I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution

[Wick Stick]

Thanks for letting me know that, whereas Moses wrote, "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very GOOD," you take Moses to have meant, "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very NOT-GOOD." Unlike you, in your error, I, and others take Moses to have meant "good" when he wrote "good".

Why do you despise God's word?

How does your idiotic belief--that when God said the evening and the morning were the first day, He did not mean that the evening and the morning were the first day--help to explain the gospel?
How does your idiotic belief--that Moses, when he said that what God created was "very good", meant that what God created was very not-good--help to explain the gospel?

Thinking in the crappy way you think, you obviously have discarded all of philosophy, and, instead, have come to cherish the "wisdom" of men. Why do you despise logic?

I like the way you fabricate things about people you've never met, and then say them in public forums as if you can speak them into existence. Very creative. Gold star for you. I can see why you like a literal interpretation of Genesis.

P.S. Don't forget to put the paste away when you're done eating it.

 

[Stuu]

So he's converted from atheist to agnostic? When did this happen? Please document his conversion for us.

 

[Stuu]

I guess you're going to have to take merely your own word for it that "[AiG] think this picture is about inheritance", inasmuch as the AiG article to which you linked me says no such thing.

I think you will find that in principle, it does say that. Perhaps you disagree with them about mutation and natural selection allowing 'speciation within kinds'.

The KPCOFGS classification scheme, being a tree of porphyry, is not about inheritance, as it is not about a progression of time. Every individual is a member of a species at exactly the same time it is a member of a genus, a member of a family, a member of an order, a member of a class, a member of a kingdom, and a member of a phylum. Like Alate_One, you, too, are obviously incapable of discerning the difference between a tree of porphyry classification scheme, on the one hand, and a family tree, or tree of descendants, on the other. Should any of my fellow YECs (whether they be from AiG, or anybody else) happen to grant you that the KPCOFGS classification scheme is about inheritance, I have no qualm, whatsoever, contradicting them right along with you regarding that, particular falsehood. It has nothing to do with inheritance, nor ancestry, nor descent.

Biology disagrees with you.

Really, man, try to tell me: from what do mammals inherit fur or hair and milk glands, if not from mammals?

Mammals, of course. No mammal ever gave birth to a non-mammal (or hatched from an egg a non-mammal).

Stuart

 

[Right Divider]

So he says that he's a 6, but in his next sentence.... he shows that he's a 10.

"I have the same belief in God as I do in fairies or unicorns".

[no doubt he's talking about rainbow colored unicorns and not the one's that you can see when visiting some parts of Africa]

 

[ok doser]

No mammal ever gave birth to a non-mammal (or hatched from an egg a non-mammal)

but in your fairy tale, some unspecified non-mammal gave birth to a mammal

 

[chair]

but in your fairy tale, some unspecified non-mammal gave birth to a mammal

Well, no. This has been explained repeatedly on this thread. The "fairy tale" is entirely in your head. The transitions are gradual, over many generations. A simple example: A wild wolf never gave birth to a Chihuahua. The Chihuahua developed slowly, over generations.

 

[ok doser]

my bad

in your fairy tale, over a long span of years, in some magical way, non-mammals "developed" into mammals

 

[Right Divider]

my bad

in your fairy tale, over a long span of years, in some magical way, non-mammals "developed" into mammals

"transitioned"

 

[User Name]

"transitioned"

"pivoted"

 

[chair]

my bad

in your fairy tale, over a long span of years, in some magical way, non-mammals "developed" into mammals

The "magic way" has been explained at some length.

 

[Right Divider]

The "magic way" has been explained at some length.

That's some funny stuff right there.

 

[7djengo7]

I like the way you fabricate things about people you've never met, and then say them in public forums as if you can speak them into existence. Very creative. Gold star for you. I can see why you like a literal interpretation of Genesis.

P.S. Don't forget to put the paste away when you're done eating it.

I like how, as you've just demonstrated, you have nothing to say in defense of your anti-Christ, Bible-despising stupidities. Why, rather than to agree with Moses, do you prefer to contradict him, where he tells us that every thing God had made was very good? I didn't fabricate the fact that you do so; rather, you handed that fact out, yourself, by telling us that every thing God had made was not literally very good.

 

[ok doser]

That's some funny stuff right there.

i hope we get our smileys back soon

 

[Right Divider]

i hope we get our smileys back soon

<place where the thumbs up smiley would go>

 

[ok doser]

<place where the thumbs up smiley would go>

I've been doing this lately, but it's just not the same : thumb:

 

[Right Divider]

I've been doing this lately, but it's just not the same : thumb:

 

[7djengo7]

Really, man, try to tell me: from what do mammals inherit fur or hair and milk glands, if not from mammals?

Mammals, of course. No mammal ever gave birth to a non-mammal (or hatched from an egg a non-mammal).

Thanks. So, despite your stuupidity in saying that non-mammals are ancestors of mammals, you nevertheless just admitted the truth that no mammal ever inherited fur or hair and milk glands from one or more non-mammals.

 

[7djengo7]

Well, no. This has been explained repeatedly on this thread. The "fairy tale" is entirely in your head. The transitions are gradual, over many generations. A simple example: A wild wolf never gave birth to a Chihuahua. The Chihuahua developed slowly, over generations.

In other words, you consider your war against logic, your word games, your spouting of nonsense, to be explanation.

But don't you say that a chihuahua IS a wolf?

When you say, "A wild wolf never gave birth to a Chihuahua", to what (if anything) are you referring by the word, "Chihuahua"? To a wolf, or to a non-wolf? Which? Thanks to the law of excluded middle (which you so proudly despise), wolf and non-wolf exhaust your options, here. So, which (if either) of these two things do you mean?

• A wild wolf never gave birth to a wolf
• A wild wolf never gave birth to a non-wolf

Have fun playing your customary word games in your futile attempt to distract attention from the fact that you can't answer this elementary question.

 

[Alate_One]

but in your fairy tale, some unspecified non-mammal gave birth to a mammal

You don't have an animal that's a "non-mammal" giving birth to a mammal. Really if it's giving birth it's already a mammal, and a placental or marsupial mammal at that.

Instead there's a gradual transition from a group of amniotes some of which gain milk production, others gain hair and eventually one hits the combination of milk production and hair that we see in mammals like the Echidna and Platypus (Living egg laying mammals). Then some of those develop more advanced reproduction - leading to the marsupials whereas others develop full on live birth becoming the placental mammals. There would never be a perfect dividing line between mammal and non-mammal if you could see all the ancestors. Extinction actually makes our job easier because all of the intermediates are gone and when you compare a lizard and a rat, there's a clear difference between them. But both lizard and rat share some common characteristics due to shared ancestry.

But there are plenty of situations in life where there are gradual transitions. At what point when building a bridge is something *a bridge* vs. an assemblage of parts?

 

[Alate_One]

• A wild wolf never gave birth to a wolf
• A wild wolf never gave birth to a non-wolf

Have fun playing your customary word games in your futile attempt to distract attention from the fact that you can't answer this elementary question.

:dizzy: Chihuahuas are still wolves in the sense of they're members of Canis lupus. They're very strange and heavily modified wolves, but still wolves in a real sense. They're just some new version of a wolf.

That's how cladistics work. They never stop being connected to their ancestors. The essential characteristics are passed down. They may end up heavily modified but they're modifications of the original.