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.
Evolution of what? Evolution from a common ancestor? I think not. All that shows is that man existed back then. It doesn't show he evolved from the same ancestor the spider did.Uh, no its not assumptions. The chart I showed you was a summary of fossils that have been found and the dates of the fossils. How do you explain that all those fossils have been found in an order that is consistent with evolution?
That's a horrible misrepresentation. The two go hand in hand. Most folks do not believe in God because they happened to read Genesis. Most came to believe because someone told them about God and they believed. There are millions and millions of people who came to know God without a Bible. However most believers obtain a Bible so they can learn more about God and what he teaches. You do exactly the same thing. You believe in the ressurrection and the life of Christ because of what is taught in scripture. It's as simple as that. We didn't believe the Bible first. We believed in God first. Then we learned more once began to read and study the Bible. And all that we see and understand is the Bible is true. Evolution from a common ancestor directly contradicts what God says happened. I trust what God says.it's not that, exactly. Creationists don't believe the Bible is true because they believe in God. They believe in God because they believe that the Bible is true. Their faith in God rests on what they see as the objective historical facticity of scripture. It's a Protestant thing, I can't say that I understand it myself very much.
Illogical premise; when single mutations can cause the alteration or insertion of multiple genes, what's the point of even asking that question?ok. lets be in focus here. do you think that its possible to evolve a new complex system from other complex system just by adding one or 2 parts each step?
I've already seen you say that, but if you think that the language barrier is such an issue, perhaps you shouldn't be trying to debate in a language you aren't adept enough in.say a motion system into a vision system or a hearing system and so on. by the way (just as a general note) english isnt my native so i may not understand some of your words.
Cause it's true.
iam trying to prove to a friend that the christian way is the true way but he tells me to give an explanation of evolution and dinosaurs.
any things i could say to prove him wrong?
love
camila smith <3
Maybe, but I suspect that most Christians worldwide know no more of the Bible than the liturgical readings.That's a horrible misrepresentation. The two go hand in hand. Most folks do not believe in God because they happened to read Genesis. Most came to believe because someone told them about God and they believed. There are millions and millions of people who came to know God without a Bible. However most believers obtain a Bible so they can learn more about God and what he teaches.
Not exactly, no. I believe in God, as you say, because of the witness of others. I believe in the life, death and resurrection of Christ for much the same reason. I believe as it is taught in scripture, not solely because it is taught in scripture. But I believe in the authority of scripture because of its divine provenance, not because of its adherence to any particular literary genre. Why do you put it the other way around, unless for the reasons I said? I certainly can't think of any other.You do exactly the same thing. You believe in the ressurrection and the life of Christ because of what is taught in scripture. It's as simple as that. We didn't believe the Bible first. We believed in God first.
It is of course a waste of time to explain things to you, because you just ignore what we say, then wait a while, and then just make the same claims over again as though the previous discussion never happened. We have shown you before how the "Zachelmie tracks" were most likely not made by anything walking on land. See https://www.researchgate.net/public...itical_Review_of_Devonian_Tetrapod_Footprintswhat about a case that doesnt fit well with evolution like this one?:
if fossils in the correct order support evolution then fossils in the wrong order should be evidence against it. dont you think?
(image from File:Zachelmie tracks vs selected Devonian fossils.svg - Wikimedia Commons)
Oh dear. You just made me spit out my coffee. Good one.its fit well also with creation.
And the odd thing is that post #5543 had the expression s'funny, exactly in the post that creationism predicts it will appear. That's amazing!s'funny, because you say that about literally everything.
The first entry from Merriam-Webster : "in what manner or way"Amusing and telling. You call my definition "idiosyncratic" and don't know what it is. I don't have a definition. I use a dictionary. I will accept your definition if it is accurate.
The first entry from Merriam-Webster : "in what manner or way"
So, given that this was addressed in the post to which you responded with "...no explanation as to HOW it is possible" I'll repeat my request. If what you're seeing doesn't fit what you want to see you need to tell us what your idiosyncratic definition of HOW is.
The first entry from Merriam-Webster : "in what manner or way"
So, given that this was addressed in the post to which you responded with "...no explanation as to HOW it is possible" I'll repeat my request. If what you're seeing doesn't fit what you want to see you need to tell us what your idiosyncratic definition of HOW is.
I am not asserting it, I am saying it outright.
The inability to interbreed doe snot change the species. Too much inter breeding can cause some to become sterile. In the study of ring species, where some were no longer able to breed, the salamanders remained the exact same species they were before. In fact some of them did not become sterile and continued to breed. Guess what they bred.
Trump University by chance?
Can you tell us what an "allie" in DNA is? Creationist justatruthseeker thinks that there are such things in DNA, but I don't know what they are.
Are cheetahs their own kind?
They have some rather dog-like features...
So, you do not understand that there is a difference between unfalsifiable (e.g., creationism) and not yet falsified?
That was so cool how you wrote the same basic thing over and over.
By the way -a blowhole is a nostril, not a nose.
But how would you know?
BTW they are both very different nostrils and one can't become the other. I know by simple observation. If you can't tell the difference maybe you need a trip the a good optometrist.
That's what "asserting" means: to state confidently and emphatically.
But let me get this right. You are saying that there is no such thing as natural selection?
Yes.
That, for example, gazelles which can run faster are just as likely to be eaten by lions as gazelles which can only run more slowly?
Still both survive as they we born don't they and at times the leopard will catch the gazelle, especially the young one that are necessary for the species to survive. If natural selection was true, it might allow the species to survive, but it can't be a mechanism for a change of species.
Also there is no gene for stronger legs. The problem with natural selection is they ASSUME it will cause the species to live longer and produce more kids which will eventually result in a change of species from small changes over many years.
It s biggest problem is offers the science that makes it possible. Now you will say mutations will eventually cause this to happen. Mutations alter characteristics, but the CANNOT change the species.
The albino will remain the exact same species as it parents, but will be missing the normal skin it would have gotten without the mutation.
BTW they are both very different nostrils and one can't become the other. I know by simple observation.
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?