omega2xx

I don't deny speciation. I claim that when the only difference is the inability to mate, and the species doesn't change, it is not evidence of evolution. If the salamanders and gulls remained salamanders and gulls, where is the evolution? Barbarian couldn't answer that question, can you. Believe what you wish, but what you have presented as evidence is only opinions, which prove nothing. Did you forget to post the Hebrew words that indicate the flood was not global? Yesterday as I was finishing my response to you, I got interrupted and did not get the chance to thank you for wishing me a happy Thanksgiving and wishing you the same. I hope you had a very happy thanksgiving. Love, peace and joy.

Since it is literal, it refutes evolution. All progeny bear the exact species of it parents. Traits vary because of dominant and recessive genes and mutations, but the species(kind) never changes. The Bible doesn't say kinds re immutable and static, because "after their kind" makes each species immutable and static if the concept is properly understood. If the species were not immutable and static, God would have told us. Then you would have something to hang you evolution hat on. Progeny traits do change every generation, but the species never changes because genetics will not allow it. Populations can't diverge from its species because genetics will not allow it and that would make the literal after their kind false. For a species to change, the offspring must get a trait that is not in the gene pool of its parents. There is no known mechanism for that to happen. Evolution has put all of its eggs in the "common descent" basket, but the truth is, you have no idea what the first life form was or how it came into being. If if their guess was right, there in no genetic way a single cell, could h ave all of her genes necessary to evolve into the thousands of species we have today. Also, it could not have the DNA for all of the life forms. Maybe the biggest jump you have to explain is how did animal life evolve from plant life?

After the kind for birds, fish, cattle, beasts, and man.

How do you determine if a passage is literal or figurative? Is "after their kind" literal or figurative? Whatever you choose, can you support it scientifically?

What are these words? While the text does not use he word "global," the context indicates it was global. Also there are Christians scientist far more qualified than you are on this subject who say it was global, and they provide some evidence. What you consider reality, does not mean it is reality. I doubt if you can support there are millions of Christians that accept evolution.

You didn't show me anything. You just presented it as a fact. Both were separate, distinct, and different species. For some reason you seem to think if you say something, you believe, it is evidence. Think again. WE have a different opinion on whatg is real evidence.

That's the point. It was called speciation and they did not changed. Maybe it is you who need to remember what evolution is. Genetics refutes common descent. there are no transitional fossils. Things you have accepted by faith alone

How does salamanders and gulls remaining salamander and gulls , support evolution?

We are to keep working, we were created for good works. We just don't do good works to be saved. The rest is spiritual, not physical. I am sure most, if not all, who have commented on this subject know that, but it doesn't seem to be emphasized. Love, peace, joy

Have a nice day. Love, peace, joy

Answer the questions or change he subject. Love, peace, joy

have a nice day. Lo ve, pece, joy

"Do what the verse you quoted says---give to those who ask. While you wait, pray he will ask

Answer the questions or forget this discussion.

I have been with this for over 40 years. IO use to look at links until l discovered they only made dogmatic statements, the usual evo talking points and NEVER provide any verifiable evidence. From this I have to conclude you do not understand what constitutes verifiable evidence. I have ask you to prove how mutations can be the mechanism for a change of species. You change the subject. Until you do, don't expect a reply from what has become a merry-go-round. Love, peace. joy

Answer the questions: do you obey all of the Torah perfectly all the time? Will you get to heaven based on your keeping all of the Torah perfectly all the time? Jas 2:10 - For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles on one point, he has become guilty of all. love, peace, joy

I am not going to reply to this post until you answer my questions about if you keeping the law perfectly all the time.

I suggest you talk to a dog breeder and ask if he has ever seen, no matter what the environment and his selective forcing of change, ever had a dog produce something other than a puppy dog and if that puppy dog produced something other than another puppy dog. I would also ask you to get some education about varieties in a species is not a new species. Love, peace, and joy

What is worse is pretending most of what you and the others say is evidence when it is usually what you have accepted by faith alone because that what you and the others before you were taught since about the 6th grade. So I will ask you for the scientific evidence for one thing that any biologist with only an under graduate degree should be able to present---How does a mutation change a species? I have put on my prophecy hat and predict you will give the usual evo talking points and not give a scientific explanation. I also resent your false accusation that I am only pretending to b e interested in evidence. Can you read minds.? You makes such accusations because i ask for evidence, which any capable scientist should be able to do easily. IMO you do not understand what verifiable evidence is. Let me give you an example---when a cat has kittens and those kittens grow up and have more kittens and nothing else, that proves "after their kind." A biological truth proved thousands of times every day and can't be falsified., which evolution rejects and that with no EVIDENCE. If you reject creationism in favor of a man made unproven theory, that's fine with me, but don't accuse me of something for which you have no evidence. Love, peace, joy

The verses you quoted from Hebrew are wonderful, one of my favorite books, but most of them have nothing to do with this subject. You have also misunderstood the question. Let me put it this way: is obedience to the law requires to receive the benefits of following God? It is a no brainer that followers of God should obey any laws, He has not eliminated or that can't be followed as prescribed in the Bible. Obeying the law is not essential for the new covenant. God is going to institute the new covenant no matter what man does or does not do. Read it again and note how many time God says, "I will." Love, peace, joy

Love, peace, joy