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.
I think declaring that "I'm right, and those who disagree with me are spreading the message of the devil." is a super strong statement to just support with your personal interpretation of your religion.Well, for the record, any child in our Sunday school classes can give you his name.
In the meantime, any child can -- (or should be able to) -- give you the name of our "common ancestor."I think declaring that "I'm right, and those who disagree with me are spreading the message of the devil." is a super strong statement to just support with your personal interpretation of your religion.
Especially since it's the same argument that Flat Earthers use when talking about more typical Creationists.
Noah?In the meantime, any child can -- (or should be able to) -- give you the name of our "common ancestor."
Not the most recent common ancestor in the narrative.Adam.
(And not y-Adam, either.)
Adam was ancestor to chimpanzees? I've not heard that claim before.Adam.
(And not y-Adam, either.)
And yet, the "darwinists" got it right. Individual organisms don't evolve, population do over different generations.You wrote: "evolved from common ancestors with other animals"
Could you please tell us exactly what, according to you, it would be for something to "evolve from" something/for something to "evolve into" something? I've asked Darwinists what it would be for an individual fish to "evolve into" an individual man, and all I ever get from them is a reaction along the lines of "You just don't understand how evolution works! Individual animals don't evolve!" Of course, every animal is an individual—an individual animal—so, to say "Individual animals don't evolve" is to say "Animals don't evolve." And of course, that's fundamentally, insurmountably problematic for Darwinists, since they go around saying things like "Dinosaurs [animals] evolved into birds [animals]!" Out of the one side of their mouth, Darwinists say animals "evolve," whereas, out of the other side, they say animals "don't evolve". Not a brilliant ploy, Darwinists.
You're liable to hear anything nowadays.Adam was ancestor to chimpanzees? I've not heard that claim before.
Sad, but true. It's one of the reasons I have absolutely no interest in heading to USA. First world economy, 3rd world intellect.You're liable to hear anything nowadays.
Education breeds intolerance, doesn't it?Sad, but true. It's one of the reasons I have absolutely no interest in heading to USA. First world economy, 3rd world intellect.
Not in my experience. Ignorance, arrogance, poor education and indoctrination breed intolerance.Education breeds intolerance, doesn't it?
Americans are stoopid.Sad, but true. It's one of the reasons I have absolutely no interest in heading to USA. First world economy, 3rd world intellect.
Evolution is a process that happens on the scale of entire populations over the course of generations.
As a micro-evolution example a wolf is not a dog, but all dogs are descended from a population of wolves.
It isn't a matter of a single wolf transforming into a dog... or even a single dog being born to wolf parents, it's about all the little traits that are helpful to dogs developing separately in the population and becoming more common from generation to generation as the ones without them don't thrive.
On a small scale of thousands of years you can get very distinct sub-species like Canis familiaris and Canis lupus... and the genetic and fossil evidence demonstrates that this trend can continue to much more significant changes on a longer time frame.
So, while a dog is still a canine... it's also still a carnivore, still a mammal, still a vertebrate and still an animal.
With humans and chimps both coming from a common ape ancestor it's a matter of the populations splitting into the forest and climbing focused chimps and the savanna focused ancestors of humanity. The complicated tree of the savanna apes only has humans left now, but we have fossil evidence of many more species. In fact around 100 thousand years ago there were at least 5 distinct hominid species.
You've probably seen this image of fossils of the extinct species that clearly shows how difficult it is to differentiate "ape" from "man".
View attachment 315534
Evolution is a process that happens on the scale of entire populations over the course of generations.
As a micro-evolution example a wolf is not a dog, but all dogs are descended from a population of wolves.
It isn't a matter of a single wolf transforming into a dog... or even a single dog being born to wolf parents, it's about all the little traits that are helpful to dogs developing separately in the population and becoming more common from generation to generation as the ones without them don't thrive.
On a small scale of thousands of years you can get very distinct sub-species like Canis familiaris and Canis lupus... and the genetic and fossil evidence demonstrates that this trend can continue to much more significant changes on a longer time frame.
So, while a dog is still a canine... it's also still a carnivore, still a mammal, still a vertebrate and still an animal.
With humans and chimps both coming from a common ape ancestor it's a matter of the populations splitting into the forest and climbing focused chimps and the savanna focused ancestors of humanity. The complicated tree of the savanna apes only has humans left now, but we have fossil evidence of many more species. In fact around 100 thousand years ago there were at least 5 distinct hominid species.
You've probably seen this image of fossils of the extinct species that clearly shows how difficult it is to differentiate "ape" from "man".
View attachment 315534
Mr Darwin was born 45 minutes drive from my home. His grandfather Erasmus had a home not far from where I live - which is now a museum which is open to the public.So a lot of creationists have an incredibly active fantasy life around Mr Darwin.
Some think he is even still alive.
Many seem convinced that he is some sort of god or deity.
A lot of creationists think we worship Mr Darwin, and they imagine all sorts of fantastic rituals being practiced by hooded priests who speak mysterious chants.
In fact, Darwin is not a religious figure. He is a historical figure.An ordinary man, who was one of many people who stumbled upon the idea of sexual selection as the driver of evolution.
I have no idea what to make of the arguments of the guy above me. Is he arguing from semantics or what, because he is certainly not arguing from a scientific standpoint.
Evidence isn't perfect and I never claimed it was. It is the most reliable method I've seen presented.
Trivial.
The preponderance of evidence implies that you have thoroughly investigated the situation and come to a conclusion based on all available evidence.
Also, when I said that evidence can be found that supports false propositions, I wasn't implying that evidence can be found to support any proposition.
But your silly example is trivial anyway.
With a small subset of data you can reach incorrect conclusions.
Lets just say you have two bits of data, a holiday photo of some people labelled: "Us at the Grand Canyon on our trip to the USA!" and the other bit of data is a postcard for "Rhode Island, USA!" you now have limited evidence and a possible conclusion is that they are the same place. Now if you also had a road map of the USA you could see the state boundaries and now the preponderance of evidence is that they are in fact in different locations within an area called the USA.
People can be reasonable or unreasonable in why they accept things.
The evidence of genetic relatedness of modern animals is consistent with the evidence of species transition found in geological evidence for the history of the Earth.
The theory of evolution that natural selection acts on natural variation in species caused by mutation explains the patterns of evidence found.
I've asked Darwinists what it would be for an individual fish to "evolve into" an individual man, and all I ever get from them is a reaction along the lines of "You just don't understand how evolution works! Individual animals don't evolve!"
It's a mess. This new poster seems to think they can win arguments by word choice. It's very odd. As for the arguments, they are just filled with nonsense. Perhaps they will evolve and become more coherent.
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?