Creation AND Evolution

Google it.

Oh, only parts did? How do you determine which parts?

That's part of it, yes.

Differences compound over one million generations.

Well, we've actually changed around 0.1%. I don't see how this is impossible, though (those 300,000 generations is around four million years).

You should, and you do. Think of the Indian and African elephants.

Nature selects for those who are best equipped to survive and pass on their genes. Certain designs have proven extremely effective, such as the shark. It's hard to come up with a more efficient design.

 

I don't believe it exists, and as you claim it does, I would like too see it without wasting my time.

When it says that a lamb was the only attoinment for sin, you do not still see us sacrificing lambs. You can determine the parts for yourself.

so it takes us 1,000,000 generations to make a gazelle slighty faster, but only 300,000 to develope from monkeys, into fully intelligent human beings?

so 200,000,000,000 generations changed a creature 6.7%

but

300,000 is all it takes us to change 0.1% by what you say?

this seems illogical in the sense that the bacteria never even changed its species, and we as humans from chimpanzees changed many.

Shouldn't you see this in all species though? or in almost all species? not just in a select few.

Then how did we split into different species? one species was allways more efficients or a preditor of another, and thus all other species accept one should have died off.

 

You should read the Old Testament a bit more closely, then.

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

How nice. You get to determine which parts to follow.

Did I say that? I don't think so.

Er, life hasn't existed for 200 billion generations.

Life does not require a steady change of DNA. It happens in leaps and bounds, as the environment requires.

And you do.

Natural selection. No one species is able to be a perfect predator.

 

If you examine the verses around these they are often taken out of context.

Also they use many different translations in this site, just so they can get the word "slave" in there as many times as possible, alot of the times it often simply means servant, but it depends on how you wish to translate it.

It's upon your own will on how you interpret the Bible.

I believe parts of the Old Testament no longer apply after the coming of Christ, but others might not.

Kind of -

given a gazelles life span is an average of 20 years, thats 1 million generations.

life for bacteria has existed well over that amount.

200 billion generations for bacteria = 6.7% change

300,000 generations for champanzees turns them into humans.


also you simply just contradicted yourself. You said it does not happen in a short time, it takes long for them to evolve, and then you say it happens in "leaps in bounds"

Which is it?

can you name a few off the top of your head?

We started out as single cells correct? these single cells began to destroy other cells, thus when a mutation happened that gave the cell a better advantage, that cell had a better chance of it surviving and so on correct? so then the strongest form of cell was able to destroy the weaker ones, thus no longer no weaker cells exist, and it is only this new species of cells. This should continue throughout history with animals and such, but we don't see this?

 

Too bad this wasn't the case here. The Bible directly sanctions slavery, and does not condemn it.

Oh. Can you back that up?

The Bible is either true, or it's not. One interpretation can be simply wrong.

I don't think that it's very honest to just throw out the parts that you're uncomfortable with.

Bad example, then. I meant for you to consider large amounts of change occurring over 20 million years.

Mhmm. The first forms of life were quite simple, and so did not have a huge potential for change. Our ancestors were much more complex, with naturally occurring larger amounts of variance, so it's not unreasonable.

It's actually both. It's not a constant flow of change happening over a long time span, it's very spasmodic change happening over a long time.

Elephants, finches, gazelle, the woolly mammoth, eagles, humans, bears, etc. The list goes on quite far.

That's somewhat correct. Sometimes, though, life survives because it has a niche that others don't have access to, or isn't preyed upon by other life.

 

But who's to say that slavery is wrong? Slavery was a VERY common thing back then.

no, but do you believe everything thats posted on the internet?

Your right, one interpretation can be wrong. Probably like the site you gave me interprets things wrong. they have the power to interpret things how they want to, and they chose to interpret things to try and prove that the bible was immoral. so is their interpretation right, or wrong? and who has the power to give that answer?

thats where your wrong. the first forms of life would have increased in size millions of times. the percent of change would have been in the millions. yet with something as miniature as a bacteria, the percent of change was only 6.7% in 25 million years? I dont think so.

and there's evidence of this, yes? it'd be nice if you could point me in the direction of some.

fair enough, that does make sense. still doesn't answer all my questions but alright...

 

Morality is based upon non-aggression, and basically, the negative version of the Golden Rule (as Confucius put it, "Do not do to your neighbor what is hateful to yourself")

Then why do you claim that the translations between Aramaic, Greek, and English are so arbitrary so as to imply different meanings for fairly common-place words?

Of course not. I research it to see if what's being said is correct.

Given an objective morality, which does exist, anybody can pronounce the Bible immoral. That is, unless you want to claim that some of the atrocities are moral?

They did increase millions of times, but only after some 2.2-2.3 billion years.

Actually, the genetic differences between humans and amoebas is maybe 10% of our genome. The rest is largely junk DNA.

The fossil record, and logic. Unless conditions change, why would nature select for change? Sure, there's always slow change, but why would gazelle, surviving for millions of years, suddenly dramatically change if their environment did not?

 

Not a single gene but a combination of billions.