lesliedellow
Member
- Sep 20, 2010
- 9,654
- 2,582
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
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.
again: it cant be evidence for evolution at all. we can find car first, then a fighter jet and then a
space shuttle by their geological order. but it doesnt prove any evolution.
It is not his problem the Neo Darwinists cannot make a convincing case for common descent based on an intelligently arranged order of fossil bones. They can be arranged in any manner the intelligent source deems necessary to validate their pre existing assumptions. It would all be equally valid, and critics should not appeal to intelligent design when their materialistic philosophy does not allow intelligence in the first place. If the deck of cards comes out of the box arranged, then it does not mean natural processes can be the only cause because the intervention of intelligence is considered unscientific by materialistic philosophers appealing to science which is a search for truth, not a validation for materialistic assumptions.Oh please, please, please, go back to school.
It is not his problem the Neo Darwinists cannot make a convincing case for common descent based on an intelligently arranged order of fossil bones. The can be arranged in any manner the intelligent source deems necessary to validate their pre existing assumptions. It would all be equally valid, and critics should not appeal to intelligent design when their materialistic philosophy does not allow intelligence in the first place. If the deck of cards comes out of the box arranged, then it does not mean natural processes can be the only cause because the intervention of intelligence is considered unscientific by materialistic philosophers appealing to science which is a search for truth, not a validation for materialistic assumptions.
You don't even know what the common ancestor looked like nor do you know what it was. It is an unidentified mythical creature. It is an evidence free faith belief in a host of theoretical creatures.
Why do you keep making such blatantly obviously false claims? Fossils could proved a HUGE problem for the theory of evolution, but yet they never do. And as lesliedellow pointed out fossils are now surpassed by other forms of evidence, all of which support the theory of evolution.It is not his problem the Neo Darwinists cannot make a convincing case for common descent based on an intelligently arranged order of fossil bones. The can be arranged in any manner the intelligent source deems necessary to validate their pre existing assumptions. It would all be equally valid, and critics should not appeal to intelligent design when their materialistic philosophy does not allow intelligence in the first place. If the deck of cards comes out of the box arranged, then it does not mean natural processes can be the only cause because the intervention of intelligence is considered unscientific by materialistic philosophers appealing to science which is a search for truth, not a validation for materialistic assumptions.
You don't even know what the common ancestor looked like nor do you know what it was. It is an unidentified mythical creature. It is an evidence free faith belief in a host of theoretical creatures.
I'm so tempted to say the god of science is a modernized rendition of ...You don't even know what the common ancestor looked like nor do you know what it was. It is an unidentified mythical creature.
Only on paper.And as lesliedellow pointed out fossils are now surpassed by other forms of evidence, all of which support the theory of evolution.
Only on paper.
A single fossil can indeed not be evidence for evolution. What is evidence for evolution is the pattern we see in the fossil record. The fact that we will never see a zebra fossil in the same layer of a dinosaur fossil. Even if both could have lived in the same area; they didn't live in the same period. More over, we see "stranger" animals in older layers, and the more recent the sedimentary layer, the more familiar the fossilized animal looks.
again: it cant be evidence for evolution at all. we can find car first, then a fighter jet and then a space shuttle by their geological order. but it doesn't prove any evolution.
Cars, fighter jets and space shuttles, on the other hand, are not alive, they did not come into existence by a reproductive process, and they do not have any DNA or other genetic code inherited from their parents or passed on to their children.
so if those vehicles were able to reproduce you will claim that they evolved from each other? i think that even in this case the best explanation is that they were made by a designer.Your analogy is not valid. Zebras are descended, by the ordinary process of reproduction, from animals that lived at the same time as the dinosaurs, and in each generation the animals inherited their DNA, with small modifications, from their parents. This process of descent with modification of hereditary material is essential to evolution and is unique to living things.
Cars, fighter jets and space shuttles, on the other hand, are not alive, they did not come into existence by a reproductive process, and they do not have any DNA or other genetic code inherited from their parents or passed on to their children. Thus the fact that cars, etc. do not evolve has no bearing on the fact that living things do evolve.
Did you previously agree to a discussion if we both would agree to answer all questions that we may be asked? Yes.
Did you honor your word and answered all questions that I asked you? No.
End of discussion.
When you make a self reproducing vehicle, then you can talk to us. Until you do you only have a failed argument.so if those vehicles were able to reproduce you will claim that they evolved from each other? i think that even in this case the best explanation is that they were made by a designer.
not even on paper...
But they do not reproduce themselves; they have neither reproductive systems nor hereditary material, therefore they cannot evolve. That is the whole point; that is why your analogy fails.so if those vehicles were able to reproduce you will claim that they evolved from each other? i think that even in this case the best explanation is that they were made by a designer.
What is not a surprise is the word of an evolutionist cannot be trusted, they agree to answer all questions they may be asked in a discussion when they have no intention of honoring their word.
My contention from the beginning is that evolutionist cannot provide physical evidence of one species evolving into an entirely different species and you acknowledged that to be true. Therefore, with that fact and in addition to your word cannot be trusted, what is the point of any "discussion"?
Tevans, please respond to my post above. I have remained civil on this thread and don't appreciate my honesty being questioned.
Oh, my!Sometimes I have to struggle hard not to give the kind of response which would get me banned.
When did organisms first start making genetic copies of themselves?
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?