This phrase is better. Too bad it is sexist.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!
- Thread starter Ktoyou
- Start date
Not true. Even if you had absolute proof of resurrection, it does not validate the particulars of the religion or its origin narratives. It would prove that death is not final under some circumstances only.
BTW, there is no convincing evidence that the resurrection occurred.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
This is a ridiculous and stubborn and incorrigible view.
Bare assertion, bald assertion, opinion, rhetoric, narrative, declaration.
Not factual, nonfiction or true. Not without substantiation, and you don't have substantiation.
The fun of science is that it allows you to test what your imagination conjures so you can reject or accept it. This is a good thing.
You always start with a substrate that is in may ways similar to the novel form. Pick exemplars from further points in time and you may see vast differences. You may see essentially the same form when the environmental niche is not altered.
Yes, but a faster change and not just because the reproduction cycle is rapid. The survival pressure is a great amount more intense for the flys in the dark versus the light.
The sea slug developed a notochord and a hollow dorsal nerve cord which later became the spinal cord and column. Cartilage protrusions helped with motility and structural integrity. Eventually calcium and collagen remineralized the cartilage creating bone. In other cases the skin became bone.
Thankfully many of the steps occurred simultaneously and worked off existing substrates becoming more detailed rather than adding completely new structures.
Last edited:
Why? I use simple logic.
I believe things based on the evidence before me. I do not believe everything until there is evidence against it.
If you want to discuss this further. Let's find a different thread.
Right Divider
Body part
Nope.
And failing... repeatedly.
They can try all that they want. They will fail.
You cannot properly experiment on origins. That's just a fact.
Note that the "observed evolution" that you talk about is simply variation and adaption. Those are fully compatible with the CREATION MODEL.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
No, it's not.. unless you're a retard.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
He really is, isn't he?
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, flies can become flies. Call the press.
Fairy tale.
Fairy tale.
Fairy tale.
The term men excludes women, mate.
Unless you are a retard -- which means someone who cannot grasp molecules, the earth's core, or evolution and the common descent of all living things- because they cannot see them with their own eyes. You believe in historical events without seeing them in a lab though. What are the origins of the Civil War ? Oh wait - I forgot its not possible to determine origins.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
It's possible when there's written history.
Historians usually write about events they did not witness.
What is likely to be more accurate: an array of fossils across time in various layers of sedimentary rock or a few words scrawled down by humans?
Right Divider
Body part
I hoped that you would be intelligent enough to understand this properly. My mistake.
By MEN, I'm talking about MANKIND/HUMANKIND (i.e., men and women).
The only retard between us is you.
I have no problem understanding molecules and what they can and cannot do naturally.
Yes, the earth has a core (two actually).
Common descent of all living things is fine. As long as you're not trying to make it common descent from a SINGLE common ancestor. That is a myth. I believe in common descent from the originally created kinds.
When things cannot be observed, they do not fall within the realm of .... wait for it.... observational science. One of the principles of observational science is observation.
Those historical events were documented by people that DID observe the events. That is completely different from "evolution" in the supposed distance past where there were NO observers at all.
You continue to show your ignorance.
Last edited:
Mutations do not add richness. Only variation.
A single LUCA. Got it.
All the evidence so far is for my idea. I even showed you some that we'll see in a moment you ignored.
Which is why common descent can correctly be described as a religious cult.
This is the Lenski experiment that you were already shown conclusively that c+ organisms were a subset of their ancestors. Good job proving my point.
I don't think I showed an experiment about pesticides. I showed the Harvard experiment with successively more concentrated antibiotics, which as usual showed the child bacteria populations were subsets of their parent populations. Show me which experiment you are taking about.
Right Divider
Body part
Historians write about events that someone witnessed.
Which is more likely to be accurate, an evolutionists description of the fossil record or a creationists description of the fossil record? (hint: Creationist).
Last edited:
Get with the current century. As you know the language is changing to explicitly show more inclusivity.
How is that possible? You cannot observe the inner workings of a molecule in a lab. This is NOT science to you.
How is that possible? You cannot observe the core in a lab or the field. This is NOT science to you.
Oh, so NOW you are adding the word observational? Why do you accept some phenomena that are not able to be observed but not others?
Often times the most reliable unbiased primary source for history is records of what people did over what they said.
More and more, every time I quote you.
Last edited:
Do you deny that info is added when environmental factors interact with mutations and effect the frequency of alleles in the next generation?
Good.
Your evidence showed that evolution occurred but it was not really a speciation event yet. What about the fossil record? We do not see kinds oscillating. We see extinction of some kinds. We see new kinds popping up at different points in time. We see a succession of kinds flowing into another kind!!
Right Divider
Body part
Get over yourself. Mr. Righteous.
You are confused, as per usual.
Apparently you are confused about direct VS indirect observations. Both can be repeated.
You have NEITHER type of observation regarding the naturalist origin story.
Unless you think that simple conjecture is enough to qualify as "science".
What observations lead you to believe that dirt can become a man/woman?
No kidding. Thanks for the new flash... call the press.
You beg the question. Why is the creation account supposedly more accurate? Also even more important: what is the creationists account of the fossil record?
Right Divider
Body part
Absolutely... only variation and adaption based on already existing genes.
Continuing to conflate terms is dishonest.
What you call "speciation" is NOT the kind of "evolution" that your theory requires.
Speciation is completely and fully compatible with the CREATION MODEL.
What about it? Billions of death things buried during a global flood.
We also do not see partial organs... partial limbs... i.e. the things we should see if your "theory" were true.
Indeed, many went extinct during the global flood.
Since the fossil record is the result of a global flood, your interpretation of what you see is wrong.
Nope. That's your vivid imagination at work again. Does it get paid overtime?