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.
Nobody in here has disputed that we are a design and creation of the almighty. People have suggested that evolution is the tool he used to design and create us. Simple.kenneth558 said:Data and all who feel the same way,
The fantasy of evolution has only gotten stronger in the minds of those who are deluded by it, be it the majority of scientists or not. There are plenty of us who know the truth...and it is that you are a design and creation of the Almighty. We've told you all in the clearest ways we know how. I'm enrolled in an "Organic Evolution" class (read my last post), and believe me, the arguments and "evidences" from the textbook are wimpier than I even expected. They're not fooling me for a moment.
Don't start regurgitating nonsense from Kent Hovind. That won't get you anywhere.Tye said:From what I understand, evolution has 6 different definitions.
Except no one actually knows what a "kind" is, thus creationists can shift the definition of kind into whatever they need it to be to cry "that's not evolution."The one noone seems to have a problem with is micro evolution or adaptation or small changes within a kind.
The theory of evolution does not serve as an explanation for the origin of life.My main problem with evolution is that it doesn't answer the origin of life very well
False.and the current theories today seem to go against the Law of Biogenesis.
Sorry, mate, you're wrong. It IS an intermediary - a bird with reptilian features. No, evolution does NOT clearly state that we evolved into higher lifeforms. It states that organisms evolve to better suit their environment. Birds evolved a pecking way of feeding, as opposed to the 'ripping' way of reptiles...and in their environment, it was a better way. They weren't "better"...they were "better suited to their environment". No offense, but you need to study evolutionary theory a bit before you make posts like this that are simply wrong and show that you don't understand the idea you are attempting to disparage.Dragondrawer said:Guys, listen to this.
The fossil that they found was supposedly supposed to be a "missing link". A bird/Dinosaur mix...definately something that evolutionists would want to sink thier greedy little claws into.
But guys...it's JUST A BIRD. Here's why.
1. The elongated tail bone-you think it's not found in birds today, but it is. Take the swan, for example. It DOES have an elongated tailbone.
2. Hollow bones- Hello...? Um..bird.
3. Claws on the ends of the wing- Yeah...so do Ostriches. Are they birds, or are my eyes decieving me, evolutionists?
4. Teeth in the beak- Eh, okay. So there aren't any living birds today that actually have teeth in thier beaks. So what? This still disprooves evolution. Birds, if they really evolved from dinosaurs, dont have teeth anymore. THAT IS NOT AN IMPROOVEMENT. Does evolution not clearly state that we "evolved" into higher lifeforms? Heh..yeah, it does. If you really think that not being able to have the ability to rip things instead of having to peck your way at them is an improovement...um..you need to study the new thing called "common sense".;
Sorry guys, but it's just a bird. I dont think it's a false fossil..it's a cool critter, but it's no "missing link". And I DO think that they attached the new stuff to the fossil just to make money, not to bash anyone.
The theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with the origin of life. Do you have a 'problem' with gravity, since it doesn't answer the origin of life?Tye said:My main problem with evolution is that it doesn't answer the origin of life very well and the current theories today seem to go against the Law of Biogenesis.
Where do people get this idea from anyway?Does evolution not clearly state that we "evolved" into higher lifeforms? Heh..yeah, it does.
The English word 'evolution' has a number of definitions - basically, it means change. In the biological sense, it has ONE definition - a change in frequency of allelles within a gene pool. It is creationists who attempt to invent different kinds of evolution (micro- and macro-), in an attempt to confuse the debate. They are the same thing - the only difference is one of degree. Lots of 'micro's add up to 'macro's.Tye said:From what I understand, evolution has 6 different definitions. The one noone seems to have a problem with is micro evolution or adaptation or small changes within a kind.
Hey all, I'm a "young earth creationist." My questions about an old earth are numerous. Perhaps there are explanations I've never heard. My question is if man has been here for "millions of years" why do we not have more people on earth?
To begin with, Hovinds degree was not from a university at all, and not in the feild that he is arguing in. Biology. His degree is a fake.Tye said:I'm sorry. I totally understand what has been said but I don't get it. Like toff was saying, it's the degrees that I have a problem with. I don't see how small degrees warrants big degree assumtions
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?