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.
Dude has a long and sordid history of not listening everywhere he turns up. Google "Yomin Postelnik" and laugh heartily at the melodrama.Twelve pages later and he's still not listening?
Not a problem, the original topic is here:
And my last response before the thread was closed is here:
Sorry for the copy-and-pasting, but I think I covered most of the points you made both here and in the other thread. And I'd also like to emphasise what I said at the end of my linked post - the original article was not so much about debating evolution, and I think a debate on that article would be more fruitful than the evolution side of things.
Also, you might be interested to know there's currently an abiogenesis debate going on the Creation and Evolution subforum of this board, there's some really interesting scientific stuff being brought up by both sides, here's the link:
The only additional thing I would like clarification on is:
I take it when you say that you doubt Darwin would believe in evolution now, you mean that you doubt he would be convinced of the (not-explicitly-theistic) macroevolutionary origin of life as science currently claims it to be (I only ask because evolution (genetic variation etc) does still occur today). Am I correct?
This is complete nonsense. And since it is also pure assertion, I shall merely contrarily assert the falsity of every claim.The main problem with evolutionary theory is that while thousands of ape and human fossils have been found, no such numbers have been found of any transitional types, and the few and far between ones listed as transitional (none of which actually show transition, i.e. uniquely homo and austral. characteristics) are all highly inconclusive. This fact alone makes it more likely to presume that there were no intermediary species and makes logic dictate that these few decayed skeletons are ape fossils that have decayed rather than making an argument for transformation with the fossils of thousands of generations missing in between (while the "before and after," so to speak, are available in plenty). There are animal fossils you wouldnt be able to differentiate from, such as a small mammal and a larger one with similar cranial characteristics, that no one claims are from the same evolutionary line. To present such an argument for an ape/human connection based on skeletal structure alone, in spite of the fact that intermediaries simply dont exist and the math doesnt add up (thousands of primary forms, according to evolutionists, thousands of human fossils, and an inconclusive skeleton or two in between to show intermediary steps that if existed, would be more plentiful than the primary apes, as theyd be their offspring), isn't anywhere near as probable as saying that the two aren't related (as in evolutionary lineage), other than made with the same physical matter.
What's the matter with you? Transitional cellular fossils? Are you even trying to represent common descent fairly?You correctly interpreted what I meant about Darwin. Growth of cellular life and transition to factors are worked into the world's plan according to both sides (except atheists would take issue with the word plan, but we both agree that they're wrong and that the complexity of the universe points to that). But the coming about of cellular life (which even Darwin was forced to say may have come about from the Creator "calling it into being) is an area where modern day evolutionists present erroneous/illogical claims and the transition of one species type to another doesn't add up with the lack of clear transitional fossils documenting such change (their absence making the case that no such evolution occurred, for the reasons given above).
I'll take you more seriously when you approach evolution honestly.To the one-liner guys - If I'm such an outrageous laughing stock then surely you'll let us debate in peace so that you can continue laughing. If not I'll just have to copy a debate I previously had (and I doubt you'll be laughing as I won) and walk away. I really would like to continue this good discussion on this forum and would ask you to let us debate/exchange ideas.
I've asked him to back off and instead he googles me several times a day and keeps following me around everywhere.
This has the be the most amusing thread Ive ever read.......ever...lol
See, Cabal? Posting in Zombie thread leads to the Curse of Double Posting.
oops.
See, Cabal? Posting in Zombie thread leads to the Curse of Double Posting.
oops.
Only those zombies who evolve to eat the abundance of strawmen will survive.They will all die here, nothing to eat.
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?