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.
Funny, I have the SAME view of you and other Evolutionists. You used to TRY to defend your false view of Godless evolution, but lately you hide from God's Truth because it totally destroys your FAITH in the Lies of Evolution. God Bless you
Atheists have no idea when anything happened. When I started studying evolution, I was told the earth was 200 million years old. Next it was 800 million years old. next it was 1 billion. This was followed by speculation that it was 2.8 billion. A few months later it had increased to 3.5 billion and the last I heard from the late Christopher Hitchens is was 13.5 billion.
Nope, no false faith on my part. You are simply projecting your flaws upon others. You have a false faith based view, my views are simply based upon observable evidence.
And how has evolution ever been shown to be wrong?
I am getting a distinct impression that the evidence you talk about is evidence according to subduction zone.
Not only that this is still only a very very small fraction of the scientists in the world even if it is true. The fact is that over 99% of biologists and paleontologists accept the theory of evolution.
Have you ever thought of putting into Google something like 'scientific evidence for evolution'?
Do you think that thousands and thousands of biologists the world over go about their daily work using a theory which has no evidence?
This isn't a book recommendation thread. This is a discussion forum. If there is evidence you would like to present or discuss, then present it.
Nope, no false faith on my part. You are simply projecting your flaws upon others. You have a false faith based view, my views are simply based upon observable evidence.
And how has evolution ever been shown to be wrong?
Bill Nye "The Science Guy" assures us that the particular fossils found in the successive layers of sediments, wherever they are found around the earth, do not appear in the previous or later sediment layers. If this is true none of those particular life forms, unique only to those sediment layers, evolved at all, but were destroyed when that period ended.
So many are so misleading when they speak of "evolution".
What kind of evolution is based on the scientific method?
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification; chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.
Have you got a citation for those different 'kinds' of evolution you speak of?
As you ignored my first point I guess you've never actually tried to look for any evidence yourself - sure would be a whole lot easier.
You're being a bit misleading here. "Evolution" isn't a monolithic term. You need to identify which type of evolution 99% of biologists accept.
1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature
2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population
3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.
4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification; chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations
5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.
6. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.
The evidence depends on what kind of evolution you're looking for.
For example, there's no evidence for the "blind watchmaker" evolutionary view....
"Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms."
Wrong, I have given evidence. Certain creationists dishonestly denied the evidence. Evidence itself cannot be denied. Too many creationists cannot debate honestly here. When they demonstrate that they do not understand the concept of evidence I offer to help them to learn the concept of scientific evidence. This is not my definition but that of scientists. But one thing that seems to scare creationists even more than the theory of evolution is the concept of scientific evidence.You'll find that SZ claims to have evidence, but when asked for it it's never forthcoming. While he may consider his empty boasts and responses void of content as evidence, it's nothing more than fluff.
Observe a single life form from long long ago producing a human by Darwinist evolutionary mechanisms.
The evidence depends on what kind of evolution you're looking for.
For example, there's no evidence for the "blind watchmaker" evolutionary view....
"Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms."
It is incomplete because it's false assumptions REJECT God's Truth of the Flood. Humans were made on another world and came to this Planet in an Ark 10-12k years ago. Here is empirical historic evidence of their arrival in the mountains of Ararat. It shows that the FIRST modern Human traits SUDDENLY appeared just as God told us in Gen 8:4. http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/map00-fc.html
Either refute this evidence of the SUDDEN emergence of Human Civilization on this Planet or it will totally destroy your precious Theory of Evolution because evolution doesn't do anything SUDDENLY. Amen?
I never use the term monolithically. If you don't understand from context then you should ask for clarification.
But no one believes that. You made the mist of using the term "unguided". It is a strawman of evolution. Nor is it purposeless. You might not like the purpose, but there is a clear "purpose".
If you could argue properly you would not need to obfuscate the issue. You would still lose, but you would lose with dignity.
This is a ridiculous demand.
Then here's a crazy idea - decide what you want to find scientific evidence for, then go and look for it.
Don't just limit it to your definitions and catchphrases - look more widely, be open minded. You might just discover things. That's the awesomeness of science.
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?