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.
There are no examples of one genus evolving from another
Time is part of nature. If there was a time before creation occurred, nature must have existed in some form. In my opinion, it does not make sense to speak of a time before creation occurred.To create out of nothing means that Nature did not exist before creation occurred. So how can creation be anything but supernatural in its origins?
Evolution procedes by repeated speciation, producing a kind of "family tree," just like a real bush or tree grows by repeated branching. lf a twig on one limb of the tree branches into two twigs, can one of those twigs become a twig on another limb? Or do they both remain on the same limb?How is that?
None of them. As you know very well Nebraskaman was hypothesized based on single tooth. While the picture shows skulls. And as you also know very well (and we know that you know) the error has been corrected. So as we know very well your depreciating remark is just to smear science, by lack of any serious argument. You can complain, as you did in the recent past:Which one is Haroldcookii?
However, I suspect that the basis of mindlight's issue is that he may visualize the higher taxa as pre-existing categories into which creatures evolve, rather than being formed ad hoc as speciation continues.
So yes, dear reader, taking into account that AV1611VET knows very well that his remarks are pointless, he just grabs at straws to make science look bad.
While the picture shows skulls.
One gets the impression its quite difficultNone of them. As you know very well Nebraskaman was hypothesized based on single tooth. While the picture shows skulls. And as you also know very well (and we know that you know) the error has been corrected. So as we know very well your depreciating remark is just to smear science, by lack of any serious argument. You can complain, as you did in the recent past:
"Now they want to sweep it under the carpet and make it look like anyone who brings it up is grabbing at straws to make science look bad."
So yes, dear reader, taking into account that AV1611VET knows very well that his remarks are pointless, he just grabs at straws to make science look bad.Nebraska Man: What's Wrong with this Picture?
This is a drawing of Hesperopithecus haroldcookii. What's wrong with this picture? Since Hesperopithecus turned out to be a species of peccary, shouldn't there be peccaries in the picture?www.christianforums.com
One gets the impression its quite difficult to be a yec without being profoundly ignorant or intellectually dishonest,
tho some may be mentally weak, or simply insane.
I think the difference lies between those who think the theory of evolution is just wrong and those who think it is wrong on purpose because of some global atheistic conspiracy.If you're referring to me as being "profoundly ignorant or intellectually dishonest or mentally weak or simply insane" --- I'm not a YEC.
And if you keep referring to me as one -- (especially while having me on IGNORE and can't read my posts that say otherwise) -- I ask:
Who's the one who's profoundly ignorant, intellectually dishonest, mentally weak, or simply insane?
The question / statement about nothingEvolution procedes by repeated speciation, producing a kind of "family tree," just like a real bush or tree grows by repeated branching. lf a twig on one limb of the tree branches into two twigs, can one of those twigs become a twig on another limb? Or do they both remain on the same limb?
But perhaps I didn't understand the question mindlight raised--Hans had a different and more articulate answer, so it could be that he understood it better.
However, I suspect that the basis of mindlight's issue is that he may visualize the higher taxa as pre-existing categories into which creatures evolve, rather than being formed ad hoc as speciation continues.
Those who think its wrong are usually justI think the difference lies between those who think the theory of evolution is just wrong and those who think it is wrong on purpose because of some global atheistic conspiracy.
Ive asked what they think is a "kind" , a species, a genus?
...
There's never an actual response.
Those who think its wrong are usually just ignorant.
And now they are found.Skulls passed off as missing links.
You might believe so, but bemieve doesn't make true.Except, I believe, for the upper right one (G), which, if my memory serves me correctly, is a bona fide chimpanzee.
Aside from G, every skull is a human being (or Homo sapiens for clarity).
No.Diseased human beings.
No again. The worst types of lies you can tell are the lies you tell yourself and start to believe. You are telling yourself these comfortable lies, just to shield your precious but above all fragile beliefs from reality.But human beings just the same.
They can point out what is wrong. They can use valid arguments, instead of pointless smears, like you used in post n° 464.What about those who aren't ignorant and think it's wrong?
Who are "they"?They can point out what is wrong. They can use valid arguments, instead of pointless smears, like you used in post n° 464.
Those who think its wrong are usually just
ignorant.
What about those who aren't ignorant and think it's wrong?
They can point out what is wrong. They can use valid arguments, instead of pointless smears, like you used in post n° 464.
Who are "they"?
...
But as nobody is known to have ever uncovered data that is contrary to ToE, what is it you say "they" can point to, as wrong?
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?