Bible accepts evolution

You are apparently unaware that many Christians accept macro-evolution and the whole Theory of Evolution.See Clergy Letter which has been endorsed by over 10,000 US Christian Clergy. Wrong yet again.Macro-evolution is the sum of Micro-evolution over time. You only see it when looking at two distant points in a continuum. Only when you look at two or more examples widely separated does the FACT of Macro-evolution become visible.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Things reproduce according to their kind, just like the Bible says (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25). They always have and they always will”while ever this world exists."There are many breeds of pigeons, cattle, horses, dogs, etc., but they are all pigeons, cattle, horses, dogs, etc. Recombination of existing genes can produce enormous variety within a kind, but the variation is limited by the genes present. If there are no genes present for producing feathers, you can breed reptiles for a billion years and you will not get anything with feathers!"

Please provide a working definition of "kind".

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

What about mutation? That can cause all kinds of wacky stuff.You accept emormous variety within a kind. Feathers are just an enormous variety of reptile's scales.You'll reject evolution no matter how much evidence you see, won't you? Just becuase humans evolved doesn't mean there's no god, get over it already. Don't let your religion prevent you from seeing truth.

Here's a simple definition of a "kind"Kind
1. A group of individuals linked by traits held in common. 2. A particular variety; a sort: What kind of soap do you like best?
3. Fundamental, underlying character as a determinant of the class to which a thing belongs; nature or essence. 4. A doubtful or borderline member of a given category: fashioned a kind of shelter; a kind of bluish color. 5. Archaic MannerLet see if you can go around it. :-)

>>>What about mutation? That can cause all kinds of wacky stuff.You accept emormous variety within a kind. Feathers are just an enormous variety of reptile's scales.<<<*************************************Question: How do I reply with auto quotes (like yours) on this forum?*************************************To get evolution 'from bacteria to Bach' requires incredible amounts of new information to be added. Typical bacteria have about 2,000 proteins; a human has about 100,000. At every upward step of evolution there needs to be new information added. Where does it come from? Not from mutations ” they degrade information.Carl Sagan, ardent evolutionist, admitted: '... mutations occur at random and are almost uniformly harmful”it is rare that a precision machine is improved by a random change in the instructions for making it.' (Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1977, p. 28.) (Source)Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.

So what "kind" does a hyena fall into? How about Homo spaiens what "kind" are we?Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

After you hit reply, look to the left of the box you type in and there will be a link for dBCodes On Help.It links you to here peek at what I've typed in by clicking on the peek box in the bottom right of my message.

---

Do you realise that you just moved the goalposts?But I agree that it is a lot of info. That is what I would call an unsubstantiated assertion. They don't do much to further the discussion. Let me exemplify with this response:I disagree. Mutations can promote information. Yes, it is rare. But no matter how rare it is, in the brazillion amount of critters that have run around this planet for billions of years, the probability is very high that it will eventually happen, hell, its inevitable.

Dr. Jones>>>> So what "kind" does a hyena fall into? How about Homo spaiens what "kind" are we?<<<<We are a product of a descent with modification -- the union between the descendants of the prehistoric woman (Mt. Eve 150-190K years ago) and the Adam; descendants (human).Edited by 4Pillars, : No reason given.

More totally unsupported assertions that also include totally undefined terms. In addition it has absolutely nothing to do with anything in my message.Acceptance of nonsense phrases like "within kinds" and the rest of your post is unfortunately both common and unchallenged in far too many of today's Christian Churches and schools. Thank GOD that is not the case here.In Message 16, which you failed to address, I pointed out two things, that much of Christianity fully accepts the Theory of Evolution and also rejects Biblical Creationism and that you do not seem to understand what Macro-evolution means. The post I am responding to simply confirms that you do not understand what Macro-evolution is.The question is, do you want to learn or are you committed to maintaining your ignorance?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

An example of Kind.Primate Kind: Man, Orangutan, Bonobo, Chimpanzee, Gorilla.Let's see you get around it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So when you say: You ignore the fact that we share 95+% of our DNA with Chimps.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

CatholicScientidt wrote: >>I disagree. Mutations can promote information.<<****************************************New 'species' can and have formed, if by definition we mean something which cannot breed with other species of the same genus, but this is not evidence for evolution. The new species have no new genetic information! For example, a 'new species' has arisen in Drosophila, the ferment fly so popular in undergraduate genetics laboratories. The new 'species' cannot breed with the parent species but is fertile with its own type, so it is, by definition, a new 'species'. However, there is no new genetic information, just the physical rearrangement of the genes on one chromosome ” technically called a 'chromosome translocation'.Again, facts talk, conjectures walk. Cite a clear example of a new function (sight from sightlessness, feathers from scales, etc.) that arose out of a new genetic information created.It is regularly observed that CHANCE does not create new information, it merely garbles it, leading to less information no matter how much time you a lot. So 4.5 billions years?Heck, I'll give you 100 billion years, and chance will still not produce anything with specified complexity.

Your posts are filled with conjecture and lack facks, so why am I to be held to a higher criteria than you?You supply an unsubstantiated assertion and I reply with the same. Your reply to my reply is: where's the proof? Which was my point in the first place. Then you don't even know what evolution is.Listen, man, are you here to learn? or are you here to troll?If you actually want to learn something then you should stay and you will learn alot. If not, then have a nice life.

Dr. Jones: >>>You ignore the fact that we share 95+% of our DNA with Chimps.<<<Just because a Creature has bones, which look like another creature's bones, or have similar DNA does Not mean that both sets of bones or DNA evolved from the same ancestor -- but instead, is evidence that we all have a Common Creator. His name is Jesus.