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.
I like how evolutionist supporters like to simplify things to make it sound convincing.
There are a lot more in differences than mutations between a chimp and a human.
I like how evolutionist supporters like to simplify things to make it sound convincing.
There are a lot more in differences than mutations between a chimp and a human.
No, there isn't. Humans and chimps are different because the sequence of our DNA is different. Humans and chimps demonstrate that genomes can change by millions of bases and you still get a well-functioning species.
If mutations are as problematic as you claim then there would be only one species on Earth since any change from that species genome would be lethal.
I like how evolutionist supporters like to simplify things to make it sound convincing.
There are a lot more in differences than mutations between a chimp and a human.
You are assuming humans came from chimps simply because of some similarities in design.
I like how, despite this being a topic about your Top Ten Problems, you've yet to actually respond to any of the posts that actually addressed those ten problems in any meaningful way.
Honestly I did not see any response that came close to addressing those problems. They are pretty touch problems for evolution.
Plus 40+ pages of posts about all kinds of different issues is hard for one person to sift through and answer.
Do you assume that dogs came from wolves because of similarities in design?
Honestly I did not see any response that came close to addressing those problems. They are pretty tough problems for evolution.
40+ pages of posts, about all kinds of different issues, is hard for one person to sift through and answer.
No, I assume that because all scientific evidence points to that. There is no scientific evidence for whales changing to something that walks on land to something that breathes on land to a half whale, half wolf and then finally to wolves. Evidence is quite clear that sharks give birth to a variety of sharks, whales to a variety of whales and canines to a variety of canines.
There is no scientific evidence for whales changing to something that walks on land to something that breathes on land to a half whale, half wolf and then finally to wolves.
Evidence is quite clear that sharks give birth to a variety of sharks, whales to a variety of whales and canines to a variety of canines.
Actually, no.
The problems were all addressed by three people on the second page of this thread. You responded to them all with that silly 'magic' video.
If you feel their answers weren't adequate, show how so. All you did was copy and paste something and people took their hard time responding - the least you could do is put up a modicum of effort and defend what you posted.
I believe I have addressed most of them.
Basically the answers are always "the supernatural force we call evolution did it."
You cited nothing that says "junk DNA does not exist." You still have not addressed teh question as to why mammals are not a "kind."I believe I have addressed most of them. I know I addressed so called junk DNA with citations. Junk DNA does not exist.
Really, how about your over-simplification of "canines are a kind and felines are a kind," when we have asked for a definition of what a "kind" is?I've addressed natural selection, maybe not here but on other posts. IC is a valid argument despite the outcry that it isn't. Evolutionists have a tendency to make things appear too simple so as to be able to debunk the claims.
Falsehood. No one here but you creationists have even made this claim. Evolution is based on known natural mechanisms: Natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow.Basically the answers are always "the supernatural force we call evolution did it."
I believe I have addressed most of them. I know I addressed so called junk DNA with citations. Junk DNA does not exist.
I've addressed natural selection, maybe not here but on other posts. IC is a valid argument despite the outcry that it isn't. Evolutionists have a tendency to make things appear too simple so as to be able to debunk the claims.
Basically the answers are always "the supernatural force we call evolution did it."
No, you didn't.
On the second page of this topic, there are three responses to your Top Ten, clearly laid out. If you're so certain of your position, why haven't you picked them all apart?
All right. Then it should be a simple matter to show that by taking those posts apart. So...why haven't you?
The original post has citations that already do that.
QV please:Have you been able to come up with a workable definition of kind yet? That's the one thing I'm really looking forward to, because I've never actually heard one. AV's got closest with his "top of God's taxon" attempt, but it doesn't address how one determines what kind a creature belongs to, or what differentiates one kind from another.
I want to see where this goes.
A kind is a subset of life that is linked back to God as its Common Designer.
Notice how Luke does it here with mankind:
Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Notice I said "that is linked back to God" ... not: "that can be linked back to God."
The lines, of course, would be incompatible with current evolutionary models, since current evolutionary models link kinds together (such as mankind with beasts of the field [apes]).
Kinds also have their share of missing links, therefore a horse, for example, cannot be daisy-chained back to God as its Common Designer through its own kind (probably the satyr) in the fossil record.
Same with a bull, it cannot be daisy-chained back to God as its Common Designer through its own kind (probably the unicorn) in the fossil record.
As I said, let's see where this goes.
You cited nothing that says "junk DNA does not exist." You still have not addressed teh question as to why mammals are not a "kind."
That is not an over simplification. Bears are a kind, dogs are a kind, cats are a kind, horses are a kind, spiders are a kind, apes and monkeys are a kind, humans are a kind. Now you can stop asking for a definition.Really, how about your over-simplification of "canines are a kind and felines are a kind," when we have asked for a definition of what a "kind" is?
Those processes cause variety in a kind. Nothing more. The idea that a lot of time will cause change to a new kind is wishful thinking at best and has no evidence in science. From the fossil record onward.Falsehood. No one here but you creationists have even made this claim. Evolution is based on known natural mechanisms: Natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow.
Bears are a kind, dogs are a kind, cats are a kind, horses are a kind, spiders are a kind, apes and monkeys are a kind, humans are a kind. Now you can stop asking for a definition.
I believe I have addressed most of them. I know I addressed so called junk DNA with citations. Junk DNA does not exist.
IC is a valid argument despite the outcry that it isn't.
Basically the answers are always "the supernatural force we call evolution did 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?