Given enough time anything can happen, really!

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why would Jesus need to die for our sins to stop a natural part of the process of
life?
Kelly

I have never understood the whole dying for our sins things anyway, but thats a topic for another thread.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Did you understand it before my post explaining it? If you did, why the previous posts that clearly indicate you didn't understand it?

[b]We are just talking about mutations
in this part of the discussion, in addition to these you have ever changing conditions
that life would have to survive and thrive in, and early on anything could have
stopped th ...[text shortened]... .
What I don't really get is why you believe it would somehow make evolution less believable.

[/b]I do not agree with it, that does not mean I misunderstand it, it only means I see
what you are suggesting and do not think it is possible the way you describe it.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Did you understand it before my post explaining it? If you did, why the previous posts that clearly indicate you didn't understand it?

[b]We are just talking about mutations
in this part of the discussion, in addition to these you have ever changing conditions
that life would have to survive and thrive in, and early on anything could have
stopped th ...[text shortened]... .
What I don't really get is why you believe it would somehow make evolution less believable.

[/b]Each sex by your beliefs have stopped beiing one creature that split into two sexes.
From there they departed down the path that they were one creature and began
to be two different types. Now two different types typically would go their own
way and turn into to different creatures all together, yet with sexes you have
them not only maintaining the same species, but have it so that they work
together for procreation, again without any intent and this was supposed to have
been done with all living creature that have sexes! Yes I'm supprised anyone who
is looking at this closely could ever agree to such a thing. I deal with processes
on a daily basis, I deal in design on a daily basis, and I your beliefs that these
things have happened not just once but countless times over is mind blowing for
me, randomness in processes gives noise they do not give anything that looks like
intent or propose. You can question my knowledge, I am sure questioning yours.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have been following the discussion or no? Design and evolution through
random mutations/natural selection are next to each other and we can look at
how complex the living systems are we are looking at, and with that which is
the one most likely to get us what we see today? Common or shared ancestors
are not comletely ruled out for select life forms, I'd feel safe with dogs and wolves,
but not Jelly fish and whales.
Kelly

You have been following the discussion or no?

Have you been following the discussion?

Common or shared ancestors are not comletely ruled out for select life forms, I'd feel safe with dogs and wolves, but not Jelly fish and whales.

We're not talking about jellyfish, we're talking about mammals. I'm asking for an explanation as to what is stopping all mammals having a shared common ancestor. You're answering a question with a question.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, I actually don't think evolution matters one way or another, you can have a
right relationship with God while believing the earth is billions of years old. The
only thing that trully matters is our standing/relationship with God, everything
thing else is just everything else. I think it is important because I believe creation
is true and a godless e ...[text shortened]... riving is better than if you just drive
not knowing what red means on the stop lights.
Kelly

Why does the evolutionary process have to be godless? There are millions of Christians who accept 'theistic evolution', why cannot the mutations themselves be guided by God. By rejecting evolution you are putting a limit on what God and God can't do. You're saying that God cannot have created life and it's diversification that way, you're putting limits on God's omnipotence.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why do doves and bats have eyes?
Kelly

Do you know what vestigial means?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]You have been following the discussion or no?

Have you been following the discussion?

Common or shared ancestors are not comletely ruled out for select life forms, I'd feel safe with dogs and wolves, but not Jelly fish and whales.

We're not talking about jellyfish, we're talking about mammals. I'm asking for an explanatio ...[text shortened]... g all mammals having a shared common ancestor. You're answering a question with a question.[/b]

We are talking about life and evolution; we can touch on all parts of it, the changes
that were done are supposed to give us mammals also had to produce jelly fish and whales
as well.

I've told you several times over now how I do not believe you can get the systems
within life by random mutation even with natural selection, mainly because all
random mutations are just noise in any system process. Nothing good will
come from that let a long order, proper timing, and consistent results in different
variations of life, that are also going through random mutations over time. Since
that is the vehicle for a common ancestor I believe it to be completely unlikely.
Kelly

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Do you know what vestigial means?

Yes, and if I didn't I'd looked it up, you have a point?
Kelly

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Why does the evolutionary process have to be godless? There are millions of Christians who accept 'theistic evolution', why cannot the mutations themselves be guided by God. By rejecting evolution you are putting a limit on what God and God can't do. You're saying that God cannot have created life and it's diversification that way, you're putting limits on God's omnipotence.

I don't believe evolutionary process is godless, but a lot of godless accept it as
a means to avoid God. I just do not give it credit for all that the godless do.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, and if I didn't I'd looked it up, you have a point?
Kelly

I was curious as to why you answered a question with a question, it's something you seem to do a lot.

Why do you think whales have vestigial legs?

Originally posted by KellyJay
We are talking about life and evolution; we can touch on all parts of it, the changes
that were done are supposed to give us mammals also had to produce jelly fish and whales
as well.

I've told you several times over now how I do not believe you can get the systems
within life by random mutation even with natural selection, mainly because all
random ...[text shortened]... Since
that is the vehicle for a common ancestor I believe it to be completely unlikely.
Kelly

I've told you several times over now how I do not believe you can get the systems
within life by random mutation even with natural selection

I understand that, but mammals all have then same 'stable systems'. There is no change within those systems, the skeleton, circulatory system, blood, reproduction systems, muscles, organs, etc etc are all them same in mammals.

1. Do you accept that all mammals have the same 'systems'?
2. If yes is your answer, then what physical process is stopping mammals from having a common ancestor?

This is what you posted answering my post in the other thread -

New ones evolved over time, the basic design remains, you just get a variation of it in something else.

How does this not apply to mammals, what does it actually apply to?

Originally posted by KellyJay
We are talking about life and evolution; we can touch on all parts of it, the changes
that were done are supposed to give us mammals also had to produce jelly fish and whales
as well.

I've told you several times over now how I do not believe you can get the systems
within life by random mutation even with natural selection, mainly because all
random ...[text shortened]... Since
that is the vehicle for a common ancestor I believe it to be completely unlikely.
Kelly

Let's start from what we know instead.

Domesticated dogs evolved from wolves, i think we can agree on that. Do you accept that the other members of the Canidae family, ie wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes, all share the same common ancestor?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not agree with it, that does not mean I misunderstand it, it only means I see
what you are suggesting and do not think it is possible the way you describe it.
Kelly

But you keep acting like (and posting like) you do not understand it. Your arguments are not an attempt to prove that what I explained is illogical, impractical or does not take place in real life, instead your arguments suggest you don't understand it.
I just want to clarify whether you did understand it in the past but deliberately chose to go for a strawman argument, or whether you have only just understood it, and can now work on mounting an effective counter argument

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Why does the evolutionary process have to be godless? There are millions of Christians who accept 'theistic evolution', why cannot the mutations themselves be guided by God. By rejecting evolution you are putting a limit on what God and God can't do. You're saying that God cannot have created life and it's diversification that way, you're putting limits on God's omnipotence.

Many Christians believe in Easter and Christmas too.
So what? An ape was not my ancestor.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Many Christians believe in Easter and Christmas too.
So what? An ape was not my ancestor.

An ape was not my ancestor

I'm afraid it was. Why does it bother if an ape was you ancestor?