Lepanto said:
You offered just statements, just big and intimidating words, but no reasoning or evidences because you have none, except perhaps evolutionary THEORIES straight from your textbooks. That's what they are --- Theories.
*sigh* And THIS shows you dont get get. The whole theory thing has been pounded into the ground about a billion times.
My example is not silly at all, your equating microevolution with macroevolution is really silly and shallow.
Actually, it is. And trying to split them up for no reason other than to hang on to a literal, outdated INTERPRETATION of one part of a holy book that the original authors generally dont even hold to anymore is more silly and shallow to be honest.
Also, you believe ToE simply because you believe scientists can't be wrong. It is not true that all scientists are honest, haven't you heard of frauds created by evolutionists ?
Such as? Name something. I dare you. And then tell me WHO discovered it was wrong, the year, and please try to find something within the past 50 years or so. Going back to the 1920s and 30s is reaching, especially if (as I suspect you is the case) you have a skewed version of the story.
And then if youd like I can talk about CREATIONIST frauds.
Regardless of macroevolution is real or not, it still has a huge problem in explaining the ORIGIN of life.
And gravity has problems explaining the origin of light, so it must be wrong.
Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. Period. Thats abiogenesis. Wooo-hooo, it doesnt do what it wasnt designed to do, it must be broken.
Now please read this extract from "Micro and Macro-Evolution Explained".
*yawn* Heard it all before, but for the sake of everyone reading this who doesnt already know, well do the dance again.
First, Irreducible complexity may apply to systems in their CURRENT state, but we can see previous models for lack of a better word that miss parts that work. Lets take bats. Well, lets see, flying squirrels are rodents that only have half a wing and they get along fine. Its not a stretch of the imagination to think of how that could go to more like a bat.
Also, your example of primitive life forms having less genetic material is male cow excrement because there are amoebas with far far more genes that humans. And amoebas are simple.
Second, there is no DNA code barrier. New genetic material can be added. There are mutation that add codons, delete codons, make double copies of whole strings of DNA, and so on. Adding and double copying INCREASE THE AMOUNT. Period.
And if youre going to even SUGGEST anything about DNA and genetic information, find someone who DEFINES information because Ive never seen it done, which is intellectually dishonest.
OH! I know. Creationism is wrong because it doesnt Hlarglblah. And I dont need to define MY terms if your side doesnt.
Doveaman said:
Sounds like you are describing a common DESIGNER.
Nope, thats cladistics. Oh, and if you can use both similarities and differences to both infer the common designer, you just made your concept unfalsifiable and removable by Occams Razor. Tell me exactly what would NOT fit with a common designer.
It also fits a tree of life where each twig has all the features each branch has, which has all the features each limb has, etc etc etc till you get to the roots, MUCH better.
Heck, I even left out a few.
Okay, please tell me WHICH on this list of characteristics apes do not have: God's image.
"Then God said, "Let us make man in our image"...Gen 1:26.
Congrats if you answered, they don't have all of those. We are... not an ape.
ONE ape has them. Us. And anything that has all of those features that I listed would be an ape. And yes, I did leave out a few, yes, I list where they are in this post, and yes, even if that source is incomplete there is a definite set list in cladistics that can be looked up and is set down. So I'm not moving my goalposts if you point out I omitted something.
No, it is not. It is a question that effectively pokes a big hole in the evolution argument that man evolved from ape, which is more of an assumption based on observations that has nothing to do with ape becoming man, or man being a branch of ape.
Well, lets give you the benefit of the doubt. What do you MEAN by man evolving from an ape? Do you mean a chimp giving birth to a human? Do you mean a current gorilla becoming more humanlike?
Or do you mean a slow fossilized observable changed consisting of more than a dozen steps with features like skulls and leg structures slowly changing to become manlike that coincides with all applied dating methods?
Explain what you mean, set the goalposts down, and then well kick through them. Unless you move them again.
You can actually view the entire list and how its gotten from AronRas youtube video Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism #10 starting at 7:57. I left a few out. You can watch the whole video to get the meanings of some I left out. Big thanks and big props to AronRa.
Its about 10 and a half minutes long.
Oh really? You see, evolution perfectly explains things like variations in skin color across humans originating from different places, like Africans being dark skinned and Europeans being lighter skinned.
And I do believe in God, and that God is omnipotent, and so on. But if God DID miraculously POOF everything into being 6000 years ago He did so with a history and multiple indications that would indicate they evolved, and would therefore be being deceptive. And what is that always cited about God not being the author of confusion again...?
Metherion
