And random mutations just happen to know how to mutate just the right food for every animal on the planetOrganism must be compatible with the food supply
Cacti evolve from what?The evolution of cacti
Two mice, make more mice… two fish,make more fish… two humans, make more humans… What’s vague about that?Look, two fossil mice, or fish, or humans. Can you tell which one has contributed to evolution (success!) by passing on its genes and which has not (failure)? What’s vague about that?
How many animals eat eucalyptus leaves ? But random mutations had the foresight to feed the koalas bears.Let’s expand on that. Organism must be compatible with the food supply and reasonably able to defend itself or run fast.
It must’ve slowly crawled over there, while random mutations slowly worked it’s magic .Why would a plant end up in a desert as if it were designed for the environment? Like cactus?
Bear in mind that this question is being posed by someone who denies 99% of the miracles described in the Bible! What splendid irony!Are you denying his (God’s) omnipotence?
Don’t be naive. Satan and demons exist and their No. 1 weapon is lies, which are propagated through the medium of human beings. These lies can take the form of archeological, historical or scientific evidence that refutes the Biblical accounts (evolution is a prime example). Once a seed of doubt is planted it can mushroom into heresy or full-blown apostasy. I suspect the authors of these anti-Bible treatises are, more often than not, atheists, but some of them may be “Catholic” - but don’t let that fool you, the Church’s worst enemies come from within.I’ve also read archaeological evidences and viewpoints about the whole exodus and crossing the Red Sea and even Joshua assault on Canaanites which could all be false historically.
Every event recorded in the Bible had an eyewitness whose testimony is guaranteed to be 100% accurate and trustworthy - the author, God Almighty. Therefore the Old Testament is no less reliable than the Gospels - the Church teaches that the entire canon of Scriptures is divinely inspired and therefore inerrant. Anyone who believes differently is an ignoramus who doesn’t know what he’s talking about.The exodus story was not written by eye witness accounts. They were not even written by people who knew the eye witnesses. Not so with the gospels.
A couple of points:And the creationists error is that they refuse to believe overwhelming scientific evidence eg earths age from geological evidence
I might be wrong, but my understanding is that Luke is the only Gospel that claims eyewitnesses.The book of exodus itself does not claim it was an eyewitness account but the Gospel does.
That’s because you’re saying it wrong. You should say it like, “We’re formed from the stuff of stars!”Everything came from stardust! Stardirt sounds not too sexy…
What percentage of all the fossils that exist have been discovered? No one can possibly know. It could be less than 0.000001% for all we know - a statistically insignificant number.Only a very small proportion of animals ever get fossilised. There are whole phyla with no fossil record at all.
The ancestor of the alleged “first simple cell” of atheist fantasy was dirt, or something very much like it. I don’t care what God made me out of. My body is dust and it’s going back to dust - no problem, it’s Heaven that I looking forward to - eternity in a glorified body.Evolution is correct. Would you rather share a common ancestor with dirt?
My grandfather had a pile of stardust sitting in his back yard. Fifty years later it’s still there and hasn’t changed at all - how come?Everything came from stardust!
Thank you. Some “Catholics” believe in some very unCatholic things. I once knew a lapsed Catholic who became an die-hard atheist but still went to Mass every Sunday! Weird.The swiftest solution is to conclude the discussion and move on. I did. I thought may be it was just me, but now I see others having the same taste in the mouth as I did.
I’m so sorry.Your increasingly intemperate remarks are getting wearisome
Unpleasantness? I having a very pleasant time.unpleasantness
I’m wondering what sort of Christian denies 99% of the miracles in the Bible; it’s as if he wants to drain the Scriptures (and therefore Christianity) of all supernatural content. And why deny 99% of them but then believe in a few (or at least one, the Resurrection)? Maybe he belongs to some new Scientism cult that I haven’t heard of.I don’t think he has any in the first place, the Christian type I mean.
It’s my understanding that evidence from contemporary creatures shows that mutations are overwhelmingly disadvantageous to survival.The majority of mutations are neutral, neither right nor wrong