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.
Yeah, I can see that now. Quoting the dictionary hardly will result in contradicting it.
The impossibility of interbreeding between two population is a reliable sign of them being different species.
You say this
and then
What is that?Mumbo jumbo?
I'm dying now to hear the definition of macro-evolution from your mouth.
"Pardon our skepticism, but we don’t think he cares if we appear stupid or not. We think the real reason he doesn’t want us to point out that the origin of life is part of the theory of evolution is because the theory of evolution is dead in the water without it.
Evolutionists have to depend on clever debating tricks to try to win their arguments, because the facts aren’t on their side.
Evolutionists want to define the term “evolution” to mean “natural, limited variation” because that kind of evolution really happens, and can be proved to be true. Then, having proved that “evolution” is true, they apply the term “evolution” to the molecules-to-man theory, claiming it has been scientifically proved. This is an unethical, but sometimes effective, debating tactic.
Evolutionists just can’t stand to have the theory of evolution examined openly and honestly. Any means that prevent criticism of the theory of evolution are justified in their eyes.
There is a plot alright, but the evolutionists are the ones doing the plotting. Evolutionists are the ones pressuring school boards to censor the science curriculum. Evolutionists are the ones putting pressure on peer-reviewed journals that publish articles critical of evolution.
Evolutionists are desperately afraid that someone will tell you, “Science is against evolution.” We hope to have struck fear into their hearts this Halloween season."
"Faith and science have one thing in common: Both are lifelong searches for truth. But while faith is an unshakable belief in the unseen, science is the study of testable, observable phenomena.
Who saw that rock formed 3.86 billion years ago? Who saw the anatomical features in the ball of carbon? Who saw those features lost? Who saw its (now long gone) biochemistry and compared it to every other life form? Who saw those life forms evolve? Do the first two sentences in this article reflect "testable, observable phenomena" or "unshakable belief in the unseen"? The fact is a microscopic ball of carbon was found on an island near Greenland. All the rest is speculation, hedged with words like "may be" and "believe".
We encourage you to read the whole National Geographic article, and then ask yourself, the following questions.
Who saw the chunk of iron and nickel slam into the earth 50,000 years ago, and recorded the date in the laboratory log book?1
Who saw debris accrete 4.5 billion years ago to form the Earth?2
Who saw microscopic interplanetary dust contribute to "the primordial soup and the living things that arose from it"?3
Who saw "three lines representing the main branches of life, all emanating from a central stalk"?4
Who saw life diversifying but staying the same size as bacteria for 3 billion years?5
Who watched as "over thousands or perhaps millions of years, those chemical kitchens cooked up the greatest dish ever prepared: life itself"?6
What experiments have shown that these things could happen, let alone shown that they did happen? We could go on and on like this, but you no doubt have gotten the point by now. National Geographic states their belief in unseen, untested processes, as if they are scientific facts.
Ironically, the article about how life began contains many contradictory theories. Life began in a boiling cauldron.7 Life began in a ball of ice.8 Life began in a temperate pond.9 There are legitimate scientific objections to all these theories. But that doesn't matter to the true believers at National Geographic. They have an unshakable belief in the unseen."
Macroevolution cannot be "shown". It can only be "speculated" to have happened. There is no foundation for its occurrence but that of an old man's writing. You're as faithful as the creationists. Welcome to reality.
You aren't offering any commentary to the subject material. You'd rather continue to criticize my quotations and writing styles. Is that a hint?You can copy and paste till you turn blue in your face. Put it in your own words and you'll be put at ease! Fair deal?
Fine, what's the price of tea in China?Just a quiz question:
Dolphins and sharks swim the same way, by wiggling their spines laterally. True or false?
It is a hint that I am very patient, though eventually I will go to bed.You aren't offering any commentary to the subject material. You'd rather continue to criticize my quotations and writing styles. Is that a hint?
According to google, a pack of 25 costs $1.84electroid said:Fine, what's the price of tea in China?
Rather, try replying to the subject material and not my means of presenting it. What do you have to say for yourself? What is your defense? Sofar you're being slammed into next week by this macroevolutionary time machine I call denial. How do you explain macroevolution without speculation and theoretical nonsense?No one cares right now about what other people know, what we care about is what YOU know.
Don't cut and paste. Just answer in your own words. Show that you actually understand what you are discusssing and that you aren't just following the fundamentalist script like most of the anti-science posters that visit here.
Go to bed then. You're not offering up anything about defense of macroevolution. What if I say yes? What is this proving?It is a hint that I am very patient, though eventually I will go to bed.
According to google, a pack of 25 costs $1.84
The quiz question I asked is important for "macro-evolution". Don't dodge it and please use your own words.
I don't know... that we lived happily ever after?Go to bed then. You're not offering up anything about defense of macroevolution. What if I say yes? What is this proving?
Mmm, no. That you're avoiding and denying by bringing up irrelevant questions.I don't know... that we lived happily ever after?
Rather, try replying to the subject material and not my means of presenting it. What do you have to say for yourself? What is your defense? Sofar you're being slammed into next week by this macroevolutionary time machine I call denial. How do you explain macroevolution without speculation and theoretical nonsense?
What's the difference between macro- and microevoltion?Go to bed then. You're not offering up anything about defense of macroevolution. What if I say yes? What is this proving?
Mmm, no. That you're avoiding and denying by bringing up irrelevant questions.
Erroneous and irrelevant. Sum null value. I have offered plenty of my own words that you are ignoring. You are commenting on my material outlining and not the material. You are doing so with vain endeavoring.No so far what we see is that you have a whole lot of misconceptions as to what evolution actually is, but you will not pony up your own answers to explain it. Instead you rely on the work of others, giving us no reason to assume you understand what you are attempting to talk about.
We see new folks all the time here. And generally they fare no better thanyou. They come in thinking they know it all, and it turns out that in truth they have no understanding at all of even the basics of science. And we spend days trying to explain it only to find out that it is all wasted effort since it contradicts the first chapter of a 2000 year old book.
And before those of us that have been posting on this board for some time waste time with your mistaken ideas, we simpy want to know where you actually stand. Not where the dictionary stands, not where Kent Hovind or some other pseudo-scientist stands, but where you, the poster known as Electroid actually stand.
And the only way we will know that is if you stop cut and pasting other peoples words and start using your own.
Just a quiz question:
Dolphins and sharks swim the same way, by wiggling their spines laterally. True or false?
Micro can be proven, whereas, macro cannot. Beginnings and endings are incomprehensible and any means of explaining them are outside our limits of understanding.What's the difference between macro- and microevoltion?
What is this proving of macroevolution?false, sharks wiggle laterally (side-to-side) while dolphins propel themselves my moving their spines up and down. Evolution can explain this, I've yet to hear a creationist explanation.
false, sharks wiggle laterally (side-to-side) while dolphins propel themselves my moving their spines up and down. Evolution can explain this, I've yet to hear a creationist explanation.
That scenario has been used, this was my reply:Ah, but you see, such a conclusion is not based on a species or entity outside humanity or time, is it?
Darwin writes because he is only a man who lived the normal length of a human, the evidence brought up of the past is limited, so therefore, the evidence needed to prove his theory is out of our range and can't prove evolution at reach.
You see, murder is a good metaphor but not good enough. Solving a murder case involves a murderer, at least, does it not? Without a murder suspect, do we randomly start accusing people of murder? Without a valid record of the past, do we start randomly bringing up facts and associating them with evolution? Hmm...
Since we have no proper evidence to put on the murder suspect we have no one to accuse and with no one to accuse we have no case.
Darwin brought a murder suspect without proper evidence. Evidence is being used today to prove the suspect guilty but is it proving the suspect guilty or a pack of anxious anti-creationists with the need to settle justice of any kind under any circumstance on anyone?
Micro can be proven, whereas, macro cannot. Beginnings and endings are incomprehensible and any means of explaining them are outside our limits of understanding.
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?