proving evolution as just a "theory"

[AV1611VET]

No, He said He thought it was good.

'Thought it was good'?

Let's put a little more emphasis on this, shall we?

Genesis 1:31a And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

Adam Clarke says:

The plan wise, the work well executed, the different parts properly arranged; their nature, limits, mode of existence, manner of propagation, habits, mode of sustenance, &c., &c., properly and permanently established and secured; for every thing was formed to the utmost perfection of its nature, so that nothing could be added or diminished without encumbering the operations of matter and spirit on the one hand, or rendering them inefficient to the end proposed on the other; and God has so done all these marvellous works as to be glorified in all, by all, and through all.

 

[The Times]

Theory of Evolution, it explains the biodiversity of life on Earth.

Biodiversity of specie adaptations is not evolution of species.

What is a "failed species"

When life is formed but cannot be sustained from an internal embeded algorithm that fails from an engineering aspect. A failed bridge that doesn't work, but is shortly realised, because wrong equations or numbers were used.

 

[The Times]

In some science fiction movie by the look of it.

No in evolution theory books.

 

[The Times]

You claimed you learned about evolution in school, but your posts suggest you slept through those lessons...

I am not religious and I did not appreciate the bashing of this quasi religion.

 

[Speedwell]

'Thought it was good'?

Let's put a little more emphasis on this, shall we?

Genesis 1:31a And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

Adam Clarke says:

An excellent tribute to evolution by variation and selection. Not as succinct and beatiful as Psalm 19:1, but worthy nontheless.

 

[The Times]

No. I implied no such thing. I don't even understand how you would reach such a bizarre conclusion.

Please go back and read what you stated my friend.

 

[Speedwell]

No in evolution theory books.

Can you name any of them? Provide us with a link? I doubt that such a creature has ever existed in real life.

 

[pitabread]

Biodiversity of specie adaptations is not evolution of species.

It explains the evolution of species insofar as the earliest life on Earth giving rise to the current biodiversity.

When life is formed but cannot be sustained from an internal embeded algorithm that fails from an engineering aspect. A failed bridge that doesn't work, but is shortly realised, because wrong equations or numbers were used.

Are you talking about individual organisms that die without maturing?

Species refer to an entire, well, species of organism. In other words, more than just individuals. If you're talking about the death of an individual organism that is something different than an entire species going extinct.

 

[The Times]

Can you name any of them? Provide us with a link? I doubt that such a creature has ever existed in real life.

Rock to whale and whale to a man. Go to fiction books they are there.

 

[Speedwell]

Rock to whale and whale to a man. Go to fiction books they are there.

In other words, you can't show us that any such "evolution theory books" exist. Nor are there any which assert that rocks evolved into whales and whales into man. Somebody has been pulling your leg.

 

[Speedwell]

Please go back and read what you stated my friend.

What I stated was,

"No, He said He thought it was good. By His standards, of course, which aren't necessarily the same as ours or even known to us."

Nothing there at all about man's standards being higher than Gods. I was merely correcting your translation.

 

[The Times]

In other words, you can't show us that any such "evolution theory books" exist. Nor are there any which assert that rocks evolved into whales and whales into man. Somebody has been pulling your leg.

The Evolution picture book of Fibonacci pattern found in nature.....in their assertion of life from rock to mammal.

Transmutation of species as follows....

 

[The Times]

What I stated was,

"No, He said He thought it was good. By His standards, of course, which aren't necessarily the same as ours or even known to us."

Nothing there at all about man's standards being higher than Gods. I was merely correcting your translation.

He thought was good was compared by you to man's standards and you implied man's standards is higher. This is what you unwittingly implied. Is this a mistake post on your behalf, would you like to change it?

 

[sfs]

Let's put a little more emphasis on this, shall we?

Genesis 1:31a And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

Which is not the same as perfect.

 

[AV1611VET]

Which is not the same as perfect.

Biblical perfection means "complete."

 

[The Times]

From a mineralised rock.......

To a whale mammal species that can walk on land......

To this part mammal part insect insectoid ......

To that of a transmuting from a neomorph to xenomorph.......

The religion of Evolution welcomes you to fantasia.

 

[sfs]

Biblical perfection means "complete."

Why are you introducing "perfection" here? Genesis says it was very good, not perfect, right?

 

[pitabread]

The religion of Evolution welcomes you to fantasia.

Looks like The Times has wandered firmly into Poe-land.

 

[pitabread]

Why are you introducing "perfection" here? Genesis says it was very good, not perfect, right?

Perhaps AV1611VET has his own private translation?

 

[The Times]

It explains the evolution of species insofar as the earliest life on Earth giving rise to the current biodiversity.

It cannot do that with qualitative and quantative coherent evidence, but by mere assertions and distorting of terms and concoction of bits and pieces of apparent real word adaptations that in no way, shape or form make it reality. The same methodology is used by Flat Earthers, who fail to present coherent connections. I call it the jibber jabble of fake news and this has been the flavour of the Evolution theory.

Fast talking Evolutionists think that they can talk their way into the history books, by bamboozingly the unsuspecting masses.

Are you talking about individual organisms that die without maturing?

Individual organisms are not species, they are organisms at the foundational level. This is how Evolutionist distort terms to give an appeal to the masses of species being organisms. No, you can't do that my friend.

Species refer to an entire, well, species of organism. In other words, more than just individuals. If you're talking about the death of an individual organism that is something different than an entire species going extinct.

No, again you cannot call organism species, they are at molecular levels cellular structures that have not taken a form, where the form determines the kind or species. All species unique to themselves, use the base line organisms as a building block of their kind, but the organisms on their own are not species. Just like a fetus in the organism state cannot be be a male or a female and many in the scientific community don't consider it as intelligence and in this regard species must have intelligence and an organism is mechanics without intelligence, just like an engine of a car.