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.
Becasue you create the architecture in your imagination.
There are bona fide, practicing plumbers who believe in astrology. So what?There are many professing faith in evolution with no research skills at all.
Pretty much the definition of exceedingly unprofessional.
There are bona fide, practicing plumbers who believe in astrology. So what?I have zero faith in evolution.I have zero certified evidence of post graduate research skills.However,I accept evolution because it is the best explanation for the available evidence (by far)/.I accept it because all of those aspects of evolutionary evidence I have been able to personally investigate have proven correct and the majority of the research studies I have explored satisfied me that they had been conducted in a professional, scientific manner.
I was referring to people posting in this forum who have ungrounded faith
in science and believe, for example, if there is water on mars, we can expect to find life.
That does not appear to be a matter of faith, but rather of a particular view of the conditions for and likelihood of life in general. you would need to offer evidence in order to establish it was faith.I was referring to people posting in this forum who have ungrounded faith
in science and believe, for example, if there is water on mars, we can expect to find life.
I am missing what your central thesis is. I am not familiar enough with your philosophy as expressed in your posts, since I have read few of them. Would you care to summarise?They have unabashed enthusiasm for any headline that seems to come from somebody
with any kind of education. These same people will refuse to do enough research to find any legitimate source to back up their ranting against Christians.
I try to provide them ammunition, and so far no results. They consider suchresearch far beneath them.
Yes, there are members here, unqualified laity, who think they know far, far more about it than do the scientists or even theologians, for that matter.I was referring to people posting in this forum who have ungrounded faith
in science and believe, for example, if there is water on mars, we can expect to find life.
They have unabashed enthusiasm for any headline that seems to come from somebody
with any kind of education. These same people will refuse to do enough research
to find any legitimate source to back up their ranting against Christians.
I try to provide them ammunition, and so far no results. They consider such
research far beneath them. Like in this case I could bash "professional scientists."
They are no less arrogant, prideful, and criminal than the general public.
Now I would seek out published articles that support my biased stand:
US vaccine researcher sentenced to prison for fraud
Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie
The results showed that fraudulent retracted papers
scored significantly higher on the obfuscation index
than papers retracted for other reasons. For example,
fraudulent papers contained approximately 1.5
percent more jargon than unretracted papers.
“Fradulent papers had about 60 more jargon-like
words per paper compared to unretracted papers,”
Markowitz said. “This is a non-trivial amount.”
All I ask is that Christianity or religious critics make the same effort
to knock religion. Let me help:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=relegion
No, you don't.We have shown you the evidence.
No, you don't.
Since you can't daisy-chain or dovetail your evidence together, you play connect-the-dots with them.
Meaning you draw an imaginary line to connect them.
Then you call them our "cousins" and expect us to play along.
Yes, we have.
That's exactly what you should see if evolution is true.
Then what features are these fossils missing that a real transitional would have?
For living species, we have their genomes which is a direct record of their ancestry. I have over 200,000 pieces of proof with endogenous retroviruses alone.
4600 posts and you're still trying to discuss science with AV in a rational manner. You're persistent, I'll give you that.
So those skulls were made up ahead of time?That's exactly what you should see if evolution is true.
A daisy chain.Loudmouth said:Then what features are these fossils missing that a real transitional would have?
So those skulls were made up ahead of time?
What else should we see if evolution is true that we haven't seen yet?A daisy chain.
I believe you.Those skulls are real,
Let's see it then.Loudmouth said:... and they should produce a daisy chain of features if evolution is true,
I would surmise that would take millions upon millions of fossils to daisy chain all those guys.Loudmouth said:... from basal ape to modern human.
Let's see it then.
I would surmise that would take millions upon millions of fossils to daisy chain all those guys.
Remember that example evolutionists like to us? that greyscale picture?
So all those fossils are females, are they?Why don't those skulls do the job?
A greyscale example, as well as that red-to-violet example would require ... at the rate of one Hertz per year ... the universe to be much older than scientists say it is.Loudmouth said:A grayscale only requires three blocks.
So all those fossils are females, are they?
A gave birth to B, who gave birth to C, who gave birth to D ...
A greyscale example, as well as that red-to-violet example would require ... at the rate of one Hertz per year ... the universe to be much older than scientists say it is.
Oh, so now you can't even put those fossils in chronological order, let alone dovetail them into each other?Nowhere is any such claim made.
Oh, so now you can't even put those fossils in chronological order, let alone dovetail them into each other?
But you can draw imaginary lines between them, can't you?
I'm going to do something you are going to hate. AV, I tag in for your side this time. Just because I can provide some degree of challenge thanks to my scientific background.They are in chronological order.
You haven't shown that anything is imaginary. I keep asking you how these skulls are not intermediate, and you can't do it. Even you agree that the line is not imaginary.
Sarah, you're a gentlewoman and a scholar!I'm going to do something you are going to hate. AV, I tag in for your side this time. Just because I can provide some degree of challenge thanks to my scientific background.
We both know that while those skulls are in chronological order, aside from the last one, which is a modern human skull, it's actually impossible to be certain that any of these are ancestral species to humans (case in point, how we thought for a very long time that Neanderthals were a human ancestor, and some preserved DNA of Neanderthals demonstrated otherwise... aside from some potential cross breeding between the two). Furthermore, we can't demonstrate that these species evolved from each other either without significant uncertainty about it. And you want to claim we can daisy chain them? Laughable, they are a nice demonstration of concept, but they are not a genetic chain from one to the other. By chance, it is more likely that the majority of these aren't a part of the direct line to humans than for them all to be.
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?