Jump to content

one.opinion

Diamond Member
  • Content Count

    1,997
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

439 Good

6 Followers

About one.opinion

  • Rank
    Diamond Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

1,798 profile views
  1. Right, so does the Bible tell us what a "min" is? The answer is an obvious no. This directly contradicts your earlier statement:
  2. 1. This isn't using Biblical support. 2. Species change over time. If species change then kinds (by your definition) also change. 3. New species are generated from old species over time. This also conflicts with the idea of kinds.
  3. Oh no problem! I just didn't want to leave you waiting on a response from me. Grace and peace
  4. Was this reply intended for @The Barbarian or for me?
  5. Please explain, using only Biblical support, exactly what a "kind" is. Once you can do that, then we can discuss whether or not is an "unassailable principle".
  6. I'm pretty sure you are so full of indignation that you misunderstood what he said. I believe that God created everything - but not in 144 hours roughly 6,000 years ago. Evolution (heritable change over time) is an easily observable phenomenon. Evolution, properly defined, is fact. It is no more a lie than saying the sky is blue. There are implications of evolution like common ancestry, that must be inferred, but are supported by evidence. Do you understand the difference between having a different opinion regarding interpretation of the Bible than you and "calling God a liar"? God is not a liar and no one in this thread claimed He was. 1. Good, I am also a follower of Christ. 2. Do you think there were ever differences of opinion regarding interpretation of scripture in the actual Temple? I'm pretty confident there were. 3. Expressing a different opinion is not using God's Temple (or using Worthy Christian Forums) like my own personal profit-making scheme. I think you should deal with it by first trying to figure out why you are so unnecessarily angered by a difference of opinion. If you want more advice after you take that first step, just let me know.
  7. I'm telling you that you are adding your own interpretation to what a "kind" is and what it means. Oh? Why is that?
  8. It'll be interesting to see if a YEC can admit a mistake...
  9. I don't believe either of us claimed that "after its kind" is not in the Bible. What I meant is that many young earth creationists take "after its kind" to mean something far beyond what the Bible actually says. For example, you and others "after its kind" somehow disproves evolution, which can be defined as "heritable change in a population over time". Evolution can be directly observed around us today.
  10. Your assertion about what “after its kind” means is entirely speculation. It is not based on the Word of God, but based on the guesswork of fallible humans. Repeating it and demanding that it must mean what you say it means does not make it any more true.
  11. I have verified evidence for natural selection. This is very easy to see by the example from the AiG site of predators culling prey that are not as suited genetically as others in a population. Just to remind you what you continued to claim since December 20th (on page 91, toward the bottom): You are claiming that natural selection does not exist. On page 105, you claim that ICR denies natural selection. Unsurprisingly, you provided no evidence for your assertion. I showed you that ICR, AiG, and CMI all accept natural selection. On page 106, I offered you a definition to discuss. You acted like a small child and refused to discuss this. So let's look at a piece of evidence that shows natural selection as a means of evolution (heritable change in a population over time). The rock pocket mouse lives in rocky areas in southern Arizona, New Mexico, and northern Mexico. There are light colored varieties and dark colored varieties. The light colored varieties live on other rock formations that are lighter in color and are more camouflaged there. The dark colored varieties tend to live on volcanic (darker) rock, where they are better camouflaged. (top left - light mouse on light rock: top right - dark mouse on dark rock: bottom left - dark mouse on light rock: bottom right - light mouse on dark rock) The volcanic rock is found in relatively small areas that are distinctly isolated (up to dozens of miles) from one another. Interestingly, the different sub-populations on volcanic rock show different genetic mechanisms for achieving the darker color. Researchers studied the abundance of the different colored mice on the different rock type with the following results. This shows the distribution of light and dark mice on light and dark rock at several sites that the researchers studied. This clearly shows natural selection - "process that results in the adaptation of an organism to its environment by means of selectively reproducing changes in its genotype". The dark versions of the species have genetic differences that make them better suited to their environment. The light versions of the species have genetic differences that make them better suited to their environment. Thus, this is a great example of natural selection seen out in the real habitat. Remember, evolution is the heritable change in a population over time. Due to natural selection within this species, the dark versions of this mouse evolved (the researchers identified a mutation in a particular gene involved in pigmentation) and are better suited to living on the dark rocks. So here we are, clear evidence of both evolution and natural selection. While it is true that these are still members of the same species, this single example clearly refutes your claims that evolution has not been observed, and that natural selection does not exist.
  12. You certainly earned points for humor! However, repeating something doesn't make it any more true, now matter how hard you try. First, why do you presume to be the ultimate arbiter of what "evolution" means? Second, I presented definitions from several different sources earlier in this thread that backs up exactly what I said. Do you have anything to substantiate your (humorously repeated) claim that I am wrong?
  13. I've waited, but just want to make a few quick observations. 1. You've claimed for about 20 days that I can't provided evidence for natural selection. I've now provided evidence for natural selection. 2. This is utterly false. In what way does "natural selection is a fact" refute natural selection? 3. Now you are quibbling with definitions, which is exactly why I wanted to agree on a definition before providing evidence. You refused to do it and now you are going to try to make up some definition (known only to you) and use that definition to claim you were not provided evidence. THAT, friend, is what is actually known as "moving the goalpost", not a request to decided on a definition before providing evidence. Your strategy for refuting evolution is to attempt to play word games.
  14. It is on page 122, the page previous to this one.
×
×
  • Create New...