Jordan Mays
Active Member
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean, can't you read the post? it looks OK to me.
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.
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean, can't you read the post? it looks OK to me.Jordan, do you mind fixing your quote tags please?
We call it proofreading, and I would think those who preach education would practice it.
My point is:Yes, your point?
... when you know as well as I do that a connection can be established well-before it is demonstrated.There is no connection between X and Y until a connection has been demonstrated.
And with this, I'm finished for now.Hitler was a Christian. See I can play that game too.
You say there is no connection between X and Y until demonstrated ... and I totally disagree.
You forgot days of the week unless they came from the wrong God? however they were all devised and made up by men with not a God in sight.Bumper stickers, holidays, edifices, martyrs ... etc.
That's right science changes everytime we learn something new, would you rather it didn't? if it didn't then you and I would more than likely not be alive today.
if I would have DNA'd my parents while they were still alive, and at the same time some alien would have answered our Aricebo message,* then suddenly they would be equal claims, wouldn't they?
No, I didn't forget the days of the week.You forgot days of the week ...
They attest to fallen angels.Jordan Mays said:... unless they came from the wrong God?
You were there?Jordan Mays said:however they were all devised and made up by men with not a God in sight.
Not on your life.
ID = Identification in my case.
Surely you aren't saying that is the officially accepted definition?
To me, and if you will forgive my candidousity...it's reference to creation with an intelligent designer, as opposed to stupid design, meaning no intelligence required.
as i said: it may be evidence that those are a different creation events. but also remember that till 2010 all tetrapods fossils date no more then 375my. till we found one date about 400.
No, I didn't forget the days of the week.They attest to fallen angels.You were there?
You must have a lot more accounts than I give you credit for!
Mind if I answer questions put to me along the way? or should I just ignore them?Seeing as I started the thread I feel I'm entitled to politely ask you to take your off-topic nonsense elsewhere. Thanks.
Is that a prediction of the ID 'model' or is it an ad hoc explaination after the fact?
Which do you think 'theory' do you think explains the facts better... Evolution or ID?
its actually a prediction. we know that under the id model we will find a lot of out of order fossils. and we indeed found such.
if creatures arent the result of a common descent then we need to find in many cases examples of non-hierarchy. the appendix is a good example: we can find many appendix without a hierarchial pattern in nature. and because of this fact scientists claim that the appendix suppose to evolve about 30 times convergently.What do you mean by "out of order" in context of the "id model"?
And could you also properly formulate what that prediction is exactly + explain how that prediction naturally follows from the model? Thanks.
if creature arent the result of a common descent then we need to find in many cases examples of non-hierarchy. the appendix is a good example: we can find many appendix without a hierarchial pattern in nature. and because of this fact scientists claim that the appendix suppose to evolve about 30 times convergently.
if creature arent the result of a common descent then we need to find in many cases examples of non-hierarchy. the appendix is a good example: we can find many appendix without a hierarchial pattern in nature. and because of this fact scientists claim that the appendix suppose to evolve about 30 times convergently.
if all creatures are the result of creation then we should not expect to find hierarchy in a lots of shared traits between species. like we see in the real human design world.As Jimmy D pointed out, you're not addressing my questions at all.
Please try again. Just reply to that post once more, and this time: try to actually directly address what I'm asking about.
if all creatures are the result of creation then we should not expect to find hierarchy in a lots of shared traits between species. like we see in the real human design world.
its actually a prediction. we know that under the id model we will find a lot of out of order fossils. and we indeed found such.
What do you mean by "out of order" in context of the "id model"?
And could you also properly formulate what that prediction is exactly + explain how that prediction naturally follows from the model?
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?