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.
Also, is there anywhere I can look to learn about the probability of completely new function being introduced to an organism by the process of mutation?
No, I mean what kind of explanations for these observations would you accept? Ones that align with evolution/naturalism? Any others?
Correct. New traits can be acquired via breeding of two differing organisms capable of reproduction, can't they? Such as canine hybrids.
Also, wasn't e-coli already capable of digesting citrate in low oxygen environments?
It is important to recognize, Essentialsaltes, that there is more than one mode or picture...
...God and evolution can be reconciled. If you want, I can go into more detail.
No, it doesn't.Spinner981, one of the basic problems with the Genesis account is that it contains two highly conflicting accounts of creation from two different time periods.
Why should I feel obligated to follow every link or watch every video? Am I supposed to just do that until I stop believing what I believe, and am unable to be responded to until then? Do you only talk to others who believe in evolution, and just ignore people who don't, linking various websites telling them to 'get educated'?
The scientific method is a tool, and is not biased. The people who use the scientific method are biased, as all people are biased. The idea that just because somebody claims to use the scientific method, that therefore any conclusion they come to is unbiased and definitely true, is a bit naive.
So if I am to go out and watch these videos and study these links, and come back still believing in creationism, then what? Do you have so much faith in naturalism that the theoretical idea of it being wrong is non-existent in your mind? So you refuse to discuss the subject with people who don't claim to believe the same exact thing?
Yes, that is a lot of people's 'reason' for it; said reason being "There is a lot of evidence for it." and nobody ever really goes into much more detail than that.
Aren't you the one who was willing to make Genesis 2 past perfect, when I asked how many times Adam had been placed in the garden in that chapter?I figured you would say something like that, AV1611. I have send you a solid analysis of the contradictions in the Genesis text and you continually ignore it.
That's what I meant ... pluperfect, not past perfect ... thanks for the correction.Just as I thought, AV1611, you paid no attention to a detailed analysis I sent you. You either misread me or got me mixed up with someone else. My point is that you cannot translate Gen. 2 in the pluperfect, because Hebrew does not have a pluperfect tense. Therefore, you cannot read in the pluperfect as a way of referring 2 back to Gen. 1, thereby resolving some of the contradictions.
Expecting the Bible to be a science book is like expecting Bill Gate's diary to be a computer manual.The answer is: Genesis was written before works in modern biology. It's not like all the trees were made at once and then all the animals etc. Look at the world around you, does it seem that simple? The Bible is many things but what it is not is a reference and guide to the intricacies of the plant and animal kingdoms. To be a detailed and thorough explanation of all natural systems was never the purpose of the bible. You want spiritual guidance? Open the bible. You want an explanation of why trees have fruit? Open a book on Botany.
And you guys are?That's precisely the problem I have with your posts, AV1611. You are rarely interested in any serious study of teh matter at hand.
Perhaps is you actually read it you would know that Genesis 2 begins with "Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array." Genesis 2 details the origins of man and refers to that which God had created in Genesis 1. Not a single thing was created in Genesis 2, and yet month after month, year after year the same people repeat the same lie that it's a creation account.As I said in another post, I view the Genesis account as actually two highly contradictory accounts of creation.
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?