• We're currently experiencing a minor issue with our email system preventing emails for new registrations and verifications going out. We're currently working to fix this
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
Reaction score

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • ----------
    This to me is an example of natural selection. The white moths may eventually become extinct, and then all you have is the darker moths left. I believe in evolution in this sense, but no new genetic information was required.

    Already a common claim dealt with. You're probably going to complain that most of the documented new genes are only at the smallest cellular level, but you aren't going to find huge changes in such a rapid span; evolution happens slowly. That's the key.

    It's also interesting to note that some things existed already in the gene pool.

    Ending this post, let me just say that if you do plan to refute evolution, you are essentially fighting almost every other area of science that agrees with it. Let's assume this gene thing is a relevant inconsistency; what then? You'd then have to contend with every other scientific field pointing to animals changing over time: embryology, homology, biogeography, and anything else Evolution actually answers for us. That is why evolution is such an accepted concept, because it's true in so many different fields. Evolution is actually a big part in why we can't find cures for some things.
    Every mutation we observe to date has been caused by a loss.
    No it hasn't. The last link I posted has positive mutations.

    But I guess millions of years ago fish were just magically developing the genes for legs.
    "magically"? Mutations are random, not magic. There's nothing out of this world about it. There are plenty of random things in science. Just look at physics.

    Do you know what happens when your DNA incorrectly replicates itself? Cancer.
    Good. You found one harmful mutation. What's your point? There are plenty of others.

    And even if by some miracle you didnt get cancer, in order for this mis-formed DNA to have an effect, every DNA strand in the organism would have to mis-replicate itself IN THE EXACT SAME WAY. Thats incredibly likely isnt it?
    It is if he passes that DNA down to their parents. What's the problem with that?

    And no, not every single one.
    Ever heard of theistic evolutionists?
    .. So now you believe in Evolution? I'm confused

    As far as aliens go, have you read the visions of Daniel? Or the book of Revelation? How come angles and even Jesus went up into the sky? Is heaven a tangible place that we can travel to or not? Where does the Bible claim that we are the center of the universe?
    The sun, moon, and stars were created after the firm "foundation of the earth" was laid. (Gen. 1:9-18)

    He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter, forever and ever." (Ps. 104:5)

    Combine the fact that it's described as an immovable force that is created BEFORE everything else as a 'foundation'.

    I'm not sure what angels and skies are relevant though.. if you have verses, I'd like to see.

    I dont want someone to tell me there is evidence, I WANT TO SEE IT. Show me the numbers. Show me the experiments. Show me the studies. Thats what I want.
    And it's in the link. There's a huge table of contents right there, actually.

    Research honestly. If you actually want something visual, and you aren't going to waste my time, I can help you find something that may be a little easier to follow, but you have to be open minded. You can't just sway off my evidence when yours shows significantly less and asks basic questions.
    A useful mutation (e.g. an orange without seeds) is not the equivalent of a positive mutation. I felt uneasy lecturing about positive mutations when I could not give an example. There are very many examples of negative and neutral mutations, but none I know of which I could present as a documented example of a positive one.

    Positive mutations have already been tested in MICRO. If he believes in micro, how can there not be positive mutations?


    These are BASIC questions.
    And also, your right, the Bible doesnt refute evolution, and I dont use it to do so.
    You said we didn't have a common ancestor because of the Bible. It's irrelevant.

    I believe in the possibility of aliens, but other christians I know believe wholehartedly that we are it. Its kind of strange, but its almost impossible for some people to believe in God and aliens at the same time, but there is nothing in the Bible that refutes aliens either.
    Actually, there is. The Bible doesn't mention aliens and claims that we are the center of the universe.

    The substantial evidence is there; you just ignore it and call the researchers atheists. More researchers agree than disagree; the ratio is similar to gravity for Christ's sake (no pun intended).
    I sent you talkorigins but you just shrugged it off as 'atheism' (despite their religious views not being obvious anywhere).

    The underlined Project Steve is a project that proves how many experts actually believe in Evolution. There are more scientists named Steve that believe in Evolution than ones that disbelieve.

    As for your source..

    Not only is the site obviously biased, but the professor does not do a good job in actually refuting much. The footnotes are merely definitions and does not link to any detailed study that was actually done.

    Microevolution, formation of races, is a fact. Populations adapt to specific environments with the more successful alleles increasing in numbers and others declining in frequencies or disappearing altogether. Change can also occur due to accidental loss of alleles (genetic drift) in small isolated populations. Both amount to decline in genetic information. Macroevolution requires its increase.

    Another silly mistake. Macroevolution is as easy to prove as microevolution. Macroevolution is just micro over a long period of time. As you can see from my very first talkorigins post (and you bet there's more where that came from), the evidence of macroevolution can't just simply be refuted with "my hand doesn't look like a horse, so ha!"

    I'm not convinced this guy is a professor of any kind. At most, it's probably some high school teacher. No university professor of any sort makes such basic and baby claims. Where are the experiments?
    answersingenesis is not a scientific source.

    What I provided is a scientific source. Tell me how is isn't with science? You don't know the religious opinion of anybody who wrote the paper and their sources actually are by science organizations.

    Project Steve | NCSE

    here is an opinion that's straight from scientists.

    Edit: And simply because you believe in the Bible, doesn't mean anything in it is true or overrides anything we discover. Common ancestry with humans has linked with apes because that's what the data shows. Believe what you want, but the Bible doesn't refute this at all.

    You cannot say you want scientific evidence and then use the Bible as a refutation.
    I do believe we all had a common ancestor, but not an ape.
    If it's not a common ancestor, then what?

    nested hierarchy
    vestigial organs

    And many more.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…