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.
Your rejection of the theory is based on much speculation instead of actual evidence. "I don't believe . . ." is mere speculation.
The fact of the matter is that these fossils have a mixture of basal ape and modern human features. That makes them transitional by definition. This isn't speculation. Also, we have mountains of genetic evidence that demonstrates chimps and humans share a common ancestor. I have a thread on that very subject if you are interested:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/endogenous-retroviruses-and-human-evolution-v-2.7911273/
These aren't speculations:
And how did they determine that these fossils were human ancestors?
They could easily just be fossils from chimps or apes, but that doesn't mean that its a fossil of a creature who eventually evolved into man.
Also how do they calculate the fossils age? They are using flawed techniques and much speculation as well. It seems unwise to blindly accept these findings as truth, because there is no real evidence, only speculation.
Yes they are speculating, and they actually don't understand where humans came from.
Evolutionists speculated that the appendix was a useless organ, a leftover from the evolution process. However they were later proved to be wrong. They also speculated that Humans had junk DNA, but later they found out that this DNA has a purpose and was not junk. Yet, evolutionists will not admit that human evolution theory is built on speculation instead of actual science.
They speculated that the appendix is vestigial, not useless. It helps if you use the correct term. Vestigial organs can still have rudimentary function.
Also, about 90% of the human genome is still considered junk DNA. There is a lack of negative selection in 90% of the genome which indicates that it has no selectable function.
They don't understand the genetic evidence they are looking at. They are only speculating. just as they did concerning the human appendix and the so called junk DNA
Yes, I would expect you to rationalize their fallacy. That has been the case since the beginning of this Evolution Theory. I have observed that Evolution theory itself is actually evolving, and this is observable, unlike the findings of the theory itself.
The basic premise of evolution by natural selection remains at the center, and solid.Yes, I would expect you to rationalize their fallacy. That has been the case since the beginning of this Evolution Theory. I have observed that Evolution theory itself is actually evolving, and instead of admitting their fallacy they simply try to rationalize it. Their behavior is observable, unlike the findings of the theory itself. So I scientifically conclude that ToS is not built on logic nor reasoning, but mere speculation and unscientific reasoning.
What are your credentials, in regards to understanding genetics?
I don't need credentials to see human fallacy. Are you aware that in the beginning stages of DNA testing, that is was far from perfect? They used it in criminal forensic science yet their data was flawed and they convicted innocent people with their fallacy. They said DNA couldn't lie, and they were right, but it was human fallacy that lied. They use to use other flawed forensic data to convict innocent people as well. They used eye witness testimony which is actually among the most untrustworthy evidence that can be used, despite popular belief. THey also used blood type to convict people, yet that is fallacy as well. Human fallacy is what I am judging.
The basic premise of evolution by natural selection remains at the center, and solid.
At some point you have to quit arguing with people who have decided to protect a particular personal theological commitment at ALL costs....You just disagree because you don't like the conclusions...
If I understand it correctly, I would agree. This is because its actually observable and logical. Most people would agree with it, its not hard to imagine at all. This however is not the case with the theory surrounding the origin of man.
DNA sequencing is pretty accurate now, and we have both the human and chimp genomes sequenced using solid methodologies.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/abs/409860a0.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/abs/nature04072.html
Those papers used pyrosequencing and Sanger sequencing which is different from the PCR based STR analyses done for DNA fingerprinting. However, I'm guessing you don't know anything about DNA sequencing. You just disagree because you don't like the conclusions.
Also, I am still waiting for you to tell us what this fallacy is.
At some point you have to quit arguing with people who have decided to protect a particular personal theological commitment at ALL costs.
I understand a little about it, I love to learn about forensic science. With all due respect, their understanding of DNA is still in the dark ages.
The fallacy I'm referring to is the human fallacy which has been observed throughout history, and in modern days as well..
If you think that ToE is flawless and is proven, then you are ignoring history and logic. ITs more rational to assume that ToE theory is flawed and untrustworthy, rather than to blindly accept it as fact.
Saying that the theory of evolution caused the Holocaust is like saying that the theory of gravity was the moral underpinning for terrorists making airplanes crash.
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?