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.
There may also be theists here looking to shore up their faltering beliefs.I am not naming names, but there might be atheists and agnostics on this forum who are insecure about their beliefs, or who are internally conflicted by unrepentant sins, and therefore feel the need to debate anonymous theists on the internet to assuage their insecurity.
I trust that, if God wants you to be saved, He will convict your heart, which is beyond my ability to do. I hope that, if He speaks to your heart, you will listen.
I'll take a stab at it.You said there is a LARGE SCALE change.
You were challenged to show you are not ignorant by telling us the difference between fish and amphibian.
He's actually trying to keep you from flaming.Flaming now. Tsk.
I believe it's only young earth creationists who suppose rapid evolution of species from created kinds, because their understanding of Biblical chronology requires it.
Old earth creationists, on the other hand, look at the fossil record for what it is, long periods of stasis followed by the abrupt appearance of new forms of life.
Christians have a habit of doing that.All they really look at is their personally
chosen reading of the Christian bible.
There is no room for interpretation. This is a lie foisted on you by creationists. And using an obscure quote from 1909 doesn’t help your case.Do you know very much about the history of science? I am well-aware of the evidences presented for evolution, which are subject to interpretation. I took anthropology in college and had to write papers on the evidences presented for common descent.
No it demonstrates macroevolution.Does that demonstrate the capability of natural selection acting on random mutation to account for such largescale changes as fish to amphibian, reptile to bird, etc.?
There are lots of fossils of creatures that our hero of theNo it demonstrates macroevolution.
You really should get your facts straight.
I don't know a lot about fish, but I do know about birds and they are not decedents of reptiles nor did they descend from a reptile. Dinosaurs and crocodiles share a common ancestor - Archosaurs, you can easily find out all you need to know about Archosaurs with a simple search. Getting back to birds. Put simply birds are dinosaurs. There have been numerous fossils from China, since the 1990s, that account for most if not all of the evolution links to modern birds. Again, a simple search can fill in the blanks for you.
Back to fish & amphibians. I did the search for you.
Amphibian Evolution and Ecology
Amphibians evolved during the middle of the Devonian period (416 to 359 million years ago) from the lobe-finned fish of the vertebrate class Sarcopterygii. Fossils found in Canada in 2006 have provided a critical link in our understanding of the evolution of amphibians from lobe-finned fish.
Literally the entire field of biology unequivocally accept ToE. And as of January 28, 2021, 1,465 of them are named Steve! I’m sorry, but creationists have lied to you.Your definition of reasonable people needs some work.
Literally the entire field of biology unequivocally accept ToE. And as of January 28, 2021, 1,465 of them are named Steve! I’m sorry, but creationists have lied to you.
(Only about 1% of scientists are named Steve, so there!)
Can we now provide a DNA-based answer to the fascinating and fundamental question, "What makes us human?" Not at all! Comparison of the human and chimpanzee genomes has not yet offered any major insights into the genetic elements that underlie bipedal locomotion, a big brain, linguistic abilities, elaborated abstract thought, or any other unique aspect of the human phenome.
https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA136261355&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00368075&p=AONE&sw=w
But those hoping for an immediate answer to the question of human uniqueness will be disappointed. "We cannot see in this why we are phenotypically so different from the chimps," says Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, a co-author on one Nature paper and leader of a study in Science comparing gene expression in chimps and humans (see www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1108296). "Part of the secret is hidden in there, but we don't understand it yet."
https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA136261316&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=00368075&p=HRCA&sw=w&userGroupName=anon%7Ee25a9a50
I am a white person who attends a predominantly black church, and the racism which Darwin expressed in the Descent of Man should be disgusting to anyone on this forum.
If the Descent of Man is a legitimate science text, then racism is perfectly okay. Should I quote Darwin's work again, like I have elsewhere on this forum?
In Darwin's own view, some races were more politically powerful than others because they were more evolved. This made perfect sense to Darwin in light of the survival of the fittest.
In design the ancestry is within the kind, i.e. dog and dingo from wolf which is not evidence for design but is evidence of evolution. A problem for creationists is not knowing where do kinds begin and end.Not necasarrily. Common design has nothing to do with whether a human descended from a primate. It just means that different species have similarities that seem to point to a common designer.
The Argument from Ignorance (also, Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): The fallacy that since we don't know (or can never know, or cannot prove) whether a claim is true or false, it must be false, or it must be true.In case anyone hasn't noticed, the quotes posted in my OP are from sixteen years ago, and are from mainstream scientists.
In the last sixteen years, has the scientific community's knowledge in any way improved regarding the following? -
If scientists still "don't understand it yet," because "they don't have a DNA-based answer to the fascinating and fundamental question, "What makes us human?"', then you have no right to judge others for having a different interpretation, that humans were specially created by God.
If scientists still "don't understand it yet," because "they don't have a DNA-based answer to the fascinating and fundamental question, "What makes us human?"', then you have no right to judge others for having a different interpretation, that humans were specially created by God.
It's not that hard to understand. A canine and a feline are not the same kind for example.In design the ancestry is within the kind, i.e. dog and dingo from wolf which is not evidence for design but is evidence of evolution. A problem for creationists is not knowing where do kinds begin and end.
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?