juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
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.
What in the world are you trying to say?
It seems all you are doing is avoiding the issue.
You've made the claim that rocks are alive, yet refused to provide ANYTHING to back up your claim. Until you can manage to do that, it's just wasting my time.
So, you may choose: Go away.
I don't care.
They do share DNA but their underlying bone structure and reproduction system are less similar then the mouse is to the whale.But shouldn't the rat and the shrew have similar DNA if they share an ancestor? It doesn't make sense to link a rat and a whale together at all by any of the evidence we have available, unless linked together by having the same creator.
DNA tests are also used for more distant relatives, and they can show if a child is likely the cousin or maternal or paternal descendants.Paternity test are pretty narrowed down already, just test whoever the mother slept with. That's pretty much saying becuse the method is accurate for one use it's accurate for every use.
This is a poor analogy.Line up with what? The principals are very simple, an example, someone puts a cup under a facet and fills it, one will guess it took a few seconds to fill the cup, the other has got a text message saying it took two hours, they're both viewing the cup full of water, ones guessing, the other trusting the message.
Yes, they are tools to learn, and multiple scientists can use them to learn. They don’t work if you ignore the conclusions because you don’t like the results.I don't think scientific studies in and of themselves are anything but tools to learn. I certainly think all scientist are biased in viewing evidence in some decree.
It's the same old story - makeIf you didn't care, why even bother typing anything on this thread?
The critter I posted was actually an Antechinus, so considerably more distantly related then shrews.Shrews are related to moles and hedgehogs . They aren’t Rodentia despite the fact that they superficially resemble them.
When I picked Archaeopteryx,I chose it precisely because almost the complete skeleton is there . So your claim of forcing old bones together is a little silly handwave on your part. As usual, scientists have the evidence and creationists dismiss it because it doesn’t agree with their unverified religious beliefs.
If you didn't care, why even bother typing anything on this thread?
to bother you.
It's the same old story - makestupidunsupportable claims, blame everyone else for not understanding them, then clam up and ignore the follow-ups. Rinse and repeat.
When you use the term that believers say “I got this Book here and I believe everything in it - even the stupid stuff.” Scientists can’t do that" you are comparing apples and oranges and being naieve. Scientists can do that. You are confusing the topic of science with the humans behind it.And that's a bad thing how?
When you use the term that believers say “I got this Book here and I believe everything in it - even the stupid stuff.” Scientists can’t do that" you are comparing apples and oranges and being naieve. Scientists can do that. You are confusing the topic of science with the humans behind it.
The bible is not a scientific book and is not measured that way so that is a fruitless exercise. Creationists are not the only ones who believe in what you say is stupid stuff. The core of all faith is the resurrection of Christ and his life and miracles. Science would also say this is non-verifiable yet millions upon millions of people believe this, many who are supporters of evolution, scientists and intelligent coherent people, some in the past founded our greatest theories, are they all stupid ?.
My point was that there is also a worldview about science where people believe just about whatever is claimed is right without question which also requires faith. The claim that just because it is science that it can never be influenced by humans who have a tendency to believe in things without verification is naive. The subject of science itself may seek the truth and only stand if verified and therefore things need to be questioned is correct. But those behind it do not always act that way and in fact, there is a dominant worldview that can permeate our teaching institutions that promotes a certain world views that is just as much indoctrinated as religion.
So yes it is good to keep on searching for verification but I think even more prominent is that the humans behind science are basing scientific discoveries on faith in a world view and using that as a way to support their atheism. They have a blinkered view that there can only be certain outcomes that can be predicted which affects their predictions and that is why they get it so wrong so often.
This is the blinkered world view I talk about. The assumption that when someone makes a statemnet that questions something behind science that they must not understand.....
You really really dont understand the basics of science.
This is the blinkered world view I talk about. The assumption that when someone makes a statemnet that questions something behind science that they must not understand.....
You really really dont understand the basics of science.
This is the blinkered world view I talk about. The assumption that when someone makes a statemnet that questions something behind science that they must not understand.
I have no idea what 'mature speciation' means in a scientific context? Evoklution is no longer debated in science, it has become the central unifying theory for every other scientific discipline, biological sciences in particular. Evolution is fact and beyond reasonable doubt.One worldwide evidence in the sedimentary rock record is how fossil lifeforms show mature Speciation, and zero fossils that disproves Speciation.
In the fossil record, out of billions of fossils unearthed, is zero transitional fossils. Zero fossils that by morphological change prove evolution - evidence of one lifeform changing into another higher lifeform.
There is zero fossils that show life morphologically changed on Earth in sedimentary environments which show the Grand Picture of evolution of life from simple to complex.
All a paleontologist has is the observable evidence in the sedimentary rock layers srarted as the most simplest life and through time fossils that become more and more biologically complex over time and depositional history.
In Creating the Earth, God could have used geologic time to first Create simple life to exist and as geologic time progressed at select times Create more complex Species of life. And incresed the the complexity of each Species over geologic time, displaying an Earth with a fossil record we observe today - zero transitional fossils.
By scientific evidence the fossil record proves Speciations over time.
Get use to it, and start the change that Speciations was produced over time.
In another view, when Earth was Created it showed a natural history of Speciation of life over time, as He would have done if He chose geologic time and natural processes to develop the Mature Earth we now see. A Creation with an Apparent-Mature Age.
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?