There is,no hubris in accepting God at his word. The hubris lies with man who says God is a liar.
Let God be true and every man a,liar.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
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.
There is,no hubris in accepting God at his word. The hubris lies with man who says God is a liar.That is exactly the hubris that creationists have. They think they can read a story written in a book by men and tell God how he created the universe.
At least the scientists are using evidence from the creation itself to figure it out.
Beneficial mutation are a theory.
Correct, there is no evidence for that and the chance of having a selectable random mutation is nill to none. Evolutionists have painted themselves into a corner and they are stuck with that lame duck theory until something better comes along. From the very beginning the argument against evolution has been irreducible complexity. Evolutionists may think that they defend their theory against this argument but they fail to do so.Are you saying you don't accept that beneficial mutations occur and can increase an organisms chances of reproduction and survival?
From the very beginning the argument against evolution has been irreducible complexity. Evolutionists may think that they defend their theory against this argument but they fail to do so.
They were all fully formed creatures however.
They are only evolutionary because scientists want them to,be
And bacteria in a lab is supposed to be proof of Evolution? So,man in a controlled environment is able to show bacteria evolving into something completely different?
Evolutionary hypotheses says creatures evolved from something completely different by chance
When you can get bacteria to evolve by chance into a,fish let me know.
Because that is what evolution says happened
I know bacteria specifically isn't used in the hypothesis but you get my,point.
Once humans get involved in trying to prove evolution in a lab they have just injected,themselves into the equation this making it void.
And by admitting you can't show actual evolution You have just shown the fallacy of the process. Evolution is a belief system. It happened therefore I believe it. Without the actual ability to observe the process or repeat it Without intervention. It actually cracks me up how crazy it,all is. Its such nonsense yet humans are,tied to it. The wisdom of man really is foolishness.
Correct, there is no evidence for that and the chance of having a selectable random mutation is nill to none.
From the very beginning the argument against evolution has been irreducible complexity.
I have never seen a beneficial mutation.Are you saying that none of those mutations are beneficial to humans?
I have never seen a beneficial mutation.
Yes, I have read Language of God. I have a copy here and it is underlined so I know I have read all of it. Collins is trying to present an argument for gradualism.Have a read of your copy of 'Language of God'
Have you ever seen, as in studied, any mutations whatsoever?I have never seen a beneficial mutation.
Yes and the facts are that so call beneficial mutations are rare and most mutations are harmful according to talkorigins. Talk about shooting yourself in the footHave you ever seen, as in studied, any mutations whatsoever?
That just cracks me up! The hypothesis of evolution is thing evolving into something completely different. If we all have a common ancestor Then we have all evolved into something different. I have evolved from a fish. If that isn't somthing different I don't know what is.Congratulations, you have just managed to invalidate every single scientific experiment.
In this reasoning, the north pole is evidence of "intelligent freezing", because refrigirators.
What is foolish is to demand unreasonable evidence.
None of this is required.
We don't need 10.000.000 years of observation of a bloodline to know evolution occurs.
Just like we don't need to observer your parents having sex and getting pregnant in order to know that they are your biological parents.
Only 40 million? Well that's interesting. If there was 1 mutation per year then it would only take 40 million years. But that doesn't really sound reasonable if it was all happening by chance. Unless if course all the mutations were happening at once.There are 40 million mutations that separate humans and chimps. Are you saying that none of those mutations are beneficial to humans?
Since the beginning, not a single ID/creationist has produced evidence that IC systems can not evolve as they claim. In fact, we have examples of IC systems evolving in the fossil record, such as the step by step evolution of the three piece irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear:
Only 40 million? Well that's interesting. If there was 1 mutation per year then it would only take 40 million years. But that doesn't really sound reasonable if it was all happening by chance. Unless if course all the mutations were happening at once.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
That just cracks me up! The hypothesis of evolution is thing evolving into something completely different. If we all have a common ancestor Then we have all evolved into something different. I have evolved from a fish. If that isn't somthing different I don't know what is.
You knock haven't debated evolution for quite some time. Its refreshing to once again do so and reconfirm just how silly it is.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
Yes and the facts are that so call beneficial mutations are rare and most mutations are harmful according to talkorigins. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot
In context what they are saying is: "Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful". In general most mutations are considered to be neutral. Their effect is neither beneficial nor harmful.I doubt if Talk Origins said that since most mutations are neutral. But even if it is correct how is that "shooting yourself in the foot"?
OK, so most mutations are neutral, and more are harmful than beneficial. So? Only the beneficial mutations are passed on, since harmful mutations are ... you know, harmful.In context what they are saying is: "Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful". In general most mutations are considered to be neutral. Their effect is neither beneficial nor harmful.
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?