first off i do believe there are some evidences of evolution or i should probably say adaptation.
i do believe this exists in various forms.. however the deal breaker for me with evolution is the chick or egg problem.
there are tons of theories that get passed around as proof of evolution however these are usually examples much further down the evolutionary chain.. what i mean is let's start at the beginning!
I'd really like to get back to the original topic at hand here.
Theories around RNA and other concepts as the catalyst. That's really what I'm interested in.
I posted the topic honestly and yet here we are...
Given there are serious unknowns its all on the table.
But again I'm particularly interested in the concepts which caused simple amino acids to be charged resulting in proteins which begin chaining and building life.
.
http://imgur.com/gallery/wos91xl.
first off i do believe there are some evidences of evolution or i should probably say adaptation.
i do believe this exists in various forms.. however the deal breaker for me with evolution is the chick or egg problem.
there are tons of theories that get passed around as proof of evolution however these are usually examples much further down the evolutionary chain.. what i mean is let's start at the beginning!
I don't think I can be more clear.
I don't see where evidence of evolution means it could only be brought about by happenstance.
I could have been brought about by intelligence. Whatever the hell that intelligence is. Don't assume that means God.
Without knowing this key factor no one can say definitively.
Saying it doesn't matter is convenient for the narrative.
Was really hoping for more discussion about this key point, but what I hear is "it doesn't matter". I don't see how that's remotely reasonable or wise for that matter.
first off i do believe there are some evidences of evolution or i should probably say adaptation.
i do believe this exists in various forms.. however the deal breaker for me with evolution is the chick or egg problem.
there are tons of theories that get passed around as proof of evolution however these are usually examples much further down the evolutionary chain.. what i mean is let's start at the beginning!
Inserting an intelligent agency as a default answer is totally unscientific.
...but insisting the theory of happenstance is? that is not realistic.
first off i do believe there are some evidences of evolution or i should probably say adaptation.
i do believe this exists in various forms.. however the deal breaker for me with evolution is the chick or egg problem.
there are tons of theories that get passed around as proof of evolution however these are usually examples much further down the evolutionary chain.. what i mean is let's start at the beginning!
@IslandMan I totally get that. I'm not being difficult here. The problem for me is without knowing or being able to prove the initial catalyst I'm simply not able to say that well because of this evidentiary support that it means only one possible source.
That's what evolutionists want. Common ancestry and genetic code means only one catalyst or origin. That is unwise.
Are you guys telling me that you know unequivocally that the common genetic code we see that it could have only started one possible way, that being happenstance?
Given we don't know....THAT is ignorant in my opinion.
first off i do believe there are some evidences of evolution or i should probably say adaptation.
i do believe this exists in various forms.. however the deal breaker for me with evolution is the chick or egg problem.
there are tons of theories that get passed around as proof of evolution however these are usually examples much further down the evolutionary chain.. what i mean is let's start at the beginning!
Lots of people conveniently want to exclude the initial catalyst.
I'm more than happy to admit that there is evidence of evolution.
You are unwilling to admit that intelligence could have kicked off the whole thing.
Just because not knowing this initial driver doesn't fit your narrative doesn't mean it doesn't matter.
It's like taking any animate object and saying well it's chemical makeup proves no on had a hand in making it. You simply can't make that claim without proving that it's makeup can come about by happenstance.
We need to know the catalyst to rule out that intelligence was not involved.
That's how I see it. I don't see how this is unreasonable.
first off i do believe there are some evidences of evolution or i should probably say adaptation.
i do believe this exists in various forms.. however the deal breaker for me with evolution is the chick or egg problem.
there are tons of theories that get passed around as proof of evolution however these are usually examples much further down the evolutionary chain.. what i mean is let's start at the beginning!
In what way does common ancestry say that it was the definitive result of happenstance rather than an intelligent catalyst?
Are you saying that an intelligent source couldn't or would not create the same resulting evidence? If yes what's the proof of that?
I don't see where it can be proved one way or the other since we can't define the initial driver that started it all.
has anyone heard about this?
that really sucks.
lots of dubs are talking.
This is what it sounds like when dubs cry
Way too soon...
first off i do believe there are some evidences of evolution or i should probably say adaptation.
i do believe this exists in various forms.. however the deal breaker for me with evolution is the chick or egg problem.
there are tons of theories that get passed around as proof of evolution however these are usually examples much further down the evolutionary chain.. what i mean is let's start at the beginning!
at no time did the elders ever mention apostasy.
days later after a shepherding call which only covered child abuse handling they are being marked as if they are trying to get their own followers etc.
so so sad.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ktm7fsqwrw.
@jookbeard no they are in Wash. state. Some call him "Big Black Jak" if you've heard that name before.
Tremendous couple they are really nice. He was serving etc. Whole family was very active.
