Bible accepts evolution

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.

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.

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.

But if it inserted one letter, or repeated a letter, or removed a letter, and the only way you could read it was one letter at a time, then it would have caused a whole shift in the rest of the 'information' in the book.This would be, in fact, new information. This malfunction (random mutation) can actually add information, and cause benefital mutations that can cause enough change in a species that this changed species can no longer reproduce with the parent species and then evolution has occured.

So you assert...."Different genes" can produce new genetic information."New genes" are not required for new genetic information. Your Argument from Authority supporting your Argument from Incredulity doesn't need repeating. Also, Sagan isn't saying that it is impossible, just that it is rare, so your logical fallacy isn't even supporting your argument to begin with.You are just refusing to 'believe in' evolution. You have beliefs that you feel evolution contradicts. If you incounter evidence that goes against you beliefs then you maintain your belief and ignore (or refuse) the evidence. It is intellectually dishonest. You should form your beliefs around the available evidence, not form the available evidence around your beliefs. That's a poor ilustration.Consider this:superman gets changed to supperman. A small increase in information (genetic mutation). Now, lets just read the letters three at a time, assuming genetic information is read like this, in these litle sequences.Before the change we have: sup, upe, per, erm, rma, man. (some amount, X, of information).
After the change we have: sup, upp, ppe, per, erm, rma, man.Make sense?So in both cases we have sup, per, erm, rma, and man. No loss or gain, or change at all in the individual from those sequences.We have lost one sequence and that is 'upe' but we have gained two sequences, 'upp' and 'ppe'.The majority of the info has remained the same so this, presumably will not have detrimental effects on the individual. Some info has been lost, which could just kill it, who knows. And some info has been gained, which too could just kill it. But it is not impossible that this new information provides the individual with a benefit.You assert that it is, impossible.Do you understand the words that are comming out of my mouth? Once you accept evolution we can discuss if the Bible does too.

Sorry for causeing confusion. I didn't meant that you asserted what followed that line. I meant that you asserted what preceded it. What followed it was my reply to your assertion.Please re-reply to the post with this clarification.I put a lot of time in explaining it to you, the least you could do is actually reply to it.Again, sorry for the confusion.