The Plausibility of Kinds
Top Comments
All Comments (107)
-
There is nothing new under the sun young man, regurgitating previous retoric from the mouths of wandering minds has no absolutes. As science "changes" so does the retoric, as the base of knowledge is infinite. Look and wonder as a true seeker of the truth. Then you will stand as a true man, on your own, and not by every wind of doctrine, ever changing.
-
mutations scramble already existing information, and they are always harmful.
-
BOWL!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
don't shoot a video with a uncovered window behind your head. do one of two things..
One. close the blinds.
or Two. move the camera.
-
Kabane hit the nail on the head; THIS is how we address the issue of "kinds"
-
I am glad you are making more videos
-
What are the name's of the studies? My library subscribes to a web service that let's you read pretty much any paper, study, etc. that you want.
-
They are found in the books "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" and "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels"
-
No sequence is immune and no replication is ever 100% perfect. Also, genes have a pesky habit of degrading when they are not in use, i.e, 'fossil' genes. Another reason why ID (Intelligent Design, or Idiot's Dementia) falls flat on it's arse.
"Even if macro-evolution were true, it could not have occured in 6000 years."
Which would be a problem if the Earth was actually taht young.
BalmungSama0 3 years ago 4
Excellent point, Kabane. You've managed to describe the problem of kinds which we all knew was there but couldn't quite put our fingers on how to explain it to creationists.
Mithcoriel 3 years ago 2