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.
Yep, bacteria, which are designed to clean up the waste of the world, includes something else in its diet and that's proof positive of evolution. Desperate, aren't we? So if a person goes vegetarian we are to assume he's morphing into a cow?If you want example of a beneficial mutation: Bacteria that eats nylon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!That point is solidly backed by biblical scholarship.
No, that is not correct. Refusing to buy into your misinformation is not the same as not understanding your fantastic accounts of molecules to man and your repeated claims that the laws of science are immutable unless they disprove a point you're trying to make; such as origination.I haven't seen one critic here yet of evolution that is not lost in a fog of misinformation about evolution, not one.
And there it is; the condescending arrogance required to be an evolution pushing indoctrinated sponge; incapable of original thought; bound to endlessly repeat the same lies he was taught in high school.I also think you should reflect on your education and whether or not it is adequate.
We have the word of God and the evidence of Scriptures. I think that trumps your degree.If they want me to take their criticisms seriously, then they better have some big, big credentials and big, big evidence.
Do you think that a person who studies alchemy their entire life is qualified to teach macramé? Learning is a good thing and education is important, but the repeated indoctrination into something which is not correct does not make you more wise. The fact is, you promote discredited theories. Miller Urey demonstrated that abiogenesis is impossible. Cosmology demonstrates that the universe has a deign; something not possible without a Creator. Biology proves that if you force change in a species at some point it becomes sterile. Eradiating fruit flies proved that forced mutations can't evolve a species. Gemology finds C-14 in diamonds, disproving an old earth. Soft tissue in dinosaur bones disproves long ages. The fact that the sun and all stars are burning their fuel source demonstrates the finite nature of the universe and tells us that for the universe to be billions of years old it would have to be contracting as stars burn hydrogen; except the universe is expanding. The Origin of Species never demonstrated the origin of any species. All theories of origination share the same commonality; they are all contrary to the very laws of science they seek to validate.However, that is a stem warning how much more trouble you could get into listening to unqualified amateurs.
Yep, bacteria, which are designed to clean up the waste of the world, includes something else in its diet and that's proof positive of evolution.
Yep, bacteria, which are designed to clean up the waste of the world, includes something else in its diet and that's proof positive of evolution.
Desperate, aren't we?
So if a person goes vegetarian we are to assume he's morphing into a cow?
Yep, bacteria, which are designed to clean up the waste of the world, includes something else in its diet and that's proof positive of evolution. Desperate, aren't we? So if a person goes vegetarian we are to assume he's morphing into a cow?
No, that is not correct. Refusing to buy into your misinformation is not the same as not understanding your fantastic accounts of molecules to man and your repeated claims that the laws of science are immutable unless they disprove a point you're trying to make; such as origination.
And there it is; the condescending arrogance required to be an evolution pushing indoctrinated sponge; incapable of original thought; bound to endlessly repeat the same lies he was taught in high school.
Let me offer you this scenario, if you can grasp it.
Suppose God exists. Suppose there is a Heaven and Hell, and all that which was written in the Bible is true. Suppose you are successful in your intent; that you come to a Christian website and undermine the faith of Christians and those seeking the answers in Christ. Suppose they believe you and reject the Bible, since if any of it is a lie it's all a lie; god could not become man, die and rise again. Suppose you're standing before that Great White throne and God has a list of souls lost because YOU convinced them to reject their faith. And that day, which scientific principle will you rely upon to keep from being cast into the lake of fire with false teachers and false prophets?
<snip of more of the game garbage >
We have the word of God and the evidence of Scriptures. I think that trumps your degree.
Do you think that a person who studies alchemy their entire life is qualified to teach macramé? Learning is a good thing and education is important, but the repeated indoctrination into something which is not correct does not make you more wise. The fact is, you promote discredited theories. Miller Urey demonstrated that abiogenesis is impossible.
Cosmology demonstrates that the universe has a deign; something not possible without a Creator.
Biology proves that if you force change in a species at some point it becomes sterile. Eradiating fruit flies proved that forced mutations can't evolve a species.
Gemology finds C-14 in diamonds, disproving an old earth.
Soft tissue in dinosaur bones disproves long ages.
The fact that the sun and all stars are burning their fuel source demonstrates the finite nature of the universe and tells us that for the universe to be billions of years old it would have to be contracting as stars burn hydrogen; except the universe is expanding.
The Origin of Species never demonstrated the origin of any species. All theories of origination share the same commonality; they are all contrary to the very laws of science they seek to validate.
Oh, a bacteria eats something new, therefore molecules to man. I get it. Any reason's good enough, isn't it?It's proof positive of a beneficial mutation, which was the topic at the moment.
Oh, a bacteria eats something new, therefore molecules to man. I get it. Any reason's good enough, isn't it?
Oh, a bacteria eats something new, therefore molecules to man. I get it. Any reason's good enough, isn't it?
Oh, sure I do. You don't know the first thing about science, do you?Do you have any understanding of evolution at all?
Oh, sure I do.
For example you will say that we haven't yet discovered the first cause of the universe
but you won't admit that the laws of physics disprove origination.
You can't explain the existence of the supernatural so you pretend it doesn't exist.
You continue to believe that life came from natural causation despite it being proved impossible.
You think that a singular celled being was somehow introduced into a pool in which it could somehow find food and that it managed to reproduce, morph and crawl out of the pool before the mythical food source was exhausted.
You are hopeless because you don't understand enough about science to know what it cannot explore.
Oh, sure I do. You don't know the first thing about science, do you?
For example you will say that we haven't yet discovered the first cause of the universe, but you won't admit that the laws of physics disprove origination. Matter/energy cannot be created, only converted.
You can't explain the existence of the supernatural so you pretend it doesn't exist.
You continue to believe that life came from natural causation despite it being proved impossible.
You think that a singular celled being was somehow introduced into a pool in which it could somehow find food and that it managed to reproduce, morph and crawl out of the pool before the mythical food source was exhausted.
You are hopeless because you don't understand enough about science to know what it cannot explore.
I believe you're begging the question. You assume the layers of earth represent the passage of time when in fact it is well known that dirt, rocks, and minerals settle according to density after being swirled around in water.Then the question becomes... which of the two accounts is in the best accordance with the evidence?
Given your initial question: if animals were created after fruit trees, then we should be able to locate geological strata that are older than any animal, but that still contain fruit trees. This is not the case.
Some would say teaching this to kids is child abuse.There is also clear evidence that humans can't raise from the dead three days later, or turn a handful of fish and loaves into enough to feed a few thousand people with multiple baskets to spare, or walk on the surface water. A lot of people find it pretty irresponsible to believe such things actually happened as well.
...
It's a package deal I'm afraid. Not only do you get a 4.54 billion year earth, but along with it you also get a 13.7 billion year universe. And, you also get biological diversity via evolution due to natural selection. All of this for the low, low price of studying the evidence and understanding it.
...
Am I not allowed to accept natural selection without also accepting variation via unguided mutation?
I believe you're begging the question. You assume the layers of earth represent the passage of time when in fact it is well known that dirt, rocks, and minerals settle according to density after being swirled around in water.
The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. By saying you accept one but not the other is like saying it's possible for you to walk to the end of your driveway but it's impossible for you to walk 20 miles to work.
Random genetic mutation and non random selection are the mechanisms for evolution.
Natural selection requires random variation via unguided mutation. It's the mechanism by which it occurs, and therefore a fundamental, necessary part of it.
...
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?