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.
I'm not here to play games. You tell me because I could care less.10 points go to TemperateSeaIsland! electroid, you have zero points.
Why do these fishswim so radically different from each other? Let electroid answer this time, please!
What is this proving of macroevolution?
10 points go to TemperateSeaIsland! electroid, you have zero points.
Why do these fishswim so radically different from each other? Let electroid answer this time, please!
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.
I didn't make myself clear. How do you define micro- and macroevolution to explain the difference between them?Micro can be proven, whereas, macro cannot. Beginnings and endings are incomprehensible and any means of explaining them are outside our limits of understanding.
Without looking at evidence we can't even tell if a murder took place at all. Find a body and try to figure out was it murdered? Look at it. Is there a bullet hole in the back? A knife in the front? Is there, to be short, any evidence that the person didn't die of natural causes?
Because, if there isn't, we won't look for a murderer. If there is, then we have to start gathering evidence to work out who the murderer was. And we don't randomly accuse people, unless we're really bad at this, we look for a suspect that the evidence tells us is guilty. It's a type of puzzle. Did this person die as a result of someone else's actions? If they did, then what happened?
The current diversity of life is a puzzle. Where did it all come from? So people, interested in the truth, went looking for evidence to explain that puzzle. Many of them were Christians, and many of those had a suspicion that the answer to that puzzle was found in Genesis, but when they gathered the evidence, they found Genesis wasn't supported by the evidence.
Evolution is supported by all available evidence.
And Darwin, as the initial prosecutor, started off with a killer case. But he hasn't been the only one. A lot of other people have joined in looking for a suspect and have gathered a lot more evidence than Darwin could have dreamed of. And even though Darwins case turned out to be pretty solid, solid enough to still be convincing, the new evidence is even more impressive. It's so good that we can even make guesses about what evidence we'll find in future, and so far even that is working. Darwin did the same, by the way, making a guess that there would be found a creatre with particular features. It was a type of moth, as I recall, and it was found after Darwin made his prediction.
If another explanation actually worked better, we'd have a new suspect. And if someone actually came up with a better explanation they'd be a certainty for a Nobel, the cash prize and assorted magazine covers. They'd also go down in history. So, with fame, fortune and not to mention the clearing evolution of it's 150+ years of being the only viable suspect, I've got to wonder why no one has managed to come up with something that better explains the evidence.
We have a "crime" in the diversity of life, and we have a "suspect" in evolution. Evolution is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt.
And, by the way, the origin of life isn't part of evolution. That's a seperate field, known as Abiogenesis. Evolution doesn't care where the life came from.
Since all the carbon 14 is gone in 50 thousand years, it certainly cant be used by evolutionists to prove that dinosaurs lived 50 million years ago.
There would not be any carbon 14 left in the sample to measure. Thats why knowledgeable evolutionists never claim that carbon 14 is used to prove that dinosaurs lived 50 million years ago. But our high schools are apparently filled with kids who have been told by their science teachers that carbon dating proves dinosaurs are millions of years old.
There really is nothing more we need to say about thisbut since we are on the subject lets explore it further.
Going back to the OP, isn't that passage Paul having a moan at the Gnostics, hated enemy of the early christians?
I'm not here to play games. You tell me because I could care less.
Is this your proof?
I don't have to explain it. I have dictionary references. It doesn't need redefined. I have the pure definition as do you. That is not why I refute macroevolutionist claims. I am not ignorant of their definitions and I'm also not ignorant of their theoretical and unscientific significance which is more than you can say.I didn't make myself clear. How do you define micro- and macroevolution to explain the difference between them?
I'll do anything for a definition of evolution from you, in your own words.
Sharks are true fish and they swim just like fish, by lateral movements. Dolphins are mammals and, like all mammals originate on land. They swim like all mammals would swim, by moving their spines up and down, because they originate on land, like all mammals, where they got their ribcages.
And you are of course aware that the C14 isotope is not the only radioactive element in this world? Ever heard of Uranium, Potassium, Argon... the like?
Is this your proof?
Is this your proof?
The only way "macroevolution" (speciation) cannot be shown is if you define it as a cow giving birth to a dolphin. No one else does.Macroevolution cannot be "shown". It can only be "speculated" to have happened.
My my... what else comes to mind that this statement can be applied to... the Bible? The Constitution? Starting to feel irrelevant yet?There is no foundation for its occurrence but that of an old man's writing.
Judging from your posts in this thread I don't think you know very much about reality and as such aren't qualified to welcome anyone.You're as faithful as the creationists. Welcome to reality.
I don't have to explain it. I have dictionary references. It doesn't need redefined. I have the pure definition as do you. That is not why I refute macroevolutionist claims. I am not ignorant of their definitions and I'm also not ignorant of their theoretical and unscientific significance which is more than you can say.
What was it... what was it... Ah! Proof! We want proof of that.I don't have to explain it. I have dictionary references. It doesn't need redefined. I have the pure definition as do you. That is not why I refute macroevolutionist claims. I am not ignorant of their definitions and I'm also not ignorant of their theoretical and unscientific significance which is more than you can say.
I'm no longer creationist. I fall in and out as any person may agnostically.The only way "macroevolution" (speciation) cannot be shown is if you define it as a cow giving birth to a dolphin. No one else does.
Here you show your ignorance by relying upon these terms... terms which are simply arbitrary and usually used by creationists rather than scientists. But... since you insist upon using them we'd best define them. "Microevolution" is changes that occur within a population yet that population can still interbreed. "Macroevolution" is a change that happens within a population that prevents interbreeding. This is a simple distinction whose importance is very easily explained. Once interbreeding is not possible any changes that happen to one population cannot be spread to the other.
Since we've observed and documented both of these sorts of changes micro and macroevolution are fact.
My my... what else comes to mind that this statement can be applied to... the Bible? The Constitution? Starting to feel irrelevant yet?
Judging from your posts in this thread I don't think you know very much about reality and as such aren't qualified to welcome anyone.
You're a great creationist.
.
I haven't said anything yet!!I don't have to explain it. I have dictionary references. It doesn't need redefined. I have the pure definition as do you. That is not why I refute macroevolutionist claims. I am not ignorant of their definitions and I'm also not ignorant of their theoretical and unscientific significance which is more than you can say.
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?