Originally posted by C Hess
I try not to, but feel free to point them out. For instance, if you tell me about soft tissue in dinosaurs, I will not ignore it (Schweitzer herself accepts deep time as true, and she didn't ignore her finding).

When I first heard of it, I acknowledged that it was a bit of a mystery, given all the evidence we already had for an old earth, and what we thou ...[text shortened]... ts to an old earth are wrong, or the other way around?

The answer to that question guides me.

The obvious answer to me is that soft tissue can't be preserved for millions of years, and those dinosaurs are no more than a few thousand years old. That fits with all the other evidence that I am aware of.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Like I said I agree evolution is true, but I don't see going back to the point of a single life
form. With fossils we have to assume they were related to one another to make the jump
that one fossils shows a clear path from one to another, but even using the fossil record
there are huge gaps where we don't see all the life forms that should have slowly b ...[text shortened]... ancestor for all
life, just the beliefs of those that take what is before them and make it fit.

Biological evolution is not true because even what we can see is going in the wrong direction by losing genetic information rather than gaining genetic information as required for evolution to be correct. All we see is variations and adaptation from natural or artificial selective breeding. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Biological evolution is not true because even what we can see is going in the wrong direction by losing genetic information rather than gaining genetic information as required for evolution to be correct. All we see is variations and adaptation from natural or artificial selective breeding. 😏

Evolution is change, it does not have to be good changes in the biological world I know it
is assumed they are good only if they are used to promote life, but changes that occur that
do not promote life can end it as well. Besides that losing information may make something
fit better in the niche it finds itself in as well, which would be natural selection at play.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Evolution is change, it does not have to be good changes in the biological world I know it
is assumed they are good only if they are used to promote life, but changes that occur that
do not promote life can end it as well. Besides that losing information may make something
fit better in the niche it finds itself in as well, which would be natural selection at play.

You are letting yourself get brainwashed by the evolutionists. We all believe in change, but that is not the biological evolution referred to by the theory of evolution. Of course, now they have added to the original definition to include about anything you can think of as evolving even though we know that they were design changes.

You might say a Model A Ford evolved into a Ford Mustang, But would you also say a Ford Mustang evolved into Model A Ford? If so, then you definitely have accepted a different definition than any Creationists that I know. That would make it difficult to honestly communicate if we use different definitions for words.