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.
How would you know? What we do know is that using physics in origins is not applicable unless physics as we know it existed from the getgo.
WE can't use metaphysics, because we do not know how that works, or what rules and laws and forces the creator used.
Imagine that dude in court claiming that he had identical DNA to Adam.
Quite a case you have there.
That is not correct.
To be strong evidence, for one thing, it would need to represent most life on earth of the various ages.
We do not know it does. I suspect it represents closer to 5% of life than 100%.
So you grasp at the straws in such a hopelessly incomplete record to try to put together a complete picture of life on earth and origins!
No wonder you need to have some dingodoglion in a tree as the ancestor of flipper! Then you grab some swamp animals or something, that maybe have some similar features such as a long snout or something, and try to say that was the dingodoglion evolving toward a dolphin!! Comically inept.
Well, get to it then. I can see why one would distance themselves from the fossil record as origins evidence of evolution.
What should tell me that?
Your abandoning the fossil record as a chief source of evidence?
Why would we assume that Noah had genes such as we do?I don't live 1000 years. Or is this purely a matter of religion for you? Why assume modern genetics existed?
What do you know? The issue is not how much we stuff our head, but what we stuff our head with.I know because I have educated myself.
Great. So how about the guy that claimed early man had genes the same as modern ones?He'ld be send of to some psychiatric institution.
I do not consider God's word to be such.It's the exact same case as you have, in terms of merrit, evidential support, usefullness, verifiability,....
No. To be strong evidence, the fossils we find just needs to fit the evolutionary narrative. It just needs to make sense in light of evolution.
Remember we are talking about kinds of animals, not total numbers.5% is FAR to much.
I suspect it's closer to 0.001%
Explain what you think I messed?lol....
See, it's stuff like that shows how little you understand of the actual topic.
Is this a deliberate lie?
Where have I distanced myself from the fossil record?
Vacilate all you like. The only way it could even be representative of the vast array of life would be if nature were the same in the past. That you do not know.Let's break it down to simple points. Hopefully you'll be able to compute that.
1. the fossil record is strong evidence of evolution
2. of all independend lines of evidence in support of evolution, the fossil record is among the weakest. We can rephrase this point as "all other independend lines of evidence are even stronger"
Such as..?3. The genetic evidence is the strongest of all
Yes, you have nothing at all.Get it now?
They are a chief source for evidence though, we don't need you to call them that.I never abandoned anything, nore have I ever called fossils the "chief source of evidence".
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit it seems...
I prefer a sound mind, thanks.Why assume that the universe wasn't created 5 seconds ago?
What do you know? The issue is not how much we stuff our head, but what we stuff our head with.
1Co 8:2 - And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
...so therefore Dad gets to make up his own physics, and that's the way it was.How would you know? What we do know is that using physics in origins is not applicable unless physics as we know it existed from the getgo.
We can't use metaphysics, because we do not know how that works, or what rules and laws and forces the creator used.
Sometimes I honestly wonder if CF is not another Landoverbaptist.You know...honestly.... I die a little inside when I read such things.
I actually really literally feel physical discomfort.
It is really unsettling to see a human mind so far gone that it is capable of saying such things and actually be serious about it.
Say, why don’t you pop over to the magical animal-car thread?they also said that: "It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings".
so how many cases we need to find to conclude its false?
again incorrect. as i showed with trucks compare vs cars. trucks share many traits with other trucks but not with cars. so if we will make vehicles tree, trucks in general will group with other trucks rather then with cars. i realy see no problem with designer who made a groups of creatures: mammals, reptiles etc.
Doesn't matter what you deny. What matters is that you do not know, despite pretending to.As I deny the existance of god(s) quoting scripture is pretty useless. Scripture also has no place in science.
...so therefore Dad gets to make up his own physics, and that's the way it was.
Any questions?
Interesting. And do you think you know anything?
No, it doesn't work that way. Reality works for Christians. Made up religious stories of so called origins science do not work, they are made up.You know how it goes; if well evidenced reality doesn't work for you, manufacture your own reality.
Trying to use today's nature in the past is making up physics.
Ah, so you think you know something. And your own quote says that if you think you know something you are wrong.I know Jesus is not a liar. I know science is.
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?