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.
Missing link?No, evolution has more scientific evidence for it than any other theory in science, including the theory of gravity. In the sciences one does not "prove" anything. But if one goes by the legal standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" evolution has been proven a thousand times over.
I get it... you are not a wife beater and you do not fully accept macroevolution.No, it had a false assumption in the question. This is an example of the sort of question that you just asked:
"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
Do you see the false assumption? Do you understand how that would be a personal attack if I asked it seriously? There is no difference between what you asked and asking the question that I just wrote.
Of course they are. The "missing link" is now a creationist term. It shows that someone does not understand what they are arguing about. We are not descendants from modern day chimps. We shared a common ancestor with them. And that ancestor was an ape. And guess what, you and I are still apes.Missing link?
Chimps are still chimps.
Humans are still humans.
I get it... you are not a wife beater and you do not fully accept macroevolution.
Like you say, she just had an hour, but Georgia brings cans of wh*p-a*s with her when she comes.
Missing link?
Chimps are still chimps.
Humans are still humans.
In Darwin's time, palaeontology was in its infancy; since then tens of thousands of transitional fossils have been discovered, and the evolution of feathers from scales has been established.
But seriously, what do you expect from a site whose publically declared 'core scientific principles' involve denying evolution? Give me a break...
- Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was created functionally complete from the beginning and did not evolve from some other kind of organism. Changes in basic kinds since their first creation are limited to “horizontal” changes (variations) within the kinds, or “downward” changes (e.g., harmful mutations, extinctions).
Too much writing... especally when you could just watch her presentation video and really learn.If she has the answers, can you briefly answer the questions then?
Why don't you post the definitions of the Law of Biogenesis & the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and explain how they do not disprove the macroevolution aspect of what is the core of the evolution theory?
Law of Biogenesis is not a scientific law, it's a conclusion from simple experiments that "Only life can create life". It comes from demonstrating that old superstitions about the origin of flies and/or salamanders from rotting flesh and burning logs are misunderstandings.
The fact that modern complex animals have not been demonstrated to be produced by inert or dead material is insufficient to create an absolute statement about the source of life and bio chemistry.
In addition as it relates to macroevolution it is completely irrelevant. Macroevoltion is the variation over time of populations into one or more different species. This requires existing living species to occur, so even if the Law of Biogenesis was an absolute fact of the universe then it would not effect completely naturalistic macroevolution.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics, also called the Law of Entropy, is about how variations of temperature and energy in a closed system eventually tend to a stable inert state.
It's a common misunderstanding that the second law applies to complexity and not energy.
Life requires constant energy to fuel the chemical processes so if there was no input of energy everything that lives would eventually break down and stop reproducing... however the life on Earth has a constant supply of energy from sunlight or chemicals and heat from geothermal vents.
Macroevolution is a consequence of constant small variations within the reproduction of life, all it requires is that life is able to continually reproduce and spread over a very long period of time.
So if there is constant input of energy then life will be able to constantly absorb it and continue the process of entropy as the energy spreads out into the environment.
(Also, Merry Christmas everyone!)
There is no longer a "Law of Biogenesis". It is an oversimplified law that only says that modern complex species cannot appear out of nothing. And the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not say what creationists tell you that it says. The version that they use applies only to an isolated system.Why don't you post the definitions of the Law of Biogenesis & the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and explain how they do not disprove the macroevolution aspect of what is the core of the evolution theory?
And yet you are addressing the "Law of Biogenesis". If it is not a scientific law, then what law is it?
Yet no one has observed this macroevolution as it occurs over time. Having it occur outside of human observation as beyond human history is a bit of an inconvenience in taking it as a fact. So you are actually citing an assumption about a phenomenon that has never been observed nor proven. That is not real science nor does it qualify as a valid scientific theory.
Have you ever heard of Time's Arrow in regards to that Second Law of Thermodynamics? That is the application for how a created system is breaking down and not just energy wise for why things are not becoming more complex, but in the reverse as in breaking down or deformity.
Science has made the discovery that the speed of light is slowing down. So I see what you are saying, but the effects on the created system can also be seen as Time's Arrow which disproves the progress of the evolution theory of simple life forms becoming more complex when it is going in the other direction.
I hope you have a Merry Christmas too.
And yet you are addressing the "Law of Biogenesis". If it is not a scientific law, then what law is it?
Yet no one has observed this macroevolution as it occurs over time. Having it occur outside of human observation as beyond human history is a bit of an inconvenience in taking it as a fact. So you are actually citing an assumption about a phenomenon that has never been observed nor proven. That is not real science nor does it qualify as a valid scientific theory.
Have you ever heard of Time's Arrow in regards to that Second Law of Thermodynamics? That is the application for how a created system is breaking down and not just energy wise for why things are not becoming more complex, but in the reverse as in breaking down or deformity.
Science has made the discovery that the speed of light is slowing down. So I see what you are saying, but the effects on the created system can also be seen as Time's Arrow which disproves the progress of the evolution theory of simple life forms becoming more complex when it is going in the other direction.
There is no longer a "Law of Biogenesis". It is an oversimplified law that only says that modern complex species cannot appear out of nothing.
And the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not say what creationists tell you that it says. The version that they use applies only to an isolated system.
The Earth is not an isolated system. In fact by the poor understanding of creationists life itself is impossible. So either there is life and their version is wrong or we are all a figment of my imagination.
A fish will always be a fish; it can become a different kind of fish, but still a fish.
If it is not a fish, it was never a fish.
Life never develops into "a different kind of life". And of course life can become more complex. What makes you think that it cannot? And technically you are still a "fish" though we make that easier to understand by saying that you are a vertebrate. But we can trace our evolutionary history all the way back to the fishes.So genetic information is not going to appear out of nowhere for a life to develop into a different kind of life. Life can become a similar life, but it can't become a more complex form of life. A fish will always be a fish; it can become a different kind of fish, but still a fish. That is the observation in conclusion.
With the speed of light slowing down, earth is not an isolated system. It is because of sin is how death entered creation and the universe. One day, all of creation will be liberated as the sons of God shall be.
Nup. Definitely a fish:
Mudskippers are amphibious fish. Mudskipper - Wikipedia
And is a penguin a bird? It can't fly and spends a lot of its time swimming around under water. What 'kind' do you think these are?
Why do you think that? We have quite a few transitional fossils from fish to not fish.Tiktaalik is not the only one.No.
If it is not a fish, it was never a fish.
If it is not a fish, it was never a fish.
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?