the out not to believe. Once you relegate scripture to Allegory or a bunch of neat stories it's no more powerful than the Illiad and the Odyssey or Aesops Fables.Well, some folks, are only capable of black and white thinking. In essence, the bible is either 100% correct, or it is all wrong.
Once you relegate scripture to Allegory or a bunch of neat stories it's no more powerful than the Illiad and the Odyssey or Aesops Fables.
Guess what all those things were designed.You're just repeating yourself and you're unable to answer that very question. This is discussion is done.
Yep and so far evolution from a common ancestor hasn't been shown to be true. It hasn't been tested, observed or reproduced. All that can be shown is all living things have a common design. All observation shows common design.The flipside of that is once you insist that all parts of the Bible including the Genesis creation story are a literal history of the world, you open it up to falsification.
Simple. An animal like an otter can start to go into the sea to find food or protection from predators. Under the right conditions, it could spend more and more time at sea, and begin to favor any mutations that enhanced life at sea. Eventually you get this:
Yep and so far evolution from a common ancestor hasn't been shown to be true. It hasn't been tested, observed or reproduced. All that can be shown is all living things have a common design. All observation shows common design.
Even though it was inspired by God?It is correct. Is not wrong. Folks love to poke holes at the Bible because it gives them the out not to believe. Once you relegate scripture to Allegory or a bunch of neat stories it's no more powerful than the Illiad and the Odyssey or Aesops Fables.
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?