JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
You claimed science made a mistake in the theory of evolution and flying squirrels were an example. What is the mistake? Elaborate.
Upvote
0
-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
How much longer?
- Thread starter DDan
- Start date
- Status
You claimed science made a mistake in the theory of evolution and flying squirrels were an example. What is the mistake? Elaborate.
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,211
- 52,660
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I always like it when people bring up the "fact" that we should all have one less rib, since God took one of Adam's to make Eve.
I like bringing up Lamarckism and then watch them go to read-only mode.
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,211
- 52,660
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
No, I didn't.
The focus was on Linnaeus and his classifiedsatan ... er ... classification system.
Upvote
0
My bad, you didn't say that, Truthseeker did. But you then supported his statement. Thread is "What is the postive evidence FOR Creationism", post#672. IMO If you're supporting a statement, you agree with it.
Upvote
0
No worries. What I should have said is: "You support the belief that the TOE says we should be able to watch a dog morph into a fish right before our eyes." My apologies.
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
This is actually what I said in respond to the post.....
"Certain views of evolution (Darwinism) does have some life form from long ago (unknown) 'turning into' a pine tree and human though. And a fish. And an elephant. And a coconut. Etc."
I do stand by that statement.
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
Wow. How unbelievably false a claim.
Where are you getting your understanding about natural selection???
My guess would be creationist websites. I used to have the same type of arguments like 10 years ago but the problem was I just didn't understand the theory. Do you think he'd read my copy of "The Greatest Show on Earth" If I sent it to him?
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
Wrong. You are the one that has no understanding of this topic. You claim to want to learn. You can't declare how this problem is to be attacked.
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
No need.
Where? And it seems that you once again made the mistake of thinking that all Christians are creationists. Most creationists accept the fact that life evolved.
Wrong again. Where were we in the lesson? Were you able to learn anything yet?
Upvote
0
Subduction Zone
Regular Member
What "law of Biogenetics? This is a new one on me. The only proponent of the "Law of Bigoenetics" that I could find was Haeckle. Surely you don't follow him?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory
You need to remember there are two aspects of evolution. Yes, random mutations are chaotic, but natural selection is the opposite. Random mutation allows change to the genome, both good and bad. Natural selection will cull the bad changes. And you do not understand how fossils form. They are exceedingly rare. I can count the number of T-Rex fossils found on the fingers of one hand. You also don't seem to understand how mutations work at all. One mutation does not create a new species. All it does is to change the genome slightly of one individual at a time. The poor mutations are less likely to reproduce, the good mutations are more likely to reproduce. That much should be obvious.
You, as most creationists, should be asking questions. Not making incredibly bad arguments.
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
I can declare the problem. And the problem is insurmountable for the Darwinist evolutionary view.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
