NO...you are trying to turn the qyestion into what you want it to be and avoid answering the question.Let;s try this again. YOu are using a situation that has various forces at work. Look, you WANT a certain answer, you have in your mind such a lock on what you think is the right answer that you don't even allow me to answer what I THINK
it is my question, it is not a bad one , you do not have theright to demand/ask for more options. these questions are not about what you want it to be.I call it a bad question. You need to include another choice
i am not the one NOT reading a post--i quoted you word for word and you changed your position twice within one sentence. let me put it here again:Again, you do not read my posts. FOr every gene they have, they have one from mom and one from dad. YOu seemed to think that using your dad;s example of dark hair somehow discredits genetic inheritance.
you were caught and now you are trying to spin it so you don't look foolish:See, they have two genes for beak size as well (maybe more...not sure)...but however many genes govern beak size, they have two one from mom, one from dad
i asked a direct question when your error appeared---"which one is it?" and you avoided it again. so i will not gotoo much further till you admit your mistake and explain what you mean.YOu seemed to think that using your dad;s example of dark hair somehow discredits genetic inheritance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
i did some reading last night, and it was fun to construct molecules while doing it and i find genetics very interesting thoughicould do without the evolutionary thinking that comes with it.
i did find something worthy of note to post here:
first, they admit that they do not know which gene was first, nor can they construct the initial situation which caused lifed to happen. if they knew, they could probably construct such a thng. but really there is nothing they could construct.Since we weren't around to observe the beginnings of life, we must use clues found in the structures and functions of today's biological molecules to answer this question.
Every living thing is descended from its ancestors. Evolution results when changes occur along the way
but it is the second sentence that provides the most fuel to disprove evolution: 'everything is descended from its ancestor'.
in the Biblicl sense that would be true but in the evolutionary sense that would be impossible. in the past, they used to say that life came from nothing and the big bang just exploded from nothing. thenover the years, the big bang originated from a tiny little ball or box which somehow miracuously held all that the universe contains inside that little form. yeah right.
next we have to contend with the explosion. an explosion that caused life , gravity, planest, stars and life giving warmth alternating with cold and soon. this would be the first and only time that an explosion caused life and order. usually explosions are very destructive and take lives and in still chaos.
so here they have a problem, itis quite a fanciful tale but that isn't all. out of this chaos is supposed to come some sort of ingredients which magically spawned a one celled animal or whatever they have changed it to which is now deemed 'the common ancestor'
yet that common ancestor had no ancestor to receive its genes from with which topass down to descendents ultimately producing what we see in the world today.
if you push back far enough, evolution basically derived everything from nothing and nothing begats nothing not everything nor complexity. evolutionists try in vain to replace God with some sort of alternative but each time, they fail because the alternative cannot be explained nor can its origin.
thus evolution can not work because it has nothing with which to descend from.
another point which is not on a genetic bent is the fantastic concept that all that that was needed for evolution to succeed was already present in the world. the right air, the right nutrients the right everything. yet how could that be? getting it exactly right the first time so evolution could spawn the first 'ancestor'?
then we must ask what is the origin of evolution? was it present, already existing, waiting to escape when the big bang took place? how did the process come into being? then if it existed prior to the big bang,why is there only one planet with its effects? it would not be discrimnatory, so why couldn't it be present on all the planets doing the same thing?
it seems strange that it would only be limited to earth, why is that? there would be nothing stopping it from expanding its reproductive powers. then why are the scientists looking outside this solar system for proof? one, they are desparate to get collaborating evidence which they can't do and have to resort to conjecture, to sustain their hope.
it couldn't have just magically appeared for then it came from nothing which denies the satement made in that article and did the impossible, something coming from nothing.
soevolution really is not true but a scheme to deceive as many as possible and get them to deny what God has said. NOW don't get on the theostic evolution platform or bandwagon, as the Bible is very clear that creation was used, not evolution.
so, this is why anyone who suscribes to any form of evolution needs to repent from such thinking--it denies God and calls Him a liar plus supports a theory that is false and a lie.
