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.
but i dont have a problem with old earth so even if it doesnt fit i dont realy care.
again: under that definition even creationism is true.I'm not the one deciding this. I'm merely using the standard definition you'll find in a biology textbook.
Arguing about the definition is quite frankly a completely pointless endeavor because a definition isn't going to change just because you've decided you don't like it.
no problem. most trucks (if not all) has steps. this traits is basically shared among trucks but not among cars. so a ccording to this trait most trucks are closer to each other then to cars.Yes. The underlying dataset consists of a DNA sequence for those genes.
But even if you're basing it on only a few parts, you still need to first construct a dataset based on those parts. And then apply a phylogenetic algorithm to that data. So far you haven't demonstrated you've constructed such a dataset, nor utilized an algorithm to construct a tree.
No dataset and no algorithm = no phylogenetic tree.
Stairs???no problem. most trucks (if not all) has stairs. this traits is basically shared among trucks but not among cars. so a ccording to this trait most trucks are closer to each other then to cars.
no problem. most trucks (if not all) has stairs. this traits is basically shared among trucks but not among cars. so a ccording to this trait most trucks are closer to each other then to cars.
Stairs???
realy? here are 2 cases:The "truth" I see is that you have made a slanderous accusation you can't back up.
Science simply assumes the universe exists and is not inherently deceptive.
No. I found out science was deceived. The universe is fine, thanks.You've opted to believe the universe is inherently deceptive.
Between the faith based models of science and the recorded word of God there is a big difference. They are opposites and come from different spirits.So naturally, there is going to be a gap there which you appear unable to bridge.
Great, so could all that --whatever you want to call it-- have happened in nature of today in 4500 years?again: speciation isnt evolution of a new creature. its just variation of exist family. like we see in human. but they all still humans so its not realy evolution of a new kind of creature.
im not sure about that (although i may make some interesting points about this). but i dont have a problem with old earth so even if it doesnt fit i dont realy care.
He did not ask you if you thought the earth might be old. He asked if you think the speciation that you refer to all happened in the last 4500 years.im not sure about that (although i may make some interesting points about this). but i dont have a problem with old earth so even if it doesnt fit i dont realy care.
I predict he will hide, yes.Are you going to run away and hide from defining "new kind of creature" like you ran away and hid from the same question when I asked it over on the Physical and Life Sciences board?
If there was a flood, why no evidence of it? We know what floods do, sweeping debris up and then letting it settle, with the heaviest stuff falling first, and with progressively lighter stuff filling in above it. Why don't we find such a global layer? Did God hide the evidence?Reality of the pre flood world is not something you know about. So when you get some evidence that God was lying about how it was, get back to us. Reality is not something that is limited to this week.
Your so called ancients are post flood. Getting off the boat, and maybe not having any metal working specialists or factories, or, for that matter a whole lot of time means we would not expect great metal works post flood.
They don't make that former state pitch like they used to eh?
According to that trait, yes. According to other traits, no. The tree of life is based on many traits.no problem. most trucks (if not all) has steps. this traits is basically shared among trucks but not among cars. so a ccording to this trait most trucks are closer to each other then to cars.
No. I found out science was deceived. The universe is fine, thanks.
You see scientific inquiry has nothing to do with origin sciences. Fanatical belief plastering onto evidences and creation denial is what they are all about.
Try to stick to what you do have some idea about.
many of you may heared about the watch argument by william paley (if a watch need a designer because it cant evolve naturally then also nature need one, because its more complex and have a design traits like a watch (the flagellum motor for instance is a real spinning motor found in bacteria-image below). the argument against it is that a regular watch can replicate itself with variations over time, and thus it cant evolve naturally when nature can evolve because it has those traits. but paley is also talking about a self replicating watch and claiming that even if we will find such a self replicating watch (or a robot) that made from organic components its still be an evidence for design and not a for a natural process (because as far as we know a watch with springs and a motion system and so on need a designer). thus, paley watch a rgument is still valid to this day. check also this argument:My favorite argument for the existence of God
Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U
I think you mean why can't you recognize the evidence of it. That would be because the belief system of science is closed and small.If there was a flood, why no evidence of it?
Why would we expect to find a world that was undisturbed? Since the flood, the continents moved, there was massive shoving, uplift, mountain building, volcanic activity, etc.We know what floods do, sweeping debris up and then letting it settle, with the heaviest stuff falling first, and with progressively lighter stuff filling in above it. Why don't we find such a global layer? Did God hide the evidence?
Yes. Remember though that in your imaginary religious based fantasy pretend years, it was probably about 70,000 years ago! So, the math is 70,000,000 IY (imaginary years) = 4500 AY (actual years). Yes they worked with metal then, and even before that.Interesting. So 5000 years ago there were great metal factories?
Maybe they had more advanced metal that that. The devolution of man and his mind could be a factor. But if Noah did use any metal, one assumes there was a manufacturing site not too far from where he lived.And all Noah needed to do was order a large shipment of channel iron to brace his boat?
Can they look miles under the earth in some cases where subduction may have happened, or area got ploughed under mountains, etc etc? Was there any massive tsunamis in the area that may have smashed buildings to rubble? Try to get over the idea that the flod was some sort of lake flooding a village or something. It was an elaborately planned operation involving things like water being transported from across the universe.That's odd. One would think archeologists would have noticed if this was happening in the stone age.
It was an elaborately planned operation involving things like water being transported from across the universe.
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?