Ouch - way to Godwin the thread...
This kind of thinking about whole areas of science necessarily falls into the conspiracy theory bucket.
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.
Ouch - way to Godwin the thread...ITs strange how many of these charades go on and people don't see it. Politics are just one big lie built on corruption and deceit but people just keep swallowing the politics and news, so is evolution science also just a big lie. Look what Hitler did, he told the big lie and convinced a nation to go to world war. Im afraid Hitler only showed our political and scientific leaders how to fool people easier. Tell the lie over and over, and people will believe it. Its been interesting, thanks for the thread and debate. Have a nice day everyone.
I posted a recently discovered bat precursor earlier, did you miss it?They say that Bats are the second largest order of mammals (after the rodents), representing about 20% of all classified mammal species worldwide. They say that they appeared suddenly in the fossil records completely formed and similar to modern bats. Then they try to make up an excuse as to why there are no transitional fossils around because they are so fragile. Yet we have many fossils of other fragile creatures.
Oh quite. Evolution theory is an area (or field) of science.Im referring only to evolution theory, not all of science.
I posted a recently discovered bat precursor earlier, did you miss it?
Denial, steve. Denial.I cant access this paper so its no good to me.
Its funny I found a couple of other sites that talked about bat evolution. They say that Bats are the second largest order of mammals (after the rodents), representing about 20% of all classified mammal species worldwide. They say that they appeared suddenly in the fossil records completely formed and similar to modern bats. Then they try to make up an excuse as to why there are no transitional fossils around because they are so fragile. Yet we have many fossils of other fragile creatures.
The they begin to paint the story of the evolution of bats and this is where they fill in the gaps to an idea that they already believe and assume happened. So this helps them make up the finer details. They say that bats started to turn up around the time of when flowers were coming onto the picture. So of course they will say this. Why because flowers bring insects and many bats love to eat insects. Yet none of this has been verified.
Thats what evolution states. But this is refuted by many. A lot of the evidence they use is superficial and speculative.
But it does remind of a good song.
This isn't an appropriate thread. If you find a suitable topic for them, send me a link.I have some pictures of UFO's and poltergeists if you are interested.
You never said exactly what you think a missing link is; but, whatever, it's a non sequitur; fossils are not paranormal.I was only suggesting that we can file the missing link fossils away in the X-Files. I got to go, later my friend.
You never said exactly what you think a missing link is; but, whatever, it's a non sequitur; fossils are not paranormal.
What part of Evolution science is theory? Don't say all of it unless you have proof.Oh quite. Evolution theory is an area (or field) of science.
Yes that part is bad science, the scientist found that out and announced it. So apart from that, everything is right.Not true. There is good science and bad science. Bad science has tried to tell us that the appendix was a useless organ, and is only a remnant of evolution from the past. IT was bad science because it didn't build this fallacy on any pure, observable science, but instead used obscure, theoretical, nonsensical, bad science of evolution theory. This apparent lack of pure, discernible science has proven that evolution theory science is incapable of even understanding the purpose of a human organ, let alone prove if God exists or not. Surely i cant trust them to discern the origin of mankind either.
Thats not science, its idealistic fallacy
Evolutionists have observed all the evidence, you can observe it as well. And when they find a mistake, they correct it.Evolutionists keep saying that their theory is the foundation of biology but that is totally absurd. The foundation of biology is what scientists have observed, tested and repeated, and proven. Evolution theory has not been observed, tested, repeated and proven, despite what they assert to the contrary. They didn't test, observe, repeat nor prove that the appendix was a useless organ, or that humans have a bunch of junk DNA. No, and this fallacy was derived from atheism's idealistic notions, but not from science. However they assert that they are the foundation of biology, but this is nothing but atheistic faith and religion. That's the truth, regardless of the denial.
Agreed, but they know, those species existed. You want to deny they did. So let's go to later Hominids. Where in your creation story does it say we and Neanderthals lived on Earth at the same time, in the same places, and met?Many scientists don't believe Lucy or any other fossil is actually a missing link in human evolution. Evolutionists however will give us the impression that the whole scientific community accepts these fossils as credible evidence of a missing link. This is nothing more than a huge charade.
Quantum-level interactions with no causal links.Then can you describe to me what is random.
Do you normally post by drive-by jabbings or did you get around to figuring out how your use of the word "information" makes no sense the last time you posted in this thread?
I'm quoting a paper so they are the ones you reckon are getting it wrong.
They are saying that basic protein folds are represented by a narrow set of natural forms which are determined by a limited number of construction rules. Similar to those that govern the atom in physics. That adaptations and natural selection dont play a role in their formation but pre set rules that are finely tuned for making life. So this is similar to the finely tuned universe for life and shows ID rather than a naturalistic process. Its as simple as that.
That's my aim.
Such as?
Yes thanks I must have missed it. Sometimes I dont get all the messages into my email and I miss some now and again. I have heard of this discovery in my research but didn't think much about it. It is another example of how evolution assumes things and grabs onto anything that will possibly fill in the gaps missing. Bats lack transitionals and there is nothing showing any gradual progression. So this discovery of a smaller middle ear bone in a bat fossil is being made into a big deal because it can give the evolution of bats a possible transitional feature. But what they dont tell you is that there are bats today that dont have echolocation anyway. So all this may be is one of them.I posted a recently discovered bat precursor earlier, did you miss it?
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?