Stop with the childish antics. Answer the question.
You mean the platypus that has a mixture of mammalian and reptilian features, clear evidence of an evolutionary transition?
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...
- Thread starter Neogaia777
- Start date
- Status
Stop with the childish antics. Answer the question.
You mean the platypus that has a mixture of mammalian and reptilian features, clear evidence of an evolutionary transition?
I asked why would a common creator be forced to use a nested hierarchy. If you can't produce a single reason, then there is no reason why we should expect creationism to produce a nested hierarchy.
Can you not answer the question?
Upvote
0
Who said God was forced? That seems to be your strawman position.
Tell me why it rules out special creation.
Upvote
0
Quite right. Even if you could disprove evolution, that would not prove creationism. When 19th-century scientists began exploring nature, they believed they could find proof of the biblical account, especially the great Flood. However, the data they gathered suggested something else. Hence, evolution was introduced. Now, should evolution be discredited, the march of knowledge will go forward to something else, not backward to what was previously rejected.
Upvote
0
I believe they were looking for a common sediment layer all over the planet earth. That isn't what the model suggest.
Upvote
0
Sure, and in the past 100 to 150 million years, we had a common ancestor.
Fish are more distantly related to us, of course, they are not even mammals.
Upvote
0
Justatruthseeker is making that argument, and you seem to be agreeing. We are being told that being made of the same protons, neutrons, and electrons means that life has to fall into a nested hierarchy. Why?
Tell me why special creation would produce the observed pattern of shared and derived features. If you can't tell us why, then there is no expectation that special creation would produce what we observe.
Upvote
0
God could have created cows with wings if He wanted to. Or God could have created rodents with wings if He wanted to.
Upvote
0
Why wouldn't a common creator used shared features? We don't live in the ocean...so i wouldn't expect God to have created us with fins and gills....so I wouldn't expect to see people with fins and gills...would you?
Upvote
0
Birds have hollow bones, Bats do not. Why didn't a common creator use shared features? Birds have beaks and no teeth, bats have teeth and no beaks. Why didn't a common creator use shared features? Birds have feathers, Bats have fur. Why didn't a common creator use shared features?
Why are fur, teeth, mammary glands and live birth always found together in one set of flying creatures, while beaks, eggs, hollow bones, and hunting for baby food found in the other?
There is an evolutionary answer . . . for this pattern. There is no creation theory to explain this pattern.
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
One must have faith in the willy-nilly 'creator' or one must have faith in a designer creator.
Upvote
0
If God is not continuously creative, than creation is an on-again, off-again proposition with God. Hence, the non-evolutionary God is a willy-nilly creator. I On the other hand, if God is eternally creative, then creation is continuous and therefore there is an evolutionary process, which continually introduces relevant novelty.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
