- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,070
- 16,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
You need to quantify information before can make such an assertion.
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.
You need to quantify information before can make such an assertion.A you have said it is a change in the allele regulating the amount produced. It is not new information
It is not the evidence that is the problem, but the presuppositions that govern how that evidence is viewed.
For example the current scientific view is that the universe has a beginning.
But if something has a beginning it also has a cause.
The presupposition of evolution believing atheists is there is no God.
So any suggestion that a 'supernatural entity' cause the universe to begin is ruled out without even considering the idea.
I guess if these things are only in my imagination, you needn't reply?
Your support for Evolutionism is akin to the support I would expect from one sincerely satirising the absurd belief.
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.
Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History.
You say the link information is evidence of common ancestry. I say evidence of common design. Given the absence of missing links, I would say that the former (i.e. the scientific theory of evolution) is falsified on this basis.Your contribution started with an accusation, and has consisted of nothing else since then.
Anyway, here is one place among many, many such that offers evidence for evolution. Your claim is that the page I linked to doesn't exist. That seems like a pretty silly claim to make.
Absence of evidence = evidence of absence?You say the link information is evidence of common ancestry. I say evidence of common design. Given the absence of missing links, I would say that the former (i.e. the scientific theory of evolution) is falsified on this basis.
Ignoring what others have explained to you is really the height of bad manners. Such dishonesty is not to be commended, especially for somebody who claims to represent "truth".Further insistence on evolution in spite of the evidence transforms it into Evolutionism (a non-scientific, ever evolving dogma to deny, reinterpret or otherwise disregard any evidence disproving it).
Usually, no. In a court of law especially. Why should science be different? Very difficult to prove a murder (and fraught with the danger of injustice) if there is no body.Absence of evidence = evidence of absence?
Lol. Only a truly devout Evolutionist or Poe would argue that the absence of evidence for his theory is actually more evidence for it's certainty.You're really struggling here, aren't you?
Matthew 7:6. With due respect, true Evolutionists can seldom be converted with facts, as Evolutionism is a belief, not a science. I'll trust you understand why I don't waste my time replying to every little whine, some already addressed, others easily resolved by a simple Google search.Ignoring what others have explained to you is really the height of bad manners. Such dishonesty is not to be commended, especially for somebody who claims to represent "truth".
is this your only evidence for evolution? because its seems to be.Your contribution started with an accusation, and has consisted of nothing else since then.
Anyway, here is one place among many, many such that offers evidence for evolution. Your claim is that the page I linked to doesn't exist. That seems like a pretty silly claim to make.
see here why evolution isnt scientific: Why evolution isn't scientificYou say the link information is evidence of common ancestry. I say evidence of common design
No, I said it was evidence that "evolutionists" present evidence for evolution. You said they'd abandoned evidence. Did you forget your own claim? Would you care to defend it, rather than changing the subject?You say the link information is evidence of common ancestry.
Great. I'm glad there's a creationist who can explain these genetic data as the result of common design. Now please do so. Tell us why the genetic differences between species look exactly like lots of mutations if they result from common design.I say evidence of common design.
Since the evidence I pointed to (which you no doubt read in detail before dismissing, right?) was from genetics and your response is about fossils, I can only assume you meant to say this in another post -- because it sure doesn't make sense as a response here.Given the absence of missing links, I would say that the former (i.e. the scientific theory of evolution) is falsified on this basis.
Of course not. As I said, it's one set of evidence among many, many. But since you've already demonstrated your inability to explain this set, why should I offer more?is this your only evidence for evolution? because its seems to be.
This post is so incoherent as to be almost meaningless.
Answer me this question: in what way would the different presuppositions of a Christian cosmologist and an atheist cosmologist affect their interpretation of the redshifts of the galaxies, the structure of the cosmic microwave background, and the cosmic He/H, D/H, He-3/H and Li-7/H ratios?
From my biased position the universe would not exist if it had not been created.
Another question: if a 'supernatural entity' caused the universe to begin, how would that affect the observations that we make of it (of the universe, I mean, not of the 'supernatural entity')? To put it another way, how would the universe be different if it was or was not created by a God?
You need to quantify information before can make such an assertion.
Classification of Living Things:
Classification of Living Things
Species
"Species are as specific as you can get. It is the lowest and most strict level of classification of living things. The main criterion for an organism to be placed in a particular species is the ability to breed with other organisms of that same species. The species of an organism determines the second part of its two-part name."
What God says about living things:
He made them male and female ... with the ability to reproduce after their kind ....
And atheists are being appointed as chaplins means athism is being recognised as a 'faith'.
Ask any atheist to prove that there is no God and the question is dodged so a belief that there is no God is just that a faith based belief.
within it's own species
So you accept that it is a faith and as such should be bound by the separation of 'church' and state and not taught by the education system.Atheism is not the belief that there is no god.
It is a disbelief of the claim that there is one.
I'm sorry if you can't understand the difference.
A taxonomist decides whether to recognize a subspecies or not. A common criterion for a subspecies is its ability of interbreeding with a different subspecies of the same species and producing fertile offspring. In the wild, subspecies do not interbreed due to their geographic isolation and sexual selection.
biogeography - the branch of biology that deals with the geographical distribution of plants and animals.
So you accept that it is a faith
and as such should be bound by the separation of 'church' and state and not taught by the education system.
No. Faith is what you need to believe something for which there is no evidence.
As an atheist, I am not believing something.
In fact, my atheism is literally defined by NOT having faith, by NOT believing without evidence.
My atheism is the exact opposite of what you are saying that it is.
Nobody teaches "atheism" in schools.
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?