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.
Forgive me but for someone who has your qualification you do not seem to be very knowledgeable about life in general,
were you very religious before you went to collage? were you raised to be a Christian? if not when did you decide to become a Christian?
"highly competitive university in the USA". I am curious, where did you obtain your bachelor's?
BTW, I bet all those people you mentioned were religious before they were educated, how many brilliant Muslims and Hindu's are there?
The real question should be, how many brilliant people decided to become religious after they were educated?
your whole argument goes down the tubes when you say we are related to fruit flies. Thats discusting. I mean really. And immoral.
now if you can prove common ancestry to fruit flies,
kent hovind has a 250,000 dollar challege for anyone to prove common ancestry to distant relatives, like say monkeys, or fruit flies for that matter (now)
"speciation is not evidence for macroevolution, because variation within groups of organisms (however you wish to define those groups) only proves that creatures can adapt to their environments, but does not qualify as evidence that these adaptive changes are without limitation. That is like saying I watched someone jump really high, so that is proof that they used to be able to fly. Evolutionists commonly use the bait n switch method of using microevolution to prove macroevolution. "
above quotes from above link
One estimate I read is 50,000 genetic changes to change from one life form (say a fish) to another (say an amphibious creature). Since all 50,000 changes are required, the fossil record should have many transitions that failed because statistics shows permutations of 50,000 changes has very poor odds.
You have better odds of winning the lottery.
And to think all of these changes occurred without a designer (God) making those changes seems difficult to believe.
How many of these transitional fossils between life forms have been found? If this theory is true, we should see many more transitional fossils than non-transitional fossils.
Testimony? hahahaha!
Hebrews 9:17:
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
Hebrews 9:16:
where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
Jesus came, died for the world, and is seated at the right hand of God. It's done..the first part of the bible was fufilled. While he was in the world he was the light....now that he is not in the world...we the saints are the light. There is no reason for God to reveal any more "scriptures"...like men keep digging out of the ground........ or "talk directly" to people.
I highly doubt you had a "personal interaction" with Jesus. Jesus is god, period.
I just showed you that evidence. Fruit flies are within the nested hierarchy that includes humans and all other bilaterians. It is the nested hierarchy that demonstrates common ancestry.
Bilateria
The problem is that Mr. Hovind gets to decide which evidence you are allowed to present, and Mr. Hovind is also the judge as to whether or not your prove common ancestry. It isn't an honest challenge.
Speciation is proof that populations can be split into subpopulations, and that those subpopulations will diverge over time. That is macroevolution, by definition.
It isn't my argument that just went down the tubes.
Appeal to consequences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you think about, we are more closely related to snakes than to fruit flies; at least snakes are vertebrates.
Ahhh you are operating on the Hovind level of discussion. No wonder you seem very confused at times.
Dizredux
*emphasis mine
Too funny.
We were discussing macroevolution and you were being shown wrong so you tried to change the subject to my religious beliefs. It is called running away and is a rather dishonest tactic.sorry I don't respond to your posts until you respond to mine. So have a good day.
There are many logical failures in this argument.
1. You are only focusing on the changes that would lead to a specific amphibious creature. What you don't factor in is all of the viable evolutionary pathways that do not lead to your specific result. This is known as the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
Texas sharpshooter fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. You act as if the fossil record does not have many transitions for extinct lineages. This would require you to search the entire fossil record to make such a statement, which obviously no one has done. In fact, I doubt we have searched even 0.00001% of the fossil record. On top of that, you also make the assumption that every single transition produced a fossil, and that this fossil survived to the modern day. I don't see why these assumptions should be true.
I guess that you are unaware that people win the lottery all of the time?
We call this an argument from incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.
Argument from incredulity - RationalWiki
Reality has this strange property of not caring what we humans find believable. If we find it hard to believe that it is the Earth that is moving, and not the Sun, reality doesn't care one wit. The Earth is still the one that is moving, in reality.
We have many exmaples of transitional fossils.
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
More importantly, all of the transitional fossils, and fossils in general, fall into the predicted nested hierarchy. All of the fossil evidence supports the theory of evolution.
How can you prove these are transitional fossils and not merely individual extinct species?
In other words, a transitional fossil has characteristics of more than one group.A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.
How can you prove these are transitional fossils and not merely individual extinct species?
thats discusting too. If you can associate with an animal that eats it's prey whole and living, and you can associate with live food wiggling inside you, then you are correct here.
I question some of your sources, wikipedia has error. see below. If your sources are invalid, your whole argument is in question, again.
Up to six in ten articles on Wikipedia contain factual errors | Mail Online
Most Wikipedia entries about companies contain factual errors, study finds -- ScienceDaily
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia - Conservapedia
Study Finds 90% of Health-Related Wikipedia Articles Contain Errors - iHealthBeat
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
above quote from:
Charles Darwin, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 162.
the above is an example of specified complexity.
No mention of specified complexity.
That is a claim. You have not shown that specified complexity fits the challenge given by Darwin. You actually need to show that SCI can not evolve.
This is all you have? This is your grand argument against all of the evidence I have presented you?
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?