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.
The facts are these:
God fed the Israelites for 40 years in the wilderness.
God used Elijah for the miracle of the multiplication of food for that family until the famine was over.
God used Elisha for the miracle of multiplying the oil for that poor woman to pay off her debt so her son would not have to be sold to pay for the debt.
Christ multiplied the loaves of bread and fish to feed over 5,000 and He did it twice.
I think you accusing me of being an atheist is laughable. Please spare me the childish comments.
poof there it is.
and to show you how I know ....
poof there it is.
You are not in my league son.
I'll leave ya to the double A-athiest.
If a fish miraculously grows lungs but still has gills it is a "half-species" or an intermediate species. What is the benefit of a fish having lungs if it cannot traverse the ground? Then millions of years later it grows leg-like appendages so it can traverse the ground. Then it takes millions more years to get rid of it's fins and gills..
Notice without the "millions of years" it reads like a really bad fairy tale. Fairy tales are better when magic is instantaneous. Cinderella was dressed in rags... POOF!... Cinderella has new dress and a pumpkin carriage.
Seriously though, a species has limitations so I highly doubt it could evolve into another species.
The thing I hate most is when evolutionists say that genetic improvement is really evolution in it's micro form. Yet genetic degradation is just error.
If evolution is true then all live forms would strive to become the best, yet we still see a hierarchy of life. Humans breed slowly yet rabbits haven't taken over the world yet!
If a fish miraculously grows lungs but still has gills it is a "half-species" or an intermediate species. A lungfish has both lungs and gills. It is a distinct species, not a half-species (there's no such thing)
Seriously though, a species has limitations so I highly doubt it could evolve into another species. What limitations are you referring to?
The thing I hate most is when evolutionists say that genetic improvement is really evolution in it's micro form. Yet genetic degradation is just error. Who says that? Evolution is not considered improvement or degradation; it's just change.
If evolution is true then all live forms would strive to become the best, they don't "strive" to do anything, but if a genetic change makes an organism more fit for a particular ecological niche, that change will tend to be preserved. yet we still see a hierarchy of life what hierarchy?. Humans breed slowly yet rabbits haven't taken over the world yet Every species has its own strategy for survival. Rabbits create many offspring with a high mortality rate and a short lifespan. That works for a species that just sits around eating grass all day. Humans have few offspring with a long development period and long lifespan. That works better for a species with highly complex social structures. Both strategies are fit for the particular species, or they would be extinct.
If a fish miraculously grows lungs but still has gills it is a "half-species" or an intermediate species. A lungfish has both lungs and gills. It is a distinct species, not a half-species (there's no such thing)
Seriously though, a species has limitations so I highly doubt it could evolve into another species. What limitations are you referring to?
The thing I hate most is when evolutionists say that genetic improvement is really evolution in it's micro form. Yet genetic degradation is just error. Who says that? Evolution is not considered improvement or degradation; it's just change.
If evolution is true then all live forms would strive to become the best, they don't "strive" to do anything, but if a genetic change makes an organism more fit for a particular ecological niche, that change will tend to be preserved. yet we still see a hierarchy of life what hierarchy?. Humans breed slowly yet rabbits haven't taken over the world yet Every species has its own strategy for survival. Rabbits create many offspring with a high mortality rate and a short lifespan. That works for a species that just sits around eating grass all day. Humans have few offspring with a long development period and long lifespan. That works better for a species with highly complex social structures. Both strategies are fit for the particular species, or they would be extinct.
A lungfish has a modified swim bladder, not lungs. It would take more than a modified swim bladder to fully live on land. So I would agree that a lung fish is not a transitional species. Does it live in those conditions because it was meant to or did those conditions cause it to have a modified swim bladder? For a species to change into another, there would need to be changes over time. There would naturally be several that died mid change. Where are those fossil records?
Limitations such as how fast you can breed a horse to run, how much milk a cow can produce each day, the color of humans skin cannot be bred to be purple, etc.
Even plant species have limitations.
Evolution relies on a species being improved. A negative change does not make sense within evolution. Any negative changes should be eliminated according to natural selection.
Evolutionists look at data and infer a philosophical conclusion. Creationists look at data (albeit different data) and infer a philosophical conclusion. In any case, it is also possible that neither is true.
Evolution relies on a species being improved. A negative change does not make sense within evolution. Any negative changes should be eliminated according to natural selection.
Again you are demonstrating to anyone who understands Evolution that you have absolutely no understanding of the subject.
First Evolution does not rely on anything.
Evolution is driven by mutations. Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs."
Let me give you the easiest example to show how flawed your thinking is.
Do you know what causes Sickle Cell Disease? It's a single mutation. Why did this mutation occur? To help Africans become resistant to malaria.
The overall effect? BOTH Negative and Positive. This example illustrates how a single mutation can have a large effect, in this case, both a positive and a negative one. But in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations, each having a small effect. Whether the mutations are large or small, however, the same chain of causation applies: changes at the DNA level propagate up to the phenotype.
Again you are demonstrating to anyone who understands Evolution that you have absolutely no understanding of the subject.
First Evolution does not rely on anything.
Evolution is driven by mutations. Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs."
Let me give you the easiest example to show how flawed your thinking is.
Do you know what causes Sickle Cell Disease? It's a single mutation. Why did this mutation occur? To help Africans become resistant to malaria.
The overall effect? BOTH Negative and Positive. This example illustrates how a single mutation can have a large effect, in this case, both a positive and a negative one. But in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations, each having a small effect. Whether the mutations are large or small, however, the same chain of causation applies: changes at the DNA level propagate up to the phenotype.
You really need to stay out of the Evolution discussion until you understand what Evolution really is.
It is you who is confused. Evolution tries to explain how simple forms of life became complicated forms of life. Single Cell Anemia is the result of just plain old mutation which could have been adaptive. Countries with high malaria rates also have high stuttering rates, left-handedness, and other deficiencies. These all came about because of an adaptation of genes to combat malaria? I highly doubt malaria parasites are scared away by stuttering.
It seems also true that in order for an organism to evolve it needs NEW coding not mutated OLD coding in it's DNA. An organism might display some change within it's limitations (such as antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria) if there was a mutation of DNA. But what if the organism were to lose genes? As you stated previously, even a teeny percentage of difference makes either a human or monkey.
Where is the proof that organisms today gain genes slowly over time without a visible change?
BTW - you can save your time and energy with posting that I don't know, can't understand, and shouldn't post. I will ignore them anyway since this is a free discussion and I am a forum member. If you don't want to see my posts, don't look.
You have proven over and over and over that nothing you post is credible. You have clear issues comprehending both math and science. Need evidence of this...go back and re-read all the misinformation you have posted in this thread.
You can pretend all you want but no one is buying it.
If a fish miraculously grows lungs but still has gills it is a "half-species" or an intermediate species. What is the benefit of a fish having lungs if it cannot traverse the ground? Then millions of years later it grows leg-like appendages so it can traverse the ground. Then it takes millions more years to get rid of it's fins and gills..
Notice without the "millions of years" it reads like a really bad fairy tale. Fairy tales are better when magic is instantaneous. Cinderella was dressed in rags... POOF!... Cinderella has new dress and a pumpkin carriage.
Seriously though, a species has limitations so I highly doubt it could evolve into another species.
The thing I hate most is when evolutionists say that genetic improvement is really evolution in it's micro form. Yet genetic degradation is just error.
If evolution is true then all live forms would strive to become the best, yet we still see a hierarchy of life. Humans breed slowly yet rabbits haven't taken over the world yet!
Again with the major misconception that evolution is trying to create the perfect being. It's not.
I'm sure you've heard the term 'survival of the fittest.' Don't use it. It's misleading. Every species that exists only exists because it reproduced the most. The only advantage humans have over every other animal is intellect. Many other animals are stronger and faster than us. Why don't the strongest survive by brute force?
Because nature doesn't work that way. And yes, there is a 'hierarchy' or a sorts. That's to say, there's a food chain. Yes, the antelope is eaten by the lion, but he antelope is also pretty capable of outrunning the lion. Nature is a combination of competition and cooperation. Every species that exists only does so because it survived well. This doesn't mean that the next species is a clear improvement. It means that is had desirable traits that led it to survival.
And no, a fish with lungs is not a 'half-species.' You got the order wrong anyway. The evidence suggests that there was a species of fish with flippers that was able to travel from pond to pond. The lungs came next, which has a specific use as land travel is best with lungs. And with legs, which is why legs soon followed.
Evolution is a reaction to certain needs. As mutations occur, the good mutations sustained themselves longer. This doesn't mean bad mutations never happened. They just didn't go on to reproduce.
You have proven over and over and over that nothing you post is credible. You have clear issues comprehending both math and science. Need evidence of this...go back and re-read all the misinformation you have posted in this thread.
You can pretend all you want but no one is buying it.
Well that's one sure way to end a conversation and prove you have nothing worthy of contributing!
Argumentum ad logicam, Argumentum ad hominem, Argumentum ad numerum, Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Red herring... what other logical atrocities have you committed today?
I've seen this from the evolution camp before. Carry on!
To think that the Earth was created in 6 days is pure silliness and myth. It took billions of years for the Earth to calm down enough for life to begin only to be destroyed and then start over with new life and evolve into what it is today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ_Maxx
Again, you are writing checks that truth cannot cash. You are making truth claims without knowledge of those claims.
Again I am not sure what you mean here exactly? What checks am I writing that truth cannot cash? What truth claim has been made without knowledge?
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.
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.
How puerile.
