EternalDragon
Counselor
Need we point out we did find the crocoduck? :> Of course they still don't accept it heh.
You found a crocoduck?
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.
Need we point out we did find the crocoduck? :> Of course they still don't accept it heh.
(Please excuse my blatent self-advertising.Thinking about Loudmouth's question a little more. It occurs to me that what creationists REALLY want is for the ToE to be false. WHY they want this is a fascinating subject in itself, but that's a different discussion. The fact is that while some people are open to learning new things and changing their position, others will play endless silly semantic games and use fallacy after fallacy to argue why they don't have to accept whatever evidence you provide.
Didn't go anywhere? I'd say that with 180 posts it got a lot of traction ;-). If you don't mind, I'll vote here. (Something is wrong with CF - I've not been getting any email telling me there are unseen posts.)(Please excuse my blatent self-advertising.)
I created a poll on the subject a little while ago but, needless to say, it didn't really go anywhere ...
Creationists Only Please: Is there a moral problem with evolution? (posted Feb 2014)
Didn't go anywhere? I'd say that with 180 posts it got a lot of traction ;-). If you don't mind, I'll vote here. (Something is wrong with CF - I've not been getting any email telling me there are unseen posts.)
I don't think there's a moral problem with evolution. The problem is that imo it contradicts what the Bible says. The Bible says that the various creatures were created and that they reproduced "according to their kinds". I understand that to mean that each kind of creature was individually created instead of their being a common ancestor for all life.
[serious];65452197 said:Actually, it's a web page
Well I might find it wrong, i.e., incorrect, but I don't think I'd call it immoral.If that's your take on the Bible, then clearly you would find it wrong...,
I get a picture only that is rendered in pencil.
By the way, Tiktaalik is alive today. No evolution required in either
direction. It's called a Crocodile fish.
Platycephalidae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[serious];65452299 said:Funny, on my computer it is an image on a screen representing a pencil drawing. That pencil drawing represents a recreation of a creature for which we have fossilized remains. Anatosuchus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Some More Observed Speciation Events
Here you go. I await your pending dismissal with baited breath.
What were you expecting?
Exactly what he sent me. No, that didn't answer my question of an observed event where a species changed into a whole other species.
How can we take someone seriously when they demand evidence for evolution, but refuse to accept fossils, DNA, or comparisons of living species as evidence?
When they ask for evidence, what in the world are they asking for?
Speciation is not macroevolution!
No, that didn't answer my question of an observed event where a species changed into a whole other species.
Because fossils and DNA are also evidence for creationism.
It is about interpretation..
I don't think it would. That was my point. (Well, my point technically was that if ToE is incompatible with the biblical teaching that doesn't make it a moral issue.)Why would a demonstration that the Bible is incorrect be a moral issue...?
I don't think it would. That was my point. (Well, my point technically was that if ToE is incompatible with the biblical teaching that doesn't make it a moral issue.)