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.
Creation is the uniform factor.
Supernatural creation is the uniform belief just as evolution is the uniform belief of science, even though there are differences of opinion there as well.
translation: "we are all united in our objection to mainstream biology!"
Another hint at the fact that there are no valid "pro creation" arguments. The entire "pro creation" case consists of nothing more or less then stabs at evolution (based on ignorance, bias, incredulity, strawmen,... ).
Science doesn't do "belief".
The point was, that a lot of the "aches" are a symptom of the underlying "(design) problem".
Name a specific, accessible paper and state clearly one of the assumptions you believe is made in it. (And by the way, it seems very much that you are arguing about the science, since the conclusions are based upon a science that you readily admit you do not understand, but just name that paper and one assumption.)I'm not arguing about the science per se, but the conclusions of science. Within those 'scientific' papers are those 'mini-miracles' (the assumptions) that hold the whole thing together.
Not so.
Not in the sense that creationists "believe" miraculous creation occured, no.So scientists don't actually believe evolution occured?
Our backbones weren't designed to be abused.
If you have a backache there are better explanations than poor design. How do you explain recovery from back aches, or any other healing for that matter. Why would evolution provide a remedy for injury due to a poor design when in just a few million years it could provide a better one?
Dream on.
I've perused many evolution papers.
None make sense to me.
In fact it seems they want to draw one into the minutiae, the 'trees' if you will, so we will ignore the 'forest'.
I think it's safe to say that history will judge this debate (in the future of course).
Right - mustn't adjust theories based on new data.Not if they keep changing and rearranging their theories. Creationism doesn't change, and we're holding out that science will finally come to the same conclusion. After all they are studying the creation.
I'm not arguing about the science per se, but the conclusions of science. Within those 'scientific' papers are those 'mini-miracles' (the assumptions) that hold the whole thing together.
Which aspects of biology do you actually understand and agree with?Not so. I love biology, but not their conclusions re evolution.
It is a conclusion.So scientists don't actually believe evolution occured?
Our backbones weren't designed to be abused. If you have a backache there are better explanations than poor design. How do you explain recovery from back aches, or any other healing for that matter. Why would evolution provide a remedy for injury due to a poor design when in just a few million years it could provide a better one?
Supernatural creation is the uniform belief just as evolution is the uniform belief of science, even though there are differences of opinion there as well.
They weren't designed for bipedalism either. That's the point.
It's designed to walk on al fours. And then tinkered with to accomodate for bipedalism.
The remedy isn't provided by evolution.
Nore is the healing or recovery the point.
The point is that the aches manifest in the first place. Waaay to easily. Directly due to the oddly shaped design, which isn't optimal for bipedalism.
But whatever.... It's clear that you aren't getting it, nore willing to get it.
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?