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.
Speciation may be a fact, but I draw the line at the emergence of any new genus.
A dog can be a wolf, a domestic dog, or a coyote.
But a dog can't be a giraffe -- unless it's on paper.
You are saying back to me, what I am saying does not make sense!
You call it Evolution and you say it applies to every species, but when I say "where is the bridge between one species and another?"
What if there was a cocoon that made butterflies hands? Don't you see you have said nothing?
You seem to want luck and then luck instead of truth.
AIG and ICR admit the emergence of new genera. It's pretty hard to deny the fact, given the evidence. They usually draw the line at familes, although sometimes they will accept new families.
[...]Those are different orders, not families.
You've had this pointed out before, metamorphosis is not evolution and is not a change of species.A butterfly needs a cocoon.
I don't see any cocoons for men, or monkeys.
Does the butterfly having a cocoon, mean that one day other species will too? Not likely?
New orders require a stable projection of the parents to the young: you can't tear up the family and give it a new projection, without destroying the family (and hence the projection).
There's no reason to stop at orders as there is evidence in the genes and in the fossil record that all life comes from a common ancestors.If you stop at orders, then we believe the same thing.
But to do that you have to drop the idea that there was an imaginary bridge between monkey and man.
Evolution does not predict that men or monkeys will develop cocoons.A butterfly needs a cocoon.
I don't see any cocoons for men, or monkeys.
New orders require a stable projection of the parents to the young: you can't tear up the family and give it a new projection, without destroying the family (and hence the projection).
I think you are confusing two different concepts that are called "family", a group of closely related animals and a group of closely related species.
If you stop at orders, then we believe the same thing.
But to do that you have to drop the idea that there was an imaginary bridge between monkey and man.
The incoherence of what you've written here rivals the work of Gene Ray. Congratulations!Hi there,
So indeed, there is a question here of whether Evoutionists are identifying anything new, now that they have a semblance of a theory - that is supposed to identify relevant change (wrong?)? In principle, any theory at all, benefits from responding to what are called "false positives" - if they are to be engaged for any significant length of time. The idea is that every so often you throw something into the mix which is positively not identified by the theory, to see if those using the said theory are ready: to tell the difference between the real, and the disingenuine. If you are aware that somethings are disingenuine, you do not attempt to respond to them as if they are real!
Ok so what we have with Evolution, is that it isn't very good at identifying what it doesn't do, because it is presumed to be responsible for everything. Other theories distinguish themselves from false positives, by limiting their sphere of influence (like "oh, that's biology, that's different from chemistry") or staying close to the known (like archeology searches around where existing sites have been found). Other theories like Creation, assume there is a scapegoat, which accounts for all the false positives put together - the aim is to think as little of the scapegoat as you can, thus encouraging you to put false positives associated with the scapegoat behind you. Then again there is religious use of the false positive "the Zen koan" which is a kind of false positive for the mind. The point is that when these things are put in practice, you actively need to remain on guard, but Evolution doesn't do this.
What we come up against, is the idea that Evolution can identify that false positives make it stronger, but still not know how to identify one in Evolution's context. That is the challenge I am putting to you: how would you respond (not just identify) to a false positive, in Evolution's context. If you evolved a false positive, what would happen? Can you understand that readiness to respond to a false positive, puts you outside the working sphere of Evolution, as it stands? I want you to be able to respond to a false positive, but to do that you have to offer a foundation, for that response. This is the difficulty that Jesus faced when preaching to people who had no desire for the love of God - for Him, believers in themselves were a false positive, which only warranted a limited response.
The question is, realistically, whether it is a false positive believer or false positive scapegoat, how much stronger can readiness for false positives make a theory like Evolution? I mean it is not something you can just give up, until a perfect response is achieved, that takes too long - even by Evolution's standards. How much stronger? In the Christian faith, the Bible talks about identifying your readiness to respond to false positives, the way a soldier would, wearing armour and speaking under command. Jesus said "watch out for wolves in sheep's clothing" (gospels, from memory), in other words "watch out for false positives, that look like a contribution to the theory you believe (but are not)". How much stronger do you want Evolution to be? Can you see that being ready for false positives would help that?
I'm not trying to change the theory, I'm trying to expand it. Once you have a foundation, then you can start to identify agency and the ways it works in the confines of the theory. I already have thanks from God, trying to help you expand your theory, I don't need to be thanked. What I am asking for is a conversation that capitalizes on the wealth of meaning that can be found in the words of the Son of God, especially when the outcome is unknown, especially.
Peace in Jesus.
This sentence doesn't even make sense.
Sorry, that's observably wrong. Speciation is a fact. [...]
Here's their "cocoon:"Caterpillars can't become something else, without a cocoon - how can apes?
Here's their "cocoon:"
That's where evolution works best: on paper.
Your sentence which I responded to wasYes it does, read the English: was Darwin's discovery a false positive?
Any theory, if it is true, can have false positives?
But where are the cocoons? Caterpillars can't become something else, without a cocoon - how can apes?
But where are the cocoons? Caterpillars can't become something else, without a cocoon
Metamorphosis is not evolution.
Yes it does, read the English: was Darwin's discovery a false positive?
Any theory, if it is true, can have false positives?
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?