More from Genesis

Originally posted by CalJust
I was actually talking about the TIME element involved.

One YEC argument is always:
- that we don't need the millions of years, but
- that evolution has never been observed.

My point is that evolution SHOULD have been observed if the changes that you postulate happened so extremely quickly, i.e. in times of recorded history.

You mean like bird beaks getting larger, dog breeds changing, virus altering, or what?
As I said, if God was altering the various kinds then the DNA would have had that as
part of the process, verses what many evolutionist believe that nothing was programmed
into DNA except where random changes caused it.

Originally posted by CalJust
True, evolution does not postulate a master plan or final design, but environmental forces acting on random mutations. That is how evolutionists explain all of life today.

And DNA with God is how creations look at it! Which seems more like a good way to
alter a program, with a plan and purpose, or through random alterations without any
guiding force?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You mean like bird beaks getting larger, dog breeds changing, virus altering, or what?
As I said, if God was altering the various kinds then the DNA would have had that as
part of the process, verses what many evolutionist believe that nothing was programmed
into DNA except where random changes caused it.

Yes, and those random changes that evilutionists believe in to change molecules to man are called genetic mutations. But mutations have the opposite effect through degeneration and going from man to molecules. Without the correct programming in the DNA from the beginning there is no way to go from molecules to man. And anyone that knows anything about programming should realize that correct programming reqires planning and input by an intelligent mind.

Originally posted by KellyJay
And DNA with God is how creations look at it! Which seems more like a good way to
alter a program, with a plan and purpose, or through random alterations without any
guiding force?

KJ, can you understand that anytime anybody quotes God, then that closes the argument? It is like a trump card, which changes every rational debate into a subjective, religious one. Nothing more can be said.

This is exactly like dasa argues: this is the TRUTH, take it or leave it.

But then, you do NOT accept that what dasa says is the truth, nor does he accept your word for it.

If at any time you want to pursue any argument, be it creation or evolution or anything, and be prepared to just look at the empirical evidence that we have, I would be happy to engage you again.

But any argument which starts with : God says, is no argument at all, but a statement of faith. Like two kids arguing: My dad can beat your dad!

Originally posted by CalJust
KJ, can you understand that anytime anybody quotes God, then that closes the argument? It is like a trump card, which changes every rational debate into a subjective, religious one. Nothing more can be said.

This is exactly like dasa argues: this is the TRUTH, take it or leave it.

But then, you do NOT accept that what dasa says is the truth, nor does ...[text shortened]... s no argument at all, but a statement of faith. Like two kids arguing: My dad can beat your dad!

We are just quoting a theory of creation and sonhouse has said that a theory is right until it is proven wrong in a journal of bioscience. 😏