See the link and quote below from an article provided by @shunyadragon
“In the view of the Darwinists, the endlessly exquisite designs of nature are the result of an interplay of two factors--random genetic mutation and Natural Selection. Genetic mutation proposes, Natural Selection disposes.”...
It was debunked by Louis Pasteur in 1859, the same year when Darwin published “the origin of species”. Meaning during the years that Darwin was working on his book till the time he finally published it, spontaneous generation was still accepted. @Neuropteron’s point is valid.
We still don’t...
Totally irrelevant!! Please try to understand the context before you comment.
It’s a scientific article titled “Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis” published by ACS Publications on January 9, 2020, the context here is ABIOGENESIS not evolution.
Chemistry of Abiotic Nucleotide Synthesis...
You address the irrelevant and ignore the relevant. You’re concerned about bolded text and ignore the fact that it’s not my personal claim, the entire article (not only the bolded text) and conclusion with respect to the nature of consciousness is made by an expert and published by The New York...
Irrelevant, your phone battery produce measurable energy and energy has its effects, does this prove that your phone is conscious or capable of qualia?
I gave you an opinion of an expert and you gave me a personal subjective opinion.
Is There Life After Death? | The New York Academy of...
False empty assertions. So why it was not falsified? Is it because any serious attempt of falsification whould only proves irreducibly complexity to be true?
I’m telling you again, you can neither exclude a constituent nor a constituent can be functional or evolve in isolation of the other...
This is the second most ridiculous claim I ever heard on this long thread. But don’t worry; you also get credit for the first one as well when you said, “Islam is not creationism”.
The ToE is a scientific theory. The contemporary scientific theory of evolution is " the modern synthesis". There...
Ok, back on track. The discussion was triggered by @blü 2’s question in # 6008 "what earthly use has creationism been to the betterment of humans?” I answered in my post # 7354
Darwin's Illusion | Page 368 | Religious Forums
The intent is not to keep extolling, but you kept denying and I kept...
Your grandson is not a variant, not a subspecies, not a new genus, not a new taxonomic family, not a new order, not a new class, not a new phylum, not a new kingdom, not a new domain, NOT a transformation. But fish into elephant is one heck of a transformation.
But forget about fish into...
The concern with Isolation is that the gene flow is interrupted; hence the ensatina salamander complex is not a ring species.
The genetic studies showed sharp genetic breaks (because of the sporadic geographic isolation). You cannot acknowledge the interruption of gene flow and yet consider the...
She said Islam is not creationism and congrats, you now share the credit with her for the most ridiculous claim ever made on this thread.
Do you wish to share credit with her for the second most ridiculous claim as well that the ToE is not the Modern Synthesis? It’s a chance for both of you to...
You’re not only “twisting” but also entirely and intentionally change the facts to advance a false narrative. You do it all the time.
Professor George Sarton the founder of the discipline of the history of science as well as all credible sources attribute the scientific experimental method to...
I already did in #7680 and you do understand it. Don’t you?
Darwin's Illusion | Page 384 | Religious Forums
The ring species concept is based on continuous gene flow between the two ends (that cannot interbreed). If the gene flow is interrupted, neither the ends would qualify as ends of a ring...