Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[Q
The argument goes like this from evos:
".. one evolutionist protested: “There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”
The anti-evolutionists counters with:
"“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”
That's what you just did in your pro-evolution argument. You can't have it both ways.
One of the many fallacies in your farcical argument is that the The Theory of Evolution EVER claimed that a species must change over time- and that the parent species must die out.
One of the most typical 'arguments' by the Christianists is by falsely claiming what the Theory of Evolution actually is.
Like you are doing
The Theory of Evolution not only doesn't have an issue with there being a fossil ancestor of modern horseshoe crabs- the fossil ancestors of horseshoe crabs demonstrate two things:
a) That life existed on earth millions of years ago- and that most of the life at the time of the horseshoe crab doesn't exist anymore.
b) That the horseshoe crab could evolve to adapt to survive to modern times- which is why there are 4 horseshoe crab species.
You're just making stuff up. I'm not the one being dishonest about evolution. The links I gave you came from the university I attended. I learned evolution from it and believed in it until around 2011. A lot of stuff arguing against evolution came out before that. .
that's what I thought..you say there is a god...we say prove it....you can't say ''disprove there is a god''Who says there isn’t life in mars Europa and titan? We haven’t sent a probe yet so the truth is we just don’t know yet.h
As I said- we have no evidence of life on other planets yet. Odds are we will eventually find life if we are able to probe enough planets- but it is all just speculation right now.
Just remember the absence of evidence is not evidence that there is no other life in the solar system or universe. Just because we haven't probed Europa yet doesn't mean there's nothing under there. But what we found was the essentials for life.
1. Water
2. A molten hot core
3. Organic material
Clay-Like Minerals Found on Icy Crust of Europa
I'm glad you are open minded to the possibility we will find life on other planets. And to be honest, all we see right now when we look at every other planets are not heavens like earth is. They are more like what we would imagine hell looks like. Both frozen and burning versions of hell.
Scientists have found evidence that cold, Yellowstone-like geysers of water are issuing from a moon of Saturn called Enceladus, apparently fueled by liquid reservoirs that may lie just tens of yards beneath the moon's icy surface.
The surprising discovery, detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science, could shoot Enceladus to the top of the list in the search for life elsewhere in our solar system. Scientists described it as the most important discovery in planetary science in a quarter-century.
We are on the cusp of discovery. No more exciting time than now.
"Living organisms require liquid water and organic materials, and we know we have both on Enceladus now," she said. "The plumes through which Cassini flew last July contain methane, contain CO2, propane — they contain several organic materials."
Another atheist who is dumber than you gave me that line about absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's circular reasoning. My counter to it is better. Figures don't lie, but liars do figure.
At least you give evidence to counter it, so I would be open to finding life on the aforementioned planets and possible evidence for past life on Mars. It would ramp up sending more probes there. Here's a list of the probes that were sent and planned.
List of Solar System probes - Wikipedia
in common sense/lawful/ courts when you accuse someone = make a statement, it's up to the prosecutor to prove what that statement is
I can say all kinds of stuff:
santa is square
the Eiffel Tower is taller by ten feet
etc
so prove there is a god
You're not following the aliens discussion, at least I don't think you are.
However, I can answer your question about proofs of God. I can't answer your question about disproving God because atheists are usually wrong such as you are usually wrong.
Proofs are in mathematics, but not science.
In math, one cannot divide by zero. By definition, a/0 is undefined. If we continue, this is because 12 x 0 does not equal 144. In order to get 144, one must be a creator. The creator can create 144 items to get 144. Thus, God.
How to apply this concept in science. It also means that anything that is infinite does not exist in the material world. Singularity, the start of the universe in Big Bang Theory, is a state of infinite density and infinite temperature of quantum particles (invisible particles). Singularity also means there was a beginning. However, these atheist scientists are claiming some metaphysical singularity existed. Nothing like that in the material/physical world. Thus, God.
It goes to follow evolutionists think that it's rare to find the coelacanth and Wolemi pine still existing. Coel was the missing link for fish to walking fish or amphibians. When coel was found, the atheist scientists found it could not walk and was just a fish. Thus, there was no missing link until the tiktaalik fossil was found. .[Q
The argument goes like this from evos:
".. one evolutionist protested: “There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”
The anti-evolutionists counters with:
"“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”
That's what you just did in your pro-evolution argument. You can't have it both ways.
One of the many fallacies in your farcical argument is that the The Theory of Evolution EVER claimed that a species must change over time- and that the parent species must die out.
One of the most typical 'arguments' by the Christianists is by falsely claiming what the Theory of Evolution actually is.
Like you are doing
The Theory of Evolution not only doesn't have an issue with there being a fossil ancestor of modern horseshoe crabs- the fossil ancestors of horseshoe crabs demonstrate two things:
a) That life existed on earth millions of years ago- and that most of the life at the time of the horseshoe crab doesn't exist anymore.
b) That the horseshoe crab could evolve to adapt to survive to modern times- which is why there are 4 horseshoe crab species.
..you say there is a god...we say prove it....you can't say ''disprove there is a god''Who says there isn’t life in mars Europa and titan? We haven’t sent a probe yet so the truth is we just don’t know yet.h
As I said- we have no evidence of life on other planets yet. Odds are we will eventually find life if we are able to probe enough planets- but it is all just speculation right now.
Just remember the absence of evidence is not evidence that there is no other life in the solar system or universe. Just because we haven't probed Europa yet doesn't mean there's nothing under there. But what we found was the essentials for life.
1. Water
2. A molten hot core
3. Organic material
Clay-Like Minerals Found on Icy Crust of Europa
I'm glad you are open minded to the possibility we will find life on other planets. And to be honest, all we see right now when we look at every other planets are not heavens like earth is. They are more like what we would imagine hell looks like. Both frozen and burning versions of hell.
Scientists have found evidence that cold, Yellowstone-like geysers of water are issuing from a moon of Saturn called Enceladus, apparently fueled by liquid reservoirs that may lie just tens of yards beneath the moon's icy surface.
The surprising discovery, detailed in Friday's issue of the journal Science, could shoot Enceladus to the top of the list in the search for life elsewhere in our solar system. Scientists described it as the most important discovery in planetary science in a quarter-century.
We are on the cusp of discovery. No more exciting time than now.
"Living organisms require liquid water and organic materials, and we know we have both on Enceladus now," she said. "The plumes through which Cassini flew last July contain methane, contain CO2, propane — they contain several organic materials."
Another atheist who is dumber than you gave me that line about absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It's circular reasoning. My counter to it is better. Figures don't lie, but liars do figure.
At least you give evidence to counter it, so I would be open to finding life on the aforementioned planets and possible evidence for past life on Mars. It would ramp up sending more probes there. Here's a list of the probes that were sent and planned.
List of Solar System probes - Wikipedia
in common sense/lawful/ courts when you accuse someone = make a statement, it's up to the prosecutor to prove what that statement is
I can say all kinds of stuff:
santa is square
the Eiffel Tower is taller by ten feet
etc
so prove there is a god
In math, one cannot divide by zero. By definition, a/0 is undefined. If we continue, this is because 12 x 0 does not equal 144. In order to get 144, one must be a creator. The creator can create 144 items to get 144. Thus, God.
.
Einstein was an agnostic atheist.Einstein:
“I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds… The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”
Hubble was raised Christian and didn't discuss his religious beliefs.
You don't get that science IS what you are calling magic. Dimensions aren't magic, they are scientific.
We are only as smart as our most recent scientist. For instance, Einstein as brilliant as he was, was a 3 dimension guy. Then he became a 4 dimension guy. Hawking was a 10 dimension guy. Kaku will be an unlimited dimension guy... And I deny none of their contributions. The smarter they get, the closer to God they get. I am all for it.
[Q
The argument goes like this from evos:
".. one evolutionist protested: “There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”
The anti-evolutionists counters with:
"“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”
That's what you just did in your pro-evolution argument. You can't have it both ways.
One of the many fallacies in your farcical argument is that the The Theory of Evolution EVER claimed that a species must change over time- and that the parent species must die out.
One of the most typical 'arguments' by the Christianists is by falsely claiming what the Theory of Evolution actually is.
Like you are doing
The Theory of Evolution not only doesn't have an issue with there being a fossil ancestor of modern horseshoe crabs- the fossil ancestors of horseshoe crabs demonstrate two things:
a) That life existed on earth millions of years ago- and that most of the life at the time of the horseshoe crab doesn't exist anymore.
b) That the horseshoe crab could evolve to adapt to survive to modern times- which is why there are 4 horseshoe crab species.
You're just making stuff up. I'm not the one being dishonest about evolution. The links I gave you came from the university I attended. I learned evolution from it and believed in it until around 2011. A lot of stuff arguing against evolution came out before that. .
Then quote from those links.
I looked at your links- nothing wrong with them other than they are extremely basic.
But there is nothing in the links you provided that supports your argument that the horseshoe crab of 450 million years ago cannot exist today.
However- your link directly disputes your argument that the world is only 6000 years old.
Einstein was an agnostic atheist.Einstein:
“I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds… The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.”
Hubble was raised Christian and didn't discuss his religious beliefs.
You don't get that science IS what you are calling magic. Dimensions aren't magic, they are scientific.
We are only as smart as our most recent scientist. For instance, Einstein as brilliant as he was, was a 3 dimension guy. Then he became a 4 dimension guy. Hawking was a 10 dimension guy. Kaku will be an unlimited dimension guy... And I deny none of their contributions. The smarter they get, the closer to God they get. I am all for it.
The Bible clearly says that GOD created angels. An angel is certainly not a human, as the Bible clearly states that man was created a little lower than the angels. So that in scientific terns might be equated as inferior ---- sort of like the terms Kind and Species. I totally understand what is meant by KIND; however, species is rather arbitrary and confusing.I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.That's just idiotic. Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.
If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?
What is your hypothesis?
Which ones are these dwarf planets? Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there? So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system. None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn). My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).
We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.
So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?
Discovering alien life would favor evolution since according to the Bible God did not create aliens. What favors creation are the fine tuning parameters or facts that atheist scientists discovered when they were investigating the Big Bang. Evolution has admitted that life on other planets is rare.
Where does the Bible say that God didn't create alien life?
Evolution doesn't 'admit' anything- it just is.
There is no evidence that 'favors' creation- other than the limitation of the minds of the Christianists who feel a need to believe in creation.
yes--you're anti-evolution and pro-creation arguments are undeniable[Q
The argument goes like this from evos:
".. one evolutionist protested: “There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”
The anti-evolutionists counters with:
"“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”
That's what you just did in your pro-evolution argument. You can't have it both ways.
One of the many fallacies in your farcical argument is that the The Theory of Evolution EVER claimed that a species must change over time- and that the parent species must die out.
One of the most typical 'arguments' by the Christianists is by falsely claiming what the Theory of Evolution actually is.
Like you are doing
The Theory of Evolution not only doesn't have an issue with there being a fossil ancestor of modern horseshoe crabs- the fossil ancestors of horseshoe crabs demonstrate two things:
a) That life existed on earth millions of years ago- and that most of the life at the time of the horseshoe crab doesn't exist anymore.
b) That the horseshoe crab could evolve to adapt to survive to modern times- which is why there are 4 horseshoe crab species.
You're just making stuff up. I'm not the one being dishonest about evolution. The links I gave you came from the university I attended. I learned evolution from it and believed in it until around 2011. A lot of stuff arguing against evolution came out before that. .
Then quote from those links.
I looked at your links- nothing wrong with them other than they are extremely basic.
But there is nothing in the links you provided that supports your argument that the horseshoe crab of 450 million years ago cannot exist today.
However- your link directly disputes your argument that the world is only 6000 years old.
Why do you continue to be argumentative? The evidence I presented of anti-evolution goes beyond doubt. I didn't present any creation scientists arguments and those provide more evidence against ToE. It goes to show that you continue to believe OLD evolution on faith because that's what you've been taught or it fits your atheist worldview. I started to doubt it in 2011 as I said and many scientists agree except they don't want to come out and say it for fear of getting their funding cut off.
That said, is all of ToE BS? No. The evolution of natural selection is fine except now we know it can be rapid instead of slow. I'd get rid of the CHANGE over millions of years. Too many creatures do not evolve over time. I don't believe in common ancestors, but it still could be viable. Mutation? Mutation is now rapid mutation of EI. I think the tree of life has been replaced by the bushes of life which the creation scientists found. This can still explain the changes via some tree of life, i.e. the tree has become a bush. Some of it may be millions of years. ToE now accepts catastrophism as causing some of the changes, also from creation scientists. When catatstrophism is involved, change happened very fast instead of slow. The history of evolutionary thinking is still valid. What anti-evolution findings hurt for the most part was Darwinism.
Check out Lemarckism and straight-line evolution. Sure, Lemarck was wrong about the giraffe, but epigenetic inheritance changed all of that starting in 2003 with the human genome chart being completed. EI started rolling around 2005. Check out how they propose to eradicate malaria and Zika virus. Evolution leads to being safe instead of sorry over GE. The biggest money maker for GE is GMO foods. You can't get GMO seeds or food from old evolution.
Super-Mendelian mosquitoes may fight malaria
Evolution still lives.
Black widow virus results from evolution, not genetic engineering
So really good people never become angels?The Bible clearly says that GOD created angels. An angel is certainly not a human, as the Bible clearly states that man was created a little lower than the angels. So that in scientific terns might be equated as inferior ---- sort of like the terms Kind and Species. I totally understand what is meant by KIND; however, species is rather arbitrary and confusing.I just saw it explained. Just YouTube it. There are over 100 dwarf planets in our outer solar system. Bet the ones with water and active cores and organic material all have life in their oceans.
If they discover life in Serius or titan or on Pluto what will you say then?
What is your hypothesis?
Which ones are these dwarf planets? Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there? So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system. None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn). My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).
We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.
So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?
Discovering alien life would favor evolution since according to the Bible God did not create aliens. What favors creation are the fine tuning parameters or facts that atheist scientists discovered when they were investigating the Big Bang. Evolution has admitted that life on other planets is rare.
Where does the Bible say that God didn't create alien life?
Evolution doesn't 'admit' anything- it just is.
There is no evidence that 'favors' creation- other than the limitation of the minds of the Christianists who feel a need to believe in creation.
There is no Biblical evidence the humans ever become angels or messengers. Satan was created an angel from the beginning. It is suspected that "Lucifer" was jealous of Adam and that might have played a part in Lucifer's attitude. We are told in the Bible that 1/3 of the angels fell and were cast from heaven. The rest were sealed after they made the choice to remain loyal. There are no new angels as they are likely sexless.So really good people never become angels?The Bible clearly says that GOD created angels. An angel is certainly not a human, as the Bible clearly states that man was created a little lower than the angels. So that in scientific terns might be equated as inferior ---- sort of like the terms Kind and Species. I totally understand what is meant by KIND; however, species is rather arbitrary and confusing.Which ones are these dwarf planets? Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there? So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system. None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn). My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).
We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.
So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?
Discovering alien life would favor evolution since according to the Bible God did not create aliens. What favors creation are the fine tuning parameters or facts that atheist scientists discovered when they were investigating the Big Bang. Evolution has admitted that life on other planets is rare.
Where does the Bible say that God didn't create alien life?
Evolution doesn't 'admit' anything- it just is.
There is no evidence that 'favors' creation- other than the limitation of the minds of the Christianists who feel a need to believe in creation.
People who don’t like evolution because no new species come popping up overnight don’t mind that god doesn’t visit again or have and send a second son. Or create new angels. When’s the last time god made a new angel?
[Q
The argument goes like this from evos:
".. one evolutionist protested: “There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”
The anti-evolutionists counters with:
"“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”
That's what you just did in your pro-evolution argument. You can't have it both ways.
One of the many fallacies in your farcical argument is that the The Theory of Evolution EVER claimed that a species must change over time- and that the parent species must die out.
One of the most typical 'arguments' by the Christianists is by falsely claiming what the Theory of Evolution actually is.
Like you are doing
The Theory of Evolution not only doesn't have an issue with there being a fossil ancestor of modern horseshoe crabs- the fossil ancestors of horseshoe crabs demonstrate two things:
a) That life existed on earth millions of years ago- and that most of the life at the time of the horseshoe crab doesn't exist anymore.
b) That the horseshoe crab could evolve to adapt to survive to modern times- which is why there are 4 horseshoe crab species.
You're just making stuff up. I'm not the one being dishonest about evolution. The links I gave you came from the university I attended. I learned evolution from it and believed in it until around 2011. A lot of stuff arguing against evolution came out before that. .
Then quote from those links.
I looked at your links- nothing wrong with them other than they are extremely basic.
But there is nothing in the links you provided that supports your argument that the horseshoe crab of 450 million years ago cannot exist today.
However- your link directly disputes your argument that the world is only 6000 years old.
Why do you continue to be argumentative? The evidence I presented of anti-evolution goes beyond doubt.
[Q
The argument goes like this from evos:
".. one evolutionist protested: “There is no written rule that says a lineage has to die out just because an offspring develops a beneficial mutation. The theory of evolution explains how species change over time, it doesn’t say that all species must change over time. As long as a species can survive in its environment and pass on its genetic information to its offspring, it can survive indefinitely. It doesn’t mean that the ‘living fossil’ didn’t speciate, it just means those possible splits died out while the original lineage was able to always successfully reproduce even into today. How exactly does that not work with evolution?”
The anti-evolutionists counters with:
"“If a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”
That's what you just did in your pro-evolution argument. You can't have it both ways.
One of the many fallacies in your farcical argument is that the The Theory of Evolution EVER claimed that a species must change over time- and that the parent species must die out.
One of the most typical 'arguments' by the Christianists is by falsely claiming what the Theory of Evolution actually is.
Like you are doing
The Theory of Evolution not only doesn't have an issue with there being a fossil ancestor of modern horseshoe crabs- the fossil ancestors of horseshoe crabs demonstrate two things:
a) That life existed on earth millions of years ago- and that most of the life at the time of the horseshoe crab doesn't exist anymore.
b) That the horseshoe crab could evolve to adapt to survive to modern times- which is why there are 4 horseshoe crab species.
You're just making stuff up. I'm not the one being dishonest about evolution. The links I gave you came from the university I attended. I learned evolution from it and believed in it until around 2011. A lot of stuff arguing against evolution came out before that. .
Then quote from those links.
I looked at your links- nothing wrong with them other than they are extremely basic.
But there is nothing in the links you provided that supports your argument that the horseshoe crab of 450 million years ago cannot exist today.
However- your link directly disputes your argument that the world is only 6000 years old.
That said, is all of ToE BS? No. The evolution of natural selection is fine except now we know it can be rapid instead of slow. I'd get rid of the CHANGE over millions of years. Too many creatures do not evolve over time. I don't believe in common ancestors, but it still could be viable. Mutation? Mutation is now rapid mutation of EI. I think the tree of life has been replaced by the bushes of life which the creation scientists found. This can still explain the changes via some tree of life, i.e. the tree has become a bush. Some of it may be millions of years. ToE now accepts catastrophism as causing some of the changes, also from creation scientists. When catatstrophism is involved, change happened very fast instead of slow. The history of evolutionary thinking is still valid. What anti-evolution findings hurt for the most part was Darwinism.
So really good people never become angels?The Bible clearly says that GOD created angels. An angel is certainly not a human, as the Bible clearly states that man was created a little lower than the angels. So that in scientific terns might be equated as inferior ---- sort of like the terms Kind and Species. I totally understand what is meant by KIND; however, species is rather arbitrary and confusing.Which ones are these dwarf planets? Can we get there, i.e. send a probe there? So far, we've sent probes to every planet in our solar system. None has life, but evos still hold out hope for Mars (life existed there previously), Europa (moon of Jupiter) and Titan (moon of Saturn). My evo website has admitted that life outside of earth is rare, but didn't give a reason. ).
We have no evidence of life anywhere but earth. Mars may have had life previously- but we don't know that.
So if there is life on other planets- would that be signs of evolution? Or of creation?
Discovering alien life would favor evolution since according to the Bible God did not create aliens. What favors creation are the fine tuning parameters or facts that atheist scientists discovered when they were investigating the Big Bang. Evolution has admitted that life on other planets is rare.
Where does the Bible say that God didn't create alien life?
Evolution doesn't 'admit' anything- it just is.
There is no evidence that 'favors' creation- other than the limitation of the minds of the Christianists who feel a need to believe in creation.
People who don’t like evolution because no new species come popping up overnight don’t mind that god doesn’t visit again or have and send a second son. Or create new angels. When’s the last time god made a new angel?
so you think it more plausible that millions of cells made into a complex being than a single cell being created? how ridiculousLet's say a speck of dust, some energy, and a pond poofed life into the speck and a single celled amoeba, was the result. Then the cells start to double and pretty soon we have a species.
How did the speck impart knowledge into the species?
What embedded the species with instincts?
What cell had the knowledge of symbiotic relationships? How did the cell know to tell one member of the same fish species that they could find lunch by cleaning the teeth of a shark, while it told another fish to hide when they saw a shark?
How do your random cells think? Hit and miss? Hardly. The less than fit of the species die off. No DNA ever said, "Let's just keep trying to mutate wrongly for millions of years until we get it right." DNA is programmed (by someone) to not mutate consistently. It is how a species remains a species.
And that mutant thing that you think left the pond and dragged itself on to land. Did a mate also randomly develop lungs and leave the pond at the same time?
What directed their cells to mutate at the same time, with the same mutation to produce lungs?
Instinct would keep them in the pond. Their food is in the pond. They instinctively mate in the pond to insure their eggs are hidden and safe. Even with the couple's rogue lungs, they still wouldn't have survived their random cellular mistakes out of their natural habitat. They would have died off.
Then there is that pesky eye. Without a designer who embedded code, you seem to believe that 1 million nerve endings begin growing toward the brain, while 1 million optic nerve endings start moving from the brain through the flesh toward the eye. The nerves must find and match their mate for sight to be possible.
The statistical odds of that happening correctly, randomly, is considered a scientific impossibility.
And concerning the eye, it can transmit one and a half million messages to the brain simultaneously.
Can random cells produce specific information?
What randomness informed the optic nerve cells in an eagle's brain to work differently than the cells of a human infant? It's not just that the optic cells must work correctly, it is that they work correctly/differently per species. So not only does your randomness have to get it right the first time for the eye to work, but it has to know the specific works on each member of each species. How many fish have the same eyes?
Convince me I am wrong about a design and a designer. Answer my questions.
Then we can move on the the phony monkey chart of the evolution of man. Like how many millions of years did it take Neanderthal man to become our modern selves?
how did god create a fully formed man from nothing?? answer that one question, pleaseNo, you are just hard of reading. I think a single cell has complex DNA from the very beginning. DNA is a code. What I don't believe is that randomness can embed codes. Or that randomness or single cells can produce instinct. Do you really believe single cells have thought processes?
How did randomness know that it would have to grow 2 little flippers on this specific fish because millions of years from it's inception, it would need them because it will dig holes in the sea floor to lay it's eggs.
You believe that cells go from simple to complex. The DNA in a single celled organism is complex from the beginning. It contains information. Do you honestly believe that amoebas are genius enough to impart instinct? Where did information come from in the very first single cell?
How did your single cell progress enough to tell a turtle's DNA, a turtle that has lived his whole life alone mind you, to go to a specific spot on the earth on a specific week, every 4 calendar years to breed, and then tell the female turtles to go to the place they don't remember being born, on a specific week, every 4 years to breed?
Can you answer ANY of the questions I have asked? Just answer that last one.
god does not produce something from nothing not now, not everMan was carefully crafted out of the earth, just like the Bible says. Here is our breakdown:
Oxygen, being the most abundant element on the earth’s crust or on the ground, makes up 65 percent of the human body, and carbon, also abundant on the top soil of the ground, is 18 percent, and hydrogen is 10 percent. The 59 elements found in the human body are all found on the earths crust...
and the breath of life from the Creator. From whence came the embedded code of all things living.
Random does not produce intricate encryption. Not now, not ever.
