Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Funny how you think butterflies prove evolution when you can't answer migratory patterns nor their existence 120 million years ago.Don't try to change the discussion just because you see the corner you are in.Any of which can interbreed, and you avoid answering another question because you know it defies explanation from an evolutionary standpoint.What you see when you say "I see a butterfly. Period." is, in fact, 3 distinct species.
And only one species shown migrates at all. The other two species do not migrate.
So you are claiming that Monarch butterflies (species: Danaus plexippus) can interbreed with Viceroy butterflies (species: Limenitis archippus)????
The migration of the Monarch defies evolution, as well as butterflies existing 120 million years ago.
I'm not in any corner. You posted all those people's faces as one species, I posted 3 pics of butterflies that are distinct species. Migration is irrelevant. It was an answer to your "They look different but are the same species".
Try doing some internet research today on logic.Funny how you think butterflies prove evolution when you can't answer migratory patterns nor their existence 120 million years ago.Don't try to change the discussion just because you see the corner you are in.Any of which can interbreed, and you avoid answering another question because you know it defies explanation from an evolutionary standpoint.
So you are claiming that Monarch butterflies (species: Danaus plexippus) can interbreed with Viceroy butterflies (species: Limenitis archippus)????
The migration of the Monarch defies evolution, as well as butterflies existing 120 million years ago.
I'm not in any corner. You posted all those people's faces as one species, I posted 3 pics of butterflies that are distinct species. Migration is irrelevant. It was an answer to your "They look different but are the same species".
I never claimed butterflies prove evolution. I simply showed you that animals that look alike can be different species. Something you were mocking when you posted all those people's faces.
Now, can you offer any evidence to support ID?
Oh? I'm familiar with multiple. Off the top of my head:Wrong again. I said their are only two possible theories for the existence of life.Because the topic is evolution. Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.I have answered you already. You can't see the trees through the forest.No, you have not missed my answer. It is irrelevant to the question I asked you. I have answered numerous questions, and you have yet to answer this one. I asked it when you first brought up ID, and you have steadfastly refused to answer.
Why is that?
Can you provide any evidence supporting the ID theory?
Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution. You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
You brought it. You claimed it was the better theory.
Like I said, topic is evolution of species into other species. Of which all evidence says does not occur in nature.Oh? I'm familiar with multiple. Off the top of my head:Wrong again. I said their are only two possible theories for the existence of life.Because the topic is evolution. Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.I have answered you already. You can't see the trees through the forest.
Is there any evidence that would make you think ID is the answer?
The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution. You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
You brought it. You claimed it was the better theory.
Panspermia,
Old Earth Creationism
Young Earth Creationism
Scientific Creationism
All other Creation myths/theories
Theistic Evolution
Abiogenesis
Not on the list is naturalistic or atheistic evolution because it doesn't discuss the existence of life, just what life did once it got here.
Your evidence of ID. Both of which defy any logical explanation in evolution in how humanity behaves at such things.Funny how you think butterflies prove evolution when you can't answer migratory patterns nor their existence 120 million years ago.Don't try to change the discussion just because you see the corner you are in.Any of which can interbreed, and you avoid answering another question because you know it defies explanation from an evolutionary standpoint.
So you are claiming that Monarch butterflies (species: Danaus plexippus) can interbreed with Viceroy butterflies (species: Limenitis archippus)????
The migration of the Monarch defies evolution, as well as butterflies existing 120 million years ago.
I'm not in any corner. You posted all those people's faces as one species, I posted 3 pics of butterflies that are distinct species. Migration is irrelevant. It was an answer to your "They look different but are the same species".
I never claimed butterflies prove evolution. I simply showed you that animals that look alike can be different species. Something you were mocking when you posted all those people's faces.
Now, can you offer any evidence to support ID?
Try doing some internet research today on logic.Funny how you think butterflies prove evolution when you can't answer migratory patterns nor their existence 120 million years ago.Don't try to change the discussion just because you see the corner you are in.So you are claiming that Monarch butterflies (species: Danaus plexippus) can interbreed with Viceroy butterflies (species: Limenitis archippus)????
The migration of the Monarch defies evolution, as well as butterflies existing 120 million years ago.
I'm not in any corner. You posted all those people's faces as one species, I posted 3 pics of butterflies that are distinct species. Migration is irrelevant. It was an answer to your "They look different but are the same species".
I never claimed butterflies prove evolution. I simply showed you that animals that look alike can be different species. Something you were mocking when you posted all those people's faces.
Now, can you offer any evidence to support ID?
If one of two possibilities is eliminated, what does that mean?
Then why did you bring up "existence of life?"Like I said, topic is evolution of species into other species. Of which all evidence says does not occur in nature.Oh? I'm familiar with multiple. Off the top of my head:Wrong again. I said their are only two possible theories for the existence of life.Because the topic is evolution. Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution. You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
You brought it. You claimed it was the better theory.
Panspermia,
Old Earth Creationism
Young Earth Creationism
Scientific Creationism
All other Creation myths/theories
Theistic Evolution
Abiogenesis
Not on the list is naturalistic or atheistic evolution because it doesn't discuss the existence of life, just what life did once it got here.
People will tell you that life is like a tree, branching out into all the various species you see today. What really occurred, which is supported in the fossil record as I have shown with the butterfly and fish, is that the species were created simply branched out into variations within the species. For example dogs. Most of the breeds you see today were created in just the past 150 yearsTry doing some internet research today on logic.Funny how you think butterflies prove evolution when you can't answer migratory patterns nor their existence 120 million years ago.Don't try to change the discussion just because you see the corner you are in.
The migration of the Monarch defies evolution, as well as butterflies existing 120 million years ago.
I'm not in any corner. You posted all those people's faces as one species, I posted 3 pics of butterflies that are distinct species. Migration is irrelevant. It was an answer to your "They look different but are the same species".
I never claimed butterflies prove evolution. I simply showed you that animals that look alike can be different species. Something you were mocking when you posted all those people's faces.
Now, can you offer any evidence to support ID?
If one of two possibilities is eliminated, what does that mean?Then why did you bring up "existence of life?"Like I said, topic is evolution of species into other species. Of which all evidence says does not occur in nature.Oh? I'm familiar with multiple. Off the top of my head:Wrong again. I said their are only two possible theories for the existence of life.Because the topic is evolution. Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
You brought it. You claimed it was the better theory.
Panspermia,
Old Earth Creationism
Young Earth Creationism
Scientific Creationism
All other Creation myths/theories
Theistic Evolution
Abiogenesis
Not on the list is naturalistic or atheistic evolution because it doesn't discuss the existence of life, just what life did once it got here.
And if species do not evolve into other species, then where did modern species come from?
No. The OP is about the direct evidence that species remain the same species, no matter how many tens of millions of years occurSo, the OP is going with the old "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" gotcha?
Oh...I mistook you...I thought you were arguing against evolution.No. The OP is about the direct evidence that species remain the same species, no matter how many tens of millions of years occurSo, the OP is going with the old "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" gotcha?
Evolution of species into another species. That is beyond faith and logic.Oh...I mistook you...I thought you were arguing against evolution.No. The OP is about the direct evidence that species remain the same species, no matter how many tens of millions of years occurSo, the OP is going with the old "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" gotcha?
Logic?Evolution of species into another species. That is beyond faith and logic.Oh...I mistook you...I thought you were arguing against evolution.No. The OP is about the direct evidence that species remain the same species, no matter how many tens of millions of years occurSo, the OP is going with the old "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" gotcha?
Start a thread on it and find out.Logic?Evolution of species into another species. That is beyond faith and logic.Oh...I mistook you...I thought you were arguing against evolution.No. The OP is about the direct evidence that species remain the same species, no matter how many tens of millions of years occurSo, the OP is going with the old "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" gotcha?
If you have faith why do you need logic?
NahStart a thread on it and find out.Logic?Evolution of species into another species. That is beyond faith and logic.Oh...I mistook you...I thought you were arguing against evolution.No. The OP is about the direct evidence that species remain the same species, no matter how many tens of millions of years occurSo, the OP is going with the old "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" gotcha?
If you have faith why do you need logic?
Try doing some internet research today on logic.Funny how you think butterflies prove evolution when you can't answer migratory patterns nor their existence 120 million years ago.Don't try to change the discussion just because you see the corner you are in.So you are claiming that Monarch butterflies (species: Danaus plexippus) can interbreed with Viceroy butterflies (species: Limenitis archippus)????
The migration of the Monarch defies evolution, as well as butterflies existing 120 million years ago.
I'm not in any corner. You posted all those people's faces as one species, I posted 3 pics of butterflies that are distinct species. Migration is irrelevant. It was an answer to your "They look different but are the same species".
I never claimed butterflies prove evolution. I simply showed you that animals that look alike can be different species. Something you were mocking when you posted all those people's faces.
Now, can you offer any evidence to support ID?
If one of two possibilities is eliminated, what does that mean?
Like I said, topic is evolution of species into other species. Of which all evidence says does not occur in nature.Oh? I'm familiar with multiple. Off the top of my head:Wrong again. I said their are only two possible theories for the existence of life.Because the topic is evolution. Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.The only thing you have done is try to disprove evolution. You have provided not one single shred of evidence to support ID.
You brought it. You claimed it was the better theory.
Panspermia,
Old Earth Creationism
Young Earth Creationism
Scientific Creationism
All other Creation myths/theories
Theistic Evolution
Abiogenesis
Not on the list is naturalistic or atheistic evolution because it doesn't discuss the existence of life, just what life did once it got here.
Your evidence of ID. Both of which defy any logical explanation in evolution in how humanity behaves at such things.Funny how you think butterflies prove evolution when you can't answer migratory patterns nor their existence 120 million years ago.Don't try to change the discussion just because you see the corner you are in.So you are claiming that Monarch butterflies (species: Danaus plexippus) can interbreed with Viceroy butterflies (species: Limenitis archippus)????
The migration of the Monarch defies evolution, as well as butterflies existing 120 million years ago.
I'm not in any corner. You posted all those people's faces as one species, I posted 3 pics of butterflies that are distinct species. Migration is irrelevant. It was an answer to your "They look different but are the same species".
I never claimed butterflies prove evolution. I simply showed you that animals that look alike can be different species. Something you were mocking when you posted all those people's faces.
Now, can you offer any evidence to support ID?
View attachment 118130
Your evidence of ID. Both of which defy any logical explanation in evolution in how humanity behaves at such things.Funny how you think butterflies prove evolution when you can't answer migratory patterns nor their existence 120 million years ago.Don't try to change the discussion just because you see the corner you are in.
The migration of the Monarch defies evolution, as well as butterflies existing 120 million years ago.
I'm not in any corner. You posted all those people's faces as one species, I posted 3 pics of butterflies that are distinct species. Migration is irrelevant. It was an answer to your "They look different but are the same species".
I never claimed butterflies prove evolution. I simply showed you that animals that look alike can be different species. Something you were mocking when you posted all those people's faces.
Now, can you offer any evidence to support ID?
View attachment 118130
How humans have emotional reactions to sights and sounds? It could be explained by cultural teachings and experiences.
It is also not exclusive to humans.
So you too refuse to believe what children are being brainwashed into believing on how the universe and earth were created.Like I said, topic is evolution of species into other species. Of which all evidence says does not occur in nature.Oh? I'm familiar with multiple. Off the top of my head:Wrong again. I said their are only two possible theories for the existence of life.Because the topic is evolution. Feel free to start a thread on ID, I would love to chime in.
You brought it. You claimed it was the better theory.
Panspermia,
Old Earth Creationism
Young Earth Creationism
Scientific Creationism
All other Creation myths/theories
Theistic Evolution
Abiogenesis
Not on the list is naturalistic or atheistic evolution because it doesn't discuss the existence of life, just what life did once it got here.
No it is not. Numerous times you have talked about "explosions" and how life did not come from molten lava. Those have nothing to do with species evolving into other species.
They have nothing to do with reality either, but certainly not with the topic of species evolving into other species.
