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?
View 6 more replies »
GodSpeed63 · 70-79, M
@Pikachu
I've already answered these questions, why do you want see my answer again? Do you also want to become a true believer in Christ?
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've already answered these questions, why do you want see my answer again? Do you also want to become a true believer in Christ?
@GodSpeed63
Your answer was a self-refuting "law" that you made up and then were unable to defend.
I see you're still stuck playing your silly games.
Too bad.
But I'm not playing chess with a pigeon lol.
Hit me up if and when you think you can be honest.
Your answer was a self-refuting "law" that you made up and then were unable to defend.
I see you're still stuck playing your silly games.
Too bad.
But I'm not playing chess with a pigeon lol.
Hit me up if and when you think you can be honest.
GodSpeed63 · 70-79, M
@Pikachu
I choose to pray for you, Pikachu, since you choose not to be honest with yourself or with anyone else.
Hit me up if and when you think you can be honest.
I choose to pray for you, Pikachu, since you choose not to be honest with yourself or with anyone else.
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
Adeptlinguist · M
@GodSpeed63 Fred the god-eating troll. See above. You must prove the nonexistence of Fred in order for your “god” to exist.
GodSpeed63 · 70-79, M
@Adeptlinguist
You yourself don't believe in Fred, neither do I. So go ahead and knock yourself out trying to disprove Fred.
Fred the god-eating troll.
You yourself don't believe in Fred, neither do I. So go ahead and knock yourself out trying to disprove Fred.
Adeptlinguist · M
@GodSpeed63 What I do or do not believe is immaterial. Until you prove the non-existence of Fred your “god” remains a figment of your delusion.
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.