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.
Ohhhh, I see.
Yes, and it was refuted just that quickly. I know what you mean by missing links. They are not "holes" in the theory of evolution. You have only claimed that they are.
Nope. You are still missing the obvious. Here is a hint, they collected their samples from the wrong place.Ohhhh, I see.
Glad you caught it!
Maybe they should have peer-reviewed their work first?
Oh well. I'm sure they're print a retraction somewhere.
Then you test it.
You are complaining about science being self-correcting dependent on evidence from experiments, observations and predictions. There are five major religions each with multiple denominations and each with multiple contradicting interpretations of their authoritative texts. They all can't be correct and none have evidence that can be observed or predictions that can be validated. In fact religious belief is synonymous with faith. So when you try to denigrate science by comparing it to faith you should think about how much you are devaluing the value of your own faith.
It is not my claim. Why would I test it? I am merely pointing out that their experiment was poorly conceived.
No, you only posted unsubstantiated claims. Some of them were not "holes" at all. Such as your claim that she was a he. That was a distinction without a difference. Male or female Lucy is strong evidence for human evolution.
Not at all. You are the one that should be saying "Science can take a hike" when the DNA of the eucharist did not change. Once again, I am applying your standards to the claim, not mine.Are you saying SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE, are you?
Lol, "If you just understood, you would agree with me.," That's not even a valid argument.
No, because I agree " religion" must be taken on faith. You pretend you don't have to take the vast majority of the study of the past on faith. I don't pretend I can prove everything I believe. That's why it's a belief. You believe your books by fallible men, and that's fine. But don't tell me that they are facts.
There is a huge difference. Evolution is supported by the evidence. Creationists cannot seem to find any for their beliefs. The evidence refutes the Flat Earth. By the way, this is why I offer to go over the concept of evidence with you. You went there part way, but you cannot drop your prejudices. Lucy is strong evidence for human evolution. Your failed claims did not refute that. Heck, you could not even support your claims properly and demanded that others do your homework for you.
Your faith appears to be based upon fallible men as well. We don't need faith. It is not a pathway to the truth since a Muslim has the same faith that you have. As does a Hindu, a Sikh, a Bahai.
There's no evidence that "she's" a human ancestor at all. You could not have come to the conclusion it makes no difference if you had understood what I wrote. Do you even remember that they claimed the males were basically human and the females were still swinging in trees? No, because you didn't actually read what I wrote.
I did not say that they believed the same thing. You are making an equivocation fallacy. They have the same faith. They have a belief in a God without sufficient evidence.
But that would be a falsehood if you did. Why would you do that? At best all that you can demonstrate is that you do not understand the evidence.
