EnemyPartyII
Well-Known Member
what would you accept as proof? Clarify your requirements and I'm sure someone will show it to you
Upvote
0
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.
what would you accept as proof? Clarify your requirements and I'm sure someone will show it to youIt's not "who" it comes from. It's that the evidence is not compelling enough to refute the creation of Genesis. Show me the evidence. Show me that evidence that PROVES without a shadow of a doubt that Genesis 1-11 is wrong. I don't want someone's "well because it is" proof. Keep it to yourself if that is all you have.
Probably the existence of good genes that resulted from mutation gave him the idea. That is, new copies of genes are created by gene duplication, and there is plenty of evidence that mutation sometimes causes the two copies of the gene to acquire different functions, which means that mutation has created two genes out of one. The historical evidence for this is strong, and it can also be seen happening in extant organisms (e.g. Mol Bio and Evol, 24:1056 (2007), "Independent Duplications of the Acetylcholinesterase Gene Conferring Insecticide Resistance in the Mosquito Culex pipiens).Theres no good genes being created by mutations, what ever gave you that idea?
The ability to escape harm from a particular source is a new functionality, and a very important one. In humans, obvious new traits that are the result of mutation followed by selection include malaria resistance, lactose tolerance in adults, and lightly pigmented skin at high latitudes.Case in point. Nothing is evolving as a result of mutation, theres just things escaping harm. No new functionality is coming from it.
That mutations are common is indeed well known, although your number of 1000 per human birth is probably a good deal too high; 200 would be a better estimate, at least if you are interested in mutations that could contribute to the "deterioration of the genome". The mutation rate is fully consistent with differences observed between species, however, and fits very well into evolutionary explanations. I go into some detail about one class of mutations here. I don't know if that helps, since I'm having some difficulty in figuring out what this discussion is about.Basically the widespread abundance of mutations in the
genome has been a known fact in biology for decades. Its surprising that you wouldn't be aware of it.
I was but making reference to your name Wiccan-"Child". I was wondering if we were to take that literal or not so I referred to the definition of "Child". I was merely pointing out the foolishness of your argument.
I would say that long ago the rules of no-flaming had been broken in this thread.
Why is it that you all can dish it out but you cannot take it.
The weakness with evolution is that its definition needs to be pinpointed.
evolution has been pretty well defined... its the explanation of how biodiversity from common ancestry occursThe weakness with evolution is that its definition needs to be pinpointed.
The weakness with evolution is that its definition needs to be pinpointed.
are you taking into account the difference between change due to genetic mixing, and difference due to change from new additions?Well, I agree with that definition of evolution, because I'm different than my father, mother, grandfathers and grandmothers, greatgrandfathers and greatgrandmothers. And while I'm different from them, we are all just as complex as all our ancestors ever were, and yet have been all different. SO creationists would have to agree with your statement.
It has been defined countless times on this thread alone. To recap:The weakness with evolution is that its definition needs to be pinpointed.
Did Wiccan-Child ever claim that his name was metaphorical? You claimed that the entire Bible is literal. Something cannot be both literal and metaphorical. Although a metaphor uses the same grammar as a literal statement, it is not the same thing. To say that "I hold the key to your heart" does not mean, "I have a key which, if inserted into a hole in your chest, will unlock it allowing me to take your heart."
If the Bible is literal, Christ is literally a door. I.E. hole in a wall, piece of wood with a handle.
I thought you just said "The Bible is the literal Word of God"... something can't be metaphorical AND literal at the same time... so if the Bible contains any metaphores, it isn't ALL literal, is it?And just because something IS metaphorical in the scriptures
Here's MY point. The Bible is the literal Word of God. Can't take from it! Can't add to it!
Genesis 1-11 is literal no metaphors there, at least regarding the creation
but it is spiritual. And just because something IS metaphorical in the scriptures you STILL don't take it out because it doesn't FIT you idiology.
For the natural man (that would be you guys) cannot understand the scriptures because they are spiritual, and cannot be understood with the natural intellect. You MUST be born of the spirit, born from above, born again, to perceive or understand these things. The scripture says they are foolishness to the natural mind. That's why you think the way you do about it. That's why you interpret it incorrectly. You can't understand it. It is a spiritual book and there are truths in it that you will never see unless you are born again.
What new additions? Two arms, two legs, a brain , that allows humans to work through problems. Two eyes, a nose, a mouth, fingers & toes. It would seem that we are like Adam, except we posess an inferior life expectancy. Perhaps he was physically stronger then we are (that sounds like a genetic defect has developed or evolved). I do not believe that makes us inferior to early man----exactly....are you taking into account the difference between change due to genetic mixing, and difference due to change from new additions?
And this allele frequency has been shown to happen when and do what exactly? I'd like to see it happen. Can you bring about one for everyone to see?It has been defined countless times on this thread alone. To recap:
Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population.
That is, if a population experiances a change in the frequency of it's allels, then that population has evolved. That is all the word means. I don't really see what the confusion is.
Spock was a Vulcan, and don't you forget that, buddy!Adam was a Vulcan!
Whenever a child is born, the allele frequency of the human species changes. When my baby sister was was born, she had brown eyes. Thus, when she was concieved, the frequency of brown eyes changed: there was one more. Thus, the human species evolved when my sister was concieved.And this allele frequency has been shown to happen when and do what exactly?
I'd like to see it happen. Can you bring about one for everyone to see?
Spock has half-Vulcan, half-Human.Spock was a Vulcan, and don't you forget that, buddy!
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?