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.
Exactly. Which makes it all the more relevant that nobody has ever come up with either a demonstrable "kind barrier" in nature, nor a rigorous taxonomic system based on it.
I think the problem is that it still requires the genetic bottle necks in all species (particularly humans if we are supposed to be descended from a literal Adam and Eve).I know the “Gap Theory” has been discussed before, but so has everything else. I’m wondering if anyone else here considers that possibility to account for both the evidence of some form of “evolution” left over from a pre-Adamic world, and the “Creation” of an Adamic world. I find that idea interesting. What would be the “whys” and “why nots” of it? It has been popular in the past... why was it sort of dropped as a possible explanation... too much of a headache to think about probably.
If we found all species (past and present) mixed up with no apparent order or evolutionary patterns going back to the earliest geological ages, then yes, our understanding of the history of life on Earth would need to be completely re-written.
thanks. now, can you tell me what was the main trait in that structure that prove you it was designed?Yes, it is designed, and I'm pretty sure that it was designed by human beings and made in a terrestrial factory. In other words, the picture is a fake; it shows an object (perhaps something like a lampshade) thrown into the air, not an extra-terrestrial spacecraft.
Nothing in the structure of the object. You can't conclude design from structure in that way for any object. What "proves" design is that the picture is known to be a fake.thanks. now, can you tell me what was the main trait in that structure that prove you it was designed?
So what? A penguin is still a naturally occurring object so you can't tell if it was designed.yes i have. do you agree that from a materialistic perspective, a penguin can be consider as a self replicating organic robot? if no why not?
If you accept a Gap right before Adam, a period in which the Gap itself was the “formless, empty, and dark;” you accept that the Gap separates Adamic man from all the pre-Gap evolution that appears to be verified; you accept that the earth still had a foundation to hold the water spoken of in Genesis 1:2, and the foundation still held all the fossils and layers from the pre-Adamic world... wouldn’t that be a possibility?I think the problem is that it still requires the genetic bottle necks in all species (particularly humans if we are supposed to be descended from a literal Adam and Eve).
You could be accepting some form of God's evolution process up to the Gap.I think it's less popular because if you are a person of faith and accept scientific findings from biology and geology you end up with evolution, you end up a Theological Evolutionist.
But, you’re not completely ignoring scientific conclusions up to the Gap.But if you are willing to ignore scientific conclusions to maintain a literal Adam and Eve, why bother accepting deep time at all, when you can just become a Young Earth Creationist?
I think the problem is that it still requires the genetic bottle necks in all species (particularly humans if we are supposed to be descended from a literal Adam and Eve).
yesoff course i talking about population and not about individual. so according to evolution a population of cats can evolve into something that isnt a cat after millions of years. right?
It resembles things that are made by human beings, such as lampshades, frisbees and hats,and it doesn't resemble any sort of flying animal. Therefore I conclude that it was designed and made by humans.thanks. now, can you tell me what was the main trait in that structure that prove you it was designed?
That isn't true.and evolution still be just fine.
That's nonsense.kind just mean a creature with unique combination of traits basically.
Except the problem is that IC systems have never been shown to be a barrier. Possible pathways have always been shown.why not? a ic system can be such a barrier. or even a deisgned trait.
yes i have. do you agree that from a materialistic perspective, a penguin can be consider as a self replicating organic robot? if no why not?
That's alm well and good for stuff like fossils and radiometric data for ancient reminants.If you accept a Gap right before Adam, a period in which the Gap itself was the “formless, empty, and dark;” you accept that the Gap separates Adamic man from all the pre-Gap evolution that appears to be verified; you accept that the earth still had a foundation to hold the water spoken of in Genesis 1:2, and the foundation still held all the fossils and layers from the pre-Adamic world... wouldn’t that be a possibility?
You could be accepting some form of God's evolution process up to the Gap.
But, you’re not completely ignoring scientific conclusions up to the Gap.
The problem with this idea is that you think the prehistoric evolved humans were genetically different to the created humans of Earth 1.Not so, since A&E were made physically on another world and Humans (Adam's descendants) arrived on our planet only 11k years ago. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE Noah's grandsons married and produced children with the prehistoric people (sons of God) who had been on Earth for millions of years before the Ark arrived. Gen 6:4
Yes ,after all, felids ( cat ancestors) evolved from miacidsoff course i talking about population and not about individual. so according to evolution a population of cats can evolve into something that isnt a cat after millions of years. right?
Interesting - which commandments talk of the creation?Well the Ten Commandments are eternal and they reiterate the creation account.
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?