Posted on 04/11/2013 7:38:52 AM PDT by kimtom
"..A common quibble laid at the feet of the creationist is that he/she is not qualified to speak about scientific matters relating to the creation/evolution controversy..."
(Excerpt) Read more at apologeticspress.org ...
I figured your simplistic mind would not comprehend.
I am impressed!!
and what part of whitcomb’s statement is wrong????
Creationism is not the core of my belief, but the Bible certainly is at the core, so I find it exciting that "when scientists get it right" they come to the same conclusions that can be found in the Bible. And, isn't that "proof" that the Bible is God-inspired?
I don’t need proof.
As it appears you didn’t understand it I will explain it.
Retrovirus can sometimes infect germline cells and get a copy of their genome into a cell that will grow into an entire organism. That organism will have a copy of that ERV in every cell of its body at the location where it entered - and all descendents that inherit that chromosome will have a copy of that ERV in every cell at the same location. Over time mutations will accumulate in that ERV sequence at the intrinsic mutation rate (DNA polymerase is not 100% accurate and every time DNA is copies errors are introduced).
So say we have an ERV that is present in only SOME tiger populations- it looks “young” in that it’s sequence is very close to the virus.
Now say we have an ERV that is present in ALL tiger populations - it looks “older” in that it’s sequence deviates from the virus by a significant amount.
Now say we have an ERV that is present in all tigers and all jaguars - it looks “much older” in that it’s sequence deviates quite a bit more from the virus.
Now if an ERV is found in tigers and jaguars - it will almost certainly ALSO be found in lions when you look for it. Yet ones of the appropriate “age” found in tigers and lions will NOT be found in jaguars.
This is evidence that tigers and lions share a more recent common ancestor than either does with a jaguar - but that all three do indeed share a common ancestor.
There is a HUGE amount of evidence (it isn’t and never will be “proof” - science doesn’t do “proof”) for common descent of species - i.e. macro evolution.
NOW can you answer my questions? Or are you just going to demand more and move the goalposts again? Can you demonstrate any familiarity with the subject you are arguing against - or even familiarity with the argument you are saying is superior?
Lets see:
‘Imagine a ship large enough to hold every animal in the world and by my calculations it would be large enough to hold every anmimal in the world, see? I proved it happened.. So now that that is proved lets talk about those missing bones....’
Yes, my minds is way too simplistic to understand such ‘useful’ ideas.
teaching that in science class is like making Tod Akin in charge of Obstetrics+ Gynecology in a hospital.
Sunday-school 8 year olds
Well, if they don’t agree that it would have taken at least two and likely three generations of stellar evolution to produce heavy elements, then they should postulate another such mechanism.
I don’t need PROOF,but I enjoy “PROOF”.
Hey Allmendream....
I see you’re trying to suck somebody in with your mouse/rat argument and definition of micro and macro.
I used two Phd level Biologists to blow your argument apart on this one and instead of dealing with their arguments you made fun of them.
That’s the way you operate, isn’t it..... profess belief in Jesus Christ and then mock those who believe what he said in Mark 10:6.
Here’s something you may want to think about...
MATTHEW 7:21 - 23
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
‘...And then God Created Man’ see? And there are men here so that is ‘proof’ that he was created. We tested this theory by looking in the mirror and saw ourselves there. Its REAL science at its best.”
See? its easy and fun to create your own Creationist theories/s I can take over for Prof Dish..
LOL
And your revisionist history is amusing. Do you often “use” Phd level Biologists? Do they object to you using them in such a manner?
Do you also think the last couple Popes were only professing belief in Jesus Christ? Do you hold that acceptance of the theory of biological evolution is incompatible with belief in Jesus the Christ?
I have become friends with a number of geologists over the years, mostly working in the oil industry. Everyone of these I know is a creationist. I realize this is anecdotal, but so is your assertion that almost none are creationists. Just from personal experience I would have to say that between the two subjective descriptions of many versus almost none, many is more accurate.
When you mock someone for interjecting an opinion, it would be prudent to avoid using your own opinion as the counterargument.
Believing IN Jesus without believing Jesus reminds me of James 2:19...
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
“Here I went with what answers in genesis says”
No, you didn’t. Maybe you thought you were paraphrasing them, but if so, you weren’t doing so accurately, because creationists don’t believe that all species were on the Ark.
“...When you mock someone ....”
If that was to me, I stand chagrin.
Thanks!!
From what we know of the workings of a single cell, it is completely preposterous to have a view that life, that we came about via evolution.
It is absolutely impossible, even if evolutionists’ god, which is called “time”, had billions of trillions of centuries from which to shake up bags of elements.
Anyway, the whole argument will be moot very soon, because the Creator Himself is going to close on His property.
“...Yes, my minds is way too simplistic to understand ...”
Ok
During my short time on FR I've seen rational humans evolve into raving jack-asses on a number of threads. Does that count?
I said that they believe all modern species descended from those “kinds” that fit on the Ark.
Such would be speciation and evolution many hundreds of times faster than the observed rate of mutation and that proposed by evolutionary biology.
So those that accept that all modern species descended from those “kinds” that DID fit on the Ark, far from not believing in evolution - must necessarily believe in SUPER DUPER (micro) evolution.
Other than length of time and scale of the change, what is it?
True!!
Thanks
I like it!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.