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.
Evolution has not been seen once to occur by scientific investigation of the fossil record. Not once have we unearthed fossils that show clear sequences of the detailed morphological changes of one macro-assemblage creature changing into another macro-assemblage creature.
No one is denying some form of micro-evolution and variation occurs, but there is no evidence that one kind has changed into another kind.The fossil record shows exactly the sort of progression and development of features that we would expect to see from evolution.
Evolution has also been observed in real life, in real time.
Evolution has left behind a ton of evidence in the genes of biological organisms.
Evolution has lots of evidence.
No one is denying some form of micro-evolution and variation occurs, but there is no evidence that one kind has changed into another kind.
I thought we had established this many times... kind=genus; I even went so far as referring to an article that pointed out that early-on bible interpreters sometimes referred to species as kinds (of course that was before the definition of species was usurped); and ‘like kinds’ breed (but sometimes don’t at God’s discretion), but ‘different kinds’ never do. This stops evolutionists cold and that’s why they’re always trying to twist and turn or change definitions, and meanings (like they're attempting to do with ring species now, although by its current definition has hamstrung itself).It doesn't help when the term 'kind' is a scientifically useless term.
I thought we had established this many times... kind=genus; I even went so far as referring to an article that pointed out that early-on bible interpreters sometimes referred to species as kinds (of course that was before the definition of species was usurped); and ‘like kinds’ breed (but sometimes don’t at God’s discretion), but ‘different kinds’ never do. This stops evolutionists cold and that’s why they’re always trying to twist and turn or change definitions, and meanings (like they're attempting to do with ring species now, although by its current definition has hamstrung itself).
Obscure or use common sense? Haven't we repeatedly used the term variations of kind as well?But that claim of kind = genus doesn't work since a housecat is a completely different animal to a panther which is a completely different animal to a tiger.
Kind is a scientifically meaningless term used by non-scientists to try and obscure their own lack of knowledge.
Obscure or use common sense? Haven't we repeatedly used the term variations of kind as well?
Of course not, and you won't.'Common sense' doesn't work in science, and have you EVER seen the word 'kind' used in any actual non-Creationist piece of scientific literature?
And so it has been designed.I'll save you the answer: NO. Kind is not a scientific word, so it's useless to try and use it in a discussion about an element of science.
It is academia's job today to supplant Bible terms with their own terms.I thought we had established this many times... kind=genus;
And how does that keep that claim from working?But that claim of kind = genus doesn't work since a housecat is a completely different animal to a panther which is a completely different animal to a tiger.
Pshuh ... that's an understatement.Kind is not a scientific word,
Will Jacobean English do?Try and repeat that back in clear English, if you please.
Sure you do.I've got AV on ignore
Sure you do.
One, it's not really like a modern amphibian, it has way more fish traits. And air sacs for breathing and or swimming are well known in fish.I'm quite comfortable with amphibians being ancestors to amphibians.... canines to canines...... felines to felines...... finches to finches...... apes to apes...... and humans to humans......
It didn't have lungs any more than todays amphibians have fully functional lungs as you want to imply...... It had air sacs.....
Although we could debate that too, since you just got bones.......
Oh wait, Coelecanth has those too..... And after being told for 50 years how it was transitory, well, that didn't pan out too well in the end.... and neither will this incorrect belief of Tiktaalik....
Only on paper.(And you seem to have confused yourself about what a transitional form is... it isn't necessarily a direct ancestor, merely an example of the combination of two separate groups.)
So the misinformed keep intoning....It doesn't help when the term 'kind' is a scientifically useless term.
Hence your problem. You all have abandoned “common sense”......'Common sense' doesn't work in science, and have you EVER seen the word 'kind' used in any actual non-Creationist piece of scientific literature?
I'll save you the answer: NO. Kind is not a scientific word, so it's useless to try and use it in a discussion about an element of science.
Hence your problem. You all have abandoned “common sense”......
Glad to know you recognize your theory lacks any at all.....
Definition of COMMON SENSE
“sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.”
We already understood the theory had no sound or prudent judgement based on the facts. It’s nice to see evolutionists recognize this as well.
A very good example in use of our eyes are the many appearances to tribes, groups, and ethnic people we see today. A spectrum of nose, eyes, cheeks, frames, skin character and color, hair character, etc.No one is denying some form of micro-evolution and variation occurs, but there is no evidence that one kind has changed into another kind.
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?