Originally posted by ChurlantYes, but the point is that now I'm climbing and building not walking.
If you want to go that route, I could say that while you can't literally walk over a mountain, you can climb it or even go around. While you can't walk the ocean, you can build a boat.
However this process doesn't follow beause it isn't that easy to analogize. Even if it were, I still want to know why you believe in one, but refuse ...[text shortened]... t or two into the air, there are way too many obstacles to get any higher than that.
-JC
Kelly
Originally posted by ChurlantWe can see one, we can breed dogs to be bigger or smaller, we have
If you want to go that route, I could say that while you can't literally walk over a mountain, you can climb it or even go around. While you can't walk the ocean, you can build a boat.
However this process doesn't follow beause it isn't that easy to analogize. Even if it were, I still want to know why you believe in one, but refuse ...[text shortened]... t or two into the air, there are way too many obstacles to get any higher than that.
-JC
seen flies lose their wings. We have not seen anything more than
that, to suggest one proves the other is a leap of faith.
Kelly
Originally posted by Churlant"Since you like the invalid comparisons, why not offer one of my own. It's like me saying I refuse to believe we can fly because while I may be able to jump a foot or two into the air, there are way too many obstacles to get any higher than that. "
If you want to go that route, I could say that while you can't literally walk over a mountain, you can climb it or even go around. While you can't walk the ocean, you can build a boat.
However this process doesn't follow beause it isn't that easy to analogize. Even if it were, I still want to know why you believe in one, but refuse ...[text shortened]... t or two into the air, there are way too many obstacles to get any higher than that.
-JC
I take it you can walk. Can you do it on the moon, can you do it on
the bottom of the ocean floor without special help? If all we are
talking about is walking and all we see is you walking across the
street, does this mean you can without aid walk anywhere under
all conditions? I believe you can jump, but that does not translate
into flying without adding something like an airplane into the mix.
My point again if all we are talking about is small changes in DNA,
then unless you add something to that, that isn't enough to do what
is required to come up with a nervous system where one wasn't before
in the evoutionary time line, to suggest otherwise is faith. We can
see a current system change, but that isn't the same as building
one where one wasn't before.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay1. We CAN see the larger changes, but I understand you don't accept fossil (and other) evidence, so we'll ignore this point.
We can see one, we can breed dogs to be bigger or smaller, we have
seen flies lose their wings. We have not seen anything more than
that, to suggest one proves the other is a leap of faith.
Kelly
2. I'm not saying that one proves the other. You have no idea how much restraint it is taking to keep from capping everything to try and MAKE you read what I'm typing out.
What I am asking is how you can absolutely refuse to accept the possibility (NOT proof - POTENTIAL) of one while simultaneously accepting the other.
-JC
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, but the nature of genetic mutation is to provide that help.
"
I take it you can walk. Can you do it on the moon, can you do it on
the bottom of the ocean floor without special help? Kelly
I'm not getting into the rest of your cut and paste arguments about nervous systems and dogs and the like. My point here is beyond the basic argument - since you are obviously not going to change your stance, regardless of what I or anyone else have to say.
My point in this instance is to understand how you can accept the existence of "small" changes while completely rejecting even the possibility that large changes happen as well.
-JC
1 edit
Originally posted by ChurlantIt is like this, I can pop into someone else's code in programming,
1. We CAN see the larger changes, but I understand you don't accept fossil (and other) evidence, so we'll ignore this point.
2. I'm not saying that one proves the other. You have no idea how much restraint it is taking to keep from capping everything to try and MAKE you read what I'm typing out.
What I am asking is how you can absolutely ref ...[text shortened]... sibility (NOT proof - POTENTIAL) of one while simultaneously accepting the other.
-JC
and possibly make a change or two, minor in scope touching just
the little parts I understand. This does not mean that I can with my
limited knowledge in a programming knowledge write the full code
required to do certain takes. It is also dangerous depending on what
I'm changing that I can break something completely out of the
scope of my knowledge without knowing it. Being able touch a
program already in place does not mean I can write one that does
what is needed.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayOne major difference is that we have evidence for billions of years, but not your god.
The central tenet of that post is that you have to claim millions or
billions of years to take the belief that these small changes add up
to something else. When you complain about people who say God
did it, you do the same thing with the use of long periods of time.
I acknowledge small changes, I acknowledge small variations in
species or kinds, but I ...[text shortened]...
line of distant cousins instead of ancient grandparents. We have
like creatures today.
Kelly
Originally posted by hakamanTry to be less illiterate in future.
so the great flood went down,i am to beleave that all races came from Noahs people,is this evolution?taking into account the number of years it would take to make this tarnsformation,into to any race,how many generations has it been since the flood.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThat's where you fall down Kelly. You make an invalid comparison. You require "special help". The fact that someone cannot walk to the oceans floor is not because they cannot walk, it's because (a) their body is not physically capable of withstanding those pressures, and (b) they require oxygen to breathe. Genes require neither of these things, as evidenced by whales, and deep sea fish. You are attempting to artificially constructed a barrier around what genes can and cannot do, based on your perception of what you believe they do now, which is apparently not grounded in scientific fact.
I take it you can walk. Can you do it on the moon, can you do it on
the bottom of the ocean floor without special help?