newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
View 9 more replies »
So Georgia Purdom agrees that due to differential reproductive success under given environmental pressures results in the change of populations over successive generations.
Since you agree with AiG you agree with that too.
The question i have for you is then what mechanism have you identified that prevents many small changes compounding over generations into significant changes?
What natural mechanism can you name that says a " kind" can change x amount and no more?
Since you agree with AiG you agree with that too.
The question i have for you is then what mechanism have you identified that prevents many small changes compounding over generations into significant changes?
What natural mechanism can you name that says a " kind" can change x amount and no more?
@GodSpeed63
Same old, same old.
So Georgia Purdom agrees that due to differential reproductive success under given environmental pressures results in the change of populations over successive generations.
Since you agree with AiG you agree with that too.
The question i have for you is then what mechanism have you identified that prevents many small changes compounding over generations into significant changes?
What natural mechanism can you name that says a " kind" can change x amount and no more?
Same old, same old.
So Georgia Purdom agrees that due to differential reproductive success under given environmental pressures results in the change of populations over successive generations.
Since you agree with AiG you agree with that too.
The question i have for you is then what mechanism have you identified that prevents many small changes compounding over generations into significant changes?
What natural mechanism can you name that says a " kind" can change x amount and no more?
GodSpeed63 · 70-79, M
@Pikachu
The scientific law that says like begets like. A monkey cannot change into a human nor a cat cannot change into a dog. You ought to know that. Now let me ask you a question: which is more important to you, personal belief or knowing the Truth?
What natural mechanism can you name that says a " kind" can change x amount and no more?
The scientific law that says like begets like. A monkey cannot change into a human nor a cat cannot change into a dog. You ought to know that. Now let me ask you a question: which is more important to you, personal belief or knowing the Truth?
@GodSpeed63
There is no scientific law that says like begets like because you agree that adaptation is a thing which necessarily means that that offspring can be different from their parents.
So you haven't answered the question, you've just repeated the claim.
Let's try again.
So once again, what mechanism can you identify which allows organisms to change within a "kind" but not beyond one?
What scientific mechanism prevents compounding changes from passing a certain limit?
I'm interested in knowing true things which is why we must follow the evidence where it goes, not just repeat dogma off a website.
There is no scientific law that says like begets like because you agree that adaptation is a thing which necessarily means that that offspring can be different from their parents.
So you haven't answered the question, you've just repeated the claim.
Let's try again.
So once again, what mechanism can you identify which allows organisms to change within a "kind" but not beyond one?
What scientific mechanism prevents compounding changes from passing a certain limit?
I'm interested in knowing true things which is why we must follow the evidence where it goes, not just repeat dogma off a website.
Rabscuttle · 41-45
They don't "substitute natural selection for God Himself"; they point out that natural selection takes place; evolution is a mechanism, nothing more- it says nothing about the ultimate origin of life itself. Blaming everything on "God" with no further attempt at description or lineation is pseudo-Christian nonsense, put forth in a nonsensical attempt to separate themselves from the Church.
Natural selection doesn't "eliminate variety", because the best fit organism is the one that best survives a given encounter, but the best fit to maintain homeostasis- as would be obvious if you'd actually READ Darwin.
Citing the Bible doesn't support your case when the Bible is wrong.
Natural selection doesn't "eliminate variety", because the best fit organism is the one that best survives a given encounter, but the best fit to maintain homeostasis- as would be obvious if you'd actually READ Darwin.
Citing the Bible doesn't support your case when the Bible is wrong.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
You neglect the mechanism that drives all this - a constantly changing environment.
What are your thoughts around that?
Incidentally:
Purdom and Jeanson both work for 'Answers in Genesis'. They have openly expressed their willingness to suborn scientific accuracy in order to prop up fantastical bible-related claims. They do not publish and are never cited. Accordingly, they have no scientific standing.
Please don't waste people's time with this pap.
What are your thoughts around that?
Incidentally:
Purdom and Jeanson both work for 'Answers in Genesis'. They have openly expressed their willingness to suborn scientific accuracy in order to prop up fantastical bible-related claims. They do not publish and are never cited. Accordingly, they have no scientific standing.
Please don't waste people's time with this pap.