April_Rose
Well-Known Member
- Jul 4, 2020
- 3,815
- 2,459
- 35
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Engaged
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.
Have you ever seen a cosmologist using the word "fart" for the Big Bang?
Instead of labeling by post as funny, do you dare to answer the question?
Have you ever seen a cosmologist using the word "fart" for the Big Bang?
So again, you were wilfully and knowingly using misleading terminology.No,.. I just thought that it was funny.
Actually the first one to say so was Carolus Linneaus, a devout pre-Darwinian creationist.Scienticly speaking by who?Now that's where it gets confusing because scientifically speaking humans are animals. We're different from them in some ways but we're not in other ways.
It's important to remember that it's so sloooooow that you can't see it on a generation, by generation level.Well maybe not turning into one directly but it describes slowly evolving into one.
So again, you were wilfully and knowingly using misleading terminology.
That's twice in a very short time.
Well maybe not turning into one directly but it describes slowly evolving into one.
Yes I know that. Apparently critics have only ridicule and mockery, no arguments.Did you know that the term 'Big Bang' was originally coined by the astronomer Fred Hoyle as a derogatory reference to the theory since he initially didn't believe in it?
Thanks for assuming things about me.
It’s already been pointed out several times, to reinforce strange argument that the Cambrian explosion Is a thorn in the side of evolutionists you wrote...
“Recently, an international Biologist stated that appearance of complex species during the Cambrian Explosion were so rapid ands very little is known about the evolutionary ancestors, it looks like "someone planted the fossils there". In his defense, he clarified that he was not talking about creator.“
He doesn’t think that it “looks like someone planted the fossils there”, that was merely a rhetorical device at the start of his chapter, he then goes on to explain why that is not the case.
You quote Dawkins words out of context as if they back up your argument but the chapter from which they come actually does the opposite.... It does a nice job Of explaining aspects of the Cambrian.
Classic quote mining.
A. No he didn't.
B. So what if he did (which he didn't). We do not cling dogmatically to Victorian science.
I'm not sure where you got that from. As I say though, it's neither here nor there, we've moved on from Victorian times.
Wait, this guy wasn't just a biologist, he was a Biologist? Sounds important. And he was "international"? Wow! Impressive. Who was this guy? Can you show me where he said this?
Let's move on.I probably have mixed up responses but, these are some comments I had in my mind where I referred to Dawkins
"He" is Darwin
I'm pretty sure they believe in mutation and diversification... but think that direct divine intervention is the only reasonable explanation.Let's move on.
We have been explaining to you that the Cambrian was not a time when modern animals appear in the fossil record. Rather it is a time when ancient worm like creatures diversified their use of hard parts. The Cambrian is totally consistent with evolution. Do you agree? Why or why not?
As far as I can tell, you deny that speciation ever occurs. Is that true? Then how do you explain that the oldest layers show life forms that are very different from upper layers? How do you explain that life gets progressively more like modern life as you move up the geologic column?
It's really hard to tell. I realize that most creationists accept some micro-evolution. James A seems to disagree with all speciation. I have asked him several times and he will not answer. So we may never know.I'm pretty sure they believe in mutation and diversification... but think that direct divine intervention is the only reasonable explanation.
Most appear not to understand what speciation is.It's really hard to tell. I realize that most creationists accept some micro-evolution. James A seems to disagree with all speciation. I have asked him several times and he will not answer. So we may never know.
...or the Cambrian Explosion, or the fallacy of argument by quote mining.Most appear not to understand what speciation is.
I'm pretty sure they believe in mutation and diversification... but think that direct divine intervention is the only reasonable explanation.
Personally I'm confused by the logic that a system with a 99.9% fail rate is clearly being micro managed by an omniscient deity.
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?