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.
And don't forget:Evolution through imperfections ... sounds like an oxymoron.
If you told a dog breeder that a non-dog could be bred from a dog, they'd laugh. Your average animal or plant breeder has got more common-sense and a better grip on reality than your average evolutionary scientist.Plant breeders will tell you that there is a limit to what they can do with a particular plant type. The barrier is genetics. It's one that cannot be crossed.
When I remember that I evolved from some kind of ape, I feel all warm and fuzzy inside.And don't forget:
We're mutant copy-errors, made in the image and likeness of God.
If you told a dog breeder that a non-dog could be bred from a dog, they'd laugh. Your average animal or plant breeder has got more common-sense and a better grip on reality than your average evolutionary scientist.
Plant breeders will tell you that there is a limit to what they can do with a particular plant type. The barrier is genetics. It's one that cannot be crossed.
Evolution through imperfections ... sounds like an oxymoron.
If you told a dog breeder that a non-dog could be bred from a dog, they'd laugh. Your average animal or plant breeder has got more common-sense and a better grip on reality than your average evolutionary scientist.
Not sure what you mean.That's not really relevant though .. is it(?)
Tell that to the scientific community, that dogmatically insists that all life on earth shares a common ancestor. They've been ramming that belief down our throats for a long time.All beliefs are optional.
No.Can you describe the mechanism that creates an ultimate barrier?
And this is evidence that humans evolved from a fish?Populations of life can diverge to the point where they no longer breed.
That seems a bit like saying "Without some mechanism there's no reason to doubt that a human will one day run as fast as a cheetah."Without some mechanism there is no reason to assume this divergence can't continue.
No one is disputing that genetic evidence confirms microevolution (variations within a species).In fact we have both fossil and genetic evidence to indicate that this divergence has continued.
A nested hierarchy is understandable. The appearance of novel organs and body plans and the sudden appearance of new phyla ... not so much.Nested hierarchies are a prediction of evolution, and are not necessary for intelligent design.
Uh huh.Not sure what you mean.
Define 'belief'.Buzzard3 said:Tell that to the scientific community, that dogmatically insists that all life on earth shares a common ancestor. They've been ramming that belief down our throats for a long time.
And this is evidence that humans evolved from a fish?
That seems a bit like saying "Without some mechanism there's no reason to doubt that a human will one day run as fast as a cheetah."
Divergence within a species is one thing - a human evolving from a fish is quite another.
No one is disputing that genetic evidence confirms microevolution (variations within a species).
Fossil evidence reveals changes over time ("evolution"), but fossil evidence tells us nothing about what happened between Fossil A and Fossil B, nor anything about what biological process was responsible for their respective appearances.
Furthermore, the fossil is characterized by the sudden appearance of species and stasis of species - so much so that Gould described Darwin's theory of gradualism as an "embarrassment" ... which is rather ironic, bcoz Gould's bizarre theory of Punctuated Equilibrium is even harder to swallow. The bottom line is, evolutionists struggle to explain the fossil record.
A nested hierarchy is understandable. The appearance of novel organs and body plans and the sudden appearance of new phyla ... not so much.
Depends what you mean by "Evolution". If you mean, "All life on earth descended from a common ancestor via a natural process of mutations and natural selection", then I would say you're wrong on both counts:Evolution is excellent science and has nothing to do with atheism.
Depends what you mean by "Evolution". If you mean, "All life on earth descended from a common ancestor via a natural process of mutations and natural selection", then I would say you're wrong on both counts:
1.Evolution is poor science, which is dressed up to look like good science and aggresively marketed as such.
2. It has everything to do with atheism. The aim of the game is to provide an explanation for life on earth without the need of a Creator.
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented." - William Provine
Evidently, you are one of the billions who has been deceived by this fable.
Depends what you mean by "Evolution". If you mean, "All life on earth descended from a common ancestor via a natural process of mutations and natural selection", then I would say you're wrong on both counts:
1.Evolution is poor science, which is dressed up to look like good science and aggresively marketed as such.
2. It has everything to do with atheism. The aim of the game is to provide an explanation for life on earth without the need of a Creator.
"Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented." - William Provine
Evidently, you are one of the billions who has been deceived by this fable.
According to my understading of ToE ....Except that's not what the theory of evolution says will happen. You could get an animal that looks like a dog that follows the cat lineage, but it wouldn't be a dog. It would be dog-like.
Like, do you actually know anything about the thing you're railing against?
They would still be a subsection of the family Canidae... perhaps it could be re-labelled a superfamily if the descendants were sufficiently distinct to require separate groups labelled families.According to my understading of ToE ....
A population of dogs + mutations + selection + lots of time = an animal that doesn't belong to the Family Canidae
I don't understand why a creature can't theoretically evolve out of its ancestryThey would still be a subsection of the family Canidae... perhaps it could be re-labelled a superfamily if the descendants were sufficiently distinct to require separate groups labelled families.
A creature never evolves out of their ancestry.
That's why humans are still vertebrates, amniotes, mammals, primates and apes... while being hominids.
The same way you can't decide who your great grandfather was. It's a part of you.I don't understand why a creature can't theoretically evolve out of its ancestry
Truth matters. God's word is truth. Baseless statements by scientists are not truth. It's about time that evolutionary "scientists" started each new pronouncement with "We were wrong". One day the light will dawn and they will realise that they were wrong about evolution as a theory. Science is not God. It is as flawed, dishonest, corrupt, self-serving, money hungry and arrogant as any other human endeavor. Sure, there are honest scientists as well. But to elevate science to some kind of infallible, noble and ethically pure pursuit is to deny reality.You do have to make up stuff thought.
Like your King James McGraw Hill Science Textbook.
And scripture it not science.
Its religion.
Evidence matters.
Anything is possible in theory. In practice, another thing entirely.I don't understand why a creature can't theoretically evolve out of its ancestry
According to my understading of ToE ....
A population of dogs + mutations + selection + lots of time = an animal that doesn't belong to the Family Canidae
If there's one thing evolutionary scientists are "good" at, it's dreaming up theories. Evolutionary theories are a dime a dozen, and a great deal of them can't be tested, which means they don't even qualify as science. Theories that can't be tested are just worthless stories, which suits evolutionary science just fine, because it's a bs-artist's paradise.Anything is possible in theory. In practice, another thing entirely.
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?