Madagascar and Australia, a question for creationists.

[JD16]

I'll keep you in my prayers.

And I'll think of you before I sleep every night cheers mate

 

[pat34lee]

And that my friend, is the problem,....you have no clue about evolution, but yet feel confident enough to argue against it......please for the love of all things holy, ....read up about it and then we can talk

Not an answer. And the fact you poopooed the question says you are the one who has no clue what I'm asking, much less the answer.

 

[pat34lee]

What's with the shotgun question approach?

Look, I don't care whether you accept evolutionary biology or not. If you really want to learn more about it, I'd suggest popping over to this site as a starting point: Understanding Evolution (especially their Evolution 101 page)

All I'm pointing out is that evolutionary biology is an applied science (as per this thread on that tropic). That's a fact. As in, not really up for debate.

Believe it, don't believe, whatever you want. Science marches on.

2 for 2 so far. Not an answer. The questions are to show you just how much of what you believe is faith; without proof, just so-so fables holding together conjecture.

 

[pat34lee]

I see lots of suppositions and conjectures. Not an answer. I'm looking for facts and you give me faith.

 

[pat34lee]

No one said anything about kangaroo fossils. Kangaroos are indigenous to Australlia where they evolved. They aren't found anywhere else in the world.

I believe celestial beings planted the primitive forms of life that would evolve into life as we know it today. It was Gods plan. Genesis was created by the priest who wrote it, however it does contain some truth.

That moves the ultimate beginning of life back one step, but it still doesn't answer the problem of abiogenesis.

 

[JD16]

Not an answer. And the fact you poopooed the question says you are the one who has no clue what I'm asking, much less the answer.

There is no such thing as half-evolved species! Every living being is in the process of evolution, slight change over many generation and eventually after a long enough time that same specimen develops into something else and would not be able to breed with the original species and would look radically different....that is how i know you have no clue about evolution,....read up about it and I'll be glad to discuss it with you.

As I said, don't criticize what you don't know, much less accuse others of not knowing

Here, go have a read

Ring species - Wikipedia

 

[pat34lee]

No one is anti bible,...we just don't take it as science

It isn't meant to be science, just truth about God, man and history.

 

[JD16]

That moves the ultimate beginning of life back one step, but it still doesn't answer the problem of abiogenesis.

Evolution does not deal with abiogenesis, that is another issue altogether, a mechanic fixes your car, but you would not expect him to design or engineer one....

Again, here, read up about it

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

 

[pat34lee]

There is no such thing as half-evolved species!

As I said, you don't know what I was asking.

At least half of all species, if we are still evolving, should have vestigial organs, junk DNA, and unfinished features. The first two have been proven to be figments of the imagination of scientists. The third is a killer, though. Where are the beginnings of the next evolutions? The new organs that haven't quite been finished?

 

[JD16]

It isn't meant to be science, just truth about God, man and history.

The truth of it must be taken on faith, therefore there is no evidence of it being true, cause if there is, there would be no need for faith, and we would all be believers, every single one, and no other religion would exist.

For the very fact that Christianity is split into that many denomination is pretty evident on its own that its own adherents can't even decide what is true or not, and you expect others to take it on faith?

 

[pat34lee]

Well, I can only speak for myself,....I was born into a Catholic family and baptize as an infant. But tbh I was never really a believer as I'd always had doubts,....by the age of 10 everything clicked for me and I had to put up an act with my family,...the moment I gain independence, I moved out and dropped the act. My family never forgave me for not believing, and was cut off all contact from that point,...so thats my story in a nutshell

That's a shame. I dropped out of the churches because I saw the flaws between what they taught and what the bible said. Once you find that the bible is not what the churches teach, it makes more sense.

 

[pat34lee]

As I said, don't criticize what you don't know, much less accuse others of not knowing

Did you even notice what you wrote in the previous post to me?

"you have no clue about evolution, but yet feel confident enough to argue against it"

 

[JD16]

As I said, you don't know what I was asking.

At least half of all species, if we are still evolving, should have vestigial organs, junk DNA, and unfinished features. The first two have been proven to be figments of the imagination of scientists. The third is a killer, though. Where are the beginnings of the next evolutions? The new organs that haven't quite been finished?

Whose fault is it when you use terms like half evolved species, which practically no one uses? To mean something that does not occur? It's the questions you ask that is glaring obvious that you don't know how evolution works,...and if you seriously want to learn instead of fighting it to defend your faith, the info is all out there. If you are not interested, and rather keep your faith, its your choice,...but arguing against it, when you don't know what its suppose to be just makes you look foolish

Have you read up the link that another contributor gave you,....the evolution 101 link?

 

[JD16]

That's a shame. I dropped out of the churches because I saw the flaws between what they taught and what the bible said. Once you find that the bible is not what the churches teach, it makes more sense.

Its reading the bible that made me an unbeliever actually,..ironically

 

[pat34lee]

The truth of it must be taken on faith, therefore there is no evidence of it being true, cause if there is, there would be no need for faith, and we would all be believers, every single one, and no other religion would exist.

For the very fact that Christianity is split into that many denomination is pretty evident on its own that its own adherents can't even decide what is true or not, and you expect others to take it on faith?

There is nothing in the bible that has been proven false, historically. The cities, kingdoms, kings that were thought to be imagined, or fictional. Most have been found, or proof of them, independent of the bible, through archeology. Even in the last month, they found a palace of two biblical kings in the ruins where the Islamic state terrorists have been destroying and looting holy sites.
ISIS looting uncovers palace of 2 biblical kings

You have it exactly right about the sects or denominations. They all have their pick of believe this and that, but not these parts. Once they realize it's all true, and the parts that are history, stories or prophecies are pretty clearly labelled as such, that it's hard to make multiple theologies from it. Hebrew roots is the term, and its all about taking the bible as it was written, not as translated and not for today's cultures.

 

[pat34lee]

Have you read up the link that another contributor gave you,....the evolution 101 link?

Do you think I'm a high school student just learning these things? I could tell you every argument they have 30 years ago. They only change when they get cornered by things like DNA and soft tissue in dinosaur bones.

 

[JD16]

Do you think I'm a high school student just learning these things? I could tell you every argument they have 30 years ago. They only change when they get cornered by things like DNA and soft tissue in dinosaur bones.

Ok, I don't wish to discuss evolution any further with you,...lets just leave it as that

 

[JD16]

There is nothing in the bible that has been proven false, historically. The cities, kingdoms, kings that were thought to be imagined, or fictional. Most have been found, or proof of them, independent of the bible, through archeology. Even in the last month, they found a palace of two biblical kings in the ruins where the Islamic state terrorists have been destroying and looting holy sites.
ISIS looting uncovers palace of 2 biblical kings

You have it exactly right about the sects or denominations. They all have their pick of believe this and that, but not these parts. Once they realize it's all true, and the parts that are history, stories or prophecies are pretty clearly labelled as such, that it's hard to make multiple theologies from it. Hebrew roots is the term, and its all about taking the bible as it was written, not as translated and not for today's cultures.

I am willing to discuss further with you in PM if you wish as I don't think it's fair to derail this thread any more...

 

[The Stamp]

Ditto for my wife; but she doesn't buy that as an excuse not to get saved.

Saved from what?

 

[Jimmy D]

Do you think I'm a high school student just learning these things?

No, try learning from sources other than creationist sites and you might get there though.

They only change when they get cornered by things like DNA and soft tissue in dinosaur bones.

So you accept Schweitzer's research when she finds 'soft' tissue because you think it confirms your outlandish ideas, yet you reject her explaination because it doesn't?