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.
Ah yes, but then Darwinists pull out their "billions of years" card, which is like a magic wand that turns absurd impossibilities into reality.
"Darwinism" has nothing to do with determining the age of the universe. You could throw out the ToE tomorrow, and astrophysics would still be dating the universe to billions of years.
Why didn't he just say: "Science can take a hike"?A very appropriate quote from tonight's episode of Futurama:
"How convenient... A theory about god that doesn't require looking through a telescope." Head monk to junior monk who wants to quit search for god with radio telescope.
Macroevolution is not an "observed" anything - it has never been observed and is nothing more than an assumption.
Furthermore, thousands of years of humans experimenting with microevolution - in the form of animal and plant breeding - strongly suggest that macroevolution is a scientific impossibility.
Simplistic nonsense.Well said. It's more wishful thinking than science.
Consider dog breeders, for example, who have over thousands of years tried every trick imaginable in their attempts to produce novel breeds, but they've discovered that exploiting genetic variations has limits ... push the envelope too far and the result is sickly, weak, unfit dogs - that is devolution, the opposite of evolution!
In the light of such genetic limitations, macroevolution (by natural means) appears to be nothing more than a unscientific fantasy.
Yup -- in a time that wasn't detrimental to their health.Didn't Adam and Eve's sons marry their sisters?
What prevents a random character generator from writing a story?
It's the same problem with Darwinism, you can only put so much down to blind luck.
Ah yes ... but then Darwinists pull out their "billions of years" card, which is like a magic wand that turns absurd impossibilities into reality.
Pure gene pool is neither a term or a concept described in the Bible.Yup -- in a time that wasn't detrimental to their health.
As I understand it, the gene pool was much purer (whatever that means).
Evidence please.Yup -- in a time that wasn't detrimental to their health.
So you don't understand it, and just make things up as you go along.As I understand it, the gene pool was much purer (whatever that means).
What prevents a random character generator from writing a story?
Your random word generator could probably
write most anythjng, and pretty fast if it had
some feedback mechanism.
" Darwinism" is a word only used by creationists btw,
And likewise, the idea that "blind" luck ( as opposed to-?)
is the operating principle of evolution is just a
creationist thing. Or " creotrope" for short.
Ah yes ... but then Darwinists pull out their "billions of years" card, which is like a magic wand that turns absurd impossibilities into reality.
Well yes, if, like Dawkins 'Weasel program' you specify the outcome first.
well I'm not a creationist so apparently not!
blind luck, random mutation, random chance, call it what you will- these are all semantic debates, the substance is the same:
Blind luck is the operating principle, the defining characteristic of the Darwinian theory of evolution, not necessarily actual evolution
I admit I was guilty of that when I was a staunch believer in Darwinism-
I remember arguing that re. the Cambrian explosion, 200 million years was still a long time-
Wikipedia has it down to '13-25' million years now. It keeps getting more explosive.
I agree.Pure gene pool is neither a term or a concept described in the Bible.
I think it's quite obvious you don't understand either.So you don't understand it, and just make things up as you go along.
Ya -- that's what drives science today, isn't it?Maybe its a Discovery! I smell a Nobel!
Well yes, if, like Dawkins 'Weasel program' you specify the outcome first.
well I'm not a creationist so apparently not!
blind luck, random mutation, random chance, call it what you will- these are all semantic debates, the substance is the same:
Blind luck is the operating principle, the defining characteristic of the Darwinian theory of evolution, not necessarily actual evolution
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?