And you repeat your self defeating argument. Only creationists that are either incredibly ignorant or incredibly dishonest make the error of describing evolution as random.
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!
And you repeat your self defeating argument. Only creationists that are either incredibly ignorant or incredibly dishonest make the error of describing evolution as random.
I see evolutionary processes like sexual selection (ducks, the colorful fish), camouflage by natural selection (leaf insect, zebra), eye evolution (owl), evolution of maternal care (panda) and predator-prey competition (tiger, poison frog).
There is no "proof" in science.
Again, there is no "proof" in science, unless you mean proof beyond a reasonable doubt. We do have that. Science is evidence based, not "proof" based.
We know that there was no Exodus for example.
Recent history is not bad, but I am betting an actual historian could find flaws in the Bible.
But we are not discussing the historical claims of the Bible, we are discussing the mythical claims of the Bible.
Macro-evolution has been observed.
Macro-evolution is evolution at the species level and that has been observed.
No, you have a belief system. We have knowledge and evidence, something lacking in your mere belief.
Paleontology is not my area, and I can assume it's not yours either.
but one thing I don't do is to use my religious beliefs as a set of blinders to what should be obvious, namely the life forms evolve, usually in unpredictable ways
And since no one has shown that there's a supposed magical wall that stops the evolutionary process at some point, then denying the process of "speciation" that has been well established, which is not a mark of knowledge on this process.
As you know, I grew up in a Christian denomination who taught such ignorance and dishonesty on the subject, but it became very clear to me after a while that I was being sold the equivalence of "snake oil".
I truly hope some day that you also open your eyes to what you are being fed by people who twist things and lie while collecting your money.
In essence, you're paying them to be dishonest and to mislead you and others.
Life forms evolve-- period-- end of story.
Once again I have offered to support my claims.
Knock yourself out. But don't post anything that relies on suggestion, conjecture or supposition...and nothing that requires faith or belief....OK?
Some of us are definitely incapable of looking honestly at the evidence and how it is interpreted.
When one is promoting a belief (macro-evolution is a belief, lets be honest about that) you have to know the difference between a fact and an unprovable idea. There is no way to prove that evolution, on the scale that science suggests is even possible. There is no way to look 'dispassionately' at a subject for which we have developed a 'passion'. The responses here are proof that an almost religious passion drives evolutionists just as much as it drives ID proponents.
You are promoting a belief system just as much as I am. You just can't seem to admit it.
Because otherwise your existence would just be down to random chance and the odds of you existing by chance is practically zero. The Odds Of You Being Alive Are Incredibly SmallWhat makes you think that I subscribe to the belief that we are all individually created by God? The Bible does not teach that.
Exactly the point. You are claiming that the odds of you being human by chance are absolute zero therefore god but the odds against you personally as an individual being here are just as big therefore also god. Otherwise you just have to admit that if you personally are possible by chance against infinite odds then also being human by chance is possible against the same odds.What you have said is exactly why we should value life...not every egg and sperm gets to make a living human or animal. The odds against us being here as the individuals we are, is infinitely small.....but the odds of you being a human by chance are absolute zero.
I'll be dead. I let others predict the future. I just do my best today to mess up the world as little as possible.What future do you see if things don't change?
No, you don't see design... when you look in the mirror you weren't designed to look the way you do you see a random accident that happened against infinitely great odds... unless you claim you were personally designed by a god just like you claim the animals were...?People see what they want to see.....I see design...you see random accidents. We are all free to choose what to believe.
Not true. Just look for the evidence. There are numerous examples of evolution being seen in practice - which I believe have been posted here or in another thread. Can you answer the question I posed?
Why are there so many examples of creatures differing by very small amounts from their cousins? Evolution explains this perfectly.
No, you don't see design
when you look in the mirror you weren't designed to look the way you do you see a random accident that happened against infinitely great odds... unless you claim you were personally designed by a god just like you claim the animals were...?
No you don't. You even claim your designer wasn't designed but exists just because of a fluke... or do you have a third alternative... did your designer evolve?But I do......every time I look at living things I see design....
Do you personally have any evidence for what science claims or are you just parroting what others have said?
So does adaptation...do you know the difference? You do understand that a virus that adapts or mutates is still a virus? This is an example of adaptation, not evolution. A rabbit that adapted to a changed environment by changing color or a bear that did the same thing, are still within their own taxonomic family. Darwin's finches had different shaped beaks that were adaptations for a different food source...but they were still finches. All the Galapagos creatures had merely become varieties of the same kinds as their mainland cousins....none of them change into a different kind of animal....no matter how much times had elapsed. Science fudges what it cannot prove.
Do you believe that whales evolved from four legged furry land animals? Have you seen the evidence they present for this?
I find it difficult to understand how any intelligent person could believe that, whilst pointing fingers at creationists for believing that life was purposely designed.
There are powerful forces working in the universe that are unseen to the human eye, but scientists know that they are there because of the effects they produce....why would God be any different?
A being capable of producing these forces, as well as the universe, must be an incredible force himself. Science just doesn't have the ability to comprehend or to understand who or what he is.
Deeje has been here, at least 8 years now, almost 9.
She didn’t understand the differences between proofs and evidences, back then, so I highly doubt she will understand now...or ever.
The funny thing is that she will lecture us on matters, like the differences between microevolution and macroevolution, and between evolution and adaptation, and yet she cannot learn the differences between evolution and abiogenesis, or between evidences and proofs. And it is not that she don’t have the capacity to learn, is that she doesn’t want to learn or refuse to learn.
This is why we repeat the same answers to her, explaining the differences, and that she refused to learn, most people consider her dishonest.
Except you haven’t presented any evidence.
All you have done has been presenting your presuppositions (eg claims about the history of language, about the Tower of Babel, about the last nephilim, about the bible) and you are rationalising, trying to mix history and contents of the bible.
None of these claims are evidences; they are just a bunch of statements of what you believe in, but you haven’t backed up of your claims.
I can give you A+ for imagination, but a much lower mark on reality and big fat F for failing to produce a single evidence.
Evidence is more than just your supposition or you personal belief, because that’s all you have given us.
And it is not that she don’t have the capacity to learn, is that she doesn’t want to learn or refuse to learn.
Biologists start out with the assumption that the existence of living organisms is due to purely natural causes. In the same way seismologists start out with the assumption that earthquakes are due to natural causes not Poseidon, and meteorologists start out with the assumption that weather phenomena are due to natural causes, not Thor. Now, if substantial evidence should turn up later during our scientific investigations that some god was/is responsible for the existence of living organisms, or earthquakes, or thunder, we can deal with that then.You are starting with the assumption that no God is necessary at any stage of the processes that we call evolution.
Biologists start out with the assumption that the existence of living organisms is due to purely natural causes. In the same way seismologists start out with the assumption that earthquakes are due to natural causes not Poseidon, and meteorologists start out with the assumption that weather phenomena are due to natural causes, not Thor. Now, if substantial evidence should turn up later during our scientific investigations that some god was/is responsible for the existence of living organisms, or earthquakes, or thunder, we can deal with that then.