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.
I don't need to repeat what others have posted many times. I'm never sure if it's arrogance, bad manners or stupidity that leads people to ignore what others write.I am politely asking you to provide the evidence, scientific of course, that shows my assertions are ill-informed.
Do you say that from willful dishonesty or genuine lack of understanding? It's quite tiresome.Until you do that, you are just blowing the usual evo smoke to hide the fact you have no scientific evidence to support the theology of the TOE.
Proving by your laziness you are not willing to take 5 minuets to cut and past the evidence any evo link provides.
In the end it does matter. Truth always matters.
I'm afraid we seem to have no more to talk about friend. If you are willing to bend the words of the scriptures to mean whatever you want them to mean rather than strive to understand them as the authors intended them, we can no longer communicate. For I have a letter from Peter warning me about you. He said: as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 2Peter 3:16
My heart aches for you, but Paul told me what I must do. (Titus 3:10)
And humans and chimps are also related, and their DNA is evidence of that.
That is the news they told you, yes, that the message came from God.
Again I hate to be the one that breaks it to you, but that was fake news.
The evidence has been posted here. And we can continue on with more, but first, where do you and I agree? Do you agree with any or all of the following?
1. The earth is billions of years old.
2. Animals have been here on earth for hundreds of millions of years.
3. Animals began simple, and with eons of time, became progressively more like modern life.
4. Evolution from a common ancestor is the best explanation for life on earth.
I agree except man does not have an intelligence level like God's.
If you were interested in proving me wrong, you would take 5 minuets to cut and paste some evidence in your link.
Your unwillingness to do that shows you can't or you are just here to argue about things you know nothing about(science) instead of educating yourself.
Only evidence educates. All you have done is parrot the usual evo talking points, which are not based on science.
Someone had to start the human race. If you don't like Adam for it, tell me how the human race originated.
False accusation, since you seem to prefer your religious views above that of what Jesus said:
Jhn 5:17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
Jesus is saying that His Father works up to the present time but YOU seem to prefer the theology of ancient men who CLAIM God rested from ALL of His work in the past.
Oh Camila, Camila, see what you get when you start a thread like this? Not only do we hear of garden variety creationism but we learn all about robot penguins, x-Ray vision, disdain for reading science, biological watches, and the concept that Adam lived before the Big Bang. You created a monster!4. Amen, IF you are speaking of Humans whose common ancestor Adam was made BEFORE the Big Bang of our Cosmos.
In fact at any point on Venus the length of a day, measured from mid-day to mid-day, is about 116¾ Earth days; this is a consequence of the retrograde rotation of Venus, and you can calculate it using the formula for the synodic period.
However, the length of the second, which is the SI unit of time, on Venus would be the same as it is on Earth, namely '9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom at a temperature of 0 K' - http://www.physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html . This shows that time is not 'very relative to your base line'; its fundamental unit can be defined and measured anywhere in the universe.
There are no minds I know of that are infinite. All minds (being the product of biological living beings) are a product of their biological underpinnings. Do you have any evidence of a disembodied mind? This is a thought experiment, right?
Exactly so. If we observed a rock behaving in that way we could reasonably assume that there was intention. The problem with ID is that, in effect, they want to assume intention just by observing the rock lying there. Again, the point is this: design can be inferred under certain circumstances. Under other circumstances it cannot. Denying the validity of ID is not the same as denying the presence of design, it is only a denial that design can be inferred without the usual indications. Sometimes we can detect design, sometimes we can't; that's all. Design is purpose. It is not complexity or functionality or superficial resemblance to objects known to be designed. If we can determine that an object is produced by intention, we can infer design. Sometimes we cannot reasonably so infer--but even then design cannot be ruled out.
And that gets us back to the issue: scientists believe they have identified a competent natural mechanism for producing that code.
That's not what I asked. I asked you to prove to me that cars can reproduce. Show me an example of that happening in the real world.
i dont need to show a self replicating car to prove the existence of a ic system.
since ic system exist in both living and non- living things.
Irreducible complexity has never been demonstrated to be valid with respect to biological systems. On top of that irreducible complexity is not synonymous with something being un-evolvable.
We've already had that discussion, too, several times. You don't care about it, either.realy? so lets take the eye example. do you agree that a minimal light detector need at least several parts to be functional? and if so: how it can evolve stepwise?
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?