Care to justify?
Care to justify?
Care to justify?
-
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
The hypothesis is a guess. The work with the Bible and contemporary documents is the analysis, and an attempted conclusion on whether the guess was right. The evidence is fascinating.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
A typical 'Protestant-istic' way of looking at our faith, with 'overweighting' on our scriptures. Examine the historical institutions of the ancient Church, and there's no room for any doubt.
Right Divider
Body part
Let me remind you that:
- Natural selection can only select what ALREADY exists. It is NOT a creative force.
- SELECTION is a term of INTELLIGENCE. Only intelligent beings can actually SELECT.
This is always a wonderful excuse for evolutionists. Instead of understanding the limitation of science, they forge on to make unscientific claims while calling it "science".
Too bad, eh?
I go with the grand designer in a fallen world, since random chance will not make anything resembling a design.
Indeed they are! The harmful ones are really bad.
These examples do NOT get you from single-celled creatures to humans. That is pure fantasy.
Last edited:
There could be more than one abiogenesisi event and we would still be talking about evolution.
They add an extra point to the definition because they think it makes their cause easier to achieve.
The definition was established then you added a phrase to it. And, evolution is a specific kind of change so do not attempt to straw man it.
It's fine if you understand what it means and its limits.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Prove it.
The universe bears witness of God because it bears witness of a beginning and it remains scientifically impossible for God not to have created it. Matter could not have created itself and non-intelligence and non-entities could not have designed and created the orderly universe. Nonsense mythological speculations are not scientific.
It has nothing to do with what I like or don't like. That IS NOT evolution, that is natural selection and adaptation which is NOT the same thing.
The problem you evolutionists have is that you've lowered the goal post so far that it's gone. Anything you see happen in nature counts in your minds as evidence for evolution. Literally ANYTHING at all. It's become the most fundamentally unfalsifiable nonsense that has ever had the label "scientific" plastered on it by people who's careers depend on its continued acceptance as science.
Of course we do!
Current evolutionary theory claims that homo-sapiens split off something like 200,000 years ago. If you count generations as the length of time it takes for one generation to reach sexual maturity then that's about 14,000 generations or so if you say that most 14 year-olds can and did reproduce. In other words, 14,000 generations is a generous number but lets be way more generous than that! Neanderthals split from homo erectus somewhere between 800,000 and 300,000 years ago (ridiculously wide error bar on that one, by the way) so we've had at least two speciation events occur, according to evolutionary theory, in the last 800,000 years, so lets just average that and say every 400,000 years or 28,500 generations there's a new species OF HUMANS! For ease of discussion I'll even give you an extra 1500 generation and we'll use 30,000 generations.
E. Coli bacteria, a FAR simpler form of life than any form of human, reproduces every 15-20 minutes and so lets use the longer number of 20 minutes. There 1440 minutes in a day and so that's 480 generations a 24 hour day. 30,000 generations / 480 generations per day comes to 62 days and 12 hours.
If we expand that to include the entire 800,000 years since eructus supposedly showed up, then we're talking about 57,142 generations. A number of generations that e coli would achieve in 119 days. So, if you started your experiment on January 1st, you should have some speciation event occur by the 29th of April.
At least one evolutionary study with e coli has been running continuously since 1987 with not one single speciation event happening at all! Every microbe in the experiment is still e coli!
This is just another area where evolutionists have muddied the water so badly that normal discussion cannot occur without tediously defining terms. As I said before, evolutionists have defined terms in such a way that everything in nature presents as evidence for evolution in their minds. This includes the term "species". The only thing in all of science that is more unfalsifiable is the big bang theory which has somehow survived the rejection of the notion of a singularity being the start of it all!
Look, if you continue down this road then I certainly will not. The fact that watches require, not only watch designers, but also watch makers is not true because I say so. It is true because of the rational impossibility of the contrary, not to mention the law of entropy! Anyone who denies it is a literal idiot. I DO NOT discuss science (or much of anything else) with idiots.
So, here's your test...
Was the Antikythera Mechanism DEFINITELY intelligently designed and made?
ANY answer other than...
"Yes! I, Skeeter, absolutely know for an undeniable, scientific fact that the Antikythera Mechanism was certainly intelligently designed and that is was made on purpose and that it was not, and could not possibly have been, the result of anything remotely close to a mindless process!" (including the underlining and exclamation marks)
....will prove that you're either an idiot or a liar and will thus end my participation in this already fruitless discussion.
Clete
Last edited:
Evidence is nothing at all compared to rational inferrence. Indeed, evidence has no meaning outside rational inference. Presenting something as evidence is rational inference! Valuing evidence over reason is stupidity on parade.
If you assume there is no God then you must assume changes in life forms are attributable to a cause that is not God. Assumptions and speculations are not irrefutable scientific facts. If you fail to prove God does not exist then you fail to prove He is not responsible for changes and adaptations in life forms.
No amount of time will ever prove mutations can explain the mysterious emergence of new data that would be required to explain life's development without God.
Evolution is speculation based upon assumptions, not proven scientific fact.
Trying to explain the consistent order of the universe without God is like a man blind from birth trying to explain what colors look like to a professional painter.
Secularist evolutionists have come a long way since Darwin's day. Darwin had some silly ideas about origins and he titled his book of fiction "The origin of the species" but he knew nothing about the origin of life or how to group life forms into specific species classifications.
In your studies have you been able to track down where thinking was first developed and how it came into being? There are billions of things evolutionists do not understand, like the origin of thinking.
Evolutionist cultists mistakenly believe the fictional narratives of large numbers of devoted evolutionists are scientific facts instead of what they really are: speculations, assumptions, twisted conclusions, and erroneous interpretations of data.
Nice opinion. Now back it up.
While I agree with the thrust of your post, I would have to disagree on this specific point. It is not typically someone's burden to prove the non-existence of something. Generally speaking, it is properly the burden of whoever is making the affirmative case to prove their case. There's good reason why proving a negative is notoriously difficult to do. Thus, if the question is, "Does God Exist?" then it would be our burden, as theists, to prove His existence, which we can do rather easily.
Clete
Does God Exist? - Battle Royale VII - Bob Enyart vs. Zakath
No, I disagree. If atheists want to claim scientific intelligence proves God does not exist then let them offer their proof or stop basing science speculations on the assumption that God does not exist.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I thought Neanderthals supposedly married Homo Sapiens Sapiens? Are they saying that the offspring from these marriages suffered from infertility, like donkeys and horses and mules?
Nope.
And even if there were, the rewording wouldn't change anything.
Nope.
Random mutations.
Natural selection.
Nothing added. It would be strange that Darwinists don't use those in describing their ideas until you realize that they're trying to insulate their nonsense from examination.
Yeah. It's change "over time."
By all means, define it.
Researchers did not just report that they did not find evidence of modern human/Neanderthal intermixing. They reported they found the evidence showed there was no intermixing. Later, however, they had to modify their report to allow for the 'possibility' of intermixing because evolutionists demanded the change in wording.
No evidence of a Neanderthal contribution to modern human diversity - PMC
Recent studies of genomic DNA from Neanderthal fossils support earlier studies showing no contribution of Neanderthals to the gene pool of modern humans.
No evidence of a Neanderthal contribution to modern human diversity
Jason A Hodgson1 and Todd R Disotell
Nevertheless, some researchers have argued that the absence of Neanderthal-related haplotypes in modern human populations does not necessarily mean that there was no interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans 30,000 or more years ago [8,9]. Sequencing of mtDNA from anatomically modern human fossils 24,000 years old by Caramelli et al. [10] strongly suggested that there was no relationship with Neanderthals.