Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
DNA preserves the integrity of its program
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pshun2404" data-source="post: 71685962" data-attributes="member: 301030"><p>If it happened, many of the factors of the evolution hypothesis could be involved, but nothing shows this did actually happen. The notion is precluded. It is a presupposition already believed which then effects and sometimes determines how evidence is interpreted. That is not true objectivity. </p><p></p><p>Conclusion: Might have...could have...not DID! Now once one realizes this they can then look at what we actually can observe for data through fresh objective eyes. </p><p></p><p>What is already accepted as true (though still not proven after 150 years), that was accepted as true long before any evidence that could be interpreted in that way (that is, "believed"), has shaped the interpretive conclusions. </p><p></p><p>This is the same logic problem YECs demonstrate? They interpret the data through what they already have concluded to be true. So I will say (for the sake of discussion) that NO I do not believe reptiles became mammals by a process of slow continuous change.</p><p></p><p>If they did then show me...</p><p></p><p>Could they have? Might they have? Well sure anything is possible, but did they?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pshun2404, post: 71685962, member: 301030"] If it happened, many of the factors of the evolution hypothesis could be involved, but nothing shows this did actually happen. The notion is precluded. It is a presupposition already believed which then effects and sometimes determines how evidence is interpreted. That is not true objectivity. Conclusion: Might have...could have...not DID! Now once one realizes this they can then look at what we actually can observe for data through fresh objective eyes. What is already accepted as true (though still not proven after 150 years), that was accepted as true long before any evidence that could be interpreted in that way (that is, "believed"), has shaped the interpretive conclusions. This is the same logic problem YECs demonstrate? They interpret the data through what they already have concluded to be true. So I will say (for the sake of discussion) that NO I do not believe reptiles became mammals by a process of slow continuous change. If they did then show me... Could they have? Might they have? Well sure anything is possible, but did they? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
DNA preserves the integrity of its program
Top
Bottom