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.
Many other eyes.are you also referring to the octopus eye?
No, it was a conclusion that you expect from others with you are incapable of providing yourself.What did I claim I could prove, that I cannot prove?
But back to subject, can you prove evolution is more than theory? Or is that an admission you cannot?
Repeating falsehoods based on a lack of understanding of the scientific method doesn't make them true.
You've been corrected on this in the past, but evidently you just don't care.
You realize, I hope, that the testing required by the scientific method can include the testing of evidence left behind by a phenomenon which occurred in the past, even though the phenomenon itself cannot be reproduced.
You know that there are far easier ways to disbelieve in hell or god than spending 150+ years concocting a scientific theory based on the work of thousands of scientists through multiple generations, countries, nationalities, religious backgrounds resulting in millions of published works, teaching at higher universities, and the inclusion of museums, governments, industry, etc.
I mean, it seems like an awful lot of work when base disbelief is far simpler than that. Just basic philosophical routes can get you disbelief in god and the Christian faith. No need for all the science-y stuff.
"Our" knowledge? Or just yours? Remember, functionality and complexity in themselves are not evidence of design. That's what my knowledge tells me. I can't conclude that a motor is designed just because of its function or complexity. I can only conclude design if I find evidence of human manufacture. Otherwise there is no way to tell if it was designed or not.
But really, we are not in equivalent situations. I don't have to disprove design and I'm not interested in doing so. You must prove design or your argument falls apart.
Because evolutionary science is not real science. It's a belief system.What makes you think that your theology should be taught in public school classes at all, much less given "equal time" with science?
Yeah, hence all of the evidence and near universal scientific acceptance.Because evolutionary science is not real science. It's a belief system.
The above denial of evolution was written by a human with a broken vitamin c gene, that gene broken in the same way among most primates, evidence of common descent from an original primate that started that break among the primates.
You can't test evidence of evolution from a common ancestor. You can experiment and you can test the method of experimentation, but you can't actually test evolution from a common ancestor.
And yet all that science-y stuff is being used to deny God.
Yeah, hence all of the evidence and near universal scientific acceptance.
Vaccines wouldn't even work if evolution wasn't real, a lot of the time (because they couldn't be developed otherwise).
Because evolutionary science is not real science. It's a belief system.
You deny common descent? Have you seen all the evidence? It's amazing.I'm not talking about adaptation. I'm talking about evolution from a common ancestor.
It's evidence of common design not common descent. Similarities do not prove evolution from common ancestor.
if the method of experimentation is shown to be 98% accurate, and then you test an hypothesis of descent using that method, why should that be ignored just because you really really want to?
You can experiment all you want, but all it actually shows is similarities. It does not show common ancestry
If evolution from common ancestry is true then RVs would behave this way. The proposition is false because it's a simple if then supposition. It could just as easily be said "if common design is true then RVs would behave this way".
You deny common descent? Have you seen all the evidence? It's amazing.
We gave a chicken embryo hands, dude!
There's pretty clear evidence that all life came from a single, basic design. It uses the same logic that shows that you and your grandmother are related.
Do you know what phylogenetic trees are? Do you know how they are constructed?
Not really. Evolution via common ancestry is based on specific constraints: namely that common ancestor is a singular genome and that subsequent offspring are derived from it. Consequently there are certain patterns one would expect to see if that holds true.
But the same constraints don't necessarily hold true if the offspring don't share ancestry and rather the ancestors were in fact independently created.
Indeed it is. And the most reasonable conclusion from the evidence is that the growth and change and adaptation you see began with a common ancestor.Every piece of evidence that evolutionists use is evidence of design. God designed his creation to grow and change and adapt as necessary to survive the changing of conditions on this planet. It's a marvelous design.
IMO, it's evidence of both. But the point is moot, because we are in this case arguing about a different kind of kind of "design." That is, ID as conceived of by the Discovery Institute, which requires periodic divine tinkering with the growth and change and adaptation.It's not evidence of common ancestor evolution. It's evidence of design.
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?