Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Of course it is. Those devices were made possible by the scientific method. The same method that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that life is the product of evolution.
Your idea of creationism is not necessarily what I believe. So you keep talking about creationism. What do you mean by that, because not all concepts of those believing in creation are the same. So what do you mean when you say creationism? Please try not to use the word apple again as indicative of the figurative fruit because it doesn't make you or some of those you call creationists look too bright.
I realize that taking your "course" of evolution is not in harmony with reality. So until you can show how populations morphed (evolved from one state - population
- to another while there were no links in reproduction fast or slow from one "population" to another there is no point in taking your lessons. Thanks.
QUOTE
Wrong again.I realize that taking your "course" of evolution is not in harmony with reality. So until you can show how populations morphed (evolved from one state - population
Sounds like you're in fear. I wrote, "The FACT is that there historical and tangible realities leading up to the computer, tablet and phone. There are no evidences of anything materially cogent that leads up to populations morphing from one population to another. You have produced not one iota of evidence, no fossil evidence showing that there have been populations morphing from one to another. There are fossils. But they are not proving evolution. They are proving there were animals and "forms" that died, bones buried, sometimes not completely corroded, and may or may not be different than the animals today. If you have more than that, please -- just give one or two sentences demonstrating more than that. (Thanks.)"
Let me know if you don't understand the question. But if you do, here's your chance to offer explanation (proof?).
If your details don't matter, why should I believe any conjecture you have to offer? (Again, you're funny. But try to offer some proof backing up your statements. -- I'm giving you the opportunity to do so. In your own words.)
OK, instead of telling me I'm a liar, etc.,please show some non-strawman basic of science to show that there are intermediate links from one population to another.
Let me know, please. Are you the one to determine what is figurative and not figurative in the Bible? (Or out of the Bible, as in "apple" figuratively?) If so, please just say you are the authority. If not, let me know. Thanks again.
There was a beginning of existence as we know it. If you were not born and grew, you would not know about the stars. Thank you for bringing this out, including speciation or what is termed as ring species. While the idea of observing the heavens and the earth may seem simplistic to you, there is a difference in recognition of 'life' between an amoeba and a dog and a human being.
I am not the one running away.Sounds like you're in fear. I wrote, "The FACT is that there historical and tangible realities leading up to the computer, tablet and phone. There are no evidences of anything materially cogent that leads up to populations morphing from one population to another. You have produced not one iota of evidence, no fossil evidence showing that there have been populations morphing from one to another. There are fossils. But they are not proving evolution. They are proving there were animals and "forms" that died, bones buried, sometimes not completely corroded, and may or may not be different than the animals today. If you have more than that, please -- just give one or two sentences demonstrating more than that. (Thanks.)"
So since you say everything I say is wrong here, please show there is incontrovertible fossil evidence or any kind of material, verifiable tangible evidence (NOT conjecture after unearthing fossils) showing links between one "population" to another. Just one. Don't give me a link. Explain if possible, in your own words, as briefly as possible. I'll listen.
Not just me. But some things are obvious. If you have to believe in a lying god, as you do, that is a good indication that your beliefs are wrong.
Yes, but a beginning as we know it is only evidence of a beginning. Not of a god.
You need to learn the basics of science first. I keep offering and you keep running.
Looking at speciation, then thinking about your claim that humans evolved from apes, and essentially are apes, this does not prove ring species concerning evolution as you know it.
You may examine evidences of what scientists call speciation, this does not prove that God does not enable life. And, scientists have differing opinions about definitions and ideas.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)
They are not false accusations. Perhaps you might try stop being a biblical authority in interpreting what is symbolic and what is literal.
And that was so ignorant that it could properly be called "stupid". You do not even know what evidence is. Heck you don't even know how the plural of the word "evidence". We need to start at the very beginning for you. For that I am going to use an illustration:Sounds like you're in fear. I wrote, "The FACT is that there historical and tangible realities leading up to the computer, tablet and phone. There are no evidences of anything materially cogent that leads up to populations morphing from one population to another. You have produced not one iota of evidence, no fossil evidence showing that there have been populations morphing from one to another. There are fossils. But they are not proving evolution. They are proving there were animals and "forms" that died, bones buried, sometimes not completely corroded, and may or may not be different than the animals today. If you have more than that, please -- just give one or two sentences demonstrating more than that. (Thanks.)"
So since you say everything I say is wrong here, please show there is incontrovertible fossil evidence or any kind of material, verifiable tangible evidence (NOT conjecture after unearthing fossils) showing links between one "population" to another. Just one. Don't give me a link. Explain if possible, in your own words, as briefly as possible. I'll listen.
Not reliable evidence. A verse from a book of stories.
