Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is nonsense! I have requested the evidence on mutational changes that have improved living organisms and have gotten nothing - nada!
Either read what it written in thiese posts, or move on. You want a mutation that resulted in an improvement for living organisms? Polyps eat and deficate from the same orifice, but gave rise to other organisms (such as ourselves) that have two different orifices for these functions. Would you agree that the latter is an improvement on the former?
Even Charles Darwin realized the difficulty missing links gave his theory. Darwin wrote in his book, Origin Of The Species, "Why, if species have descended from other species by fine graduation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" The reason we have never found any missing links is quite simple. Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong!
Quote mining is a dirty and deceitful habit.
Darwin answer's his own question in the very next page.
"But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be much more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed; the imperfection of the record being chiefly due to organic beings not inhabiting profound depths of the sea, and to their remains being embedded and preserved to a future age only in masses of sediment sufficiently thick and extensive to withstand an enormous amount of future degradation; and such fossiliferous masses can be accumulated only where much sediment is deposited on the shallow bed of the sea, whilst it slowly subsides. These contingencies will concur only rarely, and after enormously long intervals. Whilst the bed of the sea is stationary or is rising, or when very little sediment is being deposited, there will be blanks in our geological history. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been made only at intervals of time immensely remote."
Basically that fossilization is incredibly rare, which it is.
And second, SPECIES evolve, NOT individuals. Looking for an individual fossil that is half parent species and half descendant species is as stupid as it to look for a dog with a toy poodles head on a giant poodles body.
OMG! FAIL. Did you miss the long discussion of this in the thread on polonium halos? Repeating bad science doesn't support creationism. It only proves how desperate you folks are.
I'm totally open to trying to understand the Evolutionists viewpoint! I understand how you can believe the way do, I admit that. However, if y'all are as confusing as Panterra is with words then I'll never understand.
All I know is this. Elohim/God has proven to me personally that I am with Him. He's proven beyond all doubt that His presence in my life is a fact. When the odds of something happening, over and over again, are like one in trillions times one trillion, it becomes a fact in my opinion.
I'm someone who calls it what it is. I don't feel obligated to prove anything. But I can honestly say as long as my memory works it will always be impossible to deny the existence of God. That is an absolute impossibility. And don't blame me, blame the things that have happened in my life. I'm not that stupid really.
Prove?
What do you mean prove? As in "establish the existence of". Because I would like to see this "proof" of which you speak.
Or do you mean you FEEL that god exists. Which is of course ENTIRELY different.
I'm someone who calls it what it is. I don't feel obligated to prove anything. But I can honestly say as long as my memory works it will always be impossible to deny the existence of God. That is an absolute impossibility. And don't blame me, blame the things that have happened in my life. I'm not that stupid really.
Then why preach your beliefs on a public forum? If you're going to make a point, people are going to demand you to back it up.
I'm totally open to trying to understand the Evolutionists viewpoint! I understand how you can believe the way do, I admit that. However, if y'all are as confusing as Panterra is with words then I'll never understand.
I am so glad to hear that you are open to trying to understand evolution by natural selection. Since this thread has become so cluttered with so much stuff, I hope you don't mind me starting a new thread with the express purpose of outlining the theory of evolution by natural selection from the beginning in easy to understand language (and I won't insert links to other pages or videos).
Although I hesistate to get involved in the discussion about Pantera's posts on falsifiability, but it does concern me that you think he is in someway being dishonest or made a mistake and is not admitting it. I have read his posts, and from my understanding, he was right on and so has no mistake that he needs to admit. Can I try to explain the concept to you?
Falsifiability means that there is some way we could discover an assertion is false, if it in reality is false. For example, the assertion that "all swans are white" is falsifiable, because if we ever found a swan that was not white, we would know the assertion is false. An assertion doesn't have to actually be false to be falsifiable. All good scientific theories are falsifiable because there are possible observations that could be made that would show that they are false. But, until one of those falsifying observations are made, the theory survives as a workable theory.
An example of an assertion that is not falsifiable is, "ghosts exist". If ghosts do not in reality exist, how could we discover that ghosts don't exist. There is no observation or experiment that could prove ghosts do not exist. Since that assertion is not falsifiable, it cannot be scientific.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-Ducky
All I know is this. Elohim/God has proven to me personally that I am with Him. He's proven beyond all doubt that His presence in my life is a fact. When the odds of something happening, over and over again, are like one in trillions times one trillion, it becomes a fact in my opinion.
I'm someone who calls it what it is. I don't feel obligated to prove anything. But I can honestly say as long as my memory works it will always be impossible to deny the existence of God. That is an absolute impossibility. And don't blame me, blame the things that have happened in my life. I'm not that stupid really.
Please don't let your belief in God, cloud your ability to consider evolution. There are many Christians who believe in God and evolution.
OK, I'll start a new thread outlining the theory of evolution.
OMG! FAIL. Did you miss the long discussion of this in the thread on polonium halos? Repeating bad science doesn't support creationism. It only proves how desperate you folks are.
I didn't see the thread. I'll look though. But I would need something other than forum opinions. I'll check it out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
