Bugeyedcreepy
Well-Known Member
- Jun 7, 2016
- 1,660
- 1,431
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Sorry, he just doesn't. I'd be interested to hear why you think evidence is an assumption though?
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.
Sorry, he just doesn't. I'd be interested to hear why you think evidence is an assumption though?No he understands it very well and your points are full of assumptions.
Ok, time for part 2, and it looks like this part is going to be more... interesting. First off, this claim makes absolutely no sense, since what qualifies as a species has nothing to do with intelligence whatsoever, and is a part of taxonomy intended for all living things on this planet.
Well, there are differences in the mechanisms by which cells work, but you are right, we don't control the functions of individual cells in our bodies. Actually, even humans don't consciously control most body processes.
I'm not sure if you understand what the word "species" means... or how naming things works. A waterfall has no thoughts, but we do have a name for it. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up intelligence. Is it because we humans need to be "intelligent" in order to have taxonomy in the first place? That's a silly point of contention, considering there's no reason we should restrict ourselves only to categorizing living things which we consider to be intelligent.
DESTINED life form? That's not correct, evolution doesn't have a set path with set outcomes. No species currently alive was guaranteed to come into existence.
From my perspective, intelligence is no different from any other trait, so asserting that it's special enough to warrant an entirely distinct origin from all other traits an organism can have is rather silly to me. Also, there are plenty of transitional fossils for it, with various brain sizes.
You mean like this?
or this?
or this?
How about this?
Very strange organisms have lived on this planet, and currently do live on this planet. How "alien" they appear to you is a matter of familiarity vs unfamiliarity. I actually quite enjoy the more unfamiliar life forms that have existed on this planet because I find their appearance so strange. I mean, look at this thing
This is a living organism, so weird. In any case, evolution isn't suddenly invalid because you think that the life on this planet isn't "weird enough".
-_- if you are talking about transitional fossils with, say, amphibian and fish traits, there are plenty.
So where is that confounded proof evolution is any more than a theory?
Wasn't it a theory at one time, the moon was made of cheese?
What is observed when Evolutionists build on their Evolution theory narrative is in how they cornflate inconsistent and incoherent bits and pieces of non related species adaptations and they try to sell it across all species as if to imply that all species evolved in the same way, whilst absolutely having no consistent chronology of how millions of millions of years of evolutionary processes from neomorph to xenomorph to actual species came about.
The methodology that Evolutionist use is a term called collapsing the context by the combining of two or more non related sets of information about different species and they use this method to cornflate a thesis that evolution is somehow scientifically proven and in this respect nothing could be further away from the truth.
Collapsing the context definition.....
To combine (things, such as two readings of a text) into a composite whole
- The editor conflated the two texts.
to fuse into one entity; merge:
- … a city of conflated races and cultures
to conflate dissenting voices into one protest.
To a biblical scholar it would be by using two or multiple unrelated context, to merge into one, so to sell the narrative or doctrinal idea.
Coming from religious circles, this method is predominantly used by religious cults to further their ideological beliefs.
Interesting, and sounds about right to me. I've said more than once there is a lot of sleight of hand going on in this area, and that sounds like some of the bigger guns they may use in order to make the ridiculous at least seem reasonable to those who want to buy it.
I'll have to try to get a better grasp of that.
Everyone's work will be tested. Those who build with wood, hay or stubble will suffer loss.
This, folks, is an example of what the Bible means when It says It is a ...Three Little Pigs!!
Species are NOT organisms. Species have both form and intelligence. The plant machinery is an organism and this on its own does not prove new evolutionary life resulting from manipulating the organisms inputs to produce a resultant form with intelligence.
Living things are not by any means species. You can observe the poo of an animal that is full of living organisms that came straight out of a cow's behind, then by rights, should we call the poo or the living goo a species, is that right?
Absolutely wrong! And I say organisms, unless they take form and intelligence cannot be classified as either a species of mammals, birds, fish, snails, insects or whatever. In fact evolution theory claims that from the poo goo different species sprang out and this is so laughable that it begs belief to be considered as a science.
Very good! So by rights, this evolutionary process took many millions of millions of years of trials and misses, that should qualatitively and quantatively show evidence of morphing processes from say a sea based to a land based and vice versa. We should see a horror book of neomorphs leading to xenomorphs fossil remains and have infinite amounts of evidential fossil dot points, in order to accurately approximate the line of life, that stretches millions of millions of years, for any particular species that won out, right? Please say right!
Yet on the contrary, all we get from Evolutionists is a gaping hole in context of evidence and a big presumption based on a mere allusion to a few incoherent and unrelated to that particular species, out of the millions species, organisms which are only plant machinery.
so doesn't that mean to Evolutionists, that a single organism called the human evolved into the different human species that we have now, who have different sized noses, heads, coloured eyes and blood types and allergies and so forth?
The illogical conclusions drawn solely from organisms by Evolutionists to the alleged evolution of life, that is the millions of species, is so out there, that it begs belief. It is science fiction not science fact.[/]
sorry, science has come up with far to many things that seem weird and strange and prove to turn out to be correct to let this kind of argument, now, be rationally considered.
Where are the infinite trailed and missed intermediary processes across millions of millions of years for any given species that exists today?
Sorry, we only have a finite number of fossils instead of an infinite number, but that is not an arguement against evolution, now is it. And we DO have intermediate fossil examples . . . lots of them.
Is this a reference to the Burgess Shale? That is why we go from evolution to neo evolution to post neo evolution to the modern synopsis. The theory itself does seem to go though constant modification and change.Real world evidence shows individual species showing up simultaneously fully formed in the fossil record. According to Evolution Theory this should not be happening consistently across all species.
This, folks, is an example of what the Bible means when It says It is a ...
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
The Bible exposes us for what we are inside.
Shame on you, Joshua!Joshua 1 9 started it.
This is a common misconception, but I also think it's a deliberate tactic among creationists so they can discount evidence they don't want to acknowledge. I've even seen creationists go so far as to claim that unless a specific fossil organism is proven to have produced offspring, then they're disqualified as 'transitionals'.
And if atheists could prove just one prophecy of the Bible failed, they would have a case.If creationists could prove that a specific fossil organism didn't have parents, grandparents, etc. and therefore couldn't be descended from remote ancestors that belonged to a different kind, they would have a case.
It is hilarious how this thing keeps on happening with fossil ancestors, as more evidence is exposing the falsehood of the Evolution Theory.
So where is that confounded proof evolution is any more than a theory?
Wasn't it a theory at one time, the moon was made of cheese?
A scientific theory is an explanation
From what I have read, 'The moon is made of green cheese' was a story told to people who were naive and gullible to make them look foolish
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?