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.
First prove your side, seems childish that some, not all scientists forced this strawman theories on us. Your on the definst friend not me.
LOL,
The evidence to support the theory of evolution, have been discussed and presented on this site countless times. It is the cornerstone of biology and accepted by Phd level biologists, the world over and also happens to be a critical piece, in modern medicine.
So, tell us why you are correct and all these scientists and the theory, is all wrong.
Can't be done. The existence of God is what as known in science as an unfalsifiable proposition. That means it can't be disproven by science. Nothing that science has discovered or potentially could discover in future can disprove the existence of God.Yes pices in all their theories are wrong, they all use elements thought the entire galaxy. With out that material stuff you have no science at all. But there would still be God. Prove to me otherwise. Can you handle that challenge?
That has got nothing to do with my question. I (as a former creationist) have made an exhaustive study of evolution and find it to be true. Knowing what I know, is it a sin for me to state that I find that evolution is true?and basically the information we learn in our schools today much of it is false and forced on students though the curriculum. That does make a lie true. It makes it a forced lie, that's like rape if u ask me forcing something false on young minds.A theory is not proven and can very well be false.
Wow that's sad, exchanging truth for a lie. Just because some parts in science are true dosen't make every theory true with in it.That has got nothing to do with my question. I (as a former creationist) have made an exhaustive study of evolution and find it to be true. Knowing what I know, is it a sin for me to state that I find that evolution is true?
Rofl, you handled the switch from evolution to the cause of the universe as fast as I ever seen it done. Can we get back on topic, evolution?Yes pices in all their theories are wrong, they all use elements thought the entire galaxy. With out that material stuff you have no science at all. But there would still be God. Prove to me otherwise. Can you handle that challenge?
No, I exchanged an ancient fable for the truth.Wow that's sad, exchanging truth for a lie. Just because some parts in science are true dosen't make every theory true with in it.
Nobody forced evolution on me. I have an insatiable desire to learn and when I saw I was mistaken, I switched sides.First prove your side, seems childish that some, not all scientists, forced these strawman theories on us. Your on the definse friend, not me.
Yes pices in all their theories are wrong, they all use elements thought the entire galaxy. With out that material stuff you have no science at all. But there would still be God. Prove to me otherwise. Can you handle that challenge?
This has all been explained to you before.fine. here is a case with about 33 characteristics which contradict the current phylogeny:
Gene Study Shows Turtles Are Next Of Kin To Crocodiles And Alligators
Turtles turned out to be not where they were supposed to be on the family tree whenever their genes were included in a research study," says Hedges"
and if conclude that 14 characteristics is enough to conclude that there is no statistical significance, then its also true for those creatures.
That is up my sleeve to use when needed. Don't want to engage in overkill..Awww, I thought you were going to use the "time was different then" magic card...
At the time these creatures lived and died, and became fossilized, man also was alive. Lions, wolves and etc also.
The creatures you cite simply were able to leave remains while man and most other creatures were not in that nature. Magnetic reversals, drift, radioactive decay..etc. Your time estimates have ALL been based on this nature.
You insert "Then a miracle happened" when needed?That is up my sleeve to use when needed. Don't want to engage in overkill..
Ok, fair enough, that is your example of a single ancestor that could have been taken on the ark and diversified from there. So from that you get eight living species as diverse as giant pandas, polar bears, sloth bears, and black bears, as well as many extinct species. But if you allow all that evolution, why not include the extinct Hemicyonidae, sometimes known as a dog bear? Is he included? And what about the red panda? If you include the giant panda, why not the red panda? And if you include the red panda, why not include seals, which are as close to bears as red pandas are?
How can they if we don't know?The boundary is not clear. Other creationists will disagree with your dividing point.
This is exactly what common descent predicts, a large sprawling tree, with no clear distinction of kinds. It is the opposite of what creationism predicts.
Dad, I asked you:
Are you going to claim there was an eohippus-fossilizing nature, followed by a Orohippus-fossilizing nature, followed by a whole sequence of different natures?
Why do we find these horse fossils sorted so each fossilized at a particular time?
No. He was talking about the nature in the past, and how I point out science does not know what it was. I can use that ace up the sleeve as needed in any origin related debate.You insert "Then a miracle happened" when needed?
Real scientists don't get a mulligan.
because you were answering my question asking you for a group of modern species that descended from one common ancestor on the ark. Is "bears" an answer or isn't it?Not sure why you feel a compunction to engage in wild guesswork? Who says all these things had to come from a bear? How do we know there were not 2 kinds of bears?
Scientists play the hand they were dealt.No. He was talking about the nature in the past, and how I point out science does not know what it was. I can use that ace up the sleeve as needed in any origin related debate.
There is such a thing as an exhaustive study of evolution? Get thee to the Broad Institute because you can tell them why their research is no longer required. By the way, I'm a Creationist and never questioned that evolution is a natural phenomenon. Just that the cause and effect it details is an explanation for the origin of life. There is a difference between the phenomenon of evolution and the a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes.That has got nothing to do with my question. I (as a former creationist) have made an exhaustive study of evolution and find it to be true. Knowing what I know, is it a sin for me to state that I find that evolution is true?
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?