Yes. That's why I said still has room for flaws no matter how narrow. That means not necessarily likely, but possible.

Shoot. I may not be able to respond in depth immediately as I'm about ready to take a test for school.

peer-reviewed is not a perfect system and should always be taken with a grain of salt -- https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/upshot/peer-review-the-worst-way-to-judge-research-except-for-all-the-others.html

ya very small though. It's more of things adapting in order to survive. It doesn't happen subconsciously.

well depends how would you define the word adapt

ya they believe that the monkey became a person over millions of years. They believe that it slowly adapted into a new creature.

ok but that brings us back to what I was saying earlier last night
about adaptation the odds of it actually occurring are 1/364...followed by 1,625 zeros. You are more likely to win the poweraball lottery 200 times in a row than for adaptation to happen once. How is it possible for creatures to have adapted so "fast" (millions of years) with those odds. It's impossible. (The odds of winning the powerball lottery are 1 in 292,201,338

ya well even in multiple generations it would take so long then the earth wouldn't even be millions of years old it would be older than fathomable.

the odds would still be against it

Ok so (just clarifying) you believe that people evolved slowly over time? Like it happened in stages?

no i mean from monkeys

ok well what about this arguement

The human body systems prove evolution wrong There are 10 interdependent systems that exist. All of which cannot work unless the other 9 are already functioning. So which ones evolved first and why and in what order? And how would any of them function or even exist until the others evolved?

the skeletal system, cardio vascular system, nervous system, reproductive system, endocrine system, respiratory system, lymphatic system, muscular system... etc.

but one small change in the system can compromise it. The whole system wouldnt change all at once

ok but changes in the nervous system or cardiovascular system would have to be tiny in order to not fail. It would take so long. Longer than millions of years.

with the odds presented and the fact that the changes would have to be so small it would take longer than millions of years

it would take longer than that. Tiny minuscule changes that would not occur every generation. Maybe not in several generations. Then you have the case where the change would fail or be problematic and the creature would die. Then you'd be back to waiting for another generation with a change. The odds are against it.

What happens when all those minuscule changes build on top of each other? How do you think evolution happens over small scales? It's weird - you believe in the prerequisite to evolution (the fact that changes *do* happen over generations) but then are unable to conclude that this could result in long-term change over *many* generations.

Also, simply saying that "there is no probable chance that evolution succeeded over and over again to bring us humans, etc." is not a good argument. Many thousands of species died as a result of natural selection, but many others stemmed from those species to create variations, etc.

That's the thing, humans are not special, you're talking about humanity and going backwards saying "it makes no sense that humans came out of all of this", but humanity was random

I'm not looking at it from a creationist perspective I'm looking at it from a logical perspective

(notice that the two are mutually exclusive)

Ah, I forgot, "Southernpride" had to go take a test

Weird

Southernpatriot*

THEY TYPIN'

typing a fucking storm

ok but the problem with not taking the Bible literally is that it undermines the entire religion. The catholics may believe in evolution, but by doing so they are undermining their religion. The Bible gives us an eye witness account of creation whereas evolution has no eye witness accounts. There are so many holes in the evolution argument. The transitional bones you mentioned earlier, aren't actually transitional bones. They are simply bone variations. How do you explain DNA? how does human DNA just appear from monkeys? The theory of evolution keeps changing too. They keep saying the earth is older and older they don't have a set age. They can't figure it out.

An entire treatise!!!

I'm back. Did well on my test. I do agree the big bang to be quite plausible and accept micro evolution. I gave the definition I operate on in my long message. Macro evolution I don't accept. Even from a logical perspective as I'm trying to discuss it from a logical perspective with an admitted Christian bias. Going on the presumption of the old earth, which I agree is very plausible and why I don't debate on the age of the earth. However, circumstances in the lab can be manipulated. Beyond that, yes, amino acids were created artificially, yet amino acids are critical to life, yet are not living themselves. Which, to my point in my long message is still non life and there is not yet substianted evidence that life can come from non life. I feel like I am to a degree regurgitating what I said in my large message.

Yeah, that's the point. if there are fundamental problems with the Bible that implies that the entire religion is unfounded. The key to change your beliefs to adapt to the new science and new information, not double down on your misinformation

except for the fact that I believe in creation so the religion isn't crumbling we find the problem in evolution and the answer that keeps on changing... how old is the earth? evolutionists can't give you an answer

I said it's plausible.

ok but the radiometric dating has proven to be flawed and not accurate

because scientists aren't working backwards. They aren't giving a number out of thin air and then trying to find data to prove it. They are always getting new information which is why we have a vague estimate but not an exact answer.

Dunno if you've already said this: science is meant to provide concrete explanations of the unknown. Religion is supposed to shed light on the unknown in a non-substantive way. One is clearly more valid than the other. Thus, scientific data must always be valued more than religious philosophy. That is the beginning of the end of Christianity, as science disproves key parts of it

The key to Christianity is not science. That can't make it break Christianity. The hingepin of Christianity is the death and resurrection of Jesus.

bruh

I love how Christians will say "science proves religion true" but thats a bullshit argument.

But if massive parts of the bible can be disproven or ignored can we trust any of it?

but they have though research the flaws with radiometric dating they are obvious.