Originally posted by RJHindsWhen two individuals mate and have a child, the child has a unique combination of genes from both parts, thus changing the overall gene pool of the species. I am sorry to inform you that this happens whether God likes it or not. And the more you deny it, the stupider you look.
Just declaring something happens does not make it so unless it is God's will and it ain't.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat you wrote there is the way God designed it to work; and so it is his will. But the Holy Bible clearly informs us that God made different kinds to bring forth after their kind and not one of the different kinds, because that is the way God designed it to work. God did not design it to work by evil-lution because evil-lution is evil and not good. Evil-lution is the way Satan wants it to work.
When two individuals mate and have a child, the child has a unique combination of genes from both parts, thus changing the overall gene pool of the species. I am sorry to inform you that this happens whether God likes it or not. And the more you deny it, the stupider you look.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThey should hate Hutton even more. He's the guy who showed his peers a rock outcrop and thus convinced them the earth must be incredibly old. That was several years before Darwin was born. Hutton gave Darwin the time he needed for natural selection to work in.
Young earthers haven't had much argument since Darwin (which explains why they hate him so much).
But the lack of a valid argument never stops a true believer.
Originally posted by KeplerWhat, you didn't know a slab of rock could turn 180 degrees on itself in less than 6000 years?
They should hate Hutton even more. He's the guy who showed his peers a rock outcrop and thus convinced them the earth must be incredibly old. That was several years before Darwin was born. Hutton gave Darwin the time he needed for natural selection to work in.
Originally posted by KeplerFor some odd reason most young earth creationists are a lot less bothered by astronomy and geology than they are by biology.
They should hate Hutton even more. He's the guy who showed his peers a rock outcrop and thus convinced them the earth must be incredibly old. That was several years before Darwin was born. Hutton gave Darwin the time he needed for natural selection to work in.
Originally posted by KeplerOnly if its changed very fast, and not all the life forms go extinct. In fact, there are usually some that benefit. Even domestic breeding is a form of deliberate changing of the environment and almost invariably does not result in extinction.
That may be the case. However, deliberately changing them tends to cause the occupants to go extinct. That sort of thing is frowned upon apparently.
Originally posted by sonhouseIt's not the turning that convinced Hutton and others. It was the time needed to lay down several miles of sediment, turn it on its side, raise it above the sea, erode it, sink it back below the sea and then lay down another few miles of sediment on top of the erosion surface that did it. Fine grained sediment at that so all the catastrophists couldn't square the thing with biblical floods, mythical ages of fire and ice or even lumps of rock falling out of the sky.
What, you didn't know a slab of rock could turn 180 degrees on itself in less than 6000 years?
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's why it is difficult to observe evolution in action or do experiments on it. Change things fast enough for humans to observe in their lifetime and your experimental subjects are extinct because they can't evolve fast enough. Then you get your funding cut because you did something dubious.
Only if its changed very fast, and not all the life forms go extinct. In fact, there are usually some that benefit. Even domestic breeding is a form of deliberate changing of the environment and almost invariably does not result in extinction.