Do you reject the Germ Theory of Disease because the theory does not have a naturalistic explanation for the origin of germs?
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.
I think it bothers these guys that we have a solid Reason for rejecting evolution; whereas they can't tell us what got [their] evolution started in the first place.
The Messel pit from which Ida was unearthed, had an anoxic environment and lack of current at low depths.
No ... and I don't reject evolution, either; I reject macroevolution.Do you reject the Germ Theory of Disease because the theory does not have a naturalistic explanation for the origin of germs?
You DO realize that this obvious flame just makes you look foolish, right?YEC logic=
Conspiracy nut=YEC: Where did the hamburger come from?
Answerer: I don't know.
Conspiracy nut=YEC: Then it doesn't exist.
Answerer: But it's right in front of your face.
Conspiracy nut=YEC: I need to know the the exact address of where it came from, the exact time it was made, who made it, how tall was he, what clothes he was wearing, and his place of birth and date of birth with the exact time and a recorded video of his birth.
Answerer: BUT it's right in front of your face!
Conspiracy nut=YEC: I don't see anything.
Answerer: It's right here!
Conspiracy nut=YEC: Lalalalalalalalalal I don't see anything
Common descent is falsified by the very fact that it has no proof, only comparable DNA in plants and animals with the same Creator.
And do these reproduce? No? Then it is no analogy.I can make tacos, burritos, tostados, fajitas or taco salad with the exact same ingredients. The only difference is the structure and appearance of each.
Not if all life is descended from a common ancestor, or more likely group of ancestors all sharing genetic materal.We have one Creator and one perfect blueprint for life. In that structure, humans have 25% of the same DNA as a daffodil. If evolution were true, especially if abiogenesis were true, we would have unrelated life forms that developed with a different blueprint.
This is falsified by the fact that we see co-evolution all the time. Btw, did your god create parasites? Did he create malaria? If they must have come about via co-evolution.The commonalitity of all living things buoy the common creation every bit as much if not more than common descent. However, symbiotic reltionships within the plant and animal kingdom are problematic for creation deniers. They suggest near simultaneous creation and a circle of life that was designed from the beginiing.
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.
When the first man walked this earth, he could walk and speak with his Creator.
Since that time, his children and all his ancestors have know of God.
Until recently, it was well known that God created the universe.
The only requirement was faith. Since faith is believing in the unproven, God no longer proved Himself to the masses. He continued to work miracles which science to this day cannot explain.
You Darwinists are pretty new to the game. You proclaim that there is no God, or if He does exist that he's a liar.
The evidence is on you to prove beyond reasonable doubt that evolution happened.
We read in the Bible that the fool has said in his heart "there is no God."
You are not smarter than us because of your disbelief.
Or what you CLAIM are transitional fossils. I could look at a skeleton of a donkey, a mule and a horse and show transition. That doesn't make it so. Science is about what you can prove. I haven't seen any proof.
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!
No ... and I don't reject evolution, either; I reject macroevolution.
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.
I think you don't know what you're talking about. What bothers me is lying, distortion, ignorance and character assassination, all done in the name of Christ.I think it bothers these guys that we have a solid Reason for rejecting evolution; whereas they can't tell us what got [their] evolution started in the first place.
I think it bothers these guys that we have a solid Reason for rejecting evolution; whereas they can't tell us what got [their] evolution started in the first place.
All they can come up with is a vague term ... abiogenesis ... which simply means, "it wasn't biogenesis."
As a dinosaur became smaller and less able to fight, it would become food. Food is notoriously unable to become anything but dinner.
I think you don't know what you're talking about. What bothers me is lying, distortion, ignorance and character assassination, all done in the name of Christ.
And even after Pasteur's spontaneous generation experiments were explained to him, he still claims that they somehow PREVENT scientists centuries later from explaining how life came from non-living elements [/B](e.g., as described in Genesis 2:7, "from the dust of the ground".)
The same applies to the advent of life and my new approach to "kinds" when it comes to intransigents. Genesis is making a theological statement that God has created an orderly world and rabbits won't give birth to kittens or crows won't be hatched with arms and wings.
There appears to be the assumption that remaining TOTALLY UNINFORMED about a topic prevents one from being ethically responsible for posting false statements. But that defense vaporizes as others tutor KWC on the basics of science.
Denial is all he's got. (And keep in mind: Not only does he consider Kent Hovind a hero, he thinks Hovind somehow exposed major evolution textbook errors---and it never occurs to him that even the sloppiest textbook companies have NOTHING to do whether or not the science is valid. As a professor I sent errata lists to various textbook publishers every semester. Now if I had found those same errors in peer-reviewed journals, it might be another matter. KWCrazy has no idea what science is nor where to find the scientific method at work.)
I'm going the Poe chorus on this one.
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?