WOW. A whole thread!Kenny is not interested in being educated. He is only here to issue fake challenges for people to "prove" evolution to him so he can reject anything he is presented and then feel better about his own beliefs.
He's even been quoted in past posts as stating he'll never accept any evidence for evolution. I have no idea why he continues to pretend.
edited for the quote:
The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread
Yes, I have, but never seen it with my own eyes.
Yes, I have, but never seen it with my own eyes.
Whatever, the biggest problems with hybrids is they are infertile and they want to revert back to the genotype.Sorry, dude. Claiming you have evidence is not the same thing as actually having evidence.
There is spiritual truth that your pride and evil spirits have blinded you from receiving / accepting.
Kenny is not interested in being educated. He is only here to issue fake challenges for people to "prove" evolution to him so he can reject anything he is presented and then feel better about his own beliefs.
He's even been quoted in past posts as stating he'll never accept any evidence for evolution. I have no idea why he continues to pretend.
edited for the quote:
The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread
Are you Christian?If you're going to plagiarize material from other web sites, you should at least cite your source: How Evolution Flunked The Science Test | Free Book Library | Amazing Facts
Also, you don't need to repeatedly respond to the same post of mine. You can edit your own posts after the fact.
While the underlying concepts of evolutionary theory are remarkably simple, the evidence supporting those concepts is massive, complex and interlinked. A post, a thread, a hundred threads on a discussion forum are not the correct place to present that evidence.OK, that's start, now post that evidence here as I've asked you to do
This whole post is nothing more than a thinly veiled insult and sophistry.
They do it on purpose as a form of deception.
It's the same thing as using complex math as a language to confuse and ripoff people seeing how most of the populous isn't going to even understand what they are saying. Stuff like Interests Rates, APR's Etc.
I understand the basis compleatly,
but I need real evidence with real science in a simplified term, thanks.
You can not be a Christian and not belive in Gods own words, its impossible.
You cannot be forum member in good standing if you claim that Christians who accept evolution are not Christians. That's a violation of the flaming rule.
In Basic Terms:
Microevolution : Provable through observable science and is true.
Macroevolution : Unobservable using the scientific method theory on the origins of man
and is Pure Trash.
I'm referring to the idea of one species turning into another species over millions / billions of years.
Ultimately both of Our World views are at the heart of the matter here.
What is the flaming rule? I am a YEC, atheists, and old earth creationist will support each other to challenge my positions .
I don't know if you noticed but no one responding is interested in addressing either term. What they much prefer, and always resort to, are biting personal remarks known as ad hominems. It's rare to get back to a substantive discussion after they have sold out to fallaxious rhetoric, but naturally your free to try.In Basic Terms:
Microevolution : Provable through observable science and is true.
Macroevolution : Unobservable using the scientific method theory on the origins of man and is Pure Trash.
There is no real science, just theory.
So there are magicians who preform many acts to look like they truly do magic, but I know its just a trick.
The devil will show great tricks, but nothing will take away my faith.
Humans will also do the same, but they use words like science with no tests. Just theory, nothing 100 percent.
All it is written mumbo jumbo, But my God is 100 percent real in my life in every way.
He preforms real true events in my life proving him self to me all the time.
So tell me, what science have I missed that makes sense that 100 proves there is no God?
There is none.
I read just about every article there is to read, non of them make sense and do not give proof, just theory, lol. how funny you are. {snip}
How does the evolutionist explain the existence of that first one-celled animal from which all life forms supposedly evolved? For many years the medieval idea of spontaneous generation was the accepted explanation. According to Webster, spontaneous generation is "the generation of living from nonliving matter … [it is taken] from the belief, now abandoned, that organisms found in putrid organic matter arose spontaneously from it."
Simply stated, this means that under the proper conditions of temperature, time, place, etc., decaying matter simply turns into organic life. This simplistic idea dominated scientific thinking until 1846, when Louis Pasteur completely shattered the theory by his experiments. He exposed the whole concept as utter foolishness. Under controlled laboratory conditions, in a semi-vacuum, no organic life ever emerged from decaying, nonliving matter. Reluctantly it was abandoned as a valid scientific issue. Today no reputable scientist tries to defend it on a demonstrable basis. That is why Webster says it is "now abandoned." It never has been and never can be demonstrated in the test tube. No present process is observed that could support the idea of spontaneous generation. Obviously, if spontaneous generation actually did take place in the distant past to produce the first spark of life, it must be assumed that the laws that govern life had to be completely different from what they are now. But wait a minute! This won't work either, because the whole evolutionary theory rests upon the assumption that conditions on the earth have remained uniform throughout the ages.
Do you begin to see the dilemma of the evolutionists in explaining that first amoeba, or monad, or whatever formed the first cell of life? If it sprang up spontaneously from no previous life, it contradicts a basic law of nature that forms the foundation of the entire theory. Yet, without believing in spontane¬ous generation, the evolutionist would have to acknowledge something other than natural forces at work—in other words, God. How do they get around this dilemma?
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?