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.
Neither are genetically altered peas, fruit flies or E. coli, yet that don’t seem to bother you. Your conflicted, I understand.Only problem here is, that both husky's and mastiff's aren't natural species to begin with.
Apparently you didn’t even read your own evolutionists supporters post about inbreeding characteristics and reduction in genetic variability, or you would know how it came about.....
That you both then can’t grasp what you claim to understand.........
Neither are genetically altered peas, fruit flies or E. coli, yet that don’t seem to bother you. Your conflicted, I understand.
Neither are genetically altered peas, fruit flies, E. coli, every lab experiment performed. That doesn’t seem to bother your intellectual honesty.......The different artificial dog breeds are not the same as different species.
But don't let intellectual honesty get in your way.
Like you go to great length to insinuate intellectual dishonesty, yet seem to support artificial changes in the laboratory as not intellectual dishonesty?As I said, unless it contradicts your fundamentalist religious beliefs.
It's clear that you go to great lengths in order to protect your beliefs.
You mean like actual empirical observation that Asian remains Asian and African remains African, and only through interbreeding does a new variant race exist, versus your fantasy of change?From repeating the same PRATT's over and over again to insisting on arguing strawmanned versions of evolution.
Evolution theory doesn’t form the backbone of any science.When you find yourself arguing against scientific theories that form the backbone of entire fields of science on which there is consensus among the scientific community, just to push your religious beliefs... then I don't know what to call that, if not "fundamentalist".
I disagree with my priests interpretations. But then I have a mind capable of self thought and rationalization, unlike some who accept their high priests words without any.Evolution is studied by biologists and geneticists. Science has no high priests.
But it's hilarious that you speak of priests and their perceived authority, as if it is a bad thing. It's rather ironic.
There seems to be a problem with confusing apples with oranges. Both huskys and mastiffs are Canis lupus familiaris, the same species and sub species. They are decended from Canis lupus, the wolf. Both dogs and wolves are the same genus and species, with dogs being a sub species of C. lupus.Only problem here is, that both husky's and mastiff's aren't natural species to begin with.
And? The intermediates don’t need to be proven. You have the prove them impossible. We talked about this, remember?Oh I did, perhaps you didn’t?
“to the hypothesized intermediates”
Hypothesized
Hypothesized
Hypothesized
Get it?
Of course it does. It is the backbone of our understanding of biology. Some evolutionary concepts, such as change over time, are used in physics, geology, astronomy, etc.Evolution theory doesn’t form the backbone of any science.
Therefore science is unreliable in this case. Science is not the only answer.Because nobody cares to do so. The existence of a "designer" is an unfalsifiable proposition so cannot be ruled out using science.
You're not actually explaining how any of those things are evidence of common design. You haven't even bothered to define what common design is.
Instead of just saying "How about the fact that all things are made of common materials", you need to provide a proper explanation. This means defining a scientific model including providing a base definition for what common design is, defining any constraints associated with the model, and subsequent hypotheses (predictions) and then testing of those hypotheses.
And consequently, you'd be able to respond with, "Common materials are evidence of common design because..." and then you continue with an actual explanation detailing how and why common materials are evidence for common design.
It's kind of like when you have a test in school and a teacher asks you to show your work. I'm asking you to show your work. You get no points for one liners.
In fact all you've really done so far is confirm that if life was specially created, that it was created to look like it evolved.
I always have an answer to evolutionary PR because evolution is easily shown to be false.You always seem to have 'an answer', yet these are never actual ANSWERS.
So which of Noah's sons or daughters-in-law was Asian?
How did this Asian meet up with a middle eastern man/woman in these ancient times?
How did the Asian "allies" get repressed, then somehow later down the line, post-flood, when Asia was finally habitable again, did people from Ararat migrate there, mate, and have just their 'Asia' "allies" recombine to produce Asians from a middle eastern/Asian amalgam, since after all you claim with such confidence that 'And will never change an Asian into any other race..'
Evidence for this magical genetic assertion.
Look I'm not looking to write a doctoral thesis which is seeming what you want me to do.
If you want more you'll have to look elsewhere. I gave you some very good examples of common design.
Right. Unfalsifiable propositions are not the business of science. However, the shoe is on the other foot as regards ID proponents. They want to advance the existence of a "designer" as a falsifiable proposition.Therefore science is unreliable in this case. Science is not the only answer.
Change over time has nothing to do with evolution exclusively.Of course it does. It is the backbone of our understanding of biology. Some evolutionary concepts, such as change over time, are used in physics, geology, astronomy, etc.
No sorry, you claim them as true, the burden is on you to support your hypothesis.And? The intermediates don’t need to be proven. You have the prove them impossible. We talked about this, remember?
You didn't answer my questions. Care to try again?False since the word "evolution" is nothing more than descent with modification within His and Their kinds, in a population over time. Our prehistoric ancestors (Their kinds) are the people who inherited the ERVs from Chimps and they were NOT Humans. Only the descendants of Adam (His kinds) are Humans. Not knowing this leaves you in outer darkness concerning the origin of Humans. Amen?
You are the reason why I am taking pictures and measuring every generation in my evolution experiment. Nit-picky nit-picky nit-pickyNo sorry, you claim them as true, the burden is on you to support your hypothesis.
I’ve proven them false. See the post above. You like others simply refuse to accept how that change actually occurs. You hypothesize intermediaries when none exist because like the Asian to Afro-Asian, none exist. Like the Husky to Chinook, none exist.
Now if you want to propose that your intermediaries are like those between wolf to Husky, all the same Kind, brought about by mating and not evolution, just mistakenly classified and interpreted, I’ll give it serious consideration, since I already believe that.
There seems to be a problem with confusing apples with oranges. Both huskys and mastiffs are Canis lupus familiaris, the same species and sub species. They are decended from Canis lupus, the wolf. Both dogs and wolves are the same genus and species, with dogs being a sub species of C. lupus.
And when you die, Asian will still be Asian, African will still be African.....You are the reason why I am taking pictures and measuring every generation in my evolution experiment. Nit-picky nit-picky nit-picky
and yet, you are unwilling to just participate in my experiment and vote for 2 traits you want to see. Where is your sense of adventure?And when you die, Asian will still be Asian, African will still be African.....
Man, you are disappointing. I’m going to have to explain this again. YOU are claiming irreducible complexity exists in biology. That means YOU have to provide an example of something that cannot have evolved from simpler predecessors. To do that, YOU have to prove every hypothesized model of stepwise evolution wrong. I understand this is confusing, but please try to keep up. I didn’t bring up the flagellum. I didn’t claim the evolution of the flagellum definitely evolved in a certain way. I am responding skeptically to the claim that it COULDN’T have evolved stepwise by providing a hypothesized model of its stepwise evolution, diagrams and all.No sorry, you claim them as true, the burden is on you to support your hypothesis.
I’ve proven them false. See the post above. You like others simply refuse to accept how that change actually occurs. You hypothesize intermediaries when none exist because like the Asian to Afro-Asian, none exist. Like the Husky to Chinook, none exist.
Now if you want to propose that your intermediaries are like those between wolf to Husky, all the same Kind, brought about by mating and not evolution, just mistakenly classified and interpreted, I’ll give it serious consideration, since I already believe that.
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?