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.
ToE describes nothing . . .
it just assumes "evolution did it", just meaning mutations survive selection.
Funny thing is nobody has any idea what this first life form should have been.
I explained that.
It's not really my problem you're not happy with my explanation.
You can try to refute it though, but you don't want to read what i actually wrote, otherwise you would understand.
Evolution is a mathematical impossibility.
I'm suggesting dishonesty on their part, yes.
It's due to the a priori subscription to naturalism and not allowing "a divine foot in the door."
The fact that atheistic science claims to know the origins of our existence leaves little room for an open mind in approaching the origins questions.
It's simply disingenuous to ignore creation or ID when things appear (when analysing the evidence) designed.
And still they teach us evolution with debunked evidence, like the peppered moth, like Australopithecenes, like Archaeopterix...
Only a few were discussed by the defenders of naturalism here. Too few apparently...
The ones that have clear sources mentioned checked out.
I guess i messed up a little...
I fear you have become the unwitting dupe of creation-science propaganda. Take a look at the sources you are relating on. I have long and carefully studied creation-science material and I cannot help but conclude that it is anything but real, legitimate science. Hewer is just a brief list of major behavior patters found in the c-s community that tell me is dis all illegitimate science. It is illegitimate to present bogus credentials and degrees. It is illegitimate to plagiarize. It is illegitimate to present as definite the unqualified judgments of unqualified persons on sensitive scientific matters. It is illegitimate to create rumors and deliberately falsify information, as in the cases Haeckel and Darwin's finches. It is illegitimate to present your religious beliefs and to be accepted without question and as the sole criterion from which to determine the validity of scientific findings and research. It is illegitimate to present evidence you know to be bogus, as in the cases of c-s people themselves admitting the evidence is bogus but still insisting on it, the moon-dust argument and claims for human footprints among the dinosaurs. Now if you want to go for that kind of an approach, you are welcome to it. For me, it is total propaganda and to be avoided.
They can't even prove all bones are from the same organism.It is.
As Charles Darwin put it:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
(Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155. )
Hey ĺook! Another out of context quote mine!As Charles Darwin put it:
"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
(Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 155. )
As if you think these guys don't agree with eachother on this.
And they're quotes, not quote mines.
Paragraph 2 also mentions careful adjustment.
This needs a 'careful adjuster' or dead unconscious things performing miracles or a chance of practically zero percent.
Take your pick.
O wait, you already did, because you can not allow a divine foot in the door...
Hey ĺook! Another out of context quote mine!
You mean the mountains of evidence that aren't there.
Evolution is a mathematical impossibility. Not adaptation actual evolution from one thing into,another.
Example: if every living thing has a common ancestor what causes plants,to become plants, mammals to be mammmals, fish to,he fish, birds to be birds. And why? What came first? Plants or animals. Why did plants evolve to need carbon dioxide and oxygen breathing creatures to need oxygen and then find a balance between the two. Where did rocks,come from? They are not living things yet there are a myriad of different types. If there was no creator where did they come from?
How is it that everything works,with everything else. The moon is just the right distance from the earth to control the tides specifically for,our size of water bodies. The earth is just the right distance from the sun for our type of life to,exist. Why did some things evolve into ants while there was a division in development that cause some things to develops into birds. What came first birds or ants. Insects,develope first or birds? What did birds eat if they didn't have insects or worms or whatever and did birds develops before berries etc or did berries develop first and why would berries have such a variety and yet often grow in the same type of environment and what would cause or trigger the need for change.
These are all questions that cannot be answered by evolution because it is mathematically impossible for all these to develop and work together as they do. Chaos does not create order without an outside force. There are just too many coincidents for all,of nature to have developed by mere chance. In fact it's mathematically impossible for all to coexist on this planet and have all things function in the harmony it does in,order for all the species of plants and animals to exist and with interdependence and independence. It cannot be explained by evolution.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
if every living thing has a common ancestor what causes plants,to become plants, mammals to be mammmals, fish to,he fish, birds to be birds.
And why?
What came first? Plants or animals.
Why did plants evolve to need carbon dioxide and oxygen breathing creatures to need oxygen and then find a balance between the two.
Where did rocks,come from? They are not living things yet there are a myriad of different types. If there was no creator where did they come from?
How is it that everything works,with everything else.
The moon is just the right distance from the earth to control the tides specifically for,our size of water bodies.
Why did some things evolve into ants while there was a division in development that cause some things to develops into birds. What came first birds or ants. Insects,develope first or birds?
What did birds eat if they didn't have insects or worms or whatever
and did birds develops before berries etc or did berries develop first and why would berries have such a variety and yet often grow in the same type of environment and what would cause or trigger the need for change.
These are all questions that cannot be answered by evolution because it is mathematically impossible for all these to develop and work together as they do.
Oh I could. I could,post a bunch,of links. But what's the point. I post a bunch of links, you post a bunch of links and we argue over whose links are right etc etc etc. I've been through this too,many times already. You refuse to believe in God, you,refuse to believe in creation and I refuse to believe in evolution.Let's start with the first claim, and work on the rest one by one.
Why don't you show us the math?
And we know all this how? By guess or By gosh. A 150,million years ago. Hmm.. Interesting and who was there to witness this and catalogue it? The estimations of science are hogwash. They are guesses. How do we know birds were before berries or vice versa? What made the ant turn into a beetle and better yet how did the spider become a snake. Oh yeah. Evolution, blind luck. For something to require radical change there must be a reason for it. Especially when dealing with change of something to,become a plant or animal. No where has science,proven that radical change from one thing to another happens just because.This is possibly the best argument from ignorance Gish Gallop I've ever seen. If it wasn't so terrible, I would be admirable.
I've got a day off work, so lets see if I can be bothered to find the answers for these questions:
First cab off the rank is easy.
Mutation, hereditary variation, genetic drift and migration, being acted on by the mechanisms of natural selection.
Science doesn't attempt to answer that question. Save that for philosophy and theology.
Animals. Or, at least the ancestors of animals. The Ediacara biota developed about 600 to 560 million years ago. Its from these, and the rapid morphological diversification of the Cambrian radiation, that many of the first phyla of animals emerged. The first vertebrates and animals with hard shells and bones were well established by about 535 million years ago. What we consider plant life didn't really appear until about 435 million years ago, when shore dwelling algae began to transition from water to land.
Plants descended from earlier C3 pathway photosynthesisers - such as cyanobacteria. They didn't "find a balance", the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere have pinged up and down all over the place over the past 200 million years, from as high as 36-37% to as low as 10-12%. Oxygen levels in the atmosphere are only steady from our very limited human timescales.
Hydrostatic attraction and gravity. At least initially. As in, that's what formed the planet.
There are a variety of processes that create the three different types of rock.
Igneous rock is formed from vulcanism - heating and cooling of lava and magma in various conditions;;
Sedimentary rock is formed from the deposition of various materials and its compression
Metamorphic rock is formed through the combination of heating and pressure on igneous and sedimentary rock, or on older metamorphic rock
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this, but the simple answer is "it doesn't". If you look at the history of life on this planet, better than 99% of the species that we've cataloged have gone extinct. The world is subject to all sorts of nasty things, that periodically wipe out most of life.
And the relevance of tides is? Are you suggesting that tidal action on bodies of water is a necessary pre-condition for life on the planet? If there was no moon, a smaller moon, a larger moon, or a closer/further away moon, what would the difference be?
Additionally, what does just right for "our size of bodies of water" even mean? Does this include the Pacific, Lake Victoria and the Caspian Sea?
First insects descended from crustaceans about 475 million years ago. Birds descended from therapod dinosaurs about 150 million years ago.
As insects had been around for ~325 million years by this point, and land arthropods about 375 million years, I don't see any problems here.
Earliest fruiting plants emerged during the Devonian period, about 400 million years ago.
Are you aware of co-evolution? There is a book 'Birds and Berries' by Barbara Snow, David Snow. Most of it is available on google. It will answer your questions here.
It appears to me that evolution (and geology) has answers to all of these questions, you are just unaware of them, or are refusing to look.
(because it would have had to have existed before it existed, a logical fallacy).
So, if you get educated that dead unconscious things performed miracles without a purpose, and you're not taught the reasons to doubt this, obviously you will lose faith in (special) creation.
And we know all this how? By guess or By gosh. A 150,million years ago. Hmm.. Interesting and who was there to witness this and catalogue it? The estimations of science are hogwash. They are guesses. How do we know birds were before berries or vice versa? What made the ant turn into a beetle and better yet how did the spider become a snake. Oh yeah. Evolution, blind luck. For something to require radical change there must be a reason for it. Especially when dealing with change of something to,become a plant or animal. No where has science,proven that radical change from one thing to another happens just because.
Belief in God is no more crazy that belief in this nonsense.
And we know all this how? By guess or By gosh. A 150,million years ago. Hmm.. Interesting and who was there to witness this and catalogue it?
The estimations of science are hogwash. They are guesses.
How do we know birds were before berries or vice versa?
What made the ant turn into a beetle and better yet how did the spider become a snake. Oh yeah. Evolution, blind luck.
For something to require radical change there must be a reason for it. Especially when dealing with change of something to,become a plant or animal. No where has science,proven that radical change from one thing to another happens just because.
Galaxies are complicated and we don't really understand how they form.
It's really an embarrassment.
(V Thoman & R Webb Nature, 469(7330): p. 305-306, 2011)
It claims to explain the origin of species, which makes up the living part of the eco system(s) i.e. life on earth.
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?