- This topic is empty.
- AuthorPosts
- January 9, 2013 at 12:12 pm#369671terrariccaParticipant
Quote (t8 @ Jan. 09 2013,16:31) Actually this might clear things up a bit. Natural selection is true and both Evolutionists and Creationists agree on it.
If my memory serves me correctly, Natural Selection was first proposed by a man who believed in God who believed that it served to keep the best of the species. So that when the environment changed, the species would survive because there would be variation that would support the species. However, Darwin took the theory and proposed an opposite conclusion to it.
We're can we see the love of God in itJanuary 10, 2013 at 2:52 am#369673mikeboll64BlockedYes, perhaps I should have said “natural selection”, instead of “evolution”.
January 10, 2013 at 2:58 am#369674terrariccaParticipantMike
at this point I will stick to Gods love as the rule of creation and not some men made vocabulary to lose the unaware ,
January 10, 2013 at 3:14 am#369675ProclaimerParticipantTerricca, Natural Selection just explains that all the DNA of humans or animals is varied and some traits are not useful right now. But in the right conditions, a trait may become favourable even essential for the survival of that species.
An example is the one that is usually given to prove Evolution, when in actual fact it proves Natural Selection.
Quote Before the Industrial Revolution, the peppered moth was mostly found in a light grey form with little black speckled spots. The light-bodied moths were able to blend in with the light-coloured lichens and tree bark, and the less common black moth was more likely to be eaten by birds. As a result of the common light-coloured lichens and English trees, therefore, the light-coloured moths were much more effective at hiding from predators, and the frequency of the dark allele was about 0.01%.
During the early decades of the Industrial Revolution in England, the countryside between London and Manchester was blanketed with soot from the new coal-burning factories. Many of the light-bodied lichens died from sulphur dioxide emissions, and the trees became covered with soot. This led to an increase in bird predation for light-coloured moths, as they no longer blended in as well in their polluted ecosystem: indeed, their bodies now dramatically contrasted with the colour of the bark. Dark-coloured moths, on the other hand, were camouflaged very well by the blackened trees.Although a majority of light-coloured moths initially continued to be produced, most of them didn't survive, while the dark-coloured moths flourished. As a result, over the course of many generations of moths, the allele frequency gradually shifted towards the dominant allele, as more and more dark-bodied moths survived to reproduce. By the mid-19th century, the number of dark-coloured moths had risen noticeably, and by 1895, the percentage of dark-coloured moths in the Manchester peppered moth population was reported at 98%, a dramatic change (by almost 1000%) from the original frequency.
Where is the love of God in that? I guess that the species was able to survive and without variation in the gene pool, the moth might have died out completely.
The crazy thing is that this example is given to prove Evolution when it only proves Natural Selection because the moth didn't change into another species but remained within its own kind and the change was already part of their DNA and not some new introduced code.
January 10, 2013 at 5:03 am#369676terrariccaParticipantQuote (t8 @ Jan. 10 2013,08:14) Terricca, Natural Selection just explains that all the DNA of humans or animals is varied and some traits are not useful right now. But in the right conditions, a trait may become favourable even essential for the survival of that species. An example is the one that is usually given to prove Evolution, when in actual fact it proves Natural Selection.
Quote Before the Industrial Revolution, the peppered moth was mostly found in a light grey form with little black speckled spots. The light-bodied moths were able to blend in with the light-coloured lichens and tree bark, and the less common black moth was more likely to be eaten by birds. As a result of the common light-coloured lichens and English trees, therefore, the light-coloured moths were much more effective at hiding from predators, and the frequency of the dark allele was about 0.01%.
During the early decades of the Industrial Revolution in England, the countryside between London and Manchester was blanketed with soot from the new coal-burning factories. Many of the light-bodied lichens died from sulphur dioxide emissions, and the trees became covered with soot. This led to an increase in bird predation for light-coloured moths, as they no longer blended in as well in their polluted ecosystem: indeed, their bodies now dramatically contrasted with the colour of the bark. Dark-coloured moths, on the other hand, were camouflaged very well by the blackened trees.Although a majority of light-coloured moths initially continued to be produced, most of them didn't survive, while the dark-coloured moths flourished. As a result, over the course of many generations of moths, the allele frequency gradually shifted towards the dominant allele, as more and more dark-bodied moths survived to reproduce. By the mid-19th century, the number of dark-coloured moths had risen noticeably, and by 1895, the percentage of dark-coloured moths in the Manchester peppered moth population was reported at 98%, a dramatic change (by almost 1000%) from the original frequency.
Where is the love of God in that? I guess that the species was able to survive and without variation in the gene pool, the moth might have died out completely.
The crazy thing is that this example is given to prove Evolution when it only proves Natural Selection because the moth didn't change into another species but remained within its own kind and the change was already part of their DNA and not some new introduced code.
t8is it also NATURAL SELECTION wen I pick my wife out of a different race than my own ,???
what if she his a pigmy
January 11, 2013 at 3:15 am#369677mikeboll64BlockedI think that would be “PERSONAL selection”, Pierre.
January 11, 2013 at 3:25 am#369678terrariccaParticipantQuote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 11 2013,08:15) I think that would be “PERSONAL selection”, Pierre.
but all those changes are occurring because that is what happen by choice or not ,who knows someone can be force or obligated to marry different for some reason
then it would not be personal does not matter results would be the same ,
their is also the law of adaptation
January 11, 2013 at 3:27 am#369679terrariccaParticipantt8
Quote Where is the love of God in that? God in all he does and create their is always a good reason for it ,and it is always beneficial to all parties , if it is not something is wrong ,
January 12, 2013 at 3:12 am#369680ProclaimerParticipantYes. Of course Natural Selection is just a term that describes something and that something was around before the term.
Selecting a mate from more varied gene pool than yourself often produces better offspring (genetically speaking) than marrying within the family.
Without being derogatory, mixing dogs has better results than trying to keep the dog type pure. Same with humans.
Mixing diverse genes gives better protection against genetic weaknesses.
January 12, 2013 at 3:52 am#369681terrariccaParticipantand it would also create a new natural selection of people ;
February 5, 2013 at 7:46 am#369682kerwinParticipantQuote (t8 @ Jan. 12 2013,08:12) Yes. Of course Natural Selection is just a term that describes something and that something was around before the term. Selecting a mate from more varied gene pool than yourself often produces better offspring (genetically speaking) than marrying within the family.
Without being derogatory, mixing dogs has better results than trying to keep the dog type pure. Same with humans.
Mixing diverse genes gives better protection against genetic weaknesses.
T8 and all,There is godly selection and godly mutations that occur in the biological front of the war between Michael and his angels and Satan and his angels.
The witness account of Creation tells us that the stars were created in the night sky on the 5th Night and Day of time. These stars are so far away that it takes many years to reach Earth. It seems reasonable to believe Earth was created as an aged planet.
We do not even know if early man existed or if instead the evidence of his existence was not planted by Satan, in order to test the hearts of men.
February 5, 2013 at 7:54 am#369683terrariccaParticipantQuote (kerwin @ Feb. 05 2013,12:46) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 12 2013,08:12) Yes. Of course Natural Selection is just a term that describes something and that something was around before the term. Selecting a mate from more varied gene pool than yourself often produces better offspring (genetically speaking) than marrying within the family.
Without being derogatory, mixing dogs has better results than trying to keep the dog type pure. Same with humans.
Mixing diverse genes gives better protection against genetic weaknesses.
T8 and all,There is godly selection and godly mutations that occur in the biological front of the war between Michael and his angels and Satan and his angels.
The witness account of Creation tells us that the stars were created in the night sky on the 5th Night and Day of time. These stars are so far away that it takes mans years to reach Earth. It seems reasonable to believe Earth was created as an aged planet.
We do not even know if early man existed or if instead the evidence of his existence was not planted by Satan, in order to test the hearts of men.
Kgood points I have to think here
February 5, 2013 at 10:51 pm#369684davidParticipantQuote (seekingtruth @ Jan. 03 2013,07:27) T8,
Scripture does not exclude the possibility of earlier life and it may answer some questions, but I believe Adam was the first being to include a soul.My opinion – Wm
Does the scripture in genesis not say that Adam BECAME a living soul? Are not animals said to be souls? Are not people called souls?–8 souls entered the ark.Perhaps you mean “spirit” for spirit was breathed INTO Adam and he BECAME a soul. This is what scripture says.
February 5, 2013 at 10:53 pm#369685davidParticipantQuote (t8 @ Jan. 02 2013,23:02) Yeah that is usually the case. What I think is interesting about this doc is the corruption or control that goes on in Paleontology. And the possible artwork of ancient animals by man in the Americas.
Also, do you think it is even slightly possible that God could have created other men before Adam?
If God had created man before Adam it would make the genesis account seem quite misleading. It also wouldn't mak sense unless you decide to make the genesis account an alagory–and basically say that Adam never Even existed.February 6, 2013 at 12:00 am#369686terrariccaParticipantQuote (david @ Feb. 06 2013,03:51) Quote (seekingtruth @ Jan. 03 2013,07:27) T8,
Scripture does not exclude the possibility of earlier life and it may answer some questions, but I believe Adam was the first being to include a soul.My opinion – Wm
Does the scripture in genesis not say that Adam BECAME a living soul? Are not animals said to be souls? Are not people called souls?–8 souls entered the ark.Perhaps you mean “spirit” for spirit was breathed INTO Adam and he BECAME a soul. This is what scripture says.
davidso according to you Adam received the spirit through his NOSTRILS
I thought it is the breathing process that we do through our nostrils
but …….. hmmmm hmmmm
February 6, 2013 at 3:04 am#369687davidParticipantthe LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living BEING.–New Living Translation
I finally understand why so many people are confused about this. Just checked biblecc website. Most bibles have “being” or “creature” here.
But the word is actually “soul.” Nephesh. Soul.
Adam became a living SOUL.
February 6, 2013 at 3:37 am#369688LightenupParticipantAccording to this, no one was 'mothered' before Eve since she was the mother of all the living.
Genesis 3:20
20The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.February 6, 2013 at 6:45 am#369689kerwinParticipantQuote (t8 @ Jan. 02 2013,18:02) Yeah that is usually the case. What I think is interesting about this doc is the corruption or control that goes on in Paleontology. And the possible artwork of ancient animals by man in the Americas.
Also, do you think it is even slightly possible that God could have created other men before Adam?
T8,Scripture does not really leave open the possibility of men before Adam. The First Night and Day are the beginning of time. The suns were created on the Fourth Night and Day. Perhaps there were a type of beast that looked like man, but then if so they too would have been created on the Sixth Night and Day.
Men have the poison of vipers on their lips; so I expect them to get the truth wrong.
February 6, 2013 at 8:26 am#369690terrariccaParticipantQuote (terraricca @ Feb. 05 2013,12:54) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 05 2013,12:46) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 12 2013,08:12) Yes. Of course Natural Selection is just a term that describes something and that something was around before the term. Selecting a mate from more varied gene pool than yourself often produces better offspring (genetically speaking) than marrying within the family.
Without being derogatory, mixing dogs has better results than trying to keep the dog type pure. Same with humans.
Mixing diverse genes gives better protection against genetic weaknesses.
T8 and all,There is godly selection and godly mutations that occur in the biological front of the war between Michael and his angels and Satan and his angels.
The witness account of Creation tells us that the stars were created in the night sky on the 5th Night and Day of time. These stars are so far away that it takes mans years to reach Earth. It seems reasonable to believe Earth was created as an aged planet.
We do not even know if early man existed or if instead the evidence of his existence was not planted by Satan, in order to test the hearts of men.
Kgood points I have to think here
KWhat do you mean the earth was created ,,as an aged planet
February 7, 2013 at 1:46 am#369631kerwinParticipantQuote (terraricca @ Feb. 06 2013,13:26) Quote (terraricca @ Feb. 05 2013,12:54) Quote (kerwin @ Feb. 05 2013,12:46) Quote (t8 @ Jan. 12 2013,08:12) Yes. Of course Natural Selection is just a term that describes something and that something was around before the term. Selecting a mate from more varied gene pool than yourself often produces better offspring (genetically speaking) than marrying within the family.
Without being derogatory, mixing dogs has better results than trying to keep the dog type pure. Same with humans.
Mixing diverse genes gives better protection against genetic weaknesses.
T8 and all,There is godly selection and godly mutations that occur in the biological front of the war between Michael and his angels and Satan and his angels.
The witness account of Creation tells us that the stars were created in the night sky on the 5th Night and Day of time. These stars are so far away that it takes mans years to reach Earth. It seems reasonable to believe Earth was created as an aged planet.
We do not even know if early man existed or if instead the evidence of his existence was not planted by Satan, in order to test the hearts of men.
Kgood points I have to think here
KWhat do you mean the earth was created ,,as an aged planet
T,In the same way God created Adam as an adult instead of having him grow from a single cell, as is being done with men afterwords.
Geologist state the earth is x years old not realizing that it just appears that way because Jehovah did not make it as a ball of molten lava.
- AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.