It has long been a convention that fossils are always assigned a different species name than living creatures. With live specimens, one can compare the entire anatomy, even behaviour; with a fossil one may only have a few bones. Since they cannot be compared properly, it was decided to just give them different names as a matter of policy. By coincidence, the practice can appear deceptive in some contexts.
(citation needed), and (citation needed on the specific case especially since it is in the face of evidence)
What does evolution lack? Evidence. There is no observable instance or evidence of life forming from non-life (except the creation account, but God is life, so that really doesn't count, does it?)
You’ve already been corrected that evolution does not deal with the origin of life. Continuing to make this mistake would be bearing false witness, something you claim to decry every post.
f we all evolved from a common ancestor, then the fossil evidence showing changes from one species to another should be ABUNDANT, but instead it is incredibly lacking; nay, non-existent.
Your refusal to see it when shown is not a lack.
All of the evidence points to a global flood, not billions of years of evolution. If anyone has seen tsunami, flash flood, or mudslide footage, it is so obvious that the effect of a global, cataclysmic flood explains how the landscape was formed and where the fossils came from that we currently have. The power of water is incredibly impressive and if a tsunami or flash flood can destroy entire populations, what could a global 40 day flood do?
WHAT evidence? Specifics, please. And also point out how it fits with the fossil record, and human history, and the history of the species alive today. SPECIFIC evidence, not broad claims.
vidence from evolution time after time has been shown to be either wrong or erroneous. Java Man, for example, was proven to be an ape whose femur bone was found over 100 yards away about a year after it's skull was found. Lucy was shown to be an ape just over a couple hundred years old over 60 years ago, yet she still was taught in school when I was a kid in the 80's. So DON'T TELL ME SCIENCE IS NOT LYING ABOUT EVOLUTION! Not only do they lie on the front end, they perpetrate the lie after being proven liars.
Your Java man quote is a lie perpetrated by people with something to sell. Lucy is an ape, just like humans are apes. I’ll show that later if asked/challenged.
Secular science is a sham on the theory of evolution, and should be discounted entirely until there is a level of repentance to demonstrate that they will take the evidence where it leads them; even if it leads them to God, not as an effort to disprove God so they can excuse their godless behaviors.
That’s funny because
a) creationist organizations like AIG are the ones who have statements of faith that ‘if scientific evidence contradicts our preconceived notions of Scripture, reality is WRONG’,
b) modern science does no such thing,
and c) God is beyond the scope of science. Science cannot deal with the supernatural, since science USES methodological naturalism. Since we can only measure the natural, only natural causes may be discerned empirically.
Of course DNA is going to be similar. There are only a number of ways a given species can be built adequately and of the same material to prosper in an Earthly condition.
Really? So it was impossible for God to make some species out of DNA and some species out of AFLA? (AFLA= Another Four-Letter Acronym).
Of course God created life. How did it happen on it's own accord? (Saying that is not part of the science of evolution is not an answer)
But it ISN”T part of evolution, it’s part of a different field called abiogenesis. And so far, let’s see...
a) amino acids have been shown to form without an organism present,
b) vesicles will spontaneously form under the correct conditions,
c) there are already self-catalyzing organic reactions,
etc, etc, etc. Those there were ones I could recall off the top of my head.
n even the most sophisticated, controlled lab, the most simplest life form cannot be created. The have struggled for decades to even produce a make-shift protein. The odds of it happening in a violent, uncontrolled and natural setting are pretty much zero.
Good thing that it isn’t just chance, then.
If the OT is the word of God, I say let ToE be proven before assuming anything in science.
Of course, “the word of God” does not mean “literal history throughout or completely false”. I guarantee you neither me nor DL think that the OT is not the word of God.
What if God agreed? What if God subjected Himself to testing? All that'd be left would be to deny reports of the tests, huh?
Why do you seem to have this preconceived notion that science/scientists = God deny atheistic propoganda machine/atheists? Where did you get it from? It’s totally wrong.
Also, God COULD come down, and if He could be tested by our instruments, He’d have to use natural means. Sure, He could give evidence that it was Him doing things supernaturally, but it would not be
scientific evidence. Especially because as soon as He left, we’d be unable to detect that it was Him doing things again.
Conspiracies are secret. Wiki makes no secret of their dogmatic support for evolutionism, atheism, and all things mainstream. You yourself pointed out their reliance on talkdeceptions. If wiki's the source of the truth, there is no God, and the ''religion'' you profess is obviously false. Even elsewhere it'd be a joke, but trying to paint them as authorities here???
So evolution is a conspiracy? Really? Among who, for what purpose, and what about the volumes of useful information coming from its use?
Assuming the initial condition of something is subjective.
And your scientific training on how it is done to make your opinion actually relevant is...?
All science has done is flatter itself as being above because it can point to something and say it's there.
Really? So discoveries and inventions of novel things that no one has ever heard of before is just ‘pointing to something and saying it’s there’?
The simple fact of the matter is that evolution caught on because it is either that or nothing in secular belief
Your simple fact of the matter is completely wrong. It would not have caught on if it did not have evidence. Merely refusing to recognize it does not make it go away.
And of course, if God MADE things starting old, with histories that never happened, there’s a word for that. It’s called deception. And I thought God wasn’t the author of confusion here.
DL, I am not as well versed on this immediate subject as I used to be, but I do remember that Dr. Remine came up with a scientifically satisfactory study of "kinds" in Baraminology. I don't know when i will get the chance to look that up again, so if you are interested you might want to look him up.
I’ve seen reports on so called “baraminology”, and one thing I have seen is that any test for separating between kinds puts humans in the ape kind, unless they are directly and ad hoc separated out.
This is a myth. Just as we can test other natural phenomena, whether directly or second hand through a phenomena's effects, so we can test indirectly the fact of God. The major facts of cosmology demonstrate a power beyond mere physical ability of those phenomena to work harmoniously.
Citation needed.
You can't see the wind, nor can you trap it in a test tube and dissect it in a lab, yet we can study its effects as it moves upon the face of the earth. So is it with God...every miracle that God performs is the effect of Him moving somewhere upon the face of the earth.
But you can measure and test the wind, put instruments in the wind, and feel it on your face.
And are you saying that if it isn’t a miracle, it ISN”T God’s doing?
Rock strata demonstrates flood geology.
Specific examples.
Starlight demonstrates nothing because there are so many unwarranted and illegitimate assumptions thrown into the mix that it is not a valid science even...same with radiometric readings...far too many assumptions involved.
And your training/qualifications that would indicate that I should put your opinion here above the actual scientists and teh entire field that is decades old is...?
All the facts together, there is more clear evidence for a earth between 6,000 - 12,000 years old than there is for millions of years.
Outright false.
A true scientist will take the theory with less unverifiable assumptions over the one with hundreds of unverifiable assumptions...that is, unless it is his pet theory that he is trying to protect.
Funnily enough, this describes creationist organizations far more than actual science, especially if you’ve actually spent years at university studying some of the stuff.
Metherion
