Because all humans are made in the image of God…

That is exactly the kind of spin he is attempting. He is accepting partial, incomplete, inferential evidence for the geologic and astronomical sciences.

But he is holding evolution by natural selection to a different standard, and not accepting logical inference and partial data as legitimate.
Ya without reading back on the chat i would have bet on that as Fastlane has real comprehension issues when it comes to reading and applying data.

And by "Real comprehension issues" i mean a complete inability to understand and apply what he reads.

He continually quoted things, thinking they support his view, when they do not and once it is explained to him at an 8 year olds level, he runs away from what he said prior, realizing he was wrong, and tries to then pretend he never said any such thing.

I find it both awesome and amusing, as it proves he knows later, how wrong he was.
 
Matthew, John, Peter, and possibly James (Jesus's brother) and Jude (also his brother);met Jesus
The authorship of the epistles of Peter, James and Jude are questionable. And even then, I don't think those epistles actually describe the ministry and resurrection event in any forensic detail that would be satisfactory as an eyewitness attestation.
 
That is exactly the kind of spin he is attempting. He is accepting partial, incomplete, inferential evidence for the geologic and astronomical sciences.

But he is holding evolution by natural selection to a different standard, and not accepting logical inference and partial data as legitimate.
MAGAts only see what they want to see. This is why they cherry-pick from the Bible....usually only from the OT.

Notice the ones who claim to be Christians, but never follow Christ. This is how it's revealed they are evil.

ak2hiy.jpg
 
That is exactly the kind of spin he is attempting. He is accepting partial, incomplete, inferential evidence for the geologic and astronomical sciences.

But he is holding evolution by natural selection to a different standard, and not accepting logical inference and partial data as legitimate.
Just show me a single example of a single animal that changed family of animals out of the billions and billions and billions and billions of individuals that have lived since Darwin first started his observations of adaptation.

Do that and I will say you have proven your point. Until you do you have failed miserably.
 
The authorship of the epistles of Peter, James and Jude are questionable. And even then, I don't think those epistles actually describe the ministry and resurrection event in any forensic detail that would be satisfactory as an eyewitness attestation.
Spin spin spin :laugh:

Peter described Jesus' life, particularly focusing on his ministry, death, and resurrection in his sermons recorded in Acts and his letters. Peter emphasized Jesus as a miracle-worker approved by God, who was crucified but raised from the dead, serving as a witness to these events.
 
Just show me a single example of a single animal that changed family of animals out of the billions and billions and billions and billions of individuals that have lived since Darwin first started his observations of adaptation.

Do that and I will say you have proven your point. Until you do you have failed miserably.

There are lots, but we know you will not understand the science and that will lead you to claim the science and determinations are incorrect, when they are not.


----------

It can be said definitively that polar bears (Ursus maritimus) are a distinct species from brown bears (Ursus arctos) that evolved via natural selection.


While they are biologically distinct, the divergence is relatively recent in evolutionary terms (roughly 350,000 to over 1 million years ago, depending on the study), which is why they are still closely related enough to produce fertile hybrids.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) | (.gov) +2
Here is the breakdown of why they are considered a distinct, evolved species:

1. Significant Physiological and Behavioral Adaptations
Polar bears have evolved extreme specializations to the Arctic environment that set them apart from brown bears:
  • Dietary Shifts: Polar bears are strict carnivores (hypercarnivores) adapted to a high-fat diet of seals, unlike the omnivorous brown bear.
  • Genetics: They have specific genetic adaptations, including those for fat processing, cardiovascular health (to handle high-cholesterol diets), and, specifically, the APOB gene, which helps manage cholesterol and is under strong selection.
  • Physical Traits: They have evolved specialized morphological traits, including white fur for camouflage, a narrower skull, and larger, paddle-like paws for swimming.

2. Genomic Distinction
Modern genomic studies show that polar bears are a distinct, genetically homogeneous group compared to brown bears. While they share a recent common ancestor, they have maintained a separate evolutionary trajectory. They have a "unique evolutionary path" allowing them to thrive in a niche where brown bears cannot.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) | (.gov) +2


3. Evolutionary Timeline
  • Early Views: Initially, some studies suggested a very rapid evolution (150,000 years ago).
  • Current Consensus: More recent studies suggest an older, but still relatively young, divergence, with estimates generally between 350,000 and 600,000 years ago, or in some, over 1 million years.

Summary
Polar bears are not merely "white brown bears." They are a distinct, independently evolving species that branched off to exploit a specialized Arctic niche, even though they have an entangled genetic history with their ancestor, the brown bear.
 
Last edited:
Spin spin spin :laugh:

Peter described Jesus' life, particularly focusing on his ministry, death, and resurrection in his sermons recorded in Acts and his letters. Peter emphasized Jesus as a miracle-worker approved by God, who was crucified but raised from the dead, serving as a witness to these events.
^^^
MAGAts are reluctant to quote scripture since it burns when they do.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: QP!
Nope I believe in adaptation
Irrelevant.

I don't believe one family of animals can evolve into another family of animals.
What does that have to do with Darwin's theory?

If one family of animals has evolved into another family of animals
Animals don't evolve.

With what part of Darwin's theory do you claim to disagree?

Why can't we point to a single example of it occurring today
What is "it"?

despite billions of billions of billions of life cycles.
What's a "life cycle" and what does it have to do with Darwin's theory?

The Earth is only about 4 billion years old
Nobody knows how old the earth is.

there simply is not time for a complex organism like man to randomly evolve.
What is randomly evolving?
 
There are lots, but we know you will not understand the science and that will lead you to claim the science and determinations are incorrect, when they are not.

It would probably be best if you were to sit this one out. @FastLane doesn't know anything about Darwin's theory and he still knows more than you do.
 
Back
Top