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.
If you had watched the video you would have known that this was an ignorant thing to say.
Nice. Evidence?Video's are not a source of wisdom. The wise man sees that DNA language does not spring from ignorance but from infinite intelligence.
Why should they?There is no reason "Ring Species" are not the norm. They should constitute the bulk of biological study.
Nice. Evidence?
The wise man also knows a good point when he sees one, regardless of who or what makes it.
Why should they?
Gosh... Dna is really complex and too sophisticated for people to understand. A god must have done it... yeah no.The evidence is in the infinite depth of the sophistication in DNA and the lack of even one instance of a non-intelligent source producing symbolic code. Symbolic code/DNA/Language has only intelligent sourcing. The "words" or "letters" may be found lying around anywhere. But only intelligence has been found to string the words into symbolic code that can be "read" to reproduce a final product.
You are, quite simply, assuming your conclusion. There is only a "lack of even one instance of a non-intelligent source producing symbolic code" if the code(s) in DNA is (are) produced by an intelligent source.The evidence is in the infinite depth of the sophistication in DNA and the lack of even one instance of a non-intelligent source producing symbolic code. Symbolic code/DNA/Language has only intelligent sourcing. The "words" or "letters" may be found lying around anywhere. But only intelligence has been found to string the words into symbolic code that can be "read" to reproduce a final product.
Was that supposed to be a witty comeback?In a pigs ear. Even if there is tasty chicken in the bottom of a dumpster, I'll pass.
Repeating your stance doesn't qualify as supporting it. Again: why should ring species be the norm?Because: There is no reason "Ring Species" are not the norm.
I'll be glad to help, if I can.I came here seeking real information.
And here's my answer: 2I would like to know how Christians claim that speciation and macro-evolution does not exist, yet ring species are real and tons of examples of them exist.
And here's what I say: 2I came here wondering what the educated intelligent christian would say ...
And herein lies what I think is the real reason you're here.... and all I am faced with is three pages of complete and total nonsense.
I don't normally back down from tough questions ... I am capable of thinking "outside the box", and can give a tough question a tough answer, and a goofy question a goofy answer.Is any christian out there brave enough to even consider answering this?
I came here seeking real information. I would like to know how Christians claim that speciation and macro-evolution does not exist, yet ring species are real and tons of examples of them exist.
I came here wondering what the educated intelligent christian would say and all I am faced with is three pages of complete and total nonsense.
Is any christian out there brave enough to even consider answering this?
The species at the end of the rings are different species, they are different types, they are completely different animals. They look different, they act different, they have loads of differences. Just because they are both categorized under the same generic name of salamander or warbler doesn't matter. I could label all fish as fish. Or even better, all trees as trees. This isn't helpful in talking about different types of life.
Please someone try to answer this question: "How does examining the evidence for ring species not confirm evolution by natural selection?"
I think he's already made up his mind, that if the answer comes from a Christian icon, you're going to be wrong somewhere -- even if the answer agrees with him.In case you are unaware, this is what constitutes a "ring species" Where and when does a ring start and end? Testing the ring-species hypothesis in a species complex of Australian parrotsFour criteria strictly define circumstances for an ‘ideal’ ring-species hypothesis of speciation: (i) two distinctive forms coexist today in sympatry, (ii) gene flow through a chain of populations has connected them before and since sympatry that came about through a range shift, (iii) the chain forms a complete ring, and (iv) the terminal differentiates are connected by gradual geographical variation
I think he's already made up his mind, that if the answer comes from a Christian icon, you're going to be wrong somewhere -- even if the answer agrees with him.
(But I could be wrong.)
Based on what you have written, I'm not entirely sure you would understand or appreciate this, but I think you should start here.Creation as described in the book of Genesis implies that virtually all the genetic information in today’s world was present in the beginning, contained in separate populations (the original created kinds).
The two greenish warblers that do not interbreed could not have been initially created as two separate groups reproducing only after their kind, or else they would not be joined by a chain of interbreeding intermediates.
There is no reason to believe that the differences between the two warbler species are the result of any new, more complex, functional genetic information not already present in an ancestral, interbreeding warbler population. Because there is no evidence of any such information-adding change, it is misleading to say this gives evidence of evolution, of even a little bit of the sort of change required to eventually turn a fish into a philosopher.
Based on what you have written, I'm not entirely sure you would understand or appreciate this, but I think you should start here.
Common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I invite you to take a run at my ERV challenge. What is a cdesign proponentsists best explanation for ERVs?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7570648/
Here is another viewpoint.
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j22_3/j22_3_16.pdf
Please read it with an open mind, just as I try to do when presented with information providing a different view point than mine. Afterall that is how we learn.
And it's your choice to cut yourself with Occam's razor.So, you have your evidence, facts, opinions, viewpoints (just as I do) and no matter what I offer you will continie to deny that everything we see, hear, touch, smell and taste was created by a all-mighty, all-powerful, soveriegn God. Okay, your choice.
Ya -- for years I thought Pluto was our 9th planet.I have no problem accepting anything, so long as it's reasonable and based on reality.
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?