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.
I suppose I view the differnece as micro is when the subject stays withing its own species. Macro is where the species or the subject is changed. Virus stays virus. Fish stays fis vs. Ape is man and fish is amphibian.
Psst. The Bible hasn't been around 1000s (More than 1 Thousand) of years.
Where did you learn this? It is false. Transitional forms exist and are viable. You yourself are a transitional form, just as we all are, between the morphologies of our ancestors and the future morphologies of our species.This is because I have learnt that any transtion form is non viable.
What does natural selection say about this, exactly?the stage between these creature would not survive according to natural selection.
How would this creature have any disadvantage to a reptile with no feathers? Paleontologists now think that some dinosaurs, like Velociraptor, had 'feathers', or the early equivalent of feathers. They seem to have done just fine.The transition would be feathered reptile with no ability to fly.
Quite true, and they did.These forms would hev had to exist to bridge the gap at some point along theway.
You make the assumption here that the feather has always been for flight. It is very likely that the feather evolved for some other purpose, such as insulation, or as a means of attracting mates, and flight was a secondary benefit that became a primary function later on. So show me why a feather is irreducibly complex. I think if i took one barb away from a feather, it would still function. I think if I took 25% of the barbs away from a feather, it would retain at least some of its functional capacity. So why, exactly, is it irreducibly complex?Also the feather itself is a mechanical thing. it is irreducable complex. its either a feather or its not.
Any Haeckels out here wanna answer this?Excuse me --- is this a picture, a drawing, or a painting?
Either way --- it's a fake.Looks like an artist's rendering. Whether that is a painting, a drawing, or a computer representation, I cannot tell.
These accusations are thrown because there are people who disagree with you. Not for any other reason.
Within the science community, the same practice is used between disagreeing scientist, read the science journals (I'm sure you already do) and you will see that this is standard practice.
It's practice among humans in general as far as I can tell and has been since the beginning of time.
Why would we waste our time and money on such a course when we know we will be fed evolution.
How many creation seminars have you attended? How many creation led studies have you been a part of? How many times have you red the bible?
Perhaps you are just as uneducated in the things of God as we are in the things of evolution?
And you can say this because you are completely unbiased? And does your PhD makes you incapable of error?
Have you seen Expelled? Check it out EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed - Official Site
Thanks for the warm welcome. I don't imagine I'll stay a terribly long time, not being a scientist or intending to consume my life by becoming one at this point in time. But thanks anyway.
I submit that if you can't answer this question, you can't answer any of them.
They all begin with the supposition that there had to be a beginning.
You are doing science based on no foundation.
This is why I can't listen to science because it ignores this foundational issue,
I'm sure you'll disagree, but God doesn't need a beginning. He is GOD. He is eternal.
I would argue that you are guilty of the same, having little interest in understanding the things of the bible.
You are free to feel that way, so am I. But you are not free to indoctrinate my children and my family and the children and families of other believers in God with your insistance that your theories are fact. Unless this basic tenet has changed in science, a theory is NOT a fact.
theory is
1.a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. 2.a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.3.Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory. 4.the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory. 5.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.6.contemplation or speculation.7.guess or conjecture.
Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. (SOURCE)
(Emphasis added)
Jesus was both a lion and a lamb. I do certainly stand willingly for what I believe and I make no apology for doing so. It does not say in God's word that Christians are to lay down and never say boo.
I was merely pointing out how vengeful many Christians get. Sounds pretty human and "animal" to me. And it's not like you are actually defending your point, you are merely telling us how God is going to come and make us bend our knees. That sounds more like a "threat", than a "defense".
But clearly I misunderstood you. My apologies.
It does say we are to love our enemy and I do my best at that. I don't think people who disagree with me are horrible people or refuse to associate myself with them.
Good, then you and I are much alike! I have a good friend who is a creationist, and I have on more than one occasion written letters of reference for him for jobs in science. (The science he does has nothing to do with creation or geology).
If you do not care for the Words of God, then on the day you bow, you can take it up with God yourself. I will bow too, and for that I will be thankful. None of what I said was said with a 'showing of teeth'.
Except you want me to assume your way of thinking. You want me to not be me, but be you. And the only way you can get to that point is resort to "God will show you."
Now, don't get me wrong, I'd be happy as a clam if God "showed" me. But I cannot really seriously take that statement as anything as "friendly" as that. Perhaps it is merely a miscommunication. I apologize.
Someday Richard Dawkins will make you bend your knee to him.
Does that sound "friendly"? I hope it does. It is intended to be. Because Dawkins will come to your home and convince you of his correctness. You will lovingly bow to him.
Friendly? Yup.
I stated my opinion, which differs greatly, while being kind, I think you'll see that if you look back over my questions. They were honest.
I have no doubt your questions were "honest". I truly believe you truly believe science is wrong. But you did ask why we "start" from assuming craetionists are uneducated. That's because they usually are. Certainly undereducated.
If you wish to debate a scientist the worst possible thing you can do is blankly say "you're wrong" and mount a weak and vaccilating defense of your stance.
That is why learning the science side is often just as important to the debate. (And don't just get your science from Creationist sites.)
You can prove God? Sans Bible? Within the constraints of science?Furthermore, there is not a single viable or provable explantion for where everything came from in the first place, besides God.
Then so's your bible. It's not the original, is it? Just a printer's rendition.Either way --- it's a fake.
That would be something special no? I canot do as you say. Prove God with No bible talk. But I do know that scientist have for soo many years tried to make amino acids, protiens etc form life under what they consider to be the right condition and it just does not happen.
It will never happen.
God Created life.
Wheather we came from that creation directly or whether we evolved to how we are. The origin is such a mystery.
Who created God I hear you all scream! He did not need creation.
Sorry to talk bible speak but God is Infinite. No begining, no end.
That would be something special no? I canot do as you say. Prove God with No bible talk. But I do know that scientist have for soo many years tried to make amino acids, protiens etc form life under what they consider to be the right condition and it just does not happen. It will never happen. God Created life. Wheather we came from that creation directly or whether we evolved to how we are. The origin is such a mystery.
Who created God I hear you all scream! He did not need creation. Sorry to talk bible speak but God is Infinite. No begining, no end.
Alan.
"But it did happen. Those saying that it didn't are lying creationists. "
When?? To my kwonledge it has never happened. The latest journal on this subject says scientists hope to do this within the next ten years. I am Not a creationist either!! Do not take me for a simpleton you can shout down. You ask me for evidence, I ask the same of you!
Sorry you wont like this at all but:
Originally Posted byGod Created life.Evidence please.
Jesus came and told us this is what happened. The new testament is a historical document. thats My evidence.
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?