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.
I thought the "you" messages are coming from others. They are not coming from me. All I do is to state what I believe, and what I have said is fair debate. But there have been many "you" messages directed at me, so where do you think the personal comments are coming from then? (And I used "you" in the form of a question).
About the same as you, unless you have a degree in science. If so, then I'd just be a young curate trying to instruct the Archbishop of Canterbury!My MA is in English Literature, which deals mainly with fiction, so Evolution would fit into that!
There is no conclusive empirical scientific evidence for either creation or evolution,
So, is Evolution a scientific or a philosophical concept? Who knows?
.
That is correct. And that is because it is wrong. If it was correct one could find evidence to support it.
you are right. they suppose to look the same. and because of that any claim of common similarity as evidence for a common descent isnt a good argument. more than that: in some cases even according to evolution the similarity is the result of convergent evolution and not a common descent. so according to evolution both similarity and non similarity is evidence for a common descent.How do you tell the difference between common descent and common design? Wouldn't they look the same?
The objection to calling it fiction is mainly semantic - science attempts to describe and model the world as accurately as possible, which is not the objective of fiction. Also it is a disparaging description, childishly provocative.That's exactly what I said. New fictional stories replace old fictional stories.
You just refuse to call them fiction. It's an ego thing and I know it well.
I've worked in Research and Development for 20 years. People love
their pet theories on everything.
Creationism takes that stand that matter, systems, intelligence, and people are the result of cause and effect. The first cause of any solid matter, working systems, and ongoing intelligence must be equal to or larger than the end result. So creationists have evidence that what we see had a cause and an intelligent source based on the scientific basis of cause and effect.
Cosmos At Least 250x Bigger Than the Visible Universe
Creation came 'from nothing,' not God: Stephen Hawking
ok. first: i doesnt said anything about bible or religion. just science. i actually post a thread about my main argument here:
My favorite argument for the existence of God
you are welcome to explain why it's not a good argument if you think so.
The claim that all complex life forms evolved from one single cell is the largest con ever perpetrated on the world, IMO.
Biology categorizes from the simplest cell to the most complex and that work is informative, interesting and should be applauded.
However, the “tree of life” that I have seen do not provide indisputable evidence of what specifically evolved from one species to another species starting with the first cell and consummating with the last species.
It is speculation and I do believe the sequence or the timing can be proven.
Furthermore, all trees do not agree with one another, which one is correct, if any?
I have seen no one in this group that can prove the immediate predecessor of the Equidae or bovine family nor can any evidence be shown of a different species evolving from either of these.
Is it not amazing how many different species have been on earth for what some claim as millions of years but they have not evolved into any different species during that time?
Some have adapted to changing environments so there are some small differences but they are still within the same species.
The real model of life would look like an orchard of trees.
Different trees.
Remember, I am assuming these trees have progenitors that were originally created by a single creator. If this creator wanted to produce a mature and functioning ecosystem from the moment of creation, they would need to incorporate a vast amount of variety in these original organisms. We wouldn't see a single bird tree, but possibly thousands of bird trees. Each bird tree would have progenitors that had similar anatomical features with the other created birds, like feathers and beaks. These similarities logically would also be expressed in having similar genetic coding - not from having common ancestors but from having a common creator.
Again all your replies dont have any evidence except yet again to quote a literal translation of the bible whilst covering your eyes of any astrophysiological evidence. Thats my point as the scientific views...which by the way youre happy to use in using the internet, are based on evidence, much of which is has been measured eg gravitatiobal waves, and big bang.Unguided? The same type which would be used to distinguish your post as evidence of intelligent causation over natural processes. If the description is a motor then it presupposes intelligent causation. If they wish to depict the motor as nonintelligent causation then they better use different terminology. If it looks like a motor and functions like a motor then depicting as a motor is fine. If described as a motor then that is direct evidence of intelligent causation given its alternative of step by step blind processes. What you mean by evolution and what they mean are two different things.
1st century truth does not change. If you wish to reference the Bible then there is zero evidence validating any of the current assumptions for blind watchmaker evolution or common descent as they believe.
They are two different types. Not the same. Our problem is with atheistic interpretations of history under the guise of science.
Why do you keep throwing out the word literal since anyone interprets passages within their context?
It has science implications. Healthy eating, diets, sanitation practices. Fixed order of the stars,
And you won't find the characteristics of God in them manuals, so?
Unguided Evo is not reputable in the first place.
You are correct. My mistake. It's called causality.There is no law of "cause and effect" as you have stated it in the world of science. There is no reason that an effect cannot be much greater than the cause. That means that you do not have any evidence. You are merely wishing that there was an intelligent cause.And what was the point of the two links? They do not support your claims in any way at all.
Indeed, you have made statements in regards to your personal beliefs. On this part of the site, folks are asked to provide evidence to support their claims.I thought the "you" messages are coming from others. They are not coming from me. All I do is to state what I believe, and what I have said is fair debate. But there have been many "you" messages directed at me, so where do you think the personal comments are coming from then? (And I used "you" in the form of a question).
Because they have the same designer? Why does the human body have many of the same elements as the earth? Same designer perhaps?
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?