Evolution

[keithprosser3]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?
How can evolution not happen?

[keithprosser3]

I'd say the obscurity and ambiguity in KJV's Gen 1:20 is cleared up in Gen 1:21.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

It seems clear enough that God created not only birds and fishes separately but each species separately. 'After their/his kind' really has no other reasonable interpretation.

Short of a verse that says 'And god said, evolution is an abomination in my sight' the evidence could not be clearer (even in the obscure and archaic language of the KJV): the writers of Genesis believed what almost everyone believed until 1859 - species (or 'kinds') were individually created and immutable.

[keithprosser3]

I'd say the obscurity and ambiguity in KJV's Gen 1:20 is cleared up in Gen 1:21.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

It seems clear enough that God created not only birds and fishes separately but each species separately. 'After their/his kind' really has no other reasonable interpretation.

Short of a verse that says 'And god said, evolution is an abomination in my sight' the evidence could not be clearer (even in the obscure and archaic language of the KJV): the writers of Genesis believed what almost everyone believed until 1859 - species (or 'kinds') were individually created and immutable.

[keithprosser3]

I'd say the obscurity and ambiguity in KJV's Gen 1:20 is cleared up in Gen 1:21.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

It seems clear enough that God created not only birds and fishes separately but each species separately. 'After their/his kind' really has no other reasonable interpretation.

Short of a verse that says 'And god said, evolution is an abomination in my sight' the evidence could not be clearer (even in the obscure and archaic language of the KJV): the writers of Genesis believed what almost everyone believed until 1859 - species (or 'kinds') were individually created and immutable.

[Doulos]

e[Replying to post 1 by keithprosser3]

because Krondos Lord of Ungitor creator of earth revealed to me that he created the earth 200 years ago and gave us a false history.

Did he really?

[Doulos]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?

Because the genetic code cannot pop into existence from nowhere.

[Goat]

Given the nature of reproduction and of natural selection isn't evolution inescapable?

Because the genetic code cannot pop into existence from nowhere.

Who said it popped into existence out of no where? How does that answer the question?

[olavisjo]

.

Who said it popped into existence out of no where? How does that answer the question?

I don't think anything has been answered.

What came first, the ability to write genetic code, the genetic code itself, the ability to read genetic code, or the ability to translate genetic code.

[Doulos]

[Replying to post 45 by Goat]

So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Yet again, science is dead - scientists are not.

I disagree with those scientists who claim that the hand of God cannot be seen in nature as God's creation. I disagree with those scientists who think observing nature disproves the possibility of a God. I disagree with those scientists who deny creation and God's purpose with creation.

And I disagree with scientists who are positivists. They are the worst kind.

[Doulos]

[Replying to post 46 by olavisjo]

What came first, the ability to write genetic code, the genetic code itself, the ability to read genetic code, or the ability to translate genetic code.

Genetic code is essentially a message - all messages have an author - genetic code included. If it does not have an author it popped into existence from nowhere - that is ridiculous to say the least.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 45 by Goat]

So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Yet again, science is dead - scientists are not.

I disagree with those scientists who claim that the hand of God cannot be seen in nature as God's creation. I disagree with those scientists who think observing nature disproves the possibility of a God. I disagree with those scientists who deny creation and God's purpose with creation.

And I disagree with scientists who are positivists. They are the worst kind.

Yet, just saying you disagree doesn't explain why you disagree. Can you provide a rational explination other than hand waving opinions away you don't like?

No one said Science was anything but a methodology,.

Let's see you show that 'The Hand of God' can be seen in nature. How would you know?? How can you test that statement, or is that just the logical fallacy of 'Argument from personal belief', also known as 'argument from ignorance'?