Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Creationists admit changes? Do they admit changes from a fish through the eons of time to a human? If so, that is just outright impossible. The coding would never allow such changes. Even changes from a chimp to human would cause sterility.
They admit micro evolution. The table showing Australopithecus to Homo Sapiens is micro evolution. And your argument from sterility is itself sterile. If that were the case there could be no dog -breeding, no horse breeding. If that is possible, then all evolutionary change is possible.
Of course the Creationists don't admit the larger changes, but there is no scientifically valid support for that. It is simply a denial that such changes could ever become great enough that one shape of critter could change into one that looks different. And the only reason for that is because it supports evolutionary development of species and that cuts across their Genesis -literalist belief.
What is worse, their religious prejudices mean that they deny even micro evolution - when it concerns humans.
How can you not believe in in the slow process of evolution from other similar flesh and bone creatures, but believe that you were a dirt statue fashioned by an invisible mystical being?
They admit micro evolution. The table showing Australopithecus to Homo Sapiens is micro evolution. And your argument from sterility is itself sterile. If that were the case there could be no dog -breeding, no horse breeding. If that is possible, then all evolutionary change is possible.
Of course the Creationists don't admit the larger changes, but there is no scientifically valid support for that. It is simply a denial that such changes could ever become great enough that one shape of critter could change into one that looks different. And the only reason for that is because it supports evolutionary development of species and that cuts across their Genesis -literalist belief.
What is worse, their religious prejudices mean that they deny even micro evolution - when it concerns humans.
Dogs don't become something other than dogs and chimps and apes don't become something other than chimps or apes.
What is worse, their non-religious prejudices mean that they accept even micro evolution - when it concern humans.
How can you not believe in in the slow process of evolution from other similar flesh and bone creatures, but believe that you were a dirt statue fashioned by an invisible mystical being?
How can you believe in the process of evolution from a fish to a human but don't believe mankind was originally formed from the soil of the earth as adults by God?
How can you believe in the process of evolution from a fish to a human but don't believe mankind was originally formed from the soil of the earth as adults by God?
???? You've lost it. What I said was that scientists say some of the mtDNA predates our primate ancestors and may go back as far as fish.
Do we look like dirt? No. Do we look like primates? Yes we do. Do dogs look like wolves and fox? Yes they do.
Again I can't see why creationists would be insulted to have evolved from earlier primates. Yes we are still primates.
But it's not insulting to be made of dirt.
Last edited by willingsniper; 05-11-2015 at 01:34 PM..
Clearly they do. Modern humans have DNA sequences identical to DNA taken from Neanderthals. I do, and the odds are that you do, too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.