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.
He'ld have a fairly strong case, considering there's objective evidence supporting that.
In your mind, maybe.I also explained how the fossil record, while among the weakest evidence for evolution, it is still strong evidence. It's just that the other evidence for evolution, like genetics, is even stronger.
When you have a strong guy and then some other guys who are stronger still, it's perfectly okay to say that among those strong men, that first strong guy is the weakest.
Skyscrapers are big, but among a bunch of big skyscrapers, there's going to be one that is going to be the smallest among them.
See?
Also, we don't need genes from early life, to demonstrate common ancestry.
Just like we don't need genes from your parents, to determine that you and your siblings are biological siblings. We only need a DNA sample of you and your siblings. From there, we can infer that you share biological parents.
It is clear your so called actual evidence is anything but evidence, but instead pure belief.Yes, it's very clear that your beliefs are based on your preferences, instead of actual evidence.
Name one origin theory that makes a computer work. What, does your laptop have 'Darwin inside' stamped on it?And yet, it's the theories of science that make your pc work - not prayer or reading scripture.
so? as i said: even if one instance will be different we can just solve it by convergent design. on the same base of convergent evolution (dolphin and shark for instance). so there is no difference between cars tree and animals tree.
Science thinks early man is post flood man. For some later post flood man, yes there of course was DNA as ours. That is not early man. That is just early present state man. Noah and Adam were former nature man. No DNA or remain is known for them.
In your mind, maybe.
Yes, you claim there is genetic evidence of some sort that you can't cohesively elucidate.
There actually is none.
Wrong
Only if the nature was always the same, so that therefore the genetics would work the very same would that possibly be somewhat true.
There are enough big ones to require more space than the ark had. So you are faced with the problem of either no possibility all modern and extinct animals/birds/bugs could have fit on the ark, or the possibility that only a relative few were on the ark and considered kinds, and that the millions of species alive and in the fossil record evolved since that time, 4500 years ago. Mammoths, elephants, and giaffes alone would probably take a lot of the space. I mean imagine a condo that was 1000 sq feet. Now try to stick two grown mammoths and a few of each species of modern elephants in there! Add a few big giraffes. Not gong to happen. The estimate was that we only had about 1000,000 sq feet to work with. That is only 100 of those condos. Stick in a few of the birds with a 27 foot wing area. Stick in 33 species of tigers at 2 each.ok, but again: the majority of animals arent so big.
so its not realy a problem. also remember that we are talking about land vertebrate in general. the number of families among land vertebrate is about 400-600 families if i remember right.
If the link I posted said there was 6 to 8 million land animal species, that is not 10,000.so even if we multiply it by 10 or more we will get about no more then 10,000 original kinds. and in this case (that is more close to reality) we will have about 10 square foot per animal.
Unsupported belief noted.The flood didn't happen. It is just a myth..
You made a bald statement of faith that you think our present genetics (therefore our present nature and laws) existed also in the far past on earth. That has no support and the bible indicates otherwise.No, I explained it on this forum in this very thread. You can click the arrows next to the names in the quotes of this conversation. You'll eventually bump into it.
Try posting your so called proof that the same DNA existed for Adam as now. You do not, have not, and cannot.Except that we can. We do it all the time.
No matter what you believe
If your kid was Noah or Adam you might have a point. Instead you have religion.The guy who got forced by court ruling to pay for alimentation after a DNA test poved that the kid is his actual kid, disagrees.
Name one origin theory that makes a computer work.
What, does your laptop have 'Darwin inside' stamped on it?
Unsupported belief noted.
You made a bald statement of faith that you think our present genetics (therefore our present nature and laws) existed also in the far past on earth. That has no support and the bible indicates otherwise.
Try posting your so called proof that the same DNA existed for Adam as now. You do not, have not, and cannot.
If your kid was Noah or Adam you might have a point. Instead you have religion.
interesting try but different from reality. you should try it with most traits and you will get a single tree that in most case will fit with other trees.
its also important to note that we find such contradictions in the animal tree too. depend which traits\genes you choose. many trees change all the time.
False.The technologies inside a computer are directly dependend on theories of physics. The same theories that inform us of radioactivity, radioactive decay etc and which allows us to date things.
No, my computer is not a practical application of biology.
Belief: to accept a claim as correct.
The claim in this case, is "a global flood happened".
The evidence for the bible permeates the planet, history, and people's lives. You are in no position to call it non existent.The evidence for this claim, is non-existant.
Plenty of evidence, none you can fit in your little religious box..not my problem.My stance: I don't believe said claim, since there is no evidence to support it.
Nor can science claim he existed, or did not exist, or that he had present nature genes. So what CAN you claim?I'm not even claiming this "adam" existed.
And red lights determine when traffic stops. What has that got to do with the far past? You need to make some connection. Hint: prove that a same nature existed, and that therefore man would have had the same genetic make up.That DNA allows us to determine relationships, is a fact.
What you really ought to do is examine some of the reasons scientists are confident that the physical laws were the same in the past as they are now. It isn't just an assumption.Nor can science claim he existed, or did not exist, or that he had present nature genes. So what CAN you claim?
And red lights determine when traffic stops. What has that got to do with the far past? You need to make some connection. Hint: prove that a same nature existed, and that therefore man would have had the same genetic make up.
We don't really need statements of faith, just the goods.
1. you seem to fail in understanding that multicellular organism cells all contain the same DNA, and that the difference between a muscle cell and a skin cell is gene expression, not gene presence. You are acting as if cells within multicellular organisms evolve independently, when this is not the case.there is a difference between a muscle cell and other types of cell. its not simple as you think. even if you can take some proteins from other types of cells you will need new parts.
I can't think of a single human cell that actually has components that no other cell type does. Think of the cells as being like cookies. If I add fewer eggs to one batch than another, the batch with fewer eggs will be crunchier. Both batches are still cookies, but their properties aren't 100% identical.you cant just mix parts from other systems and get a new motion system.
Machines don't all work the same way or share functions, but cells do. Any given cell will have more similarities with another random cell than differences, but you can't say the same of machines. This is part of why machines and cells are not comparable; you act as if the compass and the watch should be similar devices, but the freaking compass doesn't even have a power source. They just visually look similar to you, so you think it's a valid comparison, but a compass and a watch share 0 functions with each other. You can't find 2 cells on this planet that share 0 functions with each other, and you certainly won't find anything close to that within your own body.i gave a simple example like a compass. you cant make it move like a watch by adding just a single part or by mixing existing parts in the compass.
What you really ought to do is examine some of the reasons scientists think they are are confident that the physical laws were the same in the past as they are now. It is just an assumption, and has no basis in fact whatsoever.What you really ought to do is examine some of the reasons scientists are confident that the physical laws were the same in the past as they are now. It isn't just an assumption.
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?