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.
Evolution is a fact so where would you like to start? if you keep thinking that dogs give birth to cats you are finished,I am tired of his insults and the fact that he does not contribute anything to the conversation. Of course evos are quick to say: "not true" many of them are very slow to come up with any evidence to back up their claims.
I am tired of his insults and the fact that he does not contribute anything to the conversation. Of course evos are quick to say: "not true" many of them are very slow to come up with any evidence to back up their claims.
I am tired of his insults and the fact that he does not contribute anything to the conversation.
Of course evos are quick to say: "not true" many of them are very slow to come up with any evidence to back up their claims.
I am tired of his insults and the fact that he does not contribute anything to the conversation.
Yes because there is none. Evolution is the work of Satan
At what point have I insulted you Jazer? I simply pointed out that you changed talking snakes to talking to snakes. Two very different concepts. I admit I can be somewhat snarky at times. I apologize if you feel I am picking on you.
Of course all animals did not talk to Adam & Eve. The snake was a deity, devil, that materialized into the form of a snake. This ability is also demonstrated in angels ability to take on human form. Unless you purport to be a spirit yourself you are unable to testify if spirits have this ability or not.
This also has nothing to do with the fact that all the observed evidence supports the creation of life on earth. With evidence of the earth being placed at the centre of the universe we now also have proof that earth is not only a remarkable planet it is also a specially placed one.
The entire field of biology has been based on evolution for more then 150 years. There are mountains of evidence in every field. From ERV insertion through fossils to laboratory experimentation. You have been shown much of this and more. At what point are you going to accept personal responsibility and admit it is not the evidence that is lacking but simply your resistance to changing your views?
The 150 years thing is your worst nightmare as what you have is 150 years of instability and change. Even today, after 150 years, evolutionists are still unable to answer how, when, where or why of evolution.
It is not advantageous alleles at all because evolutionists suggest that humans are a walking viral remnant of up to 10 percent. So let's take this nonsense seriously.. viral infection cause a drop in fitness, not an improvement and yet has been selected for to the point where these so called ervs are resonsible for the maintenance of mammalian pregnancy. Do you think evolution has some plan?
This is of course along side todays observed research that suggests huge amounts of genomic material crossing the germ line is deleterious and most often fatal. We are not talking about small changes here we are talking about a viral sequence that becomes endogenized.
Homeostatic Proliferation in the Mice with Germline FoxP3 Mutation and its Contribution to Fatal Autoimmunity
Germline Nonsense Mutation and Somatic Inactivation of SMARCA4/BRG1 in a Family with Rhabdoid Tumor Predisposition Syndrome
Evolutionists talk about colour changes in peppered moths and immunity. This does not explain how ancient viral sequences you reckon you can identify, (although I doubt it) crossed the germ line and then endogenized leaving viable offspring.
I'd say you evolutionists have falsified their own theory many times and evoke more miracles than the bible to save it.
Yes, some creationists claim that the methods work, others don't. That is instability. Even worse, they can't even agree on an age of the Earth within 4 billion years. That is MAJOR instability. Whenever you give an age of the Earth all I need to do is quote other creationists who completely disagree with you. If that is not instability, then evolution does not have instability either.
The various camps have their stable assertions. YECS reamin YECS and old earther remain old earthers. In other words they do not have knee jerk reactions to data changing what they have to say in response to every bit of new data.
After 150 years evolutionary theory has done summersaults with the only stability seen is their insistence that no matter what data is found it must prove evolution. You still have no stable answers to the how, when, where or why of evolution and I expect in another 150 years nothing much will have changed about that.
Yes, it is. How can a local and a global flood both align with the Bible? They are contradictory. Either a place on the Earth was flooded or it wasn't. Creationists can't decide amongst themselves. That is instability by your own criteria.
They are not contradictory withing the various creationist camps. They stick with their assertions and try to substantiate them. This is the opposite of evolutionists. eg Junk DNA supports/proves evolution and so does functional non coding DNA. This is knee jerk science where anything goes and still proves evolution. Rubbish!
Then all I have to show is that creationists produce inconsistent data. I have already shown that with the dating methods that different creationists use. Some date the Earth to 6,000 years while others date the Earth to 4.5 billion years. That is a difference of more than 4 billion years. That is inconsistency, and that is instability.
Again they stick with their individual assertions and look for verifying data, unlike evolutionists that have an anything goes style science.
False. It is one of many. Creationism is the most unstable model there is.
I'd say with no transitional human or chimp fossils; birds, tetrapods, verterbraes in a mess all trying to prove one theory of evolution you are in a mess. While the various creationist remain stable.
So what features must a fossil have in order to be convincing?
Complete or near complete transitional human fossils found in tact together with hands and feet that have not had to be reconstructed and demonstrate gradual change as well as some similar chimp ancestry would be a good start.
This is opposed to putting human feet on curved fingered apes and modern bird feet on dinosaurs. Using complete erectus fossils with feet and hands that demonstrate more in common with mankind than chimps have today or in the past (eg Lluc) may also be a good start.
You have found evidence of ape or human feet, ape or human hands and nothing in the middle at all. Flated faces are seen in Lluc, 12myo and there are flat faced non human primates around today. Neither is stringing together a skeleton from non colocated bones, eg Turkana Boy, a demonstration of anything more than a self serving mosaic of misrepresentation. Turkana Boy with his ape head, extra ape verterbra, small neural canal, long arms, and thigh bones unlike either human or ape is just a variety of ape.
In fact an orangutan shares more similarity to a human today than a chimp, morphologically. You have scientist in dissent over this suggesting DNA should not override morphology and the inherent errors in todays comparative genomics.
How do you determine if a fossil has suddenly appeared or not? What is the creationist method for determining this?
The sudden appearance of tetrapods 400 million years ago, the sudden appearance of birds in the fossil record 212mya, the sudden appearance of modern mankind in the fossil record, the Cambrian explosion, for starters.
You forgot the predictions that differ amongst creationists that produce instability in the creationist model, such as the coverage of a flood and the age of the Earth.
Again I say they are not unstable in their own camps. Evolution is one camp made of knee jerk science.
Of course, I could use your excuses to brush away your criticisms of evolution. What unites scientists is that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. The differences of which fossils are direct ancestors or cousins are details that are being worked out. See, no instability.
Yes there is instability as you do not have an intermediate human/chimp. Erectus is fully ape. You have no chimp ancestry. You do not even know what the common ancestor looked like. Remeber once upon a time it was just like a chimp, then something like a chimp, now nothing like a chimp. Basically anything goes Next thing I am expecting a squirrel like from you guys..Oh wait..that's right there is already one that beccame an ape.
Perfect example of how unstable creationism is.
No instability in the camps, particularly when compared to the instability of evolutionary science. Creationists do not use knee jerk science.
Such as?
Says the person offering magical poofing as a mechanism.
No more grandious than dirt poofing into life by itself and the miserable failure of evolutionists to mimick their miracle.
If only they had evidence to back it up, or a stable model to test.
Each does and the YECS are doing very well. In fact I think I'll back YEC science. It is amazing.
Talk about a biased worldview. At least we can show that humans, apes, dinosaurs, and birds actually exist.
Creationists do not doubt it. It is just that there is nothing in the middle.
What features must a fossil have in order to support evolution and falsify creationism?
Done
So what evidence, if found, would evidence evolution?
Done. A science that actually supports itself would be another good start.
Orangutans May Be Closest Human Relatives, Not Chimps
And what would convince you, say, that the YECS are correct in their theories?
Here is look at carbon dating with another view
Given the short 14C half-life of 5730 years, organic materials purportedly older than 250,000 years, corresponding to 43.6 half-lives, should contain absolutely no detectable 14C.
You evolutionists need an old earth for evolution to have had time to do its thing.
However the inescapable truth is that the earth is not as old as you would like to think it is afterall.
Evolutionists have no fossils that demonstrate the transition between kinds which validates creationists predictions generally.
In my view, Erectus is an ape and I can demonstrate this,
Now I say creationists, in particular the YECS, have much more substantiation for their theory than evolutionists have for theirs.
The various camps have their stable assertions.
After 150 years evolutionary theory has done summersaults with the only stability seen is their insistence that no matter what data is found it must prove evolution.
Again they stick with their individual assertions and look for verifying data, unlike evolutionists that have an anything goes style science.
I'd say with no transitional human or chimp fossils; birds, tetrapods, verterbraes in a mess all trying to prove one theory of evolution you are in a mess. While the various creationist remain stable.
Darls, each creationist view holds their view as stable and none demonstrate the revolving door of evolutionary science that falsifies current thinking on an ongoing basis.
Evolution is the only science that uses straight out falsifications of current thinking as further back up to support itself and calls this science.
Any creationist camp has more to offer than this.......At least creationists use science to back initial theories, rather than knee jerk change them in response to every falsification like evos do.
eg Junk dna proves evolution and so does functional non coding dna.
You could prove man evolved from something like a chimp now you can use the exact same fossils to prove man evolved from something nothing like a chimp at all. Hilarious! but not scientific
Seriously?Astrid said:The 150 years thing is your worst nightmare as what you have is 150 years of instability and change. Even today, after 150 years, evolutionists are still unable to answer how, when, where or why of evolution.
It's the other way around, chief.So you creationists say that because you think you can find mistakes in some science someplace that means creationism must be true.
It's the other way around, chief.
Creationism is truth, therefore science is wrong somewhere.
Now I say creationists, in particular the YECS, have much more substantiation for their theory than evolutionists have for theirs.
So in the face of scientific evidence that falsifies evolution and asides with YEC creationism why would an evolutionist, particularly a theistic evolutionist, not reconsider?
In what way do you feel Gen is not accurate and does not reflect the truth?Genesis chapeter 1 is a mere poem
According to Genesis, on the Third Day, fruit-bearing trees come into existence. On the Fourth Day, the Sun comes into existence. This is contrary to a wealth of evidence that tells us that fruit-bearing trees came into existence 140 million years ago, and the Sun 4.55 billion years ago - i.e., in the reverse order that Genesis tells us - not to mention the simple fact that photosynthesising organisms like trees need sunlight to survive.In what way do you feel Gen is not accurate and does not reflect the truth?
What do you have to back up your opinion that OEC and GAP are not true?
Right, just your one fantasy.Creationists do not demand conflicting fantasies be taught as fact
Not at all. YEC deals with the last 6,000 years. GAP deals with 6,000 to 12,900 years ago. OEC deals with 12,900 to 4.5 billion years ago. They all specialize in their own time frame. There is no contradiction.[/color]It is the existence of several camps that hold contradictory claims which makes creationism unstable.
Not at all. YEC deals with the last 6,000 years. GAP deals with 6,000 to 12,900 years ago. OEC deals with 12,900 to 4.5 billion years ago. They all specialize in their own time frame. There is no contradiction.
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?