You know what? You really should have re-typed. Immediately above you provide a link with text.
But I guess you don't want us to refer to the text...and you don't want us to use the top part of the post the link goes to.... but you expect us to understand which parts of the lower part of the text you are writing about.
Look.... here's the whole text of the post for which you provided the link. What is it you want a comment on?
I will link you to this post, so as not to retype it all. Towards the bottom, of the post, not that first part. [<< worst set of directions I've ever seen....]
JES: Perhaps it is called a parable in another Gospel...But I do not know. Anyhow, could you re-iterate your point with this?
His point was, you said, the Bible says the earth happened in 6 days. But the Bible also says the rich man in hell conversed with Arbraham. You said, the Bible says it was a parable, which it does not say. Though one can infer it was a parable, it isn't explicitly states as such. Which means you could then infer that Gen 6 days is also a parable. OR, you were mislead and indoctrinated that the Lazarus story was a parable, and you now must believe it really happened (to historical people), since it doesn't explicitly say that it was one. I am not aware of this being in another Gospel, but perhaps it could have been titled as such in a version/translation? Like how NIV gives a title in bold before the verses kind of summarizing it. I'm sure you know this is words from the translators mouth, there is nothing in the original scripture that has a summarized bold title for the preceding passage.
JES: Just trying to mediate/clarify that argument between you two , sorry.
I used to argue this, probably because someone who heard Ken Hamm say it said it to me and it made sense in the argument they presented. We can see micro-evolution, sure it exist, black skin turns white, white skin turns black depending on location to the equator. Why argue something you can see.
We can't see marcro-evolution, so it has to be false. Makes sense. Maybe not a good argument in debating standards as @jammycakes mentions with "where you there argument", but it can, and is an effective debating tactic to 'win sides' from those who can't see that tactic.
But think of what causes our skin to change colors? What causes micro-evolution? The body isn't saying, I need to change colors, so lets do it. The genes are making this "decision". The change is occurring at a microscopic level, a genetic level.
What limits does a gene have from changing? Can ice change to water easily (melt)? Can water change to steam easily (evaporation) Can ice change to steam easily (deposition) or from steam to ice (sublimation)? Not really, it takes a massive temperature difference. But going from water at 33 degrees to ice (melting) at 32 also happens at a molecular level. So though it takes a great input for ice to turn to steam, it doesn't take very much input for ice to change to water. And once water, water can easily change to steam. So if you put a pot of ice on the stove set to 212 degrees, and watch the molecules, they behave the same at 32 degrees. Once the H20 heats up to 33 degrees, it turns to water, and once it hits 212, it evaporates Maybe a chemist on the forum or smart scientist can help out. But I think it requires about 5 times the heat to produce deposition. But again this is states of a molecule, not changes within the molecule itself, I am aware, just an analogy.
So though it may not make sense for a fish to turn into a dog or a skin gene could evolve into a bone gene (which isn't what evolution teaches). Could it make sense for a large land animal (pakicetus) to turn into a whale instantly? that would require "5 times life energy". A gene, has no boundaries or limits tell it what it can and can't end up as. It only 'knows' what it is. A "structural gene of bone", knows it as a structural gene of bone. It can get weaker or stronger, possibly grow or shrink. A skin gene can realize there is less bone here, why not shrink to fit the bone better. Why could skin not grow to reduce stretching of skin from this growing bone? Animal instinct is to live, if your legs aren't working, you will die, maybe you can try the water? i.e A pakicetus turning into a whale. When all of these individual genes do their own thing, this results in a"chain reaction" of an evolutionary change in a much larger scale.
As this video explains of the fossil record of whales we found would suggest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVq9O3F97J0
Now as to how that all happens in technical terms, I would refer you to the Biologos staff biologist on here that are educated in that field. I just understand the concept, and how it is logical, I don't know the inner workings. Though I started to try and read about IC (irreducible complexity) which is interesting, uses many terms that are way above my head, I am starting to get the concept. Addiction sounds a bit like IC. In that you didn't need something, but now that you took it, you become dependent on it. Though were an addiction results in withdraw, IC results in death.
Here is a question for the evolution experts. Could evolution be seen as binary? Micro-evolution being that a gene can only strengthen or weaken? That's it. And macro evolution is all the other genes responding to that change, and micro-evolving themselves? If that is what evolutionist believe, that is actually a very simple concept and extremely logical can can be observed.
What does an organism life require? Oxygen, nutrients? All blood is, is a means to carry oxygen and nutrients, all a heart is, is a pump for the blood, lings provides a way for us to get oxygen (gills provide oxygen for fish) ect. Monkeys climb trees to get nutrients, crabs go deep in the water. The first type of organism had these building blocks in them, it just developed/evolved different ways to supply and provide those things.
JES: The problem I see with a lot of these "evidences of evolution" is that many (if not most) of them could be explained by Young earth creationism, and would not provide a problem to it. Your thoughts on that?
Some things could possibly be explained, the bent rocks and ice cores or whatever Ken Ham finds. It might be a legitimately possible explanation. I hope they are legitimate and not skewing things to prove ones agenda.
But, can YEC explain that? If a YEC believes in micro-evolution, how would one explain the chain reaction that must occur to these micro-evolutionary events? That would surely take a lot of time.
I heard on the radio a current scientific study from observing a massive rise in knee arthritis. This is coming from all the sitting we do. Atrophy, go to space, you lose muscle. If you don't use it, you lose it, if you need it, you increase in it.
Though with regards to IC, if you need something to live, and you don't have it you die, how does the living ones know that they need it now if they receive the same IC as you? If they couldn't keep it and it killed them, why can you now keep it? It is almost like genes communicate from within the species, which if true also has a spiritual element to it showing God's incredible design.
@still_learning, So which part of all this do you want a comment about?