RedOne77
Active Member
omg, not again, does this never ever ever go away?
It might, I never heard of Alfred Wallace.
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!
omg, not again, does this never ever ever go away?
Here's a thought...
For those who don't accept scientific facts like evolution, it should be required that the forfeit the benefits of scientific advancements as well.
No vaccines...
No insulin, penicillin, antibiotics, medicines, pain killers, vitamin supplements of any kind.
No X rays, CT scans, MRIs, artificial implants, pace makers, joint replacements, organ transplants or operations of any kind.
And on the non-medical front, no technology of any kind, including automobiles, air transportation, communication equipment like telephones, radios, TVs, house hold appliances, and especially no computers or internet access.
Science has helped stupid people survive for much too long... I think the herd would benefit from a little "culling".
IMO
(but we should make an exception for condoms and other birth control if they want)
Firstly, Darwin was not a scientist. He never really practiced scientific method. He saw some finches, noted differences and thought up a hypothesis (which he likely didn't even dream up himself).
Moving the goalposts. This data is not about the origins of life or universal common ancestry. This data shows that the fossil record contains abundant transitional specimens and provides evidence of gradual Darwinian evolution.Secondly, given the fully functional intricacies of all organisms, there simply isn't enough time in the Cosmos for the supposed earliest lifeforms to have developed, let alone transform into us...
Given that "kind" is an undefined term, all statements relying on the term are equally meaningless.GOD created specific kinds. These kinds have wide variability within strict limits. Example: cattle, horses, cats, dogs, beetles, spiders, ants, frogs, sheep, crabs, whales, shrimp, sharks, monkeys, apes, and humans.
Again, moving the goalposts. This data is not about human evolution. This data shows that the fossil record contains abundant transitional specimens and provides evidence of gradual Darwinian evolution.Now, humanity is a kind. The Bible is clear in that. There are very tall humans and very short humans. There are very light complexioned humans and very ruddy humans. There are very smart humans and those that think they are smart. There are very hairy humans and hairless humans. But they are all human. They were always human, and they always will be human. The range simply illustrates the uniqueness of GOD. Every living organism that ever lived and will ever live will be unique in some way, but each organism will never shift out of its kind to establish another kind.
It might, I never heard of Alfred Wallace.
All we are looking at are varieties of the same type of organism. If scientists want to call them new species that's fine but they are the same type of organisms.
There are 30,000 species of butterflies, what does that prove? That proves evolution within types is all. Creationists accept that.
"Microevolution" is evolution. That's why it has the term "evolution" in it.
All that is is micro evolution and biochemistry. Besides, most doctors don't know squat about evolution anyways.
False.
Again, moving the goalposts. This data is not about human evolution. This data shows that the fossil record contains abundant transitional specimens and provides evidence of gradual Darwinian evolution.
First of all, that is not a fact. It is a belief based on faith that God designed and created everything.The earth only needs to be 6000 to 10000 years old given the fact that GOD designed and created everything ---- you've proven nothing to support evolution mathematically.
Again, you spurious attack on on Darwin does absolutely nothing to either bolster your stance, or eradicate the overwhelming evidence gathered in the last 150 years.Charles Darwin was didn't do well in medical school and became a geologist. Charles Darwin got his inspiration from Alfred Wallace for evolution.
The data shows that there are lots of different and unique organisms. Whether or not they are transitional is clearly an opinion of individuals who need a way to prove there is not need of a CREATER for life to be diversified.
So your opinion of these specimens is that they are not examples of transitional fossils? If so, how did you arrive at this conclusion? How much time did you spend studying these specimens? And perhaps most importantly, what exactly is your definition of "transitional specimen"?
EDIT: And are you going to retract your assertions about Charles Darwin? Or were you hoping we would ignore that?
Given that you have not defined "types" (a euphemism for "kind"), all statements relying on the term are equally meaningless.
This data shows that the fossil record contains abundant transitional specimens and provides evidence of gradual Darwinian evolution. Do you deny this?
The data shows that there are lots of different and unique organisms. Whether or not they are transitional is clearly an opinion of individuals who need a way to prove there is not need of a CREATER for life to be diversified.
How long did they study the fossil in order to come to the conclusion it was several million years old and yet is so detailed? Charles Darwin was a lost soul who had personal reasons for hating GOD, and most involved his father...
Seeing how Darwinian evolution is common descent of all life forms, then no that record does not contain that.
Please present your evidence to the contrary.How long did they study the fossil in order to come to the conclusion it was several million years old and yet is so detailed?
Baseless suppositions....Charles Darwin was a lost soul who had personal reasons for hating GOD, and most involved his father...
Wouldn't it be interesting if you posted something that was true once in a while, just for interest? I wonder whether the scientific community views Darwin as a scientist?Firstly, Darwin was not a scientist. He never really practiced scientific method. He saw some finches, noted differences and thought up a hypothesis (which he likely didn't even dream up himself).
Please show your math. thank you.Secondly, given the fully functional intricacies of all organisms, there simply isn't enough time in the Cosmos for the supposed earliest lifeforms to have developed, let alone transform into us...
Source?That's it? I'm embarressed for you. It's not only creationists that are saying the fossil record lacks the evidence, it is scientists that believe in evolution also that are saying it.
Ah, just like the good old days: a creationist indulging in character assassination of Darwin under the delusion that this is somehow an argument against evolution.Charles Darwin was a lost soul who had personal reasons for hating GOD, and most involved his father...
How long did they study the fossil in order to come to the conclusion it was several million years old and yet is so detailed? Charles Darwin was a lost soul who had personal reasons for hating GOD, and most involved his father...