JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
Could you describe the falsifiable test you used to come to this conclusion? Otherwise you're just making stuff up.
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.
Similarities is precisely what we expect to see in common design if it is accurate, which it is. A designer uses common materials to create and sustain life in order for it to flourish and adapt.
Having actual observation and testing that shows something changing into something it isn't already.
We agree man ws created in six days. But Im not ignoring the word hayah, or the fact what is a day, if as you believe the sun wasnt created until the fourth day? Imaginary sunrise and sunsets?Yes because it's what the Bible says. No reading into it, no interpretation, no guess work it says God created in six days and he created all things individually according to kinds and he created man unique of all things.
it's not what you said here:
"Except the logical progression of the fossil record, with no exceptions"
so we indeed found exceptions.
-_- would you suggest bringing in "another species" if humans experienced a severe population bottleneck in which only 300 individuals of our species were left? Because last I checked, human's can't actually interbreed with any other species currently alive. There are a select few organisms for which people have tried to "save a species through hybridization", but that doesn't usually work very well.
As it were, your suggestion is only generally applicable if the bottlenecked population isn't the only population remaining of individuals that can (and are willing to) breed and produce fertile offspring. However, regardless as to whether or not 20% of a population dies or 80% does, when large portions of a population dies, it inevitably reduces the variety of the gene pool, even if who ends up dying is completely random.
You're correct in that one of the easiest ways to help ensure that a child will be healthy is for the parents to be from distant populations that are unlikely to have the same recessive diseases. But, this doesn't work out well for populations that experienced bottlenecks due to a large portion of the species dying out.
"A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing."-
and how we can test the belief that banana and human shared a common descent?
we cant.
so evolution isnt a scientific theory even according to that source.
Your examples aren't such exception.
I was talking about "exceptions" in the sense of data that doesn't fit the model.
New data which alters the timeline a bit, is normal as we progress towards a more accurate picture while new data comes in.
This is not the same as finding primates next to trilobites.
Except the next generation is not an addition of the same coin. You now have heads and tails and say heads and hands and tails and hands. so we now flip and both heads, tails and hands are removed. We then have heads and tails, heads and hands, tails and hands, and now also heads and feet, tails and feet, hands and feet. If you want to claim to believe in evolution then present your argument as an evolutionary argument with those changes, or stop with the strawmen......That's what I get for letting myself be impressed by you. But I can explain very simply how you are incorrect, given that natural selection isn't random.
Let's say I have 500 coins, one side saying tails, and the other saying heads. I proceed to flip the coins. For those that land on heads, they have a trait that isn't favorable to survival, so for the generations that follow in this example, 90% of the coins with heads "die", and are removed from this example game. Every generation, 60% of the tails will die, since they don't have the unfavorable trait that the heads coins do, but that doesn't make them death proof. Now, after the first generation, which was flipped, the next generations are the addition of a coin for each one on the field, corresponding to an existing coin with the same sides as the coins from the preceding generation. So, if there is currently 30 tails, that's how many extra tails would be added. So, I play this game for a bit, and eventually, tails will dominate. Was this random? Of course not, because heads coins were removed from the population a lot more than tails coins were. It didn't matter that which side the coins had in the first "generation" was random, what persisted the best was not, and it reflects in future populations.
and narry a single mutation (nor millions of years) was needed to create those new races.... which goes back to my point concerning the variation in the fossil record, that you all keep avoiding....Not quite, if this was true, then the kids would all have nearly the same skin tone as one of their parents... but they have an intermediate one. The curly hair, on the other hand, is in the dominant/recessive gene pattern.
What needs clarified? Every fossil of T-Rex remains the same from the youngest to the oldest found. Not a single solitary fossil shows evidence of evolution. Each one is distinct and remains that way for every one you can find.
There were tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers saying the Milky-Way was the entire universe too.
There were peer reviewed papers about the coelacanth too, until we actually found a living one and tested its DNA tho. Funny how we don’t hear anything about the transitional colecanth anymore.
You mean it’s sudden appearance fully formed with no predecessors? Maybe you should ask your theory that same question......Jimmy D said:The first thing I thought of was Tiktaalik, how does your theory account for it's appearance in the Devonian?
Like E. coli remaining E. coli? Tests have been performed, you just ignore the actual conclusion of those tests. E. coli remaining E. coli shows no evolution of species at all.
Similarities is precisely what we expect to see in common design if it is accurate, which it is. A designer uses common materials to create and sustain life in order for it to flourish and adapt.
Remind me again why interbreeding dogs and finches apparantly pose a problem for evolution theory?
Who is feeding you this nonsense? Where’d you get the idea that scientists, the people whose job it is to find out about the world around us, can’t tell the difference between an ancestor and a contemporary?No, I think they walk around, looking to see differences so they can call them separate species and get their names in the book. Then when they cant find any intermediaries claim evolution.
I say they aint got a clue what is what. That they cant even get babies and adults correct, let alone breeds, i mean subspecies correct.
But why? After all, a designer doesn't *have* to use similar materials.
Could not a creative designer use whatever they wanted?
What is your basis for assuming the designer would use these 'common materials'?
incorrect:
https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/nature08623.html
"Here we present well-preserved and securely dated tetrapod tracks from Polish marine tidal flat sediments of early Middle Devonian (Eifelian stage) age that are approximately 18 million years older than the earliest tetrapod body fossils and 10 million years earlier than the oldest elpistostegids. They force a radical reassessment of the timing, ecology and environmental setting of the fish–tetrapod transition, as well as the completeness of the body fossil record."
Evolution has to follow natural laws. Ask them where the laws come from that glues the elements together and causes them to evolve into life. The same God that gave Moses the Law in the Bible gives us the natural laws that we find in our Biology book.Having actual observation and testing that shows something changing into something it isn't already.
Perhaps you should read the article on evolution as a fact and a theory.DogmaHunter said:Err.... mutations are not a "'theory".
Drawing conclusion from those so called mutations is called a theory. Stephen Jay Gould described fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts.
Creationism and Evolution has all the same facts. They just have different theories to explain those facts.
Life on earth is carbon based. Science says it does not have to be, they speculate it could be silicone based. What it could be does not matter, what matters is that life on earth is carbon based. As they say we are star stuff. Somewhere in the universe a Star had to die to create the carbon that we are made of.But why? After all, a designer doesn't *have* to use similar materials. Could not a creative designer use whatever they wanted? What is your basis for assuming the designer would use these 'common materials'?
Yes and no one has ever shown me a beneficial mutation. We know that all things work out for the best. We know that God causes good to come out of evil. But mutations are evil, it is God that is able to turn evil around and cause good to come out of the evil we find here in the world we live in.Mutations exist.
Show me, give it your best shot. The only thing that is not well-substantiated is your understanding of creationism. Not everyone understands creationism and perhaps you need someone to explain it for you to help you to understand.nothing about creationism explains anything or is well-substantiated.
Oh we aren't trying to convince ourselves of anything. We are as comfortable in our thoughts as you are in yours. It's rather condescending for you to think we are not as solid as you.
And it's pretty obvious don't you think that neither of us is really convincing the other? I wonder sometimes why we even do this. I thinks it's because in our human nature some folks like us just like to debate.
Even if we have no hope of actually changing someones mind. In the spiritual world its call planting seeds. It gives the Spirit of God something to work with. At least that is my thought. It's called a scriptural principle. Jesus never told us to go out and convince anyone about creation. But there is a scripture that tells us to be prepared to defend out belief. That is what we are doing.
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?