Subduction Zone
Regular Member
No, I am using it properly. There is no spin on my side. I never said that theories are proof, that was your error.
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.
I do, but you are trying to spin the word "proof". You must spin the idea that uncertain and changing theories are "proof"
Creationism is actually logical. I dont mean the story of creation necessarily, just that we and this world were created via intelligence, and not some mindless act of evolution which has no intelligent creator.The creation story was proven wrong a long time ago. Yes, theories can be shown to be wrong. In fact they are constantly changing and improving themselves. You appear to be working on a false dichotomy. Demonstrating that evolution is wrong would not be evidence for creationism. Creationism as an idea lost a long time ago.
Yup, you spinnin broNo, I am using it properly. There is no spin on my side. I never said that theories are proof, that was your error.
Then why cannot one creationist form a logical argument? What can't one creationist understand the concept of evidence.Creationism is actually logical. I dont mean the story of creation necessarily, just that we and this world were created via intelligence, and not some mindless act of evolution which has no intelligent creator.
Let's not make false accusations. You are presently breaking the rules.Yup, you spinnin bro
I have seen all the available evidence and none of it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that evolutionary development is scientifically possible.
God gave you evidence that he is real. His creation itself is so clearly not a mindless act of evolution but is created by a creator, God.Then why cannot one creationist form a logical argument? What can't one creationist understand the concept of evidence.
How and why life evolved is well understood. It is only the details that are being worked on at this point.
God gave you evidence that he is real. His creation itself is so clearly not a mindless act of evolution but is created by a creator, God.
Mindless.Do you think evolution is random?
God gave you evidence that he is real. His creation itself is so clearly not a mindless act of evolution but is created by a creator, God.
I did. I said its mindless. I dont wish to derail my comment.Answer the question I asked please.
So it is not random. Good. We can move on then.I did. I said its mindless. I dont wish to derail my comment.
Similar is not human, and the absence of complete fossils and skeletons shows that this creature probably did not exist at all, but could be an invention of evolutionists made up of a few random bones which could very well be a combination of human and ape bones, cobbled together to make it appear that it could be the creature they are describing. They don't know whether the creature could walk on two legs or not, because there are no photos or videos of it; only an artist's impression of what it might be. But artists' impressions are not conclusive proof.Really?
What do you think of the analysis of trabecular evidence for a Human-like gait in Australopithecus africanus done by Barak, Liebermann, et al? Do you agree with their conclusion that the 2D principal trabecular orientation in the sagittal plane of an Australopithecus is very similar to that of Humans?
Evidence that you say is uncertain and can change? You were created by God. Why is that so hard to believe?If he did then why can't any creationists present it? I have a feeling that you do not understand the concept. How about we take a break and discuss the concept of evidence first?
You have just rule yourself out if the scientific method. Nothing is proved- scientific conclusions are always tentative. That’s why a creationist is by definition not a scientist.knows that for something to be a science it has to be proved
Yes. It is a random development through time and chance. But it has never been replicated or tested by science, so no one knows how it happened, or even if it actually did.Do you think evolution is random?
What do you think of the significance of this image.Any evidence that one kind of organism has actually changed to another kind. Or such as the artist impression that the blue whale evolved from a land-based four legged creature, or the other artist impression that shows the development of an ape to a human being. If you can produce a series of photographs showing how this development happened, this will be proof for me - that would be observation.
I didnt say that. However i'll comment. Random things can happen by a mindless accident or by designed creation. What does something being random or not prove?So it is not random. Good. We can move on then.
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?