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.
Both statements are true.
Many fossils that show 'evolution' are simply the young of the species, and, Australopithecus and modern man are different creations.
I accept the arguments of posters here.
The complexity that science discovers supports special creation.
Don't you scientists disagree with each other too?Huh?
Don't you scientists disagree with each other too?
Absolutely.Christians are allowed to disagree with you?
Oh good grief that's like saying we came from the same ancestor because we are all animals. Its still,an assumption.We do have a way of testing for it now. It's called phylogenetics. That test is the twin nested hierarchy.
"It will be determined to what extent the phylogenetic tree, as derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenetic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished. Indeed, only the theory of evolution, combined with the realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence between lines of evidence obtained independently, namely amino acid sequences of homologous polypeptide chains on the one hand, and the finds of organismal taxonomy and paleontology on the other hand. Besides offering an intellectual satisfaction to some, the advertising of such evidence would of course amount to beating a dead horse. Some beating of dead horses may be ethical, when here and there they display unexpected twitches that look like life."
Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling, discussing the possibility of the twin nested hierarchy before the first molecular phylogenies had been made.
(1965) "Evolutionary Divergence and Convergence in Proteins." in Evolving Genes and Proteins, p. 101.
That's the test.
Then how do you explain the fact that you and the wasp are both bilaterians? You are still the same type of animal.
And who defined primates? We did based upon criteria also defined by us based upon similarities. It means nothing more than human beings setting definitions for God's creation and coming to an assumptive theory that all things came from one thing.We aren't "defined as primates because we are defined as primates". We are defined as primates because we fit the characteristics of what a primate is described as. Here's the definition of primate:
No one ever said you were a monkey, and no one ever said you are an ancestor of a monkey. You are a primate because you fit this definition. Monkeys didn't exist a long, long time ago, so no one can accuse you of being descended from one. The fact that you think someone has accused you of being descended from monkeys is telling when it comes to your claimed knowledge about the ToE.
So? It still doesn't prove we all came from one single thing.The wasp will still be a wasp. But it will be incapable of breeding with the other wasps. That defines a species.
Then show me the study that shows us something evolving into something it isn't already.Nothing about the nested hierarchy of life is assumed.
Those are observable facts. And it's easily testable as well.
Our classification system litterally is just pasting labels on all those groups. It doesn't matter what we call them. They are there. We just name them so we can talk about them, refer to them,... You know how language works, yes?
No. What defines us as primates are our physical attributes. The facts about our biology. Yes, we categorize life. We use groups wich are actually just nodes on the branching tree of life. Off course, we have to figure out what the groups are, first.
The fact that we can actually do this, is quite ironically, because life happens to fall into a nested hierarchy. Did it ever occur to you to wonder why the classification of life is in kind of an ever-specialising structure?
Eukaryote - Animal - Tetrapod - Mammal - Primate - Homo
And I'm probably skipping a lot of them as well.
It's not. It's a conclusion from data.
Ow goody... an emotional argument.
Such events of the past have observable impact on the data in the present.
The "were-you-there" answer or variants thereof is absurd.
That is a straight up lie.
No, the observed existence of nested hierarchies is a prediction that the theory of evolution makes. Creationism makes no predictions.Oh good grief that's like saying we came from the same ancestor because we are all animals. Its still,an assumption.
You are going to have to be more precise in your terminology if you expect a serious answer.Then show me the study that shows us something evolving into something it isn't already.
You are,correct creation makes no,predictions. God's word,declairs how and when God made everything and how long it took.No, the observed existence of nested hierarchies is a prediction that the theory of evolution makes. Creationism makes no predictions.
According to Genesis, God gave to Adam, and by extension to us, the task of creating biological taxonomies. Gen 2:20.And who defined primates? We did based upon criteria also defined by us based upon similarities. It means nothing more than human beings setting definitions for God's creation...
Which is one good reason why Creationism is not a scientific theory. An important requirement which a theory must meet is that it successfully predicts further observations.You are,correct creation makes no,predictions. God's word,declares how and when God made everything and how long it took.
Is another thing the theory of evolution predicts.And the complexity of all there is...
Don't you scientists disagree with each other too?
That means someone disagrees with you too.
So what point were you trying to make by saying there are those who disagree with my interpretation of Scripture?
Isn't disagreement what makes the world go round?
Ain't that that truth!It's worse than that. As soon as a serious problem develops someone makes an industry out of it. We can't solve our 'problems' because the economy would collapse.
Aren't having mutations in my DNA and those mutation appearing two different things? Not everyone who has the shingles virus has an outbreak of shingles. Not every inherited genetic weakness is expressed either. And, as was opined by another, don't these 'mutations' give us our individuality?
Evolution claims responsibility for everything, including thoughts. Explain why I don't think evolution is true.
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?