DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
There is no way the eye evolved. It was created. Live with 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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The evolution of the eye
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
Does not answer the problem with your stone walling lack of knowledge in science and insistence of 'proof' which is not how science works.
No, one cannot have a working knowledge of science from the layman's perspective especially when there is irrational religious agenda.
Your understanding of genetics and how RNA/DNA mutations function in the science of evolution is worse than dismal, and reflects a self imposed ignorance of science.
The DNA of the offspring of parents may contain mutations that are not in the parents genes, and this is an objectively observed fact. and the DNA contains many genes that are not active and may be activated by mutations in later generations.
By the way you have conveniently failed to respond to the following:
Since science does not prove anything. how can you prove any science mentioned in the Bible? Any examples of what you can prove?
How can you prove the Aristotelian (Ptolemaic system) astronomy described in Genesis?
Still waiting . . . !!!!!!!
Last edited:
Unbelievably false, and requires a self imposed ignorance of the science of evolution based on a stone walling religious agenda based on ancient mythology.
There is also the vast amount of evidence for an ancient earth billions of years old, and no evidence for the myth of a world flood.
Many aspects of an ancient earth and no flood have been presented which you ignore. Please explain the vast salt and gypsum deposits in the strata and currently forming at the surface under arid conditions, and impossible to form in a flood environment as described in the Bible.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
You are indeed quite gullible to believe proof for macro-evolution exists. The same evidence can be used to show macro-evolution never happened.
Indeed I am correct. None of the theory of macro-evolution can be proved at all. It is assumed to happen by simply presenting the evidence to make it look like it did. The same can be and has been done to supposedly prove creation. Neither can be proved.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
There's no "belief" about it....macro-evolution is repeatedly observed and documented fact.
The moon is made of cheese. See? Anyone can go online and make stupid assertions.
Your self-imposed ignorance concerning science, and the science of evolution is based on a religious agenda and unbelievably absurd.
First, you cannot get beyond the fact that science does not prove anything. Your stone walling gets you nowhere.
You failed to answer . . .
There is also the vast amount of evidence for an ancient earth billions of years old, and no evidence for the myth of a world flood.
Many aspects of an ancient earth and no flood have been presented which you ignore. Please explain the vast salt and gypsum deposits in the strata and currently forming at the surface under arid conditions, and impossible to form in a flood environment as described in the Bible.
Still waiting . . .
Creationist ignorance .... I really despair for our worlds future.
Note : macro evolution is simply repeated micro evolution. There is no argument, just rejection on grounds of faith.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Nope. You're wrong.
Macro-evolution is the theory that one kind evolved over millions of years into another kind.
Micro-evolution involves small changes among like kinds. Fish and Man are not like kinds.
Micro-evolution does not result in macro-evolution. No one can prove that it does. Because it doesn't.
Dogs are dogs and cats are cats. Period.
Oh! The despair of self-imposed ignorance based on a religious agenda.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Excuse me? What about that did you not understand? Or rather, what about that did you choose not to understand?
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
Mr. Smart Guy: What will cats evolve into and what will dogs evolve into? A good theory should be able to accurately predict what will happen. I guess macro-evolution isn't a good theory.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Aw, I wouldn't let it bother you. Creationism really only is a thing among US fundamentalist Christians, and even there it's in decline (especially among the young).
The science of evolution is the history of evolution over more then 3 billion years, and not what the present species will evolve to in the future.
I am less certain than you as to the future in the USA. At present the Vice President and most of Trumps cabinet embrace one form or another fundamentalist Christianity, and do not accept the complete science of evolution and other aspects of science concerning the age of the earth and evidence of the flood. There is also a rise in fundamentalist Creationism in Islam, and many traditional Jews are uncomfortable with evolution including humanity.
And creationism is dumb as rocks.
Now that we've covered the basics, it might be useful to add the evolution (macro or otherwise) does not suggest that cats become dogs or that dogs become cats but, rather, that both evolved from a common ancestor. Meet Dormaalocyon latouri.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
While those are true, overall in the big picture things are much better. Public recognition of evolution as valid science is trending upwards, and as I noted earlier, especially among the young. So while we can always point to individuals who are rather embarrassing, they are a shrinking minority.
On the other hand, their understanding of science continues to serve as a powerful demonstration that not everything is subject to evolution.
I am not wrong. You may choose to cherry pick and disregard validated research and scientific evidence by using a term made up 3000 years ago when genetics and dna were not even thought of for all most 3000 years because you have faith in god magic. Not my problem that dna and several other disciplines prove you wrong.
Note, that is the same dna that you back 100% when it comes to convicting a fellon.
Need some clarification here. What are you proposing is not subject evolution?
That's good too hear, I've been having my doubts after recent political events in America seem to have emboldened them.
Also, in the UK, following a disastrous election the PM is attempting to make a government by teaming up with a bunch of creationists...