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.
View attachment 168514 View attachment 168515
First, astronomers have discovered 194 interstellar and circumstellar molecules, fifteen of which have ten or more atoms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_interstellar_and_circumstellar_molecules). Second, we can actually see interstellar molecular clouds, as dark nebulae. As you can see from the attached images, these dark nebulae are opaque; radiation cannot penetrate through them, so their molecules are protected from destruction. As I understand it, the molecules are adsorbed onto interstellar dust grains, which eventually become parts of comets or asteroids.
I don't understand this. How would wood chips get into an interstellar cloud? They must have been part of a plant, but there are no plants in interstellar space, or even on any planet other than the Earth. Remember that the planets formed from the solar nebula, so there were no life-bearing planets to provide wood chips or any organic matter to the nebula.
Also, interstellar molecular clouds have masses of thousands or even millions of solar masses (up to a trillion Earth masses); it would take more than a planet's worth of wood chips to supply the observed quantities of organic molecules.
View attachment 168514 View attachment 168515
Then you have no business claiming that it is a true dichotomy.
And neither do I. And before Einstein, nobody knew a viable alternative to Newton's theory. That doesn't mean there was some true dichotomy between Newtonian mechanics and "Angels pull things down"-ism.
That is a flat out lie. I have asked you, at least twice, to show how evolution is wrong, using the fossil record as an example. And the only thing you have done is say "creation explains it" and left it at that.
But, I still want to claim it, until it is proven false.
Because it is important for me to argue against evolution.
No you can't, it's the one thing you have demonstrated in this thread. It's quite sad to see the lengths some people will go to to avoid admitting they spoke in error.
There is never a demonstration which shows one species of animal evolved into another species.
Do not just rambling on the cloud. Come down to the ground and let's talk about science.
There is never a demonstration which shows one species of animal evolved into another species.
Do not just rambling on the cloud. Come down to the ground and let's talk about science.
The problem is: By using evolution, we still can NOT explain the fossil sequence.
Yes there is!
Evolution of the horse
Evolution of cetaceans
Evolution of birds
Evolution of man
These are four pages with demonstrations of decent with modification .i.e one species of animal evolving in to another.
You have done nothing put stick your head in the ground and you have certainly not given ANYTHING remotely close to scientific in response.
The fossil sequence is what explains evolution. How did they get where they are in the fossil record without evolution?
That is what I said. People showed one skeleton and another similar skeleton then suggested one evolved into another. This is not science, this is story telling. What I like to see is HOW did the change take place. Nobody can explain/demonstrate that. If one do this kind of "scientific" study in any another discipline, it would become a laughingstock.
Do you (or anybody) know how did ??? evolved into human? You read that link, why don't you explain it a little bit?
But, I still want to claim it, until it is proven false.
Because it is important for me to argue against evolution.
I don't think you know how to use the word "explain" in this case.
...You want to claim it. It's important to you.
That's nice and all, but it doesn't get you one step closer to your arguments making any sense. It just sort of sounds like you're giving up.
Still no science or logic. How does the fossil record not explain evolution? Did it all just pop into the geologic strata at the right place and time to demonstrate evolution? How did those fossils get where they are found in the sedimentary strata without evolution?
Tricky question.
The answer is: With evolution, they still could not get there.
Tricky question.
The answer is: With evolution, they still could not get there.
How though?
Why do you ask me who knows nothing about science?
Tricky question.
The answer is: With evolution, they still could not get there.
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?