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.
Very clear.Then show me on paper how angels are biological creatures.
Until then, my answer stands: angels.
(In case you don't know it, I've always submitted the fact that angels are examples of living creatures that exist completely apart from evolution. Thus life can exist without evolution.)
In addition, angels aren't the only ones.
I can give a much better example: God.
Both came well before anything ever evolved -- micro or otherwise.
Cain was the first person that ever showed up via microevolution.
Sure I do and I also can recognize the False ToE which does NOT agree with factual Science, Scripture nor History. I have given you every chance to refute me (prove me wrong) and you have failed as much as Trump has, in running the country. Now, that's bad and needs to be corrected. Amen?
but you already agree that out of place fossil will be something like 12354 instead of 12345. right? so all i need is to find you such a case and you will admit that evolution is false.
so if i will show you otherwise you will admit that evolution is false?
You make a big noise, but you have yet to actually produce this alleged out of place fossil.
(I bet you a million dollars that if you ever get around to producing such a fossil, that there will be a rational explanation for it.)
Oh, I know. But unlike a creationist I'm responding to what he wrote, not what I want to think he wroteHe really isn't grasping the concept.
I guarantee you.
Nah, you have no idea how evolution works.
Why lie like this? Do you think your deity will look more favorably upon you for doing so?so a watch isnt evidence for design. thanks.
So... you know that bony fishes are more closely related to mammals than to cartilaginous fishes, yes? And how much of that news blurb did you read? I'm guessing not much of it.actually it can. we can say that the rest of the genome was less conserve and it got many mutations comparing to other animals. actually some genes in sharks are colser to human than to other fishes:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2007/05/30/1937469.htm
Amen, since it doesn't exist except in the minds of it's believers. After thousands of years, declare that God is myth and change the wording from Descent with modification within kinds to the godless word "evolution" and then brainwash every student in the public schools, with it's lies for years, and then broadcast that no one understands, except those who swallow it's false assumptions. Sounds like Trump to me. Amen?
Amen, since it doesn't exist except in the minds of it's believers.
So a science with real-world application doesn't exist except in the minds of it's believers?
so far we have seen that your points were incorrect. so lets continue with this one. you said that its impossible according to evolution to get a different genome but a more similar genome in its ervs. so i showed you that its incorrect too since e ven according to evolution there is no problem if a genome will be more different compare to its ervs phylogeny. as we seen- many genes in sharks are actually more similar to human than to other fishes. so evolution has no problem to solve this conflict by convergent evolution or rapid evolution. so this claim is wrong too. can you admit this simple fact before we will continue?LMAO. This is just as ridiculous as your other claims. Please take some genetics courses, instead of throwing blunt darts hoping they'll stick. (let me know if the italicized metaphor needs explanation, as I recall English not being your first language)
(I bet you a million dollars that if you ever get around to producing such a fossil, that there will be a rational explanation for it.)
so finding an out of place fossil will falsify evolution or not?Let's first clear some things up.
First of all, "admit" is not the correct term here.
There's nothing to "admit".
Secondly, it's not me you need to convince. It's the scientific community.
Frankly, I don't see how it would be possible that you hold some secret evidence that would falsify evolution while the entire working scientific community apparantly isn't aware of this.
Anyway, having said all that: yes, if the evidence didn't support evolution, then I wouldn't accept it.
this is what he said: If you find a watch, 'the designer dun it' is simply a proclamation. so a watch by itself isnt evidence for design according to him. its just a proclamation.That's not at all what he said.
It would certainly cause a rethink. If it couldn't be explained, then yes.so finding an out of place fossil will falsify evolution or not?
how your phylogenetic tree make any difference to what i said?So... you know that bony fishes are more closely related to mammals than to cartilaginous fishes, yes? And how much of that news blurb did you read? I'm guessing not much of it.
Never mind - it is silly of me to think that a creationist would actually look something up before making an argument about it.
http://tolweb.org/Gnathostomata/14843
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?