why is it that when you try to convince a creationist that evolution and common decent are true, they have an unrealistically high standard of proof, but they accept creationism based on the most infintesimally small insignificant piece of evidence?
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.
why is it that when you try to convince a creationist that evolution and common decent are true, they have an unrealistically high standard of proof, but they accept creationism based on the most infintesimally small insignificant piece of evidence?
then please, explain the fossil record, and cytochrome cbecause common decent from a bacteria or a worm is such an outrageously ridiculous idea and goes against all common sense that to be convinced of such an absurdity the average intelligent, thinking individual needs hard evidence, of which you have none.
there is no fossil record that supports any type of darwinian evolution. If you think otherwise you can start by presenting me with a common ancestor -- of which there are millions that you cannot seem to come up with.then please, explain the fossil record, and cytochrome c
we see the change happening in the fossil record, and what we see are fossillized bacteria at the bottom of the geologic column, oh, and all life on earth uses the same exact 4 base pairs in their DNA, and common decent is the only valid scientific explanation for this phenomenathere is no fossil record that supports any type of darwinian evolution. If you think otherwise you can start by presenting me with a common ancestor -- of which there are millions that you cannot seem to come up with.
Why do we have a large fraction of our DNA similar with any worm. But the I thought your double standard was going to be about after the flood evolution would've happened at such a rate you would see speciation every 1.6 days or so. Meaning they believe in more evolution than we do.because common decent from a bacteria or a worm is such an outrageously ridiculous idea and goes against all common sense that to be convinced of such an absurdity the average intelligent, thinking individual needs hard evidence, of which you have none.
funny...we see bacteria on the surface of the ground too. what's your point?we see the change happening in the fossil record, and what we see are fossillized bacteria at the bottom of the geologic column, oh, and all life on earth uses the same exact 4 base pairs in their DNA, and common decent is the only valid scientific explanation for this phenomena
my point is there is absolutely no other valid explanation for thisfunny...we see bacteria on the surface of the ground too. what's your point?
oh, and all life on earth uses the same exact 4 base pairs in their DNA
And all colors come from a mixture of the primiary colors: red, blue and yellow.....so what exactly is your point about all animals sharing the same base pairs?
my point is there is absolutely no other valid explanation for this
oh, and would you care to explain why we an ascorbic acid gene?
because ascorbic acid is vitamin C, and we have a gene which is used by mice to make vitamin C. why do we have a gene is supposed to make vitamin C?Are you telling me because you cannot accept another explanation, a miraculous explanation, that you'll just make up nonsensical, nonseen, non-proven, highly illogical naturalistic explanation and call it a day?
why wouldn't we have an "ascorbic acid gene?"
I have a feeling you don't know what you're talking about here. why don't you come back when you can get the argument right. Me discussing it with you seems pointless at the moment due to your lack of understanding. If you care to rephrase the argument in a way that makes sense I will answer it for you.because ascorbic acid is vitamin C, and we have a gene which is used by mice to make vitamin C. why do we have a gene is supposed to make vitamin C?
UC Berekeley describes some of the evidenceI'm still waiting for this "evidence." A barrage of "why this" and "why that" doesn't suffice for evidence for ToE. ToE is taught in classrooms as "fact." Therefore the onus is on you to present the hard evidence. Your lack of faith in a supernatural creation does not count as evidence. Now please show me.
I'm still waiting for this "evidence." A barrage of "why this" and "why that" doesn't suffice for evidence for ToE. ToE is taught in classrooms as "fact." Therefore the onus is on you to present the hard evidence. Your lack of faith in a supernatural creation does not count as evidence. Now please show me.
so, you cant explain why we have a gene for the manufacture of vitamin C? and why cant you explain the fact that the cytochrome C in humans and chimps is exactly identical, and the difference between humans and bacteria is only 51 amino acid sequences, even though the electron transport chain would still function with 10^90 different amino acid sequences in cytochrome c.I have a feeling you don't know what you're talking about here. why don't you come back when you can get the argument right. Me discussing it with you seems pointless at the moment due to your lack of understanding. If you care to rephrase the argument in a way that makes sense I will answer it for you.
because common decent from a bacteria or a worm is such an outrageously ridiculous idea and goes against all common sense that to be convinced of such an absurdity the average intelligent, thinking individual needs hard evidence, of which you have none.
do you admit that then that their are different standards? One is based on evidence and the other one is not.
What kind of evidence do you need to be convinced? You must realize that bacteria tend to not leave a fossil record...
If they didn't it surely would NOT falsify common descent.all life on earth uses the same exact 4 base pairs in their DNA
oh goody! now you can present your evidence for creationism now....right?Concrete Evidence! Real Proof Evidence! Evidence that speaks for itself kind of evidence! Talk about a double standard. You always require evidence but when confronted with the basics there is always an excuse as to why it cannot be presented BUT we are asked to "believe" it without that evidence and we are presented with a nice little story about what could have been or should have been. As you see you are the pot calling the kettle black.
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?