Originally posted by Unsane
Yes, it is. So you agree that species can change 'within their kind' (what is a 'kind' anyway?) but you think this change can happen in less than
6000 years? This period of time is no where near enough time for the type of changes you are talking about.
the examples i cited happened within one generation with the birds. the birds changed because of a radical change in there environment.
the moths, it was within several years.
minor changes can happen very quick. however, there are limits. and some geneticist are finding this out. there are limits to how far genes will
"bend". if you want citation, i believe there is an experiment with "hairs" on a bug. there was an average number found in the species, and the
geneticist tried to bread them for that they grow more.
cant remember where though sorry.
The next stage is to extend the process out over a long timeframe. What happens? A big series of changes, right?
no, not really. some evolutionist try to show the evolution of the eye by showing this progressive chart of different eyes. problem is, all the eyes
were present in species from the beginning and all the different form exist even today.
the fossil record shows boney fish, with completely formed eyes in the cambrian.
yet today we have the nautilus with it's pinhole eye, a living fossil if you will.
if there was this "arms race" to form eyes, wouldnt it be logical to say that the nautilus would be inferior and would be phased out? yet there he
is chugging away.
'acknowledge' being the operative word here, does not mean that there isn't one waiting for us to find it. In certain cases, we DO have a good
record of changes. I managed to dig this out, which I hope explains
transitioanl fossils quite well.
i dont usually post creationist websites, they usually just give me a headache with stuff like "god put fossils there to test us"
but this one is good, it actually talks about the data. i noticed the video mentioned the tiktaalik. so this is an interesting article about that
creationontheweb.com...
Sorry to go back to this, but irreducibility complexity takes this back further. The person built the house, God built the person, who built
God?
why would god need to be built?
logic dictates that something (doesnt necessarily have to be god) HAS to have no beginning. other wise at some point there is nothing. something
cannot come from nothing
If God was the beginning, the complexity of God needs to be taken into account. I would say that God is more complex than the universe,
as he created it.
On the other hand, If the universe just 'was' there are the beginning, like God was, then the complexity of the universe is taken into
account. The universe is less complex than a God, therefore it is more likely to have been there at the beginning.
im not sure i understand what your saying.
the impression im getting is that if the universe has no beginning, then it accounts for its own complexity, but if god has no beginnning then somehow
this doesnt account for his complexity?
|
