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.
Apparently you haven't read all my posts.
So I won't reply to this ridiculous claim.
I read the first link. Yes, it was easy...Thanks, I recommend at least looking at the first link, it's quite brief and easy to follow, the second is more detailed.
In response to some of your comments.
There is no real difference between macro and micro evolution apart from the timescales involved. They are both merely an accumulation of tiny gradual changes.
Looking at whale evolution for example....
There are no drastic "jumps" from one species to another, just many cases of what you might describe as micro evolution adding up over millions of years to quite a significant difference.
Thanks ... Got it.Meyer isn't a biochemist either.
If you really want an authority on origin of life research, I would suggest looking into the work of Jack Szostak and the work performed by his lab: Szostak Lab: Home
What happened, or existed, the split second before the BB?Depends on what you mean by "beginning of the universe." The Big Bang describes the beginning of space and time through the expansion of the universe from the singularity. But technically, the singularity was our universe in a different form.
How do you know? Have you ever seen something start, where there was nothing before? How do you know there wasn't always something? How do you know that the question of, for example, the singularity "starting" even makes sense, as it marks a point in time, and time did not exist with the singularity.
No. They don't. They don't even agree that there was a "before" the big bang. Time started with the big bang. There was no "before."
I don't believe speciation can happen on its own.Question: Do you accept that speciation can happen?
Also, do you accept that the Earth is billions of years old and organisms have been around for millions?
You said something about science not being able to prove anything.No, I do well to keep up as it is, and often don't read the full thread, but I can imagine.
"Ridiculous" is one of my favorite terms when debating evolution.
I don't believe speciation can happen on its own.
I do believe in micro evolution...evolution within a species.
I don't know about billions, but the earth is definitely tens of millions of years old,,,maybe even billions. I don't have an opinion...
And yes, organisms have been proven to have been around for millions of years.
Not in the same form.Interesting.
In light of your accepting that but not accepting speciation, are you saying that all the species we see today were around millions of years ago?
Reiterating the same wrong thing, I know.I went on to explain my point in detail, again.
Almost as telling as seeing the things you choose not to respond to. Or the things you keep reiterating because you have totally convinced yourself that your layman's take - premised solely on propping up your geocentric YEC myths - is 100% correct.It's telling that you chose not to respond.
If you want to disprove evolution you will need to present a naturalistic theory that does not include the transmutation of species but still explains the fact of biology as well as the present theory of evolution does.
Creationists are not saying that the present theory of evolution is unproven and therefore it may eventually be superseded by another naturalistic scientific theory, which is true; they are saying that the scientific theory of evolution is unproven and therefore we should adopt the religious doctrine of the creation of the universe in six days, which is false.
Not in the same form.
Horses looked different.
Fish looked different.
There were differences.
We don't know what caused the different species of anything on the earth. Were daisies always around?
''Did they evolve or did they just appear one day?
Like chickens having the DNA for teeth, for one thing...We find information in DNA cells and don't really know how that information got there.
I don't know too much,,,in fact, nothing.
I just can't accept that a cell turned into a fish and at some point that fish walked on the earth and turned into an animal and that animal turned into a human.
Uh... citations please.Uh, Tiktaalik was discovered in "Late Devonian" rock layers, where fishapods, or "primitive" tetrapods have always been found. That's the point. What's so hard for you to understand about this?
What is he an authority on? He has no publication record relevant to any of the things he rants about, he just writes books for layfolk like you and goes on clown shows like Shapiro's.What makes YOU an authority?
Here's an authority....
If you want detail, take a course. Im not responsible for your education.
You ignoring physical reality wont make it go away.
Meyer is not a chemist, either.Is the origin of life only concerned with biology? (or V V)
What about chemistry?
Does it take chemicals to begin life?
Why do you limit it to biology? It seems to me that there are other sciences also involved in life creation.
2 Christian colleges (philosophy) and the Discovery Institute. Great employment history...FYI, but Stephen Meyer isn't an authority in biology.
If you want to evaluate if someone is an authority (i.e. an expert) in a particular field, you need to look at their credentials, their employment track record and for scientists in particular their research areas and publication record.
In the case of Meyer he has neither a background in biology nor has ever worked as or published as a professional biologist. Mostly he writes pop-sci Intelligent Design books which have historically have been picked apart by actual biologists due to the numerous errors they contain.
You said something about science not being able to prove anything.
This is just not true.
I just don't believe evolution has been proven.
That's never been how science has worked.
But there were always horses and fish in SOME FORM? Is that what you're saying?
By you're thinking, they'd have to be, correct? Unless you're saying that God created new things after the beginning?
''
How would they 'just appear one day'?
Like chickens having the DNA for teeth, for one thing...
Well, first off, fish ARE animals. So are humans, for that matter.
At any rate, no one's saying that a cell turned into a fish. It's a bit more complicated than that.
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?