DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
True.
Both monkeys and humans rather evolved from a common ancestor, not from eachother.
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.
and mutations + netural selection doesnt utrn a monkey into human either.
"A tested and well evidenced explanation for a natural phenomenon or group of phenomena."
Extremely logical, actually.
First, evolution doesn't really "start". Evolution, rather, "happens".
It's not like something special needs to happen before evolution sets in.
Attributing things to undetectable, unsupportable entities, is never the simplest explanation.
It never ceases to amaze me that we spend most of our time here trying to set creationists right about what the theory of evolution actually says, rather than defending it against substantive arguments.
What does amaze me, is that I keep doing it.
No, it hasn't been changed, not for centuries. You're just one more creationist confused about specialized usage of a term.But not actual proof...oh, but that's right, the definition of proof has been changed too...nifty.
What's wrong with that? Your explanation is 100% "poof theory."Again, yours is unsupported, and saying evolution had no start is hilarious. Care to back that one up, and I mean with something other than Poof Theory?
Scientists don't know how life started, but they will wait until the evidence is in before creating scenarios.With comments like the prior I quoted, it's no wonder you actually think your side is supported. I mean seriously, when you depend on ludicrous ideas like nothing special has to happen in order for evolution to get started, or evolution doesn't have a start, it goes to show you can create a scenario where Bozo created the universe with that kind of imagination.
You're here too, and one would have thought you would bring more knowledge about the "world view" you were arguing against.You two do realize there is a very simple solution to that? And I doubt that solution would be a problem for those here who prefer to believe the bible's simple report of creation, over the worlds point of view...it's what some of us do here...believe the bible as it's written.Your arguing non biblical world views on a Christian site, and you are amazed at the outcome? Amazing..
No, it hasn't. You're just one more creationist confused about specialized usage of a term.
What's wrong with that? Your explanation is 100% "poof theory."
Scientists don't know how life started, but they will wait until the evidence is in before creating scenarios.
You're here too, and one would have thought you would bring more knowledge about the "world view" you were arguing against.
Now, like since the time of Euclid. Hardly a recent invention. Don't you remember proving theorems in your geometry class? Not the same thing at all as accumulating evidence to confirm a scientific theory.Oh, is that what they're calling it now? Like my swearing the moon is made of Green Cheese is not a lie, it's specialized usage of term?
Sure, but what has that to do with whether God "poofed" living creatures into existence all at once, or formed them over time using natural laws of His own creation?My explanation is as my Bible tells me, God always was.
I'm not quite sure what your point is here. Does it have anything to do with biology?It used to be a Poof Theory, as in your:
"A tested and well evidenced explanation for a natural phenomenon or group of phenomena."
So the natural Phenomenon here was "nothing" or a group of nothing that supported the Big bang theory, something so embarrassing, and open to well deserved ridicule, science moved to "We don't know". Good move.
I feel the same way about your interpretation of scripture, but at least I am willing to spend some time studying it.I suppose if "one" were one who studies the world view, yes they might think that, I do not, it's not important to me like it is for some. The more I pick up in passing, the less I care to even learn. It would be like studying up on Flat Earth...ridiculous, useless knowledge. Easy to pick up enough to realize that.
Except that you ARE WRONG BECAUSE CARS AREN'T BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS SO THEY CAN'T REPRODUCE SO THEY CAN'T EVOLVE! HOW ARE YOU NOT GETTING THIS?!
Now, like since the time of Euclid. Hardly a recent invention. Don't you remember proving theorems in your geometry class? Not the same thing at all as accumulating evidence to confirm a scientific theory.
Sure, but what has that to do with whether God "poofed" living creatures into existence all at once, or formed them over time using natural laws of His own creation?
I'm not quite sure what your point is here. Does it have anything to do with biology?
I feel the same.way about your interpretation of scripture, but at least I am willing to spend some time studying it
"Proof" is for axiomatic formal systems like geometry, not the inductive logic of science.What does that have to do with the special usage term again?
Do you really think a theist would believe it poofed for no reason, or are you just being snarky?The bible says he spoke it into being. Do you believe that, or that it poofed for no reason?
Of course. It began with the first self-replicating life form.And while I'm at it, do you believe evolution had a beginning?
Would you please tell me how you interpret the following and why you interpret it as you do?:
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Reproduce how? By carrying robots and machine tools in the trunk that are able to mine materials, utilize some source of energy, make computer chips, machine engine blocks, and do both intricate and heavy assembly work? Or by carrying around an army of nanomachines that are able to rebuild copies of themselves and also do all the construction and maintenance of new cars? Or by having babies that grow up to be adult cars?Is this question any different from “could pigs fly?” It seems to be pointless speculation as to the limits of biological evolution/automotive engineering inspired by xianghua’s inane self-replicating watch argument. I don’t see any reason why engineers couldn’t eventually design a car so sophisticated it was able to reproduce. I also don’t see any reason why environmental pressures couldn’t eventually cause modern pigs to develop the ability to fly. None of this means anything.
Reproduce how? By carrying robots and machine tools in the trunk that are able to mine materials, utilize some source of energy, make computer chips, machine engine blocks, and do both intricate and heavy assembly work? Or by carrying around an army of nanomachines that are able to rebuild copies of themselves and also do all the construction and maintenance of new cars? Or by having babies that grow up to be adult cars?
Some things are worth taking about, even if they don't directly affect me. Will we some day establish a colony on another planet? Will cold fusion ever power our networks? Could cars reproduce?What does it matter? Are you trying to design one yourself?
Cars don’t give birth.the same with this car. it will change over time and will be different from the starting car.
Some things are worth taking about, even if they don't directly affect me. Will we some day establish a colony on another planet? Will cold fusion ever power our networks? Could cars reproduce?
If this topic does not interest you, feel free to start your own thread.
But not actual proof...oh, but that's right, the definition of proof has been changed too...nifty.
Again, yours is unsupported
, and saying evolution had no start is hilarious.
Care to back that one up, and I mean with something other than Poof Theory?
Of course it does
It doesn't seem to be my who isn't thinkin....Are you even thinking before you speak...my sides are splitting from laughter
That makes no sense whatsoever.
With comments like the prior I quoted, it's no wonder you actually think your side is supported.
I mean seriously, when you depend on ludicrous ideas like nothing special has to happen in order for evolution to get started, or evolution doesn't have a start, it goes to show you can create a scenario where Bozo created the universe with that kind of imagination.
You two do realize there is a very simple solution to that? And I doubt that solution would be a problem for those here who prefer to believe the bible's simple report of creation, over the worlds point of view...it's what some of us do here...believe the bible as it's written.
Your arguing non biblical world views on a Christian site, and you are amazed at the outcome?
It is "unsupported" to say that life exists?
Seriously?
"Proof" is for axiomatic formal systems like geometry, not the inductive logic of science.
Care to back that one up, and I mean with something other than Poof Theory?
Care to provide an alternate to The Theory of Evolution besides proof theory?
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?