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.
So your comment was wrong and you shouldn't use it anymore.true.
but we never seen a creature that evolve into a different kind of creature. so we never seen a genome (which contain many genes) that evolved by a natural process.
Who cares about slight changes in either the present, or in some hapless fragmentary fossil record?What part of "slightly changed" don't you understand?
You can what if all day. There is no crime scene for folks living in the Cambrian or Jurassic times. No one cares about some Columbo crime scene 30 years ago in the origin issues debate.What if they want to study last Tuesday? That is no longer current. Are forensic scientists out also? Anybody who examines the crime scene based on scientific evidence is not fine and needs to be excluded from science?
Who cares about slight changes in either the present, or in some hapless fragmentary fossil record?
Re admitted.Question begging fallacy.
Dismissed.
True.Beavers are cool. They are actually designed to do what they do.
Could be. But if the only animals, for example that maybe could even leave remains at all were the animals that were somewhat far evolved from the original kind....then whatever changes we see in them do not much matter anyhow.There is the theory that some of those slight changes are merely different stages of development of the same critter, making it's various fossil remains appear to have 'evolved'.
No. I was born again, so I could see. Now I see the wonderful creation.You are just saying that. You don't have evidence, just a gut feeling that your reading of the Bible makes all your intuitions correct.
So what? Prove that these are all we had that are responsible for creation of life on earth.But it changes. We have mutations and random selections
Who cares?Who cares about slight changes in either the present, or in some hapless fragmentary fossil record?
How do you tell the difference between your supernatural discernment and common human error and vanity?No. I was born again, so I could see. Now I see the wonderful creation.
So now that there is clearly evidence for the mechanisms of evolution, it isn't enough?So what? Prove that these are all we had that are responsible for creation of life on earth.
Shrill strawmen aside, the issue is ot the slow evolving we see today in this nature of the present. The real action in changes was long long long ago. In that time the changes were both rapid, rapid, rapid, and started from created animals.Who cares?
People who care about evidence care.
People who won't stand for blatant lies care. You can believe in creation, believe that evolution is totally wrong, but if you say that we don't have evidence you aren't disagreeing, you are lying.
Easy...I measure it to the bible, and even to all evidences.How do you tell the difference between your supernatural discernment and common human error and vanity?
Enough for what? ..To show that a lot of adapting/evolving happened in the different nature past to created kinds?So now that there is clearly evidence for the mechanisms of evolution, it isn't enough?
Only if you claim it never happened. But since you can't, I wouldn't bother with the denial thingie.Now we have to disprove supernatural creation?
If He created kinds in the former nature, and the ability to adapt/evolve, that is evidence every time we see man or beast. Whether you can see it or not is the only issue.Trying to disprove the actions of a mysterious omnipotent diety is impossible... but if there isn't any evidence to begin with, I see no reason to assume it even exists.
Overruled, Stamped with the seal of the Almighty, re admitted, and aware that the laughter of heathen will be followed by the roaring laughter of the Creator.And now laughed at.
Toodles!
When I read this comment I honestly assumed it was an atheist being unkind to Christians.
The scientist is looking into something specific, and learning about the world, and the Christian is making grand pronouncements with no clarity and no detail.
Details please!There is the theory that some of those slight changes are merely different stages of development of the same critter, making it's various fossil remains appear to have 'evolved'.
But scientists who were never at the scene when the crime was taking place can find clues to what happened by assuming the laws of nature were the same back when the crime occurred.You can what if all day. There is no crime scene for folks living in the Cambrian or Jurassic times. No one cares about some Columbo crime scene 30 years ago in the origin issues debate.
Can to.No you can't,
No. Only as long as the laws were the same would this work. So for the last say, 3000 years...fine.But scientists who were never at the scene when the crime was taking place can find clues to what happened by assuming the laws of nature were the same back when the crime occurred.
You cannot conclude that maybe nature was different at the crime scene or in the Jurassic unless you have evidence it indeed was.
Shrill strawmen aside, the issue is ot the slow evolving we see today in this nature of the present. The real action in changes was long long long ago. In that time the changes were both rapid, rapid, rapid, and started from created animals.
Pointing out some little slow changes in this present nature simply doesn't cut the mustard.
So you have nothing? You have to use your interpretations to read the Bible given how diverse Christian attitudes towards pretty much everything, I'm curious why you are immune to the mistakes the rest of them are making?Easy...I measure it to the bible, and even to all evidences.
Except you have never presented any reason aside from your own dubious supernatural discernment to even accept that a different state existed.Enough for what? ..To show that a lot of adapting/evolving happened in the different nature past to created kinds?
I don't have to claim it never happened. As I said, no one has given me a good reason to even entertain the idea.Only if you claim it never happened. But since you can't, I wouldn't bother with the denial thingie.
If He created kinds in the former nature, and the ability to adapt/evolve, that is evidence every time we see man or beast. Whether you can see it or not is the only issue.
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?