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.
As far as predicting it?
Well you take what you know about how evolution works. You predict how old this fossil would be, where it would be found and what it would look like. So Dr Shubin and his team got out a geological map, picked a place in Canada and after 5 years of searching, they found exactly what they predicted. Boom, accurate predictions. A huge part of the scientific method. That wasn't that hard was it?
As far as predicting it?
Well you take what you know about how evolution works. You predict how old this fossil would be, where it would be found and what it would look like. So Dr Shubin and his team got out a geological map, picked a place in Canada and after 5 years of searching, they found exactly what they predicted. Boom, accurate predictions. A huge part of the scientific method. That wasn't that hard was it?
Don't you have this same conversation going in enough threads? Let this one stay on topic.
Simply because some try to offer evolution as a monolithic term based on evidence, doesn't mean it's a monolithic term based on evidence. A major flaw of Darwinist evolution (one of the several views of evolution) is the claim that only naturalistic mechanisms produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form of long ago. The fact is, no such evidence exists.
This major flaw will not simply fade into the background.
That's very nice but this thread is about creationism and evidence for it, not evolution.
The Earth is essentially a closed system; it obtains lots of energy from the Sun but the exchange of matter with the outside is almost zero.
Folks should not mention the word "evolution" then. Especially as a monolithic term.
Just so everybody knows,... I own a lab coat.
That's fine. All I'm asking, is instead of people clogging up the thread with attacks and defenses against evolution (however anyone is defining it) let's try and get an answer to the OP.
Faith is the evidence or you have faith with no evidence?
Your response to the OP is "it's based on faith". Does that mean:
A) The evidence for creationism is faith
Or
B) There is no evidence but it is taken on faith that creationism is true
The Earth is essentially a closed system; it obtains lots of energy from the Sun but the exchange of matter with the outside is almost zero.
Good, a response that actually answers the OP.
No Creationists have no problem with the evidence in the fossil records. We use the same fossil records you do. It is the INTERPRETATION of the evidence we differ on. You have a bias towards your theory and I have a bias towards mine. You see millions of years, I see a catastrophe or flood that caused the sediment to settle.For anyone keeping score, we have a creationist who refuses to address the fossil evidence. We have been told over and over that creationists use the same evidence, but this is obviously false. Creationists ignore the fossil evidence.
I can work on that for you.No seriously, show us the math. I would legitimately like to see it.
For Creationism we need a Creator. Our Creator is God. It takes "faith" to believe in God. There is plenty of evidence to back up the God of the bible if you choose to see it, but you have a bias towards something different so you don't see it. You would rather believe in electrified mud - in "perfect conditions" no less (also life from life btw) then God.Faith is the evidence or you have faith with no evidence?
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?