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.
Not saying you can't post what you want. Just pointing out, in a science forum, folks expect some sort of science discussion. Quoting scripture, unless you can connect it to science, falls short.
Yet again I posted that earlier with science and it progressed to the word. If you want a endless loop here is the beginning. Creation screams out intelligent design, it is pure insanity to say it all came together by chance or accident. If you care to give this a shot watch the following YouTube please in full.Yet it is in a Christian chat with debate. I belive I am welcome here.
If you care to give this a shot watch the following YouTube please in full.
"Evolution vs. God" (Movie) - Shaking the Foundations of Faith
Ray Comfort confessesComfort came to me asking for the evidence for evolution. The way it went is that he would a) ask for evidence, b) I would give him an example (like the research on sticklebacks or bacteria), c) Comfort would raise an irrelevant objection (they’re still fish! They’re still bacteria!), and d) I would explain why his objection was invalid, and how his expectations of the nature of the evidence were wrong. Somehow, though, in the movie (d) always ended up on the cutting room floor, so that he could announce in all of his promotional materials and in the movie itself that I was unable to provide any evidence for evolution.
Not if you deny the faith of Christians who also accept the theory of evolution. Not only will you not be welcome, the moderators will boot you off because it is against forum rules.Yet it is in a Christian chat with debate. I belive I am welcome here.
Bear and lion...no. Zebra and eohippus...I doubt it. Horse and donkey? I see no reason they should be. Bears and donkeys and lions are mentioned in the bible, no indication exists that they were not kinds.Right, but you cannot tell me if the horse and the donkey are the same kind. You cannot tell me if the zebra and eohippus are the same kind. You cannot tell me if the bear and the lion are the same kind. Perhaps the fish and the hippo are the same kind.
What was the starting point for evolution? Why can it not be the first cell?
And yet you credit "The blind watchmaker", that is, evolution, as being responsible for some of that design.
Yes, I have guessed. I look at the list of animals in the bible and take them as kinds. If I see there are horses in heaven, I assume a horse is a created kind. If I see a raven was sent from the ark, I assume that was a created kind.You say that God started with created kinds and the rest evolved from there. How much evolved from there? You won't even guess.
If some of the features we see were there from creation, and some are there because they evolved, how do you tell if a feature was there from the beginning or it evolved?
If you have a cool glass of water and a hug from the wife or mom or your son, do you ask why they are needed at all?And if you cannot tell the difference, how have you proven creation was needed at all?
I am not the one claiming same states past, genius.I am not the one claiming different states past, genius.
Looking at your smoke and mirror link, I saw this right away..I'm not sure what you mean by "negates similarities in creations of man", since that's never been what this is about. This is about the creation of phylogenetic trees of artificial objects and the fact I didn't get statistically convergent trees from independent characteristics of said objects. Which makes sense given the lack of hereditary dependence of created objects like vehicles and the fact that most characteristics are independent of vehicle classification. And for that matter most characteristics also appear polymorphic as well (owing to the fact that vehicles often have different options for various things).
If you want to learn more about statistical significance testing you can always read about it here: p-value - Wikipedia and here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Statistics of Incongruent Phylogenetic Trees
Looking at your smoke and mirror link, I saw this right away..
" The tree at left is based upon morphological data; the tree at right on the molecular sequence of the c-myc proto-oncogene (Harshman et al.2003)...."
Since you only have a SMALL fossil sampling in the far past to judge any morphology, and we have NO genes from the far past, and do not even know there was any present nature genes then at all....your trees are 100% based on religion!
Hoo ha.
The similarities, then, are internal to your religion.
If they are based on what your own link claims, the relevance is internal to your religion.Regardless of what you think the trees represent, this doesn't address the prior point which is dealing with relative statistical convergence of trees based on biological organisms versus those based on manufactured objects.
I do not need to change any relationships in the unknown past that are belief based only. If you feel that Santa created it all, and that whenever we see red in nature, or something you think evolved from a reindeer, or something happening on Christmas time..etc etc...that all links up on a tree...who cares?Even if you think the trees representing hereditary relationships are complete fiction, it doesn't change the relative statistical convergence between them.
Santa math, and same state past math doesn't count at all.At the end of the day we're just dealing with math. Unless you disagree with that as well.
Yet again I posted that earlier with science and it progressed to the word. If you want a endless loop here is the beginning. Creation screams out intelligent design, it is pure insanity to say it all came together by chance or accident. If you care to give this a shot watch the following YouTube please in full.
"Evolution vs. God" (Movie) - Shaking the Foundations of Faith
I see that you do not understand evolution. Evolution does not rely on "chance or accident". That is a strawman that creationists use all of the time. You should spend a little time studying how the insurance industry works. That companies can insure against mishaps and make a profit is no "accident".
You are of course wrong. We have a small sampling of any particular species but we have a huge sampling of fossils. All of which can only be explained by the theory of evolution. Creationists have no explanation that has not been refuted a thousand times. You are the one that only has religion and strangely enough thinks that having a religion is a bad thing.Looking at your smoke and mirror link, I saw this right away..
" The tree at left is based upon morphological data; the tree at right on the molecular sequence of the c-myc proto-oncogene (Harshman et al.2003)...."
Since you only have a SMALL fossil sampling in the far past to judge any morphology, and we have NO genes from the far past, and do not even know there was any present nature genes then at all....your trees are 100% based on religion!
Hoo ha.
The similarities, then, are internal to your religion.
When it comes to evolution I understand what was thought to me in a secular college. But I chose to belive in absolute truth. I do not accept lies. And I kick off the previbial dust off my shoes and depart this thread. Belive what you chose to belive. But know that death comes to all. And the odds are there is a judgment. Farewell.
Santa math, and same state past math doesn't count at all.
But know that death comes to all. And the odds are there is a judgment.
Oh my. You claim that there were a limited number of animals on the ark, and that the few onboard evolved into different species. And yet you can't seem to name one set of animals that might have been represented by one common ancestor on the ark. One of the most common illustrations is that a single hordonkey pair could have evolved into separate horse and donkey species. But you don't even accept that. So give me an example of an ancestor you think evolved into more than one species.Bear and lion...no. Zebra and eohippus...I doubt it. Horse and donkey? I see no reason they should be. Bears and donkeys and lions are mentioned in the bible, no indication exists that they were not kinds.
You taking lessons from the mafia? "Nice soul you got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it."But know that death comes to all. And the odds are there is a judgment.
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?