You're right. All manner of life evolved with the ability to utilize water for the propagation of life.
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.
Do you ever get the feeling that you're wrong alot?"That's considerate of you to say, Thomas, but the fact is evolution has nothing to do with faith. I accept it because of the evidence that's behind it."
Where is the evidence?...and again no theroies or speculations please...
Until Evos find the evidence they've sought since the beginning of the modern Evo movement about 150 years ago, there is actually no debate at all. Creation is the default. Evolutionists insist that complexity developed from simplicity despite the contradiction to known physical laws. Moreover, Evos maintain that this simplicity just sprang into existence without any cause at all. Let's collect the evidence, and then we can start a debate. Really you dont have any substantial evidence
In any scientific debate, the theories must be tested according to the evidence. We propose that the burden of evidence should be upon the Evolutionists, since Creation has been the historic and inherent default throughout virtually all cultures and religions until roughly the last 200 years. Of course, Evos, who view themselves as the only "scientists" in the debate, insist that the burden of evidence be upon the Creationists. Evos reason, we cannot see the Creator, we cannot hear the Creator, and we cannot touch, taste or smell the Creator. Therefore, we are unable to test for the Creator with any form of scientific equipment developed thus far. Creationists retort, we cannot see, hear, touch, taste, or smell the human mind. We cannot test for the human mind with any form of scientific equipment developed thus far. When we run an electroencephalogram, we are measuring salt flow and electrical activity within the human brain. We cannot so much as even locate the human mind. Yet we watch as human carcasses run about, making order of disorder, conscious decisions according to subconscious criteria. We see the design and complexity that result from the operation of the brain through the invisible realm known as the mind. Thus, we know with certainty that the human mind exists. Therefore, it's absolutely logical for Creationists to postulate the existence of a Creator based upon the same "evidence." The design we see all around us came from one, grand concept, and such a concept can only come from a complex Mind. Furthermore, the mathematical and physical laws inherent in all things (including, most dramatically, the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Cause and Effect) effectively validate this evidentiary claim
No --- they misspell "his" as "her" ---Why, do other versions of the Bible somehow misspell "six" as "twenty-nine"? I was under the impression this was a simple concept?
Now your versions:Colossians 4:15 said:Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.
Colossians 4:15 --- NIV said:Give my greetings to the brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house.
Colossians 4:15 --- New Century Version? said:Greet the brothers and sisters in Laodicea. And greet Nympha and the church that meets in her house.
Colossians 4:15 --- New Living Translation said:Please give my greetings to our brothers and sisters at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church that meets in her house.
"That's considerate of you to say, Thomas, but the fact is evolution has nothing to do with faith. I accept it because of the evidence that's behind it."
Where is the evidence?...and again no theroies or speculations please...
Until Evos find the evidence they've sought since the beginning of the modern Evo movement about 150 years ago, there is actually no debate at all. Creation is the default.
Evolutionists insist that complexity developed from simplicity despite the contradiction to known physical laws.
Moreover, Evos maintain that this simplicity just sprang into existence without any cause at all. Let's collect the evidence, and then we can start a debate. Really you dont have any substantial evidence
In any scientific debate, the theories must be tested according to the evidence. We propose that the burden of evidence should be upon the Evolutionists, since Creation has been the historic and inherent default throughout virtually all cultures and religions until roughly the last 200 years.
Of course, Evos, who view themselves as the only "scientists" in the debate, insist that the burden of evidence be upon the Creationists. Evos reason, we cannot see the Creator, we cannot hear the Creator, and we cannot touch, taste or smell the Creator. Therefore, we are unable to test for the Creator with any form of scientific equipment developed thus far.
Creationists retort, we cannot see, hear, touch, taste, or smell the human mind. We cannot test for the human mind with any form of scientific equipment developed thus far. When we run an electroencephalogram, we are measuring salt flow and electrical activity within the human brain. We cannot so much as even locate the human mind. Yet we watch as human carcasses run about, making order of disorder, conscious decisions according to subconscious criteria. We see the design and complexity that result from the operation of the brain through the invisible realm known as the mind. Thus, we know with certainty that the human mind exists. Therefore, it's absolutely logical for Creationists to postulate the existence of a Creator based upon the same "evidence."
The design we see all around us came from one, grand concept, and such a concept can only come from a complex Mind.
Furthermore, the mathematical and physical laws inherent in all things (including, most dramatically, the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Cause and Effect) effectively validate this evidentiary claim
No --- they misspell "his" as "her" ---Now your versions:
Cabal, no offense meant --- really --- but I don't thing you understand what The Creation is.Sorry, The Creation.
Back at you, and no..once you have the truth it sets you free...Me plus God is the majority...God is NEVER wrong..... I have already stated laws and finds in science that put a great deal of doubt in your faith of chance, in case you did not read...transitional fossils...1st and 2nd LOT..law of cause and effect....and various eye opening statements as to the design in ALL that is around us that proves a designer....not chance..no way ...sorry...aint gonna sell that here. Plus I have the bible...you have yours too I know...Charles Darwin..Origin of the species....My God is bigger than your god.. My God promises hope, joy peace and an abundant life. I have that ...You get that from your god?...anything?Do you ever get the feeling that you're wrong alot?
Cabal, no offense meant --- really --- but I don't thing you understand what The Creation is.
You may understand "the creation", or "creationism", or some other form of creation that can be adulterated with science --- but "The Creation" is not something I think you can comprehend.
And I do apologize if I am wrong --- but I don't think I am.
Because you are shoehorning. Definitely.Interesting verb choice --- so do you disagree with me because I'm "shoehorning", or am I "shoehorning" because you disagree with me?
Thomas A, I would be happy to debate ONE topic at a time with you. Your choice. Pick your best evidence of creation, I'll even let you think about it for a while before you post. I'll check in the morning and reply.
Just ONE point though. Kind of useless when you just cut/paste PRATT material. So, please, pick just one point for a topic of conversation (try to stay focused) and I'll reply in the morning. K?
Thomas A, I would be happy to debate ONE topic at a time with you. Your choice. Pick your best evidence of creation, I'll even let you think about it for a while before you post. I'll check in the morning and reply.
Just ONE point though. Kind of useless when you just cut/paste PRATT material. So, please, pick just one point for a topic of conversation (try to stay focused) and I'll reply in the morning. K?
So what's the fossil record then?I still am curious on how we squirmed along for supposedly millions of years (no evidence has ever been found for this either) but by faith you believe it and there are no signs of this
Wikipedia said:Critics argue that the offer is merely a publicity stunt, that it is deliberately designed to be impossible to win because it requires the claimant to disprove all possible theories for the origin of species, no matter how ridiculous, "Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution ... is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence," states his FAQ.[48] Unlike Hovind, scientists in the field of evolutionary biology do not distinguish between so-called "micro" and "macro" evolution as distinct processes. They contend all evolution takes place on a "micro" level, and that macroevolution is cumulative microevolution.[50]
Critics also say that his description of evolution does not match with the scientific definition and that he conflates evolution with other unrelated issues in the description of his challenge. The above definition of "evolution" which Hovind asks respondents to meet differs from the one used by scientists. By the generally accepted definition of "evolution", only item number 5 deals with the process of evolution. Items 1 and 2 fall under cosmology and astronomy, while items 3 and 4 refer to abiogenesis. Furthermore, it would be impossible to prove gravity under the same conditions as Hovind requires,[51] and furthermore absolutely impossible to prove claims made in the Bible.
Some creationists also do not approve of Hovind's offer. Answers in Genesis said it "would prefer that 'creationists' refrained from gimmicks like this."[52]
Hovind has said a panel of judges would decide if a claim had met his criteria, but he has refused to say who would be (or is) on that panel. He has even refused to say what their qualifications might be. Challengers who have submitted claims to Hovind have become convinced that he does not actually use a panel of judges, in spite of his promise to do so.[53] In one case, after twice stating that he would send a particular response to his judges (according to his website any responses he sent were considered "legitimate"[48]) Hovind then reneged stating, "Thanks for reminding me about not sending minor changes to the committee. This would be a waste of time for everyone involved. If you ever get any evidence that does support evolution please send it to me". The respondent was not amused and felt that this indicated dishonesty on Hovind's part and confirmed suspicions of the public that he never intended to pay.[54]
OH, okCheers for a direct response, much appreciated.
Even though creationism does not and cannot have empirical evidence?
evo has empirical evidence, why is that only in the evos faith is it seen then?
Anyway, evidence. Do you know of endogenous retroviruses?
They are considered one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the descent of man and the other primates from a common ancestor - essentially they are the remnants of viral infections in the genetic code of a common ancestor that ended up being transmitted from individual to individual - this didn't stop when a group of individuals speciated, and we still have the same remnants in our genome today. The odds of these gene sequences appearing in the same place in the different species by chance is something astronomical - however, if ToE is true, then these traces are perfectly explainable, likely and predictable.
There have been many studies. Does similarity necessarily prove common decent? Maybe in your book it does but studies have shown that the genetic comparisons between chimps and humans is not so clear cut.Researchers have come to different conclusions. At first we have been thought to share 98.5% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzee...(your uncle not mine) 95% at best including the indels..other studies have dropped it to 86.7%..including indels...Richard Buggs most recent studies after taking into account many differences between the two genomes concluded may actually be less than 70% genetic similarities.
Studies have show that the DNA of mice is only different from ours by 2.5%...(does that make mice our uncle to?)other studies have shown that our genes are 99% identical to mice.
Its not the info you evos find its what you do with it that bothers most. The truth is that similarity is actually necessity to survie. Biochemically, even to have food we need to have the food available we have to be genetically similar to other animal groups, or we couldn't live. Similarity is not proof of evo but rather it is proof, like other species and organisms, are living beings with certain necessites...we eat the same food...breathe the same air.
Also to argue that the divergence between humans and other species is due to mutation is nothing but wishful thinking due to the fact that there has not been one single case in which a mutation has been observed to add new information to the genome. So my conclusion is that even though at first the 98.5% similarity between chimps and humans appears to vindicate Darwins theory, it seems to me that to assume that this is proof of common descent is just an over-simplification made by people that want Darwins theory to be true.
Here is where your lack of knowledge of thermodynamics comes in - there is absolutely nothing stopping this from happening, given the right set of conditions and if there is an external source of energy. It can boiled down to locally reversing entropy - something your fridge does on a daily basis.
Is it really my lack of knowledge of thermodynamics, or is it what you evos do with the info given?
Well, not so much, evolution assumes that abiogenesis happened, it's never been a theory for dealing with the origin of life, just it's development (at least, when you define evolution PROPERLY). However, there is more and more evidence for abiogenesis appearing, check some of the recent threads on this board and the physical and life sciences board.
Once again..twist, distort, stretch the info to satisfy your faith.
No, tough. Consensus changed 200 years ago - now you're breaking convention, you back it up. There is plenty of evidence for ToE, and consensus wouldn't have changed in the first place if there wasn't!
Plenty of evidence.?..I have only seen and heard speculation and assumptions....no facts yet...where are those transitionals?
Yes, funny that, given that he said in his own Scripture that we SHOULDN'T PUT HIM TO THE TEST.
1 John 4 1-3 "Dear freinds do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false profits have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God. Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world"
Have you tested your spirit of evo?...is it anti - christ?
Ok, the very fact that EEGs record SOMETHING at least puts the human mind on a higher level of testability than an untestable god.
who said anything about testing the mind with EEGs...the brain was tested not the mind......nice try though
Then what created the complex mind? And what created that? And what created that? etc. Big problem with that argument.
No problem what-so-ever. The bible has the answers...dont scim through it though and be born of His Spirit...makes it easier to understand.The answers there...I have it..you want it you seek and you will find.
No, it really doesn't - this is assuming of course that we're talking about ToE proper and not cosmology, at which point we're waaaaay off track.
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?