- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
They have zero application to the origins issues. If all you want to do is link a parent with a child or something, fine.
Upvote
0
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.
They have zero application to the origins issues. If all you want to do is link a parent with a child or something, fine.And phylogenetic trees are a real thing and have real-world application (esp. when it comes to genomics). You'll deny this of course, but it's just the continual trend of creationist reality denial.
It never changes.
An omnipotent watch can do anything, so yes it can create time.
That's not the question. Which parts actually rule out a watch? I note that you have been unable to come up with a specific example ruling out a watch.
I see. So maybe Moses was actually a bulrush, and John the Baptist a bee?The watch is the creator of the universe. The son of the watch sent down to earth might have been a second hand or something.
Well, naturally. We're talking about an omniscient omnipotent creator of everything. How could that make any sense. I'm pleased that you've come to realise this. Don't you see that if it makes no sense for the watch and the spatula, then it makes no sense for God and the Holy Spirit too?
Never met a watch that could do that.
How about where it says God is love? Or God walked in the garden? Or He died for our sins? Never seen a watch do that.
I see. So maybe Moses was actually a bulrush, and John the Baptist a bee?
No. I do not see that any more than I see that a tea cup contained the sun moon and stars. I know a tea cup is bigger than your hot soup that popped out the universe was at one time, but I digress.
but you said that "And it's the same tree every single time.".
so its not.
so your prediction is that we will not find a gene that is shared between two far species but isnt shared between several species between them? say something like this:You might want to read it again yourself, since this has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Which for the record is the creation of blatant chimeric organisms; such as these glow-in-the-dark rabbits.
Show me a world filled with blatant chimeric organisms and we can talk about a designer.
i think we can look at external taits and see if in general a truck is more similar to other truck than to a car. do you agree its an objective look?Based on my testing, I found this claim not to be true as it entirely depends on which cars and which trucks you are comparing. There is a lot of overlap between different characteristics of trucks and cars.
Unless you are going to proved otherwise, repeating a claim that has already been demonstrated not to be true is just dishonest.
i think we can look at external taits and see if in general a truck is more similar to other truck than to a car. do you agree its an objective look?
So try to build an evolutionary tree that accounts for all these. You cannot. You could not even do a unique, well defined tree for bicycles, mopeds, surreys, and cars.
No, it is the same tree every time.
actually many fossils dont fit with the evolutionery hierarchy. i already gave here few examples so here it again by copy- paste:So what? Between your supposed ancestors in the fossil record are many things you have no idea existed, or how they came to exist.
who said we cant? first: do you agree that we already seen its possible with about 8 types of vehicles?
View attachment 223568
if you see any problem here say what and we will see if we cant solve it or not under the design scenario.
so your prediction is that we will not find a gene that is shared between two far species but isnt shared between several species between them? say something like this:
View attachment 223565
i think we can look at external taits and see if in general a truck is more similar to other truck than to a car. do you agree its an objective look?
No it can't, a watch is for keeping time, not creating time.But, this is an omnipotent watch. It can do anything.
You do know what watch means?It's an omnipotent watch. It can do anything. I'm surprised that you don't know what 'omnipotent' means.
I don't. Now can you tell us why science thinks the whole universe was inside something that was at one time supposedly smaller than a teacup? I consider their stories to be less valid than those of the mad hatter.Interesting. Could you please explain to me why you think that a tea cup contained the moon and stars?
Precisely what science does. They gorge themselves on hopelessly partial data, and weave the results to fit their religion.In other words, you drew this tree based not on what the data actually is, but based on the outcome that you WANTED to obtain.
Not like I expected antagonist posters to properly truthfully represent your position.actually i said that if god is eternal he dont need a designer.
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2012/01/24/rsbl.2011.1216.full Right, and again, that goes toward the point that they work in a biased way, desperately trying to make a huge intricate puzzle with four or five pieces. They must use imagination as the main ingredient.actually many fossils dont fit with the evolutionery hierarchy. i already gave here few examples so here it again by copy- paste:
Tikiguania and the antiquity of squamate reptiles (lizards and snakes)
Any kindergarten kid could guess and imagine and speculate. I can do that also. If I see a bird fossil (though it may be somewhat evolved from an original kind of bird) I ask if maybe it was rapidly evolving into a dino in that former nature. After all birds we KNOW were here even before beasts.Protoavis - Wikipedia
" Though it existed far earlier than Archaeopteryx, its skeletal structure is allegedly more bird-like."
doesnt fit with evolution? fine. lets call it "convergent evolution" or "anomaly"
Precisely what science does.
They gorge themselves on hopelessly partial data, and weave the results to fit their religion.
There is some recent evidence that more than one lineage of theropod dinosaurs were becoming birds . The birds that are alive now are only from the only lineage that survived that bolide.Any kindergarten kid could guess and imagine and speculate. I can do that also. If I see a bird fossil (though it may be somewhat evolved from an original kind of bird) I ask if maybe it was rapidly evolving into a dino in that former nature. After all birds we KNOW were here even before beasts.
.
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?