Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Bird kind, dog kind, human kind, so on.Speaking of not defining terms well (or at all)..please define "kind".
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!
Bird kind, dog kind, human kind, so on.Speaking of not defining terms well (or at all)..please define "kind".
All of them? Are you certain? Let's see some sources that all patients died.And in 1860 all surgeons thought it was a waste of precious time to wash their hands or instruments before an operation. All their patients died of the resulting infections.
That is not an accurate or fair way to characterize them. They had no practical knowledge to base their standards. Of course it was a scientist who used the new microscope to observe microorganisms, and there were tests to see if these caused infections, which they did. Ever since clean hands and instruments were a standard for medical procedures.They were obviously all stupid and knew nothing at all about science.
Another fantastic claim that needs a source.Fortunately we now know everything and every patient survives. Homo omnisciencis.
But these are not equal but competing world-views, as you seem to imply.You're saying the exact same thing in a different way; If "Evolution" weren't correct we'd know it so it is therefore right.
Homo omnisciencis.
We've each believed we were right and seen the world only in terms of our beliefs since the "tower of babel". Of course no two people can agree on much of anything at all and have trouble communicating even the simplest concepts like that "Evolution" is a circular argument that is founded not on experiment but on appearances. This doesn't mean it is wrong but it certainly opens up the door to being wrong.
Natural selection is a mechanism. You obviously haven't a clue about how natural selection, or evolution, works.Then there's no reason to believe it is correct. And actually there's no mechanism, natural selection doesn't have a mechanism. It's just what ever happens happens. It's a form of circular reason to say the environment selects, because first something has to select the environment.
There is selection going on, hence the name. It's just that the selection is natural and unintentional, as opposed to human selective breeding or the finger of God.That doesn't work because there is no selection going in nature. Much like gravity, natural selection just happens on its own with no conscious agency acting behind it.
False, we observe you getting science wrong quite consistently. It wasn't a one off mistake.Again no substance here, just claims.
I've heard of "happy little clouds" and "almighty mountains"...So? Ever hear of a happy little accident?
No, there's a few bone supposed to be a cat) dog ancestor, but it's a lot of supposing...more likely it was neithers ancestor. In fact it looked somewhat like a muscalid if I recall correctlyThe creos love their inane "no transitional forms" but, they are there for cats n dogs and
the others.
Right! There is no reason. That they do anyway is evidence of a soul made in God's image.You said there's no reason for an atheist to experience awe and wonder at a "mistake."
And speciation is just accumulated adaptation. Did you think the adaptations stopped, for some reason, on the edge of speciation?No ... that's just adaptation.
Wha....?One kind of animal changing into a totally different kind is the theory. Like snake to a mammal with a lot of intermediate species.
Why would the mechanism of creation have anything to do with our impressions of the world?Why would a human have any more awe than an amoeba in a world created by chance?
One has to transition into another somehow. Look at a tree of life illustrated and tell me that one species doesn't transition into another according to the ToE.You can't be serious. Are you actually thinking that the ToE posits one species giving birth to another species?
Answer the question...not with another question.Why would the mechanism of creation have anything to do with our impressions of the world?
Do you really think amœbas are capable of awe, or are you just being humorous?
Man sagt, Einstein war ein Wunderkind.Bird kind, dog kind, human kind, so on.
How did Latin transition into French? In what year was the first French speaker born to Latin parents?One has to transition into another somehow. Look at a tree of life illustrated and tell me that one species doesn't transition into another according to the ToE.
Are you assuming only humans have emotions? Other animals have emotions too. In fact our limbic system has largely stayed the same as our ancestors as our frontal lobes evolved larger. Humans have a very primitive emotion center, we actually don't need our fight or flight mechanism since we can reason and discern threats, and even change our environments to protect ourselves from threats. Yet our emotion centers cause us problems. We are easily swayed with emotional appeals if we aren't prepared to to recognize them, and how they can harm us, we are no different than other animals. We just react to the stimuli, much like Pavlov's Dog.Thanks for proving my point. There's no reason we should have emotion or a spirit in a world created by random chance. The fact that we NEED emotion is telling us we are not just animals.
What question? You make a baseless claim that God and a soul are sine qua non for awe.Answer the question...not with another question.
What is your scholarly source that lists all these kinds? I take it you graduated from a school that teaches all this? Do they have a website? Does it have science labs and experts in science? Tell us more.Lizards and snakes are considered different kinds. How would it make sense for all mammals to be the same kind?
Read your Bible and you will have the answer.
Deer and elk are closely related, so I'm guessing yes...I'm not going to look up every one
Look up baraminology..