No it hasn't.
And the rest of your post confuses speciation or minor variation with macroevolution.
Why are all evolutionists so dishonest?
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.
But it has.
Yet its you guys who thought up punctuated equilibrium...
You mean like evolutionists who believe fish suddenly morphed one day into land walking creatures? When has that ever been observed? Its pure superstition.
We have observed mountains shrink, and things like hills form within recorded history.
Macroevolution however has never been observed or tested. Its not empirical science. This is something sadly the evolutionists will never accept...we keep going round in circles.
No it hasn't.
And the rest of your post confuses speciation or minor variation with macroevolution.
Why are all evolutionists so dishonest?
No it hasn't.
And the rest of your post confuses speciation or minor variation with macroevolution.
Why are all evolutionists so dishonest?
Your credibility when talking about evolution has been destroyed. This quote shows you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Please leave before you infect us with your stupidity and ignorance.
You did good, up to the last three words.And this would be another example of your infallible bible stating complete bollocks.
You mean like evolutionists who believe fish suddenly morphed one day into land walking creatures? When has that ever been observed? Its pure superstition.So? Most people of all sorts are ill educated and superstitious.
You did good, up to the last three words.
It's an excellent example of 'my' infallible Bible pwning evolution.
Like I like to say, I think God may have jumbled the order on purpose, so that creation would stand out in severe contradistinction to evolution -- since He knew beforehand that evolution would be the primary philosophy in the end times.
And for you opinion censors:
[sign]In my opinion![/sign]
I accept it here and now: we cannot observe "macroevolution" (depending a bit how its defined).
Yet its you guys who thought up punctuated equilibrium...
"I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him." -- Abraham Lincoln
No it hasn't.
And the rest of your post confuses speciation or minor variation with macroevolution.
Why are all evolutionists so dishonest?
I'm the one with a recognition problem here?You remember how we discussed the problems you have with recognising the reasons for you writing nonsense?
Why don't you fix it then? just let me know what basic doctrine teaches, and I'll check into it.The above is a case in point. If you didn't have such a rigid, unbending and totally crippling view of the bible you wouldn't have to write such complete rubbish as you have done above.
What are you talking about? my 'cult' led me to Jesus Christ, Who saved me from a life of atheism.Your cult is making a fool out of you.
Problem is, everything from "Basic Theology" down to "In my opinion" is all just an opinion. How you "pwn" anyone or "settle" any argument with nothing but your opinion is beyond me.You did good, up to the last three words.
It's an excellent example of 'my' infallible Bible pwning evolution.
Like I like to say, I think God may have jumbled the order on purpose, so that creation would stand out in severe contradistinction to evolution -- since He knew beforehand that evolution would be the primary philosophy in the end times.
And for you opinion censors:
[sign]In my opinion![/sign]
Which "basic theology" are you referring to. One church's "basic theology" is another's blasphemy.Why don't you fix it then? just let me know what basic doctrine teaches, and I'll check into it.
Look where that has now led you. Do you really think God wants you to deny reality?What are you talking about? my 'cult' led me to Jesus Christ, Who saved me from a life of atheism.
My friend, you're talking about science here -- a philosophy that has five different theories as to how we got our moon, and not one of them has ever, nor can be, observed.So since you admit macro is not observable or testable, its not science is it?
I'm the one with a recognition problem here?
Why don't you fix it then? just let me know what basic doctrine teaches, and I'll check into it.
What are you talking about? my 'cult' led me to Jesus Christ, Who saved me from a life of atheism.
There really isn't a difference -- it is but a matter of scale. Frequently macroevolution is defined as being changes of such magnitude that they would take millions of years to happen, and then by definition we would be unable to observe them (since human history is too short a time for such observation).
Compare to the term "macroerosion". We see "microerosion" all the time but never "macroerosion". Do we conclude that erosion must therefore stop at the limit of the greatest amount of erosion which we have observed?
LOL -- QED my last post, Research.Perhaps you should know something about the things you claim knowledge about before making a fool and liar of yourself.
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?