Atheists are hoping aliens from outer space will contact us...

[MarkDuffy]

Let's start at the top

Why is 1) a lie

Because I don't even believe the Bible claims creation took 6 days. Not "days" as we define them... 24 hr. periods of Earth's revolution. IF you actually study the pathology, it doesn't even make rational sense. God created the Sun and Moon on Day 3... how can you have 3 days with no Sun? He created the light and dark before day and night. So we can clearly see, upon any kind of objective evaluation, something is amiss.

We can couple this further with the original Hebrew text which actually has no word for "day" and is called "yom." You've probably heard it used as "Yom Kippur" which is an important day to the Jewish people. But "yom" is actually an unspecified period of time. It CAN mean a day... it was also commonly used to mean an era. It's one of those words where the plural is the same... you don't have "yoms" you have many "yom." Therefore, "6 days" or "6 yom" can be completely different times.

ALSO.... I don't recall anything in the Bible or any argument I have EVER made that God's Creation was a one-time event. For all I know, God may have created trillions of universes and trillions of incarnations of life and mankind. Time means absolutely nothing to God. 14.5 billion years is less time to God than the time it takes for your perception of the reality happening around you.

You edited the post so I have to backtrack again. Here is what I said

1) creation only once and in 6 "days"

I put days in quotes for just this reason. Almost no Christian actually calls them days. I went with the Bible flow. I'm surprized you even went down that rabbit hole with more than three words.

You responded with universes! LOL I am talking about just ours (like in the Bible). How many times has God created in this universe, specifically this planet. You have never actually responded to the fossil record except to say it exists. You have a problem with what you call macroevolution (which makes me chuckle). The fossil record requires for your god to be creating every second with no rest on the last day, cuz you allow no macroevolution.

How long did original creation take? Perhaps 4.5 Billion - 6,000 years?

Did god create all the current life during original creation, or has the biota changed?

If the biota changed, what caused it?

Why do we see in the fossil record much evidence for evolution. Less to more. Small to Large. Primitive to complex. Water to land to air.

 

[MarkDuffy]

You are not doing well.

Spirit does not have strong character. That is a human Christianlike construct.

By the way, I use Christian cuz we are Americans & that is our major religion.

You also do not need to specifically post words for me to deduce conclusions as to what you are.

Your time response is still a fail.

What you understand about spirits is completely irrelevant because you don't believe in them.

Not true, Hoss.

I can speak in spiritual terms just as well as anyone. You don't own spirituality.

Besides, you make claims about evolution that you don't believe in.

 

[MarkDuffy]

You've yet to explain origin of life.

Nuts to that. We are having enough trouble getting evolution through your Neandertal skull. Even kiddies understand evolution.

Maybe that's my problem? I'm not a kiddie. I don't believe in MACROevolution because there is no science to support it.

We have much evidence of macroevolution. We have lobfinned fish who crawled out of the water. We have lungfish who can breath air. We have determined the phylogeny of every fish gill slit to advanced land structure. We have dinosaurs with feathers.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

The spirit which resides in our bodies is eternal, as all spiritual things are.

wishful thinking at best, maybe not your god but the Almighty does not allow an evil spirit in the Everlasting - it is destroyed (thankfully) - being in the Everlasting does not exclude the possibility of death as it is an occurrence for everything in the universe ... proof not withstanding.

How can God "destroy" something that isn't physical?

Yeah, I guess you could make the philosophical argument that an omnipotent being could do it... I won't deny that. I just happen to think your soul is eternal, one way or another. It might not make it into what you call "The Everlasting" but that doesn't mean it's destroyed... that's a definition of something physical.

.

How can God "destroy" something that isn't physical?

you've leaped to where you seem to be claiming your spirit is free of your physiology, is that true you can float in space, obviously there are limitations and also refutes the spirit can not be physical how else are you restrained.

 

[sealybobo]

So you want to know the origin of the big bang? Because that's as far back as we can go. But I can't tell you anything about the universe prior to the big bang. And your problem is in your tiny mind there was nothing before our universe. God just sat around in empty space for infinite years before the big bang just twittling his thumbs. He never had another universe prior to 13 billion BC? That's weird.

Ask yourself.... What is a year? Is it not the measure of time it takes for our Earth to revolve around it's sun? Is the Earth and Sun physical or spiritual? What is fundamentally wrong with your brain that makes you believe this universe operates on the measurement of Earth revolving around it's sun? OR that a Creator God is subject to that measurement?

Since a Spiritual Entity is eternal and everlasting, the measure of a planet revolving around it's sun means absolutely nothing. That is purely a physical measurement of a physical dimension we call "Time." And this may blow your little mind but OUR measurement wouldn't mean a thing to sentient carbon-based beings on another planet in our universe, if one exists. Their "day" may be 6 hours or 58 hours... their "year" may be 10 months or 500 years. They may not even measure time the same way. Heck, we haven't even always measured time the same way!

I read your posts sometimes and it fucking amazes me that you are so incredibly naive and stupid. You just continue to make the most childlike points as if you're actually educating us all... it's stunning to me!

You just gave the bible answer, Mr. Christian. Why do you deny your Christianity?

Life needs energy and that is what determines real time, the time between meals. The time period is short and determined by the laws of physics and chemistry.

Well I deny Christianity because I'm not a Christian.
Christianity is a religion of acceptance. You must accept that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and He died on the cross so you could be forgiven for your sins. I believe Jesus was a profound and great philosopher. Son of God? Not so much. But that's just MY personal belief. I have respect for those who are Christians and others who are religious as long as they have strong spiritual character. To me personally, the Church is like Gold's Gym... some spiritual people need it and some don't. I don't need a religious dogma to understand MY Spiritual God.

As for "time" it's still a dimension of a physical universe. Spiritual Nature doesn't rely on physical dimensions it created.

But you cherry pick so much from that man made religion. You're like my dad telling me about heaven and hell. How does he conclude such places exist if he understands all religions are man made up?

The same reasons why primitive man made them up. Bad people must go to the bad place. Otherwise there is no justice. And good people must be rewarded.

And since humans can't stand the idea of them dying, their souls live forever in this heaven.

Boss, you're a moron. Don't ever talk shit to me like I'm stupid when you believe in fairytales and bullshit.

 

[sealybobo]

.

The spirit which resides in our bodies is eternal, as all spiritual things are.

wishful thinking at best, maybe not your god but the Almighty does not allow an evil spirit in the Everlasting - it is destroyed (thankfully) - being in the Everlasting does not exclude the possibility of death as it is an occurrence for everything in the universe ... proof not withstanding.

How can God "destroy" something that isn't physical?

Yeah, I guess you could make the philosophical argument that an omnipotent being could do it... I won't deny that. I just happen to think your soul is eternal, one way or another. It might not make it into what you call "The Everlasting" but that doesn't mean it's destroyed... that's a definition of something physical.

What about my dog? God I love that thing. It's so lovable and loyal. I want to believe it's soul never dies too. Why would your soul not die but the dogs does? You think you are special?

How do you come to these conclusions without a religion? You must be cherry picking the parts you like.

 

[sealybobo]

You've yet to explain origin of life.

Nuts to that. We are having enough trouble getting evolution through your Neandertal skull. Even kiddies understand evolution.

Maybe that's my problem? I'm not a kiddie. I don't believe in MACROevolution because there is no science to support it.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[MarkDuffy]

.

The spirit which resides in our bodies is eternal, as all spiritual things are.

wishful thinking at best, maybe not your god but the Almighty does not allow an evil spirit in the Everlasting - it is destroyed (thankfully) - being in the Everlasting does not exclude the possibility of death as it is an occurrence for everything in the universe ... proof not withstanding.

How can God "destroy" something that isn't physical?

Yeah, I guess you could make the philosophical argument that an omnipotent being could do it... I won't deny that. I just happen to think your soul is eternal, one way or another. It might not make it into what you call "The Everlasting" but that doesn't mean it's destroyed... that's a definition of something physical.

What about my dog? God I love that thing. It's so lovable and loyal. I want to believe it's soul never dies too. Why would your soul not die but the dogs does? You think you are special?

How do you come to these conclusions without a religion? You must be cherry picking the parts you like.

Boss's spirituality evolved backwards.

We argue we don't need a God. He argues that the Christian God is a lie.

And the funny part? That makes me more Christian than him.

LOL

 

[sealybobo]

You've yet to explain origin of life.

Nuts to that. We are having enough trouble getting evolution through your Neandertal skull. Even kiddies understand evolution.

Maybe that's my problem? I'm not a kiddie. I don't believe in MACROevolution because there is no science to support it.

We have much evidence of macroevolution. We have lobfinned fish who crawled out of the water. We have lungfish who can breath air. We have determined the phylogeny of every fish gill slit to advanced land structure. We have dinosaurs with feathers.

How is it possible for people to believe in Micro Evolution and not Macro Evolution?


I have a simple answer. It’s because they were told to.

The distinction between the possibility of micro- and macro- is only made by creationists; evolutionary biologists dumped it a century ago. When too much evidence for recent microevolution emerged to ignore, creationists retreated and redirected their attack towards macroevolution, for which there was far less (they claimed no) evidence.

The rationale is the plausible-sounding declaration that, for example, a dog will never give birth to anything but another dog. This is true for a single generation, but over millions of years one family of dogs could breed shorter and wider until their descendants were more similar to wombats than to current dogs. At some stage before that they would lose the ability to mate with other dogs, and it would be high time to declare them a new species.

 

[MarkDuffy]

You've yet to explain origin of life.

Nuts to that. We are having enough trouble getting evolution through your Neandertal skull. Even kiddies understand evolution.

Maybe that's my problem? I'm not a kiddie. I don't believe in MACROevolution because there is no science to support it.

We have much evidence of macroevolution. We have lobfinned fish who crawled out of the water. We have lungfish who can breath air. We have determined the phylogeny of every fish gill slit to advanced land structure. We have dinosaurs with feathers.

How is it possible for people to believe in Micro Evolution and not Macro Evolution?


I have a simple answer. It’s because they were told to.

The distinction between the possibility of micro- and macro- is only made by creationists; evolutionary biologists dumped it a century ago. When too much evidence for recent microevolution emerged to ignore, creationists retreated and redirected their attack towards macroevolution, for which there was far less (they claimed no) evidence.

The rationale is the plausible-sounding declaration that, for example, a dog will never give birth to anything but another dog. This is true for a single generation, but over millions of years one family of dogs could breed shorter and wider until their descendants were more similar to wombats than to current dogs. At some stage before that they would lose the ability to mate with other dogs, and it would be high time to declare them a new species.

The main reason they talk macroevolution is cuz as soon as they admit it, they have to include man.

The smarter believers accept ALL of evolution, just that man is special creation ~ wait fer it ~ just like in the bible. A very good case for that can be made.

 

[sealybobo]

.

The spirit which resides in our bodies is eternal, as all spiritual things are.

wishful thinking at best, maybe not your god but the Almighty does not allow an evil spirit in the Everlasting - it is destroyed (thankfully) - being in the Everlasting does not exclude the possibility of death as it is an occurrence for everything in the universe ... proof not withstanding.

How can God "destroy" something that isn't physical?

Yeah, I guess you could make the philosophical argument that an omnipotent being could do it... I won't deny that. I just happen to think your soul is eternal, one way or another. It might not make it into what you call "The Everlasting" but that doesn't mean it's destroyed... that's a definition of something physical.

What about my dog? God I love that thing. It's so lovable and loyal. I want to believe it's soul never dies too. Why would your soul not die but the dogs does? You think you are special?

How do you come to these conclusions without a religion? You must be cherry picking the parts you like.

Boss's spirituality evolved backwards.

We argue we don't need a God. He argues that the Christian God is a lie.

And the funny part? That makes me more Christian than him.

LOL

Well I can't take a guy like this seriously. It's frustrating and confusing. You either believe the organized religions or you don't. He does sometimes and sometimes doesn't. Then calls me the idiot because I speculate sometimes wildly.

It's ok for him to think there is a "creator" that created everything we see. No harm in that. Especially if he admits it's something that never has and never will be proven. You don't have to believe in him. You might want to be a good person just in case but he never sent a rule book. IE 10 commandments

There is no hell for bad people right boss? If you believe there is where the fuck did you get that idea from?

 

[sealybobo]

You've yet to explain origin of life.

Nuts to that. We are having enough trouble getting evolution through your Neandertal skull. Even kiddies understand evolution.

Maybe that's my problem? I'm not a kiddie. I don't believe in MACROevolution because there is no science to support it.

We have much evidence of macroevolution. We have lobfinned fish who crawled out of the water. We have lungfish who can breath air. We have determined the phylogeny of every fish gill slit to advanced land structure. We have dinosaurs with feathers.

How is it possible for people to believe in Micro Evolution and not Macro Evolution?


I have a simple answer. It’s because they were told to.

The distinction between the possibility of micro- and macro- is only made by creationists; evolutionary biologists dumped it a century ago. When too much evidence for recent microevolution emerged to ignore, creationists retreated and redirected their attack towards macroevolution, for which there was far less (they claimed no) evidence.

The rationale is the plausible-sounding declaration that, for example, a dog will never give birth to anything but another dog. This is true for a single generation, but over millions of years one family of dogs could breed shorter and wider until their descendants were more similar to wombats than to current dogs. At some stage before that they would lose the ability to mate with other dogs, and it would be high time to declare them a new species.

The main reason they talk macroevolution is cuz as soon as they admit it, they have to include man.

The smarter believers accept ALL of evolution, just that man is special creation ~ wait fer it ~ just like in the bible. A very good case for that can be made.

So even though Boss won't admit to being a christian, we see it in his stupid arguments.

Reminds me of the priest in our church. I brought up global warming and my sister in law said "father mike doesn't believe in global warming".

No shit. He also believes gays are bad and muslims are evil. This is what pisses me off about right wingers. Clearly the priest is a conservative guy who's buying into every position that conservatives believe. But ask him if he's a Republican and he will deny it just like Boss denies being a christian.

Boss knows Christianity is man made but he believe if man made it up it must be true because we wouldn't have made something up for no good reason and we would have dropped the belief a long time ago if it weren't true.

Not true at all because religion as fake and ridiculous as they all are, provide people with a lot of comfort. So it doesn't matter if its real or true. It provides people with something they want. They want answers we don't have. And Boss doesn't like their answers so he makes up his own. Occasionally cherry picking from them because if they've been believing it for this long there must be some truth to it.

 

[MarkDuffy]

How god created man

 

[MarkDuffy]

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution favors those organisms that don't try to kill each other constantly. That explains the "good" that you attribute to a supernatural entity.

Only humans regularly try to kill each other, and they do it over their blind beliefs in a human-created religion or political system, and that's why we probably won't survive.

I live a moral and ethical life, without the need to follow Santa Claus. I do think there may be some sort of central force that combines us all, but I have no idea what it is, nor will I argue for it. It could just be some sort of quantum entanglement. Who knows? I only argue to get some sense into people, so that they stop killing each other over beliefs, and so that we don't become extinct due to bullshit.

But you're very passive/aggressive, so I don't think you're following the "good" path right now. Jus sayin.

First, you need to stop thinking you're the smartest thing on the planet and curb your arrogance. Because you're part of the problem at this point. That's the same way that religious fanatics think.

Dude? Don't you ever watch Animal Planet, Nat Geo, Wild Kingdom... Lion King? Other animals kill each other all the time! I could actually make the argument that because of our spirituality, we are LESS likely to kill each other! I know that may sound bizarre to you but think about it... at some point, some cave man had to lay down beside another cave man of a different tribe and trust he wasn't going to kill him and his family in the middle of the night and steal his stuff. A mutual spirit greater than self would help provide that kind of trust and faith.

I grew up on those shows, esp Wild Kingdom. Other animals of the same species do kill each other at times, but it is rare, because obviously evolution does not favor that trait. But humans kill each other at a phenomenal rate. And the big purges are due to wrong beliefs in human-created religions or politics.

There are over 1,700 recorded wars in human history. Only 142 were over religion. Most of the time, they are over power and control of resources.

You're totally wrong about evolution, that's exactly what it favors and that's a vital aspect to natural selection. Survival of the fittest... have you never heard that phrase? For MANY species, the foundation of their "social society" is rooted in dominance by the alpha male who kills his challengers.

You SAY that you have a moral and ethical life but I've never known any human to say anything different. Obviously, some humans are lying, don't you agree? If you don't have any accountability for your morality and ethics they are only as strong as your character in a given situation. In other words, your morals can change depending on circumstances.

No, morals don't change. They are stamped into us early during the period of growth and discovery, and many are instinctual. Only religious/political rulers can get you to do something against your morals. Like killing strangers, because you're told to. And there's a lot of mental health issues that come from having to follow those orders. Morals are trying to stay the same. Having to break those morals based on an order, has a big consequence on what evolution has established.

Morals DO change, especially if they have no foundation. It's very easy to proclaim that you're not a liar but I'll bet that at some point in life, you have indeed told a lie. That means you ARE a liar in spite of your moralistic claim to the contrary. People with no spiritual moring will often abandon their moral principles for the sake of their own personal needs.

How many devoutly spiritual people do you reckon get abortions? I would be willing to bet it is very, very few. Abortion is a good example of people abandoning their morals for the sake of vanity and convenience. They literally justify killing another human being and have convinced themselves there is nothing morally wrong about that.

And on your next post you said:

doesn't nature cast judgement on species when it renders them extinct? If a certain species doesn't meet adequate requirements of reproduction it goes extinct.

That's evolution. There was no judgement cast. Nobody said that that life form was right or wrong. It just couldn't keep up and died out.

Yes, nature judged a species no longer met minimal requirements of survival. The judgement cast was extinction.

You're totally wrong about evolution, that's exactly what it favors and that's a vital aspect to natural selection. Survival of the fittest... have you never heard that phrase? For MANY species, the foundation of their "social society" is rooted in dominance by the alpha male who kills his challengers.

LOL, kills his challengers even! Whew doggies that's a bold assertion. How many babies does your alpha male have? Boss claims a species survives by killing itself. The big and the bold get the headlines in the newspaper, but they are not the ones creating all the babies.

MISCONCEPTION: The fittest organisms in a population are those that are strongest, healthiest, fastest, and/or largest.

CORRECTION: In evolutionary terms, fitness has a very different meaning than the everyday meaning of the word. An organism's evolutionary fitness does not indicate its health, but rather its ability to get its genes into the next generation. The more fertile offspring an organism leaves in the next generation, the fitter it is. This doesn't always correlate with strength, speed, or size. For example, a puny male bird with bright tail feathers might leave behind more offspring than a stronger, duller male, and a spindly plant with big seed pods may leave behind more offspring than a larger specimen — meaning that the puny bird and the spindly plant have higher evolutionary fitness than their stronger, larger counterparts. To learn more about evolutionary fitness, visit Evolution 101.

MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection is about survival of the very fittest individuals in a population.

CORRECTION: Though "survival of the fittest" is the catchphrase of natural selection, "survival of the fit enough" is more accurate. In most populations, organisms with many different genetic variations survive, reproduce, and leave offspring carrying their genes in the next generation. It is not simply the one or two "best" individuals in the population that pass their genes on to the next generation. This is apparent in the populations around us: for example, a plant may not have the genes to flourish in a drought, or a predator may not be quite fast enough to catch her prey every time she is hungry. These individuals may not be the "fittest" in the population, but they are "fit enough" to reproduce and pass their genes on to the next generation. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about evolutionary fitness, visit Evolution 101.

Misconceptions about evolution

For those just now tuning in... What we're seeing here is what happens with arrogant blowhards who can't support their arguments. Whenever they are defeated, they have to run find some trivial little detail to start an entirely new argument with. When that argument is defeated, they'll find another trivial detail to argue. It's a never-ending argument style. It doesn't really matter if they have to lie and distort what someone said to create their new argument, as long as it detracts from the previously defeated old argument. The objective is to appear they've not lost the argument.

I've seen people who are very good at this. They can surf almost seamlessly from one trivial argument to the next and you hardly even notice they've completely changed the topic. McDuff isn't one of those posters.

Excuse you...you are the arrogant blowhard....time after time you have been corrected on the completely incorrect things you have said, for example, about the theory of evolution. Not once have you admitted your errors. Not once have you discarded your false premises, and the arguments you make from them. You honestly believe that you present a challenge to the most well founded the sort in the history of mankind by saying, "Nuh-uh!". All of that is the height of arrogance and the very definition of "blowhard". So, yet again, you accuse others of doing exactly what it is you are doing, as you do it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The elements are in meteors and commits. They came from first generation stars.

See, there is so much you don't know. That's why you doubt. And you clearly don't watch Nova and you don't like the science. It makes you uncomfortable

What does it matter? Even if what I say is true you'll just believe God the creator did it. It doesn't disprove your creator who cares so relax

I know everything about the elements but the elements are not living organisms. I actually like watching Nova and other science programs. I have no problem with science. I have a BIG problem with idiots who don't understand science and think they do. And it matters that what you say is true because when you lie and claim science says things it doesn't say, that insults science and destroys all your credibility. Science and your credibility ought to mean more to you than bullshitting people on a message board into thinking you know what you're talking about... which you don't.

"I know everything about the elements "

No sir, no "blowhards" here....

 

[Boss]

Let's start at the top

Why is 1) a lie

Because I don't even believe the Bible claims creation took 6 days. Not "days" as we define them... 24 hr. periods of Earth's revolution. IF you actually study the pathology, it doesn't even make rational sense. God created the Sun and Moon on Day 3... how can you have 3 days with no Sun? He created the light and dark before day and night. So we can clearly see, upon any kind of objective evaluation, something is amiss.

We can couple this further with the original Hebrew text which actually has no word for "day" and is called "yom." You've probably heard it used as "Yom Kippur" which is an important day to the Jewish people. But "yom" is actually an unspecified period of time. It CAN mean a day... it was also commonly used to mean an era. It's one of those words where the plural is the same... you don't have "yoms" you have many "yom." Therefore, "6 days" or "6 yom" can be completely different times.

ALSO.... I don't recall anything in the Bible or any argument I have EVER made that God's Creation was a one-time event. For all I know, God may have created trillions of universes and trillions of incarnations of life and mankind. Time means absolutely nothing to God. 14.5 billion years is less time to God than the time it takes for your perception of the reality happening around you.

You edited the post so I have to backtrack again. Here is what I said

1) creation only once and in 6 "days"

I put days in quotes for just this reason. Almost no Christian actually calls them days. I went with the Bible flow. I'm surprized you even went down that rabbit hole with more than three words.

You responded with universes! LOL I am talking about just ours (like in the Bible). How many times has God created in this universe, specifically this planet. You have never actually responded to the fossil record except to say it exists. You have a problem with what you call macroevolution (which makes me chuckle). The fossil record requires for your god to be creating every second with no rest on the last day, cuz you allow no macroevolution.

How long did original creation take? Perhaps 4.5 Billion - 6,000 years?

Did god create all the current life during original creation, or has the biota changed?

If the biota changed, what caused it?

Why do we see in the fossil record much evidence for evolution. Less to more. Small to Large. Primitive to complex. Water to land to air.

Again... Time is a physical dimension that is meaningless to a spiritual God. Your deductions that it would take God so much time, therefore it would be impossible, is totally meaningless. 14.5 billion years is less time to God than the time it takes for your brain to process it's perception of present reality. In the time it took you to read my last sentence, God could have created and destroyed a trillion universes. I don't know how else to make the point to you that time is a useless variable to God.

The Biblical story of creation is not a science documentary. It's impossible for it to be told as an observer's perspective. The purpose and intent of the story is not to accurately describe the actual process but to present the reader with the knowledge that God systematically created everything. But the bottom line is this... it wouldn't matter how the Bible outlined the creation story because you would still refuse to believe it.

You asked me a question and I answered it to the best of my ability as a non-Christian, then you accused me of editing your post. I didn't edit a damn thing.

 

[Boss]

You've yet to explain origin of life.

Nuts to that. We are having enough trouble getting evolution through your Neandertal skull. Even kiddies understand evolution.

Maybe that's my problem? I'm not a kiddie. I don't believe in MACROevolution because there is no science to support it.

We have much evidence of macroevolution. We have lobfinned fish who crawled out of the water. We have lungfish who can breath air. We have determined the phylogeny of every fish gill slit to advanced land structure. We have dinosaurs with feathers.

That's not evidence of anything other than how awesome God is. Sorry.

 

[Boss]

You've yet to explain origin of life.

Nuts to that. We are having enough trouble getting evolution through your Neandertal skull. Even kiddies understand evolution.

Maybe that's my problem? I'm not a kiddie. I don't believe in MACROevolution because there is no science to support it.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Talkingorigins.org is a hack website designed to promote your anti-Christian dogma.

There is no valid scientific evidence macroevolution ever happened. NONE!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You've yet to explain origin of life.

Nuts to that. We are having enough trouble getting evolution through your Neandertal skull. Even kiddies understand evolution.

Maybe that's my problem? I'm not a kiddie. I don't believe in MACROevolution because there is no science to support it.

We have much evidence of macroevolution. We have lobfinned fish who crawled out of the water. We have lungfish who can breath air. We have determined the phylogeny of every fish gill slit to advanced land structure. We have dinosaurs with feathers.

That's not evidence of anything other than how awesome God is. Sorry.

right, because all evidence is subjective, and your opinion of whether it is evidence is just as valid as anyone else's. yes, I gathered that from about the first 3 posts I ever saw from you. Boss, while you may have convinced yourself of this goofy idea long ago, you really aren't convincing anyone else or putting any dents in well-founded scientific theories.