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.
Cars, on the other hand, do not reproduce. They are designed and manufactured, and if left alone for any expanse of time will do nothing other than decay.
so prove...
{provide evidence} that a fish evolved into a human please.
A potential falsification would be if they undulated side to side and their flukes were shaped and positioned like those of Ichthyosaurs.
Embryonic dolphins develop limb buds that are absorbed back into the body as the fetus grows. (see photo at bottom of page)
You do that alot to yourself.
All were into eugenics and experimented to realise a super human race, which totally goes against the ethical and moral teachings of Christianity.
Would you please stop associating Christianity with autocratic dictators who used social Darwinism to realise their genocidal goals.
Stop propagating fake news about Hitler following a Christian path.
Your so against Christianity that you ignore my posts that highlight that the fruits of Evolution Theory is anarchy leading to genocide. We have historic evidence trenched in blood for the last 100 years.
no. in this case it will be "solve" by convergent evolution.
even according to your own source they arent legs but flippers{snip}
as i said: evolution is just a belief. and not a scientific one.
Yeah, take that one. No one who said that should be teaching biology. There are no other scientific "opinions" about where humans come from.take the first case for instance. he just said that: "If textbooks state explicitly that human beings' origins are to be found with monkeys, I would want students to pursue and grapple with other opinions. There are many people who don't believe the evolutionary account is correct."
You just quoted him saying something very different, something that had nothing to do with the origin of life.he just said that he want to give the students alternative possibility for the origin of life. as science suppose to be.
There are no fish shaped marine beings that move up and down as opposed to side to side.
What is your ID explanation for them having hind limb buds in utero? What is your ID explanation for them having the gene pathway for hind limb development?
snip shark non-sequitur since we're talking about cetaceans
I already said I would vouch for the fact that this example you gave of a creationist being fired for his beliefs was true. He even won his court case about it. Alas, that doesn't change the fact that the movie Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed, is still a garbage pile of lies.take the first case for instance. he just said that: "If textbooks state explicitly that human beings' origins are to be found with monkeys, I would want students to pursue and grapple with other opinions. There are many people who don't believe the evolutionary account is correct."
he just said that he want to give the students alternative possibility for the origin of life. as science suppose to be.
-_- you misunderstand the "issue" with the experiment entirely, and why it exists. What do you suppose the chances are of life developing the exact same way twice are? Even if we could guarantee that the environment within this particular abiogenesis experiment was exactly the same as the one in which the original life on this planet developed, just by pure chance there would likely be some differences. Whether you like it or not, this experiment did result in the formation of very simple cells. It doesn't matter that they aren't precisely the same as the ones that would have formed billions of years ago, because they demonstrate what creationists like you have claimed is impossible; life can develop through natural processes.even according to your own links there are several serious problems with szostak work:
"A working version of a complete protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting. Other problems need to be solved, such as the fact that citrate is not a plausible prebiotic component: it needs to be replaced by an alternative component. Finally, at a certain level of complexity, a third main component of the cell would be helpful: chemical energy (metabolism). Nevertheless, conceptually and practically, the Szostak protocell is the closest approximation so far to the origin of life forms which have the potential to evolve"
or according to szostak himself:
"We have shown there is at least one way to make RNA replication chemistry compatible with primitive, fatty-acid-based cell membranes, but this opens up new questions. Our current best guess is there must have been some sort of simple peptides that acted in a similar way to citrate, and finding such peptides is something we are working on now."
as i said: abiogenesis is just a belief, not a fact.
I'm not sure why you think a multicellular organism with multiple specialized tissues is somehow less realistic for developing naturally than a multicellular organism made of mostly unspecialized cells.true, but i refer to something like a cat or a dog.
no. in this case it will be "solve" by convergent evolution.
even according to your own source they arent legs but flippers:
"In cetaceans, these hind limb buds usually reduce and finally disappear again, but sometimes traces of them are retained and develop into protrusions or even little flippers visible even in the adult."
or what about this shark with "legs"?:
Shark with legs?
as i said: evolution is just a belief. and not a scientific one.
It’s a male shark. Those are the shark’s claspers, or intromittent organs. The shark does the usual act you’d expect with a female of the species, and like many shark species, it has clasper spurs, or little poky bits that help lock the organ into the female’s cloaca while he gets happy. They aren't homologous to legs at all.
Yeah, take that one. No one who said that should be teaching biology. There are no other scientific "opinions" about where humans come from.
You just quoted him saying something very different, something that had nothing to do with the origin of life.
According to your own link - Shark with legs? -
Disagree. The theory of evolution is a theory. Contrary to your statement, that does not imply there are other possibilities out there. Any scientific theory could in principle be challenged by a new and better theory. But as I said, there is no other scientific possibility currently on offer, and no theory of any sort that actually explains the data. So there's nothing else to teach.yes there is. first: evolution is just a theory. so even by scientific terms it's just one possibility out of several others. do you agree or disagree?
No problem at all. There are in fact quite a few partial theories about the origin of life, and they are all appropriate for the classroom. (Note: "God did it" is not a theory.)so you have no problem to teaching students about alternative views about the origin of life?
You're missing some steps there.so prove that a fish evolved into human please.
It doesn't matter that they aren't precisely the same as the ones that would have formed billions of years ago, because they demonstrate what creationists like you have claimed is impossible; life can develop through natural processes.
Timeline of human evolution - Wikipediaso prove that a fish evolved into human please.
why do you think i add quotation marks?According to your own link - Shark with legs? -
It's one of the more well evidenced scientific theories, to the point that teaching an alternative is teaching something that has a fraction of 0.00001% chance of being right over the theory that has a 99.99999% chance of being right. There's no justification for teaching unrealistic alternatives. In other words, treating the theory of evolution as "just one of many possibilities" is like holding a race in which there are 99 participants that are old men that need the support of canes to walk, and the final participant is a healthy and energetic cheetah, and behaving as if the cheetah winning the race is "just one of many possibilities".yes there is. first: evolution is just a theory. so even by scientific terms it's just one possibility out of several others. do you agree or disagree?
I personally don't mind it too much, as long as a huge amount of time isn't contributed to a position that has practically no evidence supporting it, and how much evidence the alternative views actually have is represented honestly. Although, I don't think creationists would like it very much if biology instructors went out of their way to describe exactly how much evidence for creationism there is. After all, there isn't much.so you have no problem to teach students about alternative views about the origin of life?
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?