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.
So what part of evolutio do you want "proved?" The fact of evolution itself? Or the mechanism of evolution as outlined by the theory?
Nope. But you've shown your true colors. Facts don't matter to you. Integrity doesn't matter to you. Enjoy whatever it is you're doing here.
Of course it is.
Started with a theory, people jumped on the bandwagon, and umpteen years later, still an unproven theory, and that's at best. I personally don't even give it theory status.
Ask them to provide the "facts" they CLAIM supports their view. They cannot because it goes against their evol religion and it's nothing more than false assumptions of Godless people who forgot about the flood. ll Peter 3:6
That's all you needed to say to make my point. Thank you.
Nobody says "it doesn't matter." The point is, that however life started, either by fiat creation or some naturalistic event, it was of necessity a different process than that which drives evolution. Biological evolution requires the existence of self-replicating life forms to proceed. If you want to know how those self-replicating life forms came to be, you need a different theory. You can't expect the theory of evolution to explain it, any more than you can expect the germ theory of disease to explain orbital mechanics.I've asked for proof and to explain why it's proof but as usual, not much of anything but excuses.
The main part of evolution, the part they haven't a clue about and seems to even fall short on excuses is how it started. The argument there is, of course, "it doesn't matter"...another convenient argument in a long line of them.
No scientist would say that, or anything like that. At the present time, there is no scientific theory explaining how life came to be and no scientist pretends otherwise....someone made it, life? "Oh no, no, no one made that, it's too complicated, it must have just happened".
Evolution is nothing but a theory of biology which is limited to explaining how life changed and diversified after it began. Period. Why do you think it is supposed to explain "all of it?" Whatever you mean by "all of it." What do you mean by "all of it?"In my view, if they can't explain all of it, they don't have a chance in proving it at all, as that would actually prove they got no business to even bother claiming any of evolution.
Well, all that does is show just how ignorant you are. Although if you've somehow found out that evolution is just a theory with no evidence, as you so claim it is, why haven't you gone to the scientific presses? A Nobel prize awaits you.
so evolution is true even if the bible is true. fine.The theory of evolution describes an observable process, and that observable process will always be "true" in the sense that it's just something that exists. To deny it would be to deny observable reality.
It's also worth noting that modern Young Earth Creationists not only require evolution to be true, but require it to happen extremely rapidly to get all modern species from pairs of ancestors from Noah's Ark. In fact they require it to be far more rapid in fact than is normally observed in nature.
In effect, Young Earth creationists are hyper-evolutionists.
Don't lie.
Here's what you said:
speciation is just variation of the same family. so its not evolution if terms of new kind of creature.
This implies, literally, that to have an example of actual evolution, one would have to have an example of a speciation event where the new species belongs to a different family then the one it evolved from.
again: we can say the same for those cars:No. It's not a belief. I still don't think you have the slightest idea how science works. This isn't a crapshoot where one guy throws out an idea and we all go, "sure, that sounds good." Thousands of fossils and skeletons have been studied. Certain things are identified. For instance, if an animal is alive another animal gave birth to it. So each fossil is part of a line of animals that had parents and children. One of two things happened. Either the line is still alive today or it's extinct. We look at the fossil and try to find out where it fits. Before genetics we only had the ability to study the structure of the bones to figure out where it fit. If you take a whale and you count all the bones in its skeleton then you take a fossilized whale and you count the bones in its skeleton you can identify that it MIGHT be a match. Then you start to look at the parts of the skeleton. Does it have teeth or baleen? Size. How prominent are the vestigial legs. As you go back in time the vestigial legs get more and more prominent. You are able to identify ancestors to whales all the way up to the land animals that once were the great, great, great, great, great... great grandparents of todays whales. It's not a belief. It's a well-educated, supported by the data theory.
The evolution of whales
again: we can say the same for those cars:
they show a progression but it doesnt prove any evolution. even if they were able to reproduce like an animal. i see no difference from the whale case.
(image from Ferrari Evolution).
Evidence is subjective.
That's really all you needed to say for no-one on this thread or even website to take you seriously.
Do you just make this stuff up, and post it in public without even thinking about what you're saying because you feel the need to disagree and for that reason alone? Sure seems like it.
Major projection coming from the man who has been shown, multiple times, multiple examples of evidence but refuses to look at them and then divulges in to ridiculous and flatly wrong diatribes about what he feels evidence is and should be.
And what exactly do I think evidence is?
I don't know because no matter what anyone presents to you, you just shake your head and go "that's not evidence" and just strut around like a puffed up pigeon.
and then divulges in to ridiculous and flatly wrong diatribes about what he feels evidence is and should be.
You make the following comment and you don't know? IOW when it comes down to backing up that my evidence is no more than something "I think" evidence should be, you don't know what I said to deserve that? You should know, or just not make the accusation. What evidence of mine was the misconception of evidence that you claimed it was in the following quote? Surely you have SOME basis for your comment? Or are you making things up again?
And you said they don't take ME seriously?
Did you just stop reading at the first three words or something? I clearly said why using your definition of 'evidence' is problematic because you don't have a clear definition of evidence and you seem to revel in it.
I'm glad that I put you on to my ignore list now.
No, I read all of it, and it was clear. Please don't start the "you're confused" game in order to cover your short comings....again. What definition? Why are you still evading giving me an answer? What did I say to insinuate a wrong definition of evidence?
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?