Search results

This has to be the weakest argument you've ever proposed (and you definitely have proposed some weak ones before).

That's a different meaning for "rational".

Agreed. That's why I think it's important to be as precise as possible in our challenges.

Which is the exact criterion @justatruthseeker was requesting. "Any creature changing into another creature". Most evolutionists would deny that such would fit their definition of evolution, so it's of little use, but that's what he asked for.

Sure. Haven't you ever seen a frog with a tail?

Butterflies and moths both change from one creature into another over time. Tadpoles change into frogs. The fossil record probably has examples of these changes, but I haven't looked, since we can observe the changes directly.

Apparently you're not really "just a truth seeker".

I agree wholeheartedly with your post here, but no evolutionist would say that an ape evolved into a man. Words are important, and we should use them accurately, because evolutionists don't always.

No evolutionist ever said they did. That's my point. Arguing against evolution by agreeing with evolutionists seems rather futile.

And every evolutionist would agree with you--that for every fossil, those animals that were left as fossils never changed into anything else before they died. If you want to argue against evolution, you should do it with something they DON'T agree with. Absolutely! I'm just saying that your...

Individual fossils don't change, except to crumble, perhaps. But if you were to find a fossil of your husky and above that a fossil of its chinook offspring, you would have exactly what you are saying doesn't exist. The cause of the sequence would not be evolution, but would be breeding. If...

Hi CC. One thing that helps immensely is to use the "Quote" or "Reply" features so we know what you are referring to, and so those that you are replying to can get a notification about your response.

You might want to define what you mean by "creature". If a kind of animal rather than a specific being (like your pet dog), then you might be mistaken about these "changes". Even a specific animal changes over time: grows bigger, gains or loses hair, gains or loses teeth, gets old and wrinkled...

Otherwise known as "blasphemy." At least you admit it--that "science" is a God that requires defending.

That's what @redfern was saying--the tantrums you like to express to everyone are irrelevant.

I've been thinking about this some more. The biblical account of"Let theire be light" aligns with the current secular theory of the photon phase of the Big Bang. Separation of light from darkness requires more than just objects to block the light. It requires the light to only come from some...

Lol. But not the history of scientific history, right? Since current "scientific history" is vastly different from previous centuries' "scientific history". Like the Greek's scientific history, that said the universe has always existed, or the pre-Copernican scientific history that said the sun...

Seems to me that a little shade is exactly what would have been needed. But are you suggesting a symbolic or allegorical alternative?

Why does that "matter" in this discussion?

Now we know the answer