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.
I see two main weaknesses.
1) Experimentation has never produced a living thing from inert natural materials. If scientists have the ability to manipulate an artificial environment and the chemical compounds found in that environment, then why can they not create viable life ? Since this cannot be done in a "controlled " environment, how could it be every expected in an uncontrolled one. And if it didn't happen swiftly, how much time could possibly be left for the various complexities of life to establish themselves.
2) Human manipulation of any species, has only produced hybreds of the same species and not diversely new species. Cattle remain cattle. Dogs remain dogs. Peas remain peas. Corn remains corn. Any specialization or characteristic change, only caricature some trait already existing within that species.
Eh? Christians have never burned witches...
FoeHammer.
Eh? Christians have never burned witches...
FoeHammer.
The sentence generally was death (as Exodus 22:18 states, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"). There were other sentences, the most common to be chained for years to the oars of a ship, or excommunicated then imprisoned.
The most common death sentence was to be burnt at the stake while still alive. In England it was common to hang the person first and then burn the corpse, a practice adopted sometimes in other countries (in many cases the hanging was replaced by strangling). Drowning was sometimes used as a means of execution. England was also the only country in which the accused had the right to appeal the sentence.
The most common methods used to execute alleged witches were burning and hanging. The frequent use of 'swimming' to test innocence/guilt means that an unknown number also drowned more or less accidentally prior to conviction. Burning at the stake was common on the Continent as a penalty for heresy, but the common-law jurisdictions of England and colonial America invariably sent people convicted of witchcraft to the gallows. (In a handful of exceptional cases, such as that of Giles Corey at Salem, alleged witches who refused to plead were pressed to death without trial.) More generally, the majority of trials have always occurred within "Christian/European/American cultures; they were most often justified there with reference to the Bible's prescriptions: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (Exodus 22:18) and "A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones" (Leviticus 20:27).
I see two main weaknesses.
1) Experimentation has never produced a living thing from inert natural materials. If scientists have the ability to manipulate an artificial environment and the chemical compounds found in that environment, then why can they not create viable life ? Since this cannot be done in a "controlled " environment, how could it be every expected in an uncontrolled one. And if it didn't happen swiftly, how much time could possibly be left for the various complexities of life to establish themselves.
2) Human manipulation of any species, has only produced hybreds of the same species and not diversely new species. Cattle remain cattle. Dogs remain dogs. Peas remain peas. Corn remains corn. Any specialization or characteristic change, only caricature some trait already existing within that species.
The convenient thing about theories, is that that they can be manipulated to fit the observable facts.
This is why I personally support the teaching of both strengths, "and" weaknesses of all theories in science classes.
I see two main weaknesses.
1) Experimentation has never produced a living thing from inert natural materials.
2) Human manipulation of any species, has only produced hybreds of the same species and not diversely new species.
Cattle remain cattle. Dogs remain dogs. Peas remain peas. Corn remains corn. Any specialization or characteristic change, only caricature some trait already existing within that species.
Then, the fact that the evolution of inert matter into living organisms is NOT considered necessary to the support of evolution is a third flaw.That's not part of the Theory of Evolution.
"Cattle" is not a species. "Dog" is not a species. "Pea" is not a species. "Corn" is not a species.
And Observed Instances of Speciation
I would have to argue if MAN is intelligent. Dogs are still dogs. I would not go to bed with a fat lady by choice. That hardly mean that I could not impregnate her if I didn't have a mind to.... I might suggest that you give the little dog a box and we will see how happy the Dane gets.That would be a weakness for intelligent design, would it not? Besides, evolution deals with biodiversity, not the emergence of life.
Humans have produced Great Danes and Chihuahuas which have very divergent morphology and are incapable interbreeding. And this only took about 1,000 years of selective breeding.
You don't evolve into something different than your ancestors. Evolution is descent with modification. Humans are modified eukaryotes, modified vertebrates, modified mammals, modified primates, and modified apes. Our descendants will be all of those things plus what ever new features that evolve. However, they will always be human even if "human" describes a larger and larger amount of variation just as dog describes a larger and larger amount of variation every time a new dog breed is developed.
Then, the fact that the evolution of inert matter into living organisms is NOT considered necessary to the support of evolution is a third flaw.
You've only proven that every living thing is unique to every other living thing. You are unique to any other human that ever existed from the time of Creation. That does not make you either more or less human. If one is not more or less human, how can one be either more or less chimplike. Specialization only means one is not as adaptable. That hardly sounds progressive.Its kind of sad that you still don't know the difference between Abiogenesis and Evolution. Are you just pretending not to know, or do you really ignore everything anyone tells you here?
According to the theory of evolution, we are still animals, vertebrates, mammals, primates and apes. Just as dogs will always be dogs and peas will always be peas. Nevertheless, speciation has been observed in the lab and in nature. That is all that is required.
Yes. GOD holds the universe together. Gravity is a for what GOD does.Is gravitational theory flawed because it doesn't explain where matter came from?
Then, the fact that the evolution of inert matter into living organisms is NOT considered necessary to the support of evolution is a third flaw.
No, we are not! And incomplete theories do not make it so.Eh? Is the length of my little fingers required to support the germ theory of disease? No. Evolution doesn't explain everything, whatever you may think. And even if God created bacteria, we're still descended from monkeys. (Or primates, if you want to get technical.)
No, we are not! And incomplete theories do not make it so.
What are you on about?Is this the "True Scotsman" argument again?
You're waffling and making connections where there are none..... par for the course for an evolutionist.B.T.W. Considering the name you picked, "FoeHammer," you would probably have made a good witch-hunter back in the 1400s. Especially since the title of the book used in witch-hunting and witch trials was called the Malleus Maleficarum ("Hammer of Witches")
What are you on about?
We're betting that when faced with evidence that Christians did indeed burn witches you'll turn to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to try to substantiate your claim.
That is; you will say the people that burnt witches were not real Christians.
Despite it saying "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live" in your bible. Despite the evidence that they considered themselves true Christians.
My guess is you will just ignore the fact that you ever said something so silly and move on. That is your general modus operandi is it not?
No, we are not! And incomplete theories do not make it so.
What are you on about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_ScotsmanNo true Scotsman is a term coined by Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking About Thinking – or do I sincerely want to be right?[1]:
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Press and Journal and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Press and Journal again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
Flew's original example may be softened into the following [1]:
Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Aye, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
This form of argument is an informal fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge" or "doing such a thing [as committing a sex crime]") is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.[2]
I'm not waffling about anything.. just curious if you got the name "FoeHammer" from the "Witch Hammer." By the way, I can't read your sig. Could you please make it bigger and more red?You're waffling and making connections where there are none..... par for the course for an evolutionist.
FoeHammer.
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?