juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
In science and logic, I don't see any possibility for a monkey changed into a human.
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.
Biblical creation is not science. You said you would show evolution invalid through "science and logic". No does the biblical creation support the fossil record. Not in the least.
Yes, plants. Plants on planets.
No. It is actually the most critical problem in evolution.
Do not mix the Noah's Flood in this issue. It does not belong.
The model lacks the support of evidence. So it is only a scientific idea, not a science.
In science and logic, I don't see any possibility for a monkey changed into a human.
Why not?
It does it exactly. Plants exist before animals.Yeah, but here's the thing: still doesn't support the Genesis story!
I don't see how. The fossil sequence is not a convincing feature. The Creation story can explain that too.
Noah's flood doesn't belong with creationism?
Is not the basis of creationism the belief that God creatred in accordance with the Book of Genesis?
Rubbish! There is more physical evidence described in the scientific literature supporting evolution than in any other scientific theory. Name one physical scientific discipline that does not contribute to the theory of evolution. Just one.
It does it exactly. Plants exist before animals.
It does it exactly. Plants exist before animals.
They contributed. But there is still no evidence.
It is not early enough.Not the biblical description of plants. Flowering fruit? And for that mater the earliest marine life is not plant either.
What they contributed is evidence. Your denial of it does not support your position. What you need to do is show scientifically and logically what the how the fossil record suddenly popped into existence in such a way as to demonstrate evolution.
The quality is not good enough.???????????? What is not early enough?
The quality is not good enough.
For example, a paper showed two similar bones, and said one evolved into another.
What kind of evidence is that? It is not scientific at all.
The quality is not good enough.
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?