TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Read raccoon guys posts.
I asked for a quote. Don't make me hunt for it.
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!
Read raccoon guys posts.
Y
Having similar body plans, is found between most of the organisms in respective Phyla. The origins of which, btw, for most of the current Phyla, occurred suddenly in the Cambrian Explosion. The fossil record bears this out.
Like which ones? I’ve never seen any “poor” designs, that were not suited for their environment.
And if ‘overcomplicated ‘design’ abounds’, why would evolution create such organisms with unneeded features?
Could you do better?
What would you change?
Yeah, I can tell the questions they can't answer or don't want to, by the posts that are ignored.I never seem to get a response to it either. This is the point where they just stop responding to my posts.
Then why do you keep repeating the claim that something started from nothing?“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made” (Romans 1:20).
It is illogical to suggest that something had no cause. This is where the theory of evolution becomes inadequate. It can not explain how anything began, let alone life.
- Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existence.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe had a cause for its existence.
The evidence says that is exactly what happened.You can't get there from here then. You can't get from a single cell organism to all the diversity of life that exists.
"Raccoon guy"? Nice.Read raccoon guys posts.
Waving away evidence out of dislike for it isn't science either.Science is observation. No observation, no science only guess work.
The first is a creationist claim that is neither logical nor supported by evidence. The second is an observed fact.Exactly. Adaptations and evolution from nothing to extreme diversity are two very different things.
Again, it isn't a totally different type of animal.
Have the religious ever observed life coming from something not living?
Can you get from an archaeopteryx to a pigeon? Can you get from Dryopithecus to a chimpanzee?You can't get there from here then. You can't get from a single cell organism to all the diversity of life that exists.
What is it about this topic that gets the atheists so riled up? I have never have been able to completely figure that out. It's just a mechanism to get from point a to point b, why do you all fight so hard to try and prove that evolutionists have got everything right? If it really has no bearing on whether there's a God or not, what does it even matter?
What is it about this topic that gets the atheists so riled up? I have never have been able to completely figure that out. It's just a mechanism to get from point a to point b, why do you all fight so hard to try and prove that evolutionists have got everything right? If it really has no bearing on whether there's a God or not, what does it even matter?
What is it about this topic that gets the atheists so riled up? I have never have been able to completely figure that out. It's just a mechanism to get from point a to point b, why do you all fight so hard to try and prove that evolutionists have got everything right? If it really has no bearing on whether there's a God or not, what does it even matter?
If you don't know you should educate yourself.What is 'a totally different type of animal'? Are a sparrowhawk and a kite totally different types of animal? Or a duck, a goose and a swan? Or a wolf, a fox and a jackal? Or a chimpanzee, a human and a gorilla? Or a hawk moth and a peppered moth? Or a slug and a snail? Where do you draw the lines between the same type of animal, a partially different type, and a totally different type?
Says the person who believes everything came from nothing. And yes it has everything to do with atheists. I guarantee you I can start any kind of thread on miracles, I can state that I believe a man rose from the dead, and I will not get near as much push back from the atheists as questioning anything about evolution theory.Ah...it has nothing to do with atheism and atheists.
It is about biology and creationists’ not biology.
The majority of biologists in the Western world, there are more biologists with Christian background than that those to who are atheists, and they understand and accept evolutionary biology to be factual science..
You are completely ignoring that @Dan From Smithville, @metis, @shunyadragon, @Jayhawker Soule, and plenty other RF members are theists, not atheists.
Creationism, in what ever forms, be OEC, YEC, or Intelligent Design, are all religious-based and non-scientific concepts. Much of creationism and ID have not single evidence that can verify that this Creator or Designer exist.
If creationists conclude that the Creator is direct “CAUSE” of creation, whether it be Genesis Creation or Quranic Creation, then as part of the Creation concept, evidence that the Creator exist must be included.
And the same would apply to Intelligent Design in regard to the role of the Designer being the “CAUSE” of designs. As being integral part of the ID, there must be physical evidence that the Designer exist, if the Designer plays essential role for all designs.
One of the problems with ID creationists is that they like to use irrelevant analogies that have nothing to do with living organisms, as the focuses of their analogies are non-living man-made objects (eg watches, cars, computers, computer programs, mousetraps, etc) that cannot reproduce, and such objects do no have DNA that can genetically pass physical traits, from parent to offspring.
Analogies are comparable two completely different different things, so analogies aren’t biology, therefore using the Watchmaker analogy, or car analogy, or computer analogy, or mousetrap analogy, and so on, are irrelevant comparisons, which are FALSE EQUIVALENCE fallacy.
Beside the fiasco of comparing life-forms with non-living objects (eg watches, cars, computers, etc), ID creationists blindly overlook the facts that real designers of cars, computers, computer software, and so on, are real qualified people, and you can show evidence that these designers are real people, evidence such as qualifications, student records, employment records, tax records, birth certificates, and if they drive or travel overseas they would have driver license or passports, medical records, and so on. Plus, you can meet designers, engineers, architects, programmers, etc, or even be one of these people.
But can you show and verify that “Designer” in Intelligent Design concept, exist.
Creationists don’t even understand what evidence is.
Evidence are testable observations of natural phenomena or physical phenomena.
Evidence don’t just “verify” solid logical models, but more importantly “refute” weak or incorrect models.
Evidence are also observations that provide useful information or data about the phenomena, such as quantities, measurements, test multiple evidence against each other, observed & understand the properties of the phenomena (eg learning how the phenomena work), etc.
You cannot observe the Designer, you cannot measure, test or analyze the Designer.
They (ID creationists) ignored evidence in favour of relying stupid irrelevant analogies.
And it isn’t just the False Equivalence fallacy. ID creationists rely on all sorts of logical fallacies, eg appeal to ignorance, argument from incredulity, circular reasoning, confirmation bias, and so on.
And guess what, Wildswanderer: creationists, like ID creationists, like to use the word “imply” or “infer”.
For instance, nature (eg life) looks complex, complexity implies design, therefore designs infer the Designer.
The use of infer, in implying this or that, is faulty & unrealistic uses of inference.
Creationists often reveal they are not hopeless in understanding evidence, they are also terrible at logic.
IDK, seeing as I'm not riled up. I'm amused how many people defend evolution theory as if it's the Holy Grail.What is it about this topic that gets some theists so riled up? If evolution has no bearing on the existence of God, why do some Christians insist that we must reject it in favour of a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis?
Your claim, your burden of proof. Refusing to support a claim is no different from you just admitting that you are wrong.If you don't know you should educate yourself.