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.
(As well as a
desire to keep the funds coming in to keep their jobs.)
So mere similarities to you mean there was a stepwise evolutionary
pathway connecting two species?
Yes, because you can't make any money as a creation scientist. Ken Ham, AIG, Discovery Institute, they're all just living in the poor house.
You accept that, too. You've already stated that you accept pigeons and dodos are related. This conclusion was reached by compariing similarities.
How else do you tell if two species are related if not by compariing similarities? How else would you come to that conclusion?
They are not funded by the same agencies.
l life is related and similar. What you are missing is that the evidence
points towards design by an ID more than through natural, unguided,
unintelligent natural processes.
Not the point.
Creationist 'scientists' make money to do a lot less than actual ones. Scientist have to produce actual results. What original research have you seen from creationists?
If they're afraid of losing their jobs or not having money, why not jump ship. There are plenty of creationist organizations that would welcome them.
But you seemed content to say that those natural processes could produce dodos and pigeons from the same ancestor. You even seemed ready to accept ducks and pelicans sharing an ancestor. So where do you draw the line? And how do you determine what evolved naturally and what had to be specially created?
I do believe I am speaking about a small group, not science in general.
Not everything hinges around common descent or evolution theory.
Good questions. Where does one draw the line?
Really? So you think those who accept evolution meet in dark rooms rubbing their hands with glee cackling 'Ha ha! We fooled them again!'
If you can disprove evolution, please go and collect your Nobel Prize.
This is like finding someone driving west on I-40 at an average speed of 50 mph 1,000 miles from the east coast and telling someone prove they haven't been driving for 20 hours solid. It's possible they could have go on I-40 5 miles down the road. ToE is based on the assumption all life came from Frankencell. Now if and only if this assumption is true then of course there would be a common ancestor shared by all living things.
Here where abiogenesis is tied into Darwinian evolution
Since abiogenesis is still science fiction then no one knows exactly where creation ends and evolution begins. It comes down to where does someone puts their faith.
But you don't. You have been fooled into thinking man can prove what happen "IN THE BEGINNING..." All you have is what all living things have in common and what they don't.What assumptions are you talking about?
Abiogenesis is not tied into Darwinian evolution.
Why would we need faith when we have evidence that very different groups of complex species share a common ancestor?
But you don't. You have been fooled into thinking man can prove what happen "IN THE BEGINNING..." All you have is what all living things have in common and what they don't.
Abiogenesis deals with the beginnings so yes it is tied in Darwinian evolution just like a rocket launch is tied into going to the moon.
and what happens when "the present is the key of the past" doesn't fit? Even developmental biologist admits they can't used modern day life to determine up happen millions of years ago. Life had to be more flexible in the past than it is today.Why can't we use evidence in the present to determine ancestry in the past? How have I been fooled?
That's a big "IF". Abiogenesis is all about if that "IF" is possible.If the first cell were created by a deity and all life we see today evolved from that first life, the theory of evolution would be unchanged. They are not tied to one another.
In reality it is already extremely limited. According to the evidence.
By the way, religious dogma does not enter into the equation.
Let's play a little game here. We all like to think we are physicists and mathematicians. Let us give away the farm to begin with and allow the evolutionists the total impossibility that earth just happened to be positioned and held in the exact place and distance from the sun to allow for the ideal conditions present for life. Let's go ahead and say that a Lowe's or Home Depot was present where we could acquire even the amino acids necessary for life which even in 2015 science has been unable to reproduce even with the most advanced of state-of-the-art laboratories. Let's close our eyes and bite our tongues and give them all these things up front.
Now that we have given you all these things, let us give you a real big present to help you move your cause further along. Eureka!! Let's say that breaking all the rules of mathematical probabilities, we have a single asexual cell crawl out of our slime pool of raw materials we got from our Lowes warehouse. You now have a living, breathing, real life single asexual cell that is totally healthy and ready to go.
Now given all of this has been handed to you on a silver platter, can you tell us the mathematical probability of this single asexual cell dividing and mutating through natural selection until it evolves even into a simple little four cell organism? Do the math and come back and tell us.
Let's say that breaking all the rules of mathematical probabilities, we have a single asexual cell crawl out of our slime pool of raw materials we got from our Lowes warehouse.
What are all the 'rules of mathmatical probability'?
It is from the evidence and using my arbitrary decision making skills
just as scientists have arbitrary decision making skills. (As well as a
desire to keep the funds coming in to keep their jobs.)
So mere similarities to you mean there was a stepwise evolutionary
pathway connecting two species? How so? Could it also indicate common
design? (Yes, it could.) Where is your evidence of the step wise evolution?
The fossil evidence doesn't show this. The genetic evidence doesn't
show this.
It might help.
What are the rules?
Come on. You're trying to change the point. If you can't do the math, don't worry about it. The issue is the math, not rules that I already said we dismissed.
My question is simple. The mathematics is simple.
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?