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.
The horse transitional lie was proved false over 50 years ago. Why do you trot out old discredited distortions?
In the first place, that concept is so incredibly STUPID anyone who would propose that it be included in a textbook should be stripped of all academic degrees and sent to drive a refuse truck in Chicago.
Yes, it's quite obvious that birds were less fit to survive than dinosaurs, as can readily be checked by observing all of the dinosaurs roaming today's landscape, in stark contrast to the complete absence of birds in today's world.The idea that any animal would DE-VOLVE into an animal that was smaller and less fit to survive is the antithesis of the driving force of evolution theory in the first place.
Please show your calculations.Secondly, there should be millions of fossils that share a dminishing likeness to one and an increasing likeness to the other.
KWCrazy said:In the first place, that concept is so incredibly STUPID anyone who would propose that it be included in a textbook should be stripped of all academic degrees and sent to drive a refuse truck in Chicago. The idea that any animal would DE-VOLVE into an animal that was smaller and less fit to survive is the antithesis of the driving force of evolution theory in the first place. Secondly, there should be millions of fossils that share a dminishing likeness to one and an increasing likeness to the other. There aren't. Third, no fossil can ever be proven to have reproduced. Just because something was born, lived and died was no promise that it produced anythingl let alone anything other than its own kind.
. Nowhere did the article say that abiogenesis was impossible. You have no supported your case.
Kind of like "God can exist but he must be a bald faced liar," huh? If you have no science to back origination, then you have no science to support subsequent changes in that life form.Even more, abiogenesis can be false but evolution can still be true.
I can show that the commonality is due to common descent.
You haven't observed the insertion of anything, nor have you observed the evolution of anything, nor has the evolution of any living thing been observed. There is no evidence of evolution. It is YOUR religious belief.Nowhere do we observe supernatural deities inserting ERV's into genomes, and yet you want to ignore all of the above observations for your unevidence religious belief.
First, the term is beneficial mutations. Second, you have yet to show that evolution needs to produce new genetic information as you define it.
Argument from ignorance. Simple celled animals do not have the same characterists as huamnoids, which do not have the same DNA as plants.Modification of existing information is all that evolution needs to do in order to produce the biodiveristy we see today.
And yet, the mice remain mice. Call me when one becomes a rat.Third, beneficial mutations have been observed and replicated such as the pocket mice referenced in the post above.
I expect you to back your claims. You are claiming that transitional fossils do not exist.
For your statement to have any validity it would require that at least one of those humans be born with gills or wings, or some other genetic information not previously encoded in it's DNA.The rarity of mutations? What? You were born with between 50 and 150 mutations. They are hardly rare. With 7 billion people, that is 700 billion mutations in just one generation of humans. That is enough to cover the 3 billion base haploid human genome several fold in just one generation. Rare? Really?
And yet they co-exist. Amazingly, no human ever gives birth to a chimp or vice versa. If we were so closely related, why is it that no mutation ever causes the erasure of those differences?Mutations are certainly plentiful enough to produce the differences we see between humans and chimps.
Oh please. What next? We have to throw out fingerprint evidence in court trials because God could have planted them?
I disagree with your misinterpretations of evidence.You are simply ignoring the evidence because it is inconvenient.
You put your faith in the false conclusions of evolution, and I'll put my faith in God. In the end, we'll see which theory is deleterious.No one has ever observed a supernatural deity inserting retroviral sequences into genomes. No one. Until you do present this evidence, then we will go with the observed mechanism of retroviral insertion.
You notice you don't see any 'tweeners. As a dinosaur became smaller and less able to fight, it would become food. Food is notoriously unable to become anything but dinner.Less likely to survive? I see quite a few birds around and not many T-rexes. Perhaps it was beneficial?
KWCrazy said:You notice you don't see any 'tweeners. As a dinosaur became smaller and less able to fight, it would become food. Food is notoriously unable to become anything but dinner.
As a dinosaur became smaller and less able to fight, it would become food.
You notice you don't see any 'tweeners. As a dinosaur became smaller and less able to fight, it would become food. Food is notoriously unable to become anything but dinner.
You notice you don't see any 'tweeners. As a dinosaur became smaller and less able to fight, it would become food. Food is notoriously unable to become anything but dinner.
Have you ever heard of birds?
In the first place, that concept is so incredibly STUPID anyone who would propose that it be included in a textbook should be stripped of all academic degrees and sent to drive a refuse truck in Chicago. The idea that any animal would DE-VOLVE into an animal that was smaller and less fit to survive is the antithesis of the driving force of evolution theory in the first place. Secondly, there should be millions of fossils that share a dminishing likeness to one and an increasing likeness to the other. There aren't. Third, no fossil can ever be proven to have reproduced. Just because something was born, lived and died was no promise that it produced anythingl let alone anything other than its own kind.
In the first place, that concept is so incredibly STUPID anyone who would propose that it be included in a textbook should be stripped of all academic degrees and sent to drive a refuse truck in Chicago. The idea that any animal would DE-VOLVE into an animal that was smaller and less fit to survive is the antithesis of the driving force of evolution theory in the first place. Secondly, there should be millions of fossils that share a dminishing likeness to one and an increasing likeness to the other. There aren't. Third, no fossil can ever be proven to have reproduced. Just because something was born, lived and died was no promise that it produced anythingl let alone anything other than its own kind.
The horse transitional lie was proved false over 50 years ago. Why do you trot out old discredited distortions?
(He's not a Nobel Prize winner -- you don't win a Nobel just for finding transitional fossils.)
You notice you don't see any 'tweeners. As a dinosaur became smaller and less able to fight, it would become food. Food is notoriously unable to become anything but dinner.
Abiogenesis was proved impossible over 100 years ago. Life only comes from life. Believing that something which is impossible represents science is a shameful distortion.
No you can't. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats and life produces life.
Commonality cannot be shown to prove descent. If it's not falsifiable it isn't science.
]If a dinosaur has a snout and a duck has a beak, then it MUST produce new genetic information. There is no process in biology to account for it.
No fossil has ever been shown to transition into anything else. Fossils are animals that were burried under sediment under intense pressure all at once. That gives evidence of a cataclysmic flood, not slow transition over millions of years. Fossils have to form very quickly. They did; under a flood.
And yet they co-exist. Amazingly, no human ever gives birth to a chimp or vice versa. If we were so closely related, why is it that no mutation ever causes the erasure of those differences?
I hear they'll be introducing one for Facebook posting soon.I thought they handed the Nobel for Paleontology out between the one for Ornamental Hotriculture and the one for Daytime Television Production.
Speaking of learning something new, you do know that you're a creationist as well; don't you?A common creationist behavior, I'm afraid: interested only in supporting a pre-defined conclusion, never in learning something new.
SOURCETheistic evolution or evolutionary creation is...
My point is that you're taking something on FAITH which has no basis in science, which works contrary to natural selection, which has no evidence, and which meets exactly NO criteria to be considered a valid scientific theory. Yet you are pretending that it is. Either you're lying or you don't understand what a scientific theory is. Which is it? Natural selection does not take any species from predator to food.Yes, they're all long dead. Anything that came short of a bird in that line died. Your point?
While the messenger was flawed, some of the points he made were still valid. For example, when he points out that long discredited claims and proven hoaxes are still in science books, that's easily proven by looking at one. When he points out that pertified trees have been found upright through multiple layers of strata that shows "dating by depth" is unreliable. However, it's not the things that he or others like him have said that wer just plain wrong that you object to. It's the things that poke gaping holes in the religion of evolution that make Darwinists truly hate the man. How DARE he point out flaws in the only excuse atheists have to proclaim that there is no God.And what really amazes me is that even after all that people still believe what he had to say.
Ever read anything about you're own theory? Evolution supposedly took millions of years. How is it that there aren't ANY dino-birds? Not a single one! You do not have ANYTHING to back the claim and yet you pretend it's science.Please show your calculations.
Unicorns are all dead too. That's why you don't see them. Same with winged horses, dragons and Godzilla. They are all dead. Don't you DARE try to deny their existence, either. They existed because I said they did. That makes it a scientific fact, despite the fact that there isn't any evidence they ever lived.Yes, they're all long dead. Anything that came short of a bird in that line died. Your point?
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?