Originally posted by OdBod
DNA determines the structure of an organism, if you change the DNA enough you will get a very different organism . When drug resistance in bacteria comes about this is due to a change in its DNA.

this is elementary, the bacteria does not however transmute into some other genus, in fact, there have been zillions of experiments done with the goal to prove that a genus transmutates through aberration at a molecular level and not a single example of it actually happening so that a new species is formed. I can refer you to the Drosophila melanogaster experiments by Dobzhansky.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No.

I can't provide any examples of transmutation and DON'T believe it occurred you lying coward.

How many times do I have to tell you that you are arguing against what I DON'T BELIEVE before
you stop?

How much of a coward are you?

thankyou.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
First of all I don't hold that they are either two nor conflicting accounts, the genesis account does not give specific time periods, although it does state that marine creatures were created and then the 'great sea monsters',literally great reptiles which we understand to include dinosaurs were created later.

And God went on to say: “Let the wa ...[text shortened]... y there is a distinction in time between the creation of some kinds and those of other kinds.

Well, regarding contradictions within the Genesis account first; Genesis 1:25-27 has your animals created prior to your humans, while Genesis 2:18-22 has your humans created prior to your animals. Now to me, that's a contradiction, but I guess you can probably view it differently if you put some effort into it.

I'm not sure I follow your other point. Do you view all dinosaurs as 'sea-monsters' rather than 'land animals', according to Genesis?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Well, regarding contradictions within the Genesis account first; Genesis 1:25-27 has your animals created prior to your humans, while Genesis 2:18-22 has your humans created prior to your animals. Now to me, that's a contradiction, but I guess you can probably view it differently if you put some effort into it.

I'm not sure I follow your other poi ...[text shortened]... you view all dinosaurs as 'sea-monsters' rather than 'land animals', according to Genesis?

actually although the text states sea monsters, the footnote reads 'great reptiles'. I could demonstrate how the accounts are reconciled, but well, does it really matter.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
actually although the text states sea monsters, the footnote reads 'great reptiles'. I could demonstrate how the accounts are reconciled, but well, does it really matter.

So is it your view then that all sediments laid down prior to those containing evidence of modern flora and fauna were deposited during the creation?

edit: ...although the text states sea monsters, the footnote reads 'great reptiles'...

What about the original Greek, how does that look?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
So is it your view then that all sediments laid down prior to those containing evidence of modern flora and fauna were deposited during the creation?

edit: [b]...although the text states sea monsters, the footnote reads 'great reptiles'...

What about the original Greek, how does that look?[/b]

Lol, its Hebrew, Genesis written in Hebrew. The account states what it does, its not a scientific text book.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this is elementary, the bacteria does not however transmute into some other genus, in fact, there have been zillions of experiments done with the goal to prove that a genus transmutates through aberration at a molecular level and not a single example of it actually happening so that a new species is formed. I can refer you to the Drosophila melanogaster experiments by Dobzhansky.

I think you have missed the point,the change in DNA is incremental and a new species arise given enough time and/or separation.The case of developing drug resistant bacteria demonstrates that DNA can and does change.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, its Hebrew, Genesis written in Hebrew. The account states what it does, its not a scientific text book.

All the same, you've got your reptiles all created on the fifth day, and then man on the sixth. How long do you think the creation 'days' were? Jurassic sediments alone can be kilometers thick!

Originally posted by OdBod
I think you have missed the point,the change in DNA is incremental and a new species arise given enough time and/or separation.The case of developing drug resistant bacteria demonstrates that DNA can and does change.

no one is disputing that aberration occurs at a molecular level, no one is disputing that adaptation occurs, what i am disputing is that adaptation leads to transmutation, never the less and rather interestingly, DNA has a component enzyme whose function is to repair aberration.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
All the same, you've got your reptiles all created on the fifth day, and then man on the sixth. How long do you think the creation 'days' were? Jurassic sediments alone can be kilometers thick!

yes its states that the great reptiles were created on the fifth day, domestic animals and man on the sixth. Yes but so what? a 'day', is simply an unspecified duration of time.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes its states that the great reptiles were created on the fifth day, domestic animals and man on the sixth. Yes but so what? a 'day', is simply an unspecified duration of time.

Not in this case. Don't forget there was an evening and a morning just like the 24 hour day we have today. A day with an evening and a morning has always indicated a 24 hour day as far as I know. 😏

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes its states that the great reptiles were created on the fifth day, domestic animals and man on the sixth. Yes but so what? a 'day', is simply an unspecified duration of time.

How can domestic animals have been created before humans? Surely humans had to have been created first to carry out the domesticating?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes its states that the great reptiles were created on the fifth day, domestic animals and man on the sixth. Yes but so what? a 'day', is simply an unspecified duration of time.

Hmm. But doesn't it say that he created the 'land' on the second day? There's no mention of additional land-creation between the fifth and sixth days, is there? Do you consider the Genesis 'days' to be of equal length?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no one is disputing that aberration occurs at a molecular level, no one is disputing that adaptation occurs, what i am disputing is that adaptation leads to transmutation, never the less and rather interestingly, DNA has a component enzyme whose function is to repair aberration.

If an "aberration" occurs that brings about an advantageous adaptation it can be passed onto the next generation, is it possible that given enough "aberrations" and passed on adaptation we might arrive at a DNA structure which would build an organism so different from the original as to constitute transmutation?

Originally posted by OdBod
I think you have missed the point,the change in DNA is incremental and a new species arise given enough time and/or separation.The case of developing drug resistant bacteria demonstrates that DNA can and does change.

For the third time, I have not missed the point, I merely have not seen any evidence of transmutation and as you have failed to provide any other than to state that bacteria adapts and remains bacteria I am left with the proposition that you are giving credence to an unobserved phenomena.