No, it's your job to prove there was a global flood. Expressing skepticism at your fantasies does not obligate anyone to do anything. She also doesn't have to prove that unicorns don't exist.
What you believe is made up and nonsense.
But thats a stupid request, as you have rigged the game. Nobody should waste a shred of time or effort presenting evidence to a fraud like you, because you just then say it's not evidence. You believe ridiculous shit contradicted by all of the evidence, like a 10,000 year old earth, and that all the fossils are out of order. You believe two of every species fit on the ark, when we couldn't even fit two of just the insect species on the ark. How could anyone possibly prove anything to a deluded freak like that?
I find it difficult to believe that you know Scott Adams. Furthermore, he has a dinosaur character in his comic.
Wow, you missed a lot during that time. I worked with the guy who drew Dilbert and he came out and said he questioned evolution.
Evolution started getting questioned around 2007 by the secular scientists and reached a high point around 2011. This, in addition to the creation scientists who were complaining since the 1850s. Much of their findings were disregarded. These are facts that do not fit the ToE. The birds to dinosaurs is a big deal because it is only the second example of macroevolution. The first was humans from monkeys. There isn't much disagreement on natural selection or microevolution. Others were how did asexual single-cell creatures become sexual reproducing creatures? How did amino acids form proteins outside the cell (they can't; this is physically impossible)? No experimental evidence for abiogenesis, but people kept coming up claims of experimental evidence as well as some wild hypotheses. How did the human eye evolve? The hypotheses of singularity, cosmic inflation, dark matter and dark energy were others that formulated during this time. I think the fine tuning parameters were found around this time, too, by the secular scientists studying the Big Bang (this included Stephen Hawking). You missed a lot.
It goes to show that birds did not come from dinosaurs, so no macroevolution. Macroevolution does not happen. We had another thread arguing about humans from monkeys. Same thing there. No macroevolution. Macroevolution does not happen.
I call bullshit.
And then he makea himself seem like a moron for glorifying some of the dumbest tweets we have ever seen. So he's a bit of an enigma.I find it difficult to believe that you know Scott Adams. Furthermore, he has a dinosaur character in his comic.
Wow, you missed a lot during that time. I worked with the guy who drew Dilbert and he came out and said he questioned evolution.
Evolution started getting questioned around 2007 by the secular scientists and reached a high point around 2011. This, in addition to the creation scientists who were complaining since the 1850s. Much of their findings were disregarded. These are facts that do not fit the ToE. The birds to dinosaurs is a big deal because it is only the second example of macroevolution. The first was humans from monkeys. There isn't much disagreement on natural selection or microevolution. Others were how did asexual single-cell creatures become sexual reproducing creatures? How did amino acids form proteins outside the cell (they can't; this is physically impossible)? No experimental evidence for abiogenesis, but people kept coming up claims of experimental evidence as well as some wild hypotheses. How did the human eye evolve? The hypotheses of singularity, cosmic inflation, dark matter and dark energy were others that formulated during this time. I think the fine tuning parameters were found around this time, too, by the secular scientists studying the Big Bang (this included Stephen Hawking). You missed a lot
It goes to show that birds did not come from dinosaurs, so no macroevolution. Macroevolution does not happen. We had another thread arguing about humans from monkeys. Same thing there. No macroevolution. Macroevolution does not happen.
I call bullshit.
Do you follow his Twitter? His videos exposing Democrat tactics are brilliant.
Wow, you missed a lot during that time. I worked with the guy who drew Dilbert and he came out and said he questioned evolution.
Evolution started getting questioned around 2007 by the secular scientists and reached a high point around 2011. This, in addition to the creation scientists who were complaining since the 1850s. Much of their findings were disregarded. These are facts that do not fit the ToE. The birds to dinosaurs is a big deal because it is only the second example of macroevolution. The first was humans from monkeys. There isn't much disagreement on natural selection or microevolution. Others were how did asexual single-cell creatures become sexual reproducing creatures? How did amino acids form proteins outside the cell (they can't; this is physically impossible)? No experimental evidence for abiogenesis, but people kept coming up claims of experimental evidence as well as some wild hypotheses. How did the human eye evolve? The hypotheses of singularity, cosmic inflation, dark matter and dark energy were others that formulated during this time. I think the fine tuning parameters were found around this time, too, by the secular scientists studying the Big Bang (this included Stephen Hawking). You missed a lot
It goes to show that birds did not come from dinosaurs, so no macroevolution. Macroevolution does not happen. We had another thread arguing about humans from monkeys. Same thing there. No macroevolution. Macroevolution does not happen.
I find it difficult to believe that you know Scott Adams. Furthermore, he has a dinosaur character in his comic.
Wow, you missed a lot during that time. I worked with the guy who drew Dilbert and he came out and said he questioned evolution.
Evolution started getting questioned around 2007 by the secular scientists and reached a high point around 2011. This, in addition to the creation scientists who were complaining since the 1850s. Much of their findings were disregarded. These are facts that do not fit the ToE. The birds to dinosaurs is a big deal because it is only the second example of macroevolution. The first was humans from monkeys. There isn't much disagreement on natural selection or microevolution. Others were how did asexual single-cell creatures become sexual reproducing creatures? How did amino acids form proteins outside the cell (they can't; this is physically impossible)? No experimental evidence for abiogenesis, but people kept coming up claims of experimental evidence as well as some wild hypotheses. How did the human eye evolve? The hypotheses of singularity, cosmic inflation, dark matter and dark energy were others that formulated during this time. I think the fine tuning parameters were found around this time, too, by the secular scientists studying the Big Bang (this included Stephen Hawking). You missed a lot
It goes to show that birds did not come from dinosaurs, so no macroevolution. Macroevolution does not happen. We had another thread arguing about humans from monkeys. Same thing there. No macroevolution. Macroevolution does not happen.
I call bullshit.
? This came a few years later. He may have quit the company by then.You simply don't wish to believe there is a GOD. You are the fraud because the only science you will accept is that which seems to fulfill your desire of a universe without GOD or any reason for existing. Insects are not that big and certainly could have lived on or with the animals filling the ark. You believe that 4 letter words make you appear a worldly adult. I believe you should have your mouth washed out with ivory soap and be sent to bed without supper.
Again, since the FLOOD happened before Egyptian civilization and the Chinese civilization, such would not experience "civilizational" loss. The Chinese didn't even exist as a race until after the Tower of Babel, which occurred after the FLOOD.
No, it is your job to seek after GOD and not sit on you duff giving the finger and expecting everything to be done for you.
Wrong, John Hutton came up with the theory of Uniformatarianism. Hutton himself was a deist, who believed that the world had been created for humans’ eventual emergence; however, he did not believe that god interfered in the world, so that the miraculous-seeming events of Catastrophism seemed impossible to him.: James Hutton: The Founder of Modern Geology | AMNH
Wow, you missed a lot during that time. I worked with the guy who drew Dilbert and he came out and said he questioned evolution.
Evolution started getting questioned around 2007 by the secular scientists and reached a high point around 2011. This, in addition to the creation scientists who were complaining since the 1850s. Much of their findings were disregarded. These are facts that do not fit the ToE. The birds to dinosaurs is a big deal because it is only the second example of macroevolution. The first was humans from monkeys. There isn't much disagreement on natural selection or microevolution. Others were how did asexual single-cell creatures become sexual reproducing creatures? How did amino acids form proteins outside the cell (they can't; this is physically impossible)? No experimental evidence for abiogenesis, but people kept coming up claims of experimental evidence as well as some wild hypotheses. How did the human eye evolve? The hypotheses of singularity, cosmic inflation, dark matter and dark energy were others that formulated during this time. I think the fine tuning parameters were found around this time, too, by the secular scientists studying the Big Bang (this included Stephen Hawking). You missed a lot
It goes to show that birds did not come from dinosaurs, so no macroevolution. Macroevolution does not happen. We had another thread arguing about humans from monkeys. Same thing there. No macroevolution. Macroevolution does not happen.
Using terms you don't understand does nothing to support ID'iot / creationism.
There is the FACT that species change. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can change into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They give no reason for this fabricated limitation. They just can't accept "macroevolution", because it contradicts the "truth" of the bible. But there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species. The process (simply stated) involves the potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, and initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation.
We should remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bibles.
Regarding Darwin's Origin of Species, it accomplished two very different things.
First off, it demonstrated through a tour de force of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, he laid out the factual case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.
His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.
Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; “Natural Selection.” Contrary to your false characterization of it as being “through coincidence,” Natural Selection abhors coincidence completely and instead proposes the objective criterion of “reproductive fitness” as the engine for driving biological change.
What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin’s lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts.
Religious zealots continue to attack “Darwinism” because the fossil record is a direct contradiction to a literal Genesis account. In spite of the relatively rare circumstances under which fossilization occurs, we better understand the physical processes that lead to fossilization much better than it was understood in the 19th century. What fundie zealots fail to understand, much less address, is that evolutionary biology does not explicitly require a perfect or even perfectly complete fossil record. In fact, No one should expect to see such a perfect record.
It is a misconception promoted relentlessly among the creation ministries that evolutionary theory is based primarily on the fossil record. The fossil record is just one component of evidence supporting evolution. Evidence also includes genetic data and the hierarchy of shared characteristics.
Wrong, John Hutton came up with the theory of Uniformatarianism. Hutton himself was a deist, who believed that the world had been created for humans’ eventual emergence; however, he did not believe that god interfered in the world, so that the miraculous-seeming events of Catastrophism seemed impossible to him.: James Hutton: The Founder of Modern Geology | AMNH
Wow, you missed a lot during that time. I worked with the guy who drew Dilbert and he came out and said he questioned evolution.
Evolution started getting questioned around 2007 by the secular scientists and reached a high point around 2011. This, in addition to the creation scientists who were complaining since the 1850s. Much of their findings were disregarded. These are facts that do not fit the ToE. The birds to dinosaurs is a big deal because it is only the second example of macroevolution. The first was humans from monkeys. There isn't much disagreement on natural selection or microevolution. Others were how did asexual single-cell creatures become sexual reproducing creatures? How did amino acids form proteins outside the cell (they can't; this is physically impossible)? No experimental evidence for abiogenesis, but people kept coming up claims of experimental evidence as well as some wild hypotheses. How did the human eye evolve? The hypotheses of singularity, cosmic inflation, dark matter and dark energy were others that formulated during this time. I think the fine tuning parameters were found around this time, too, by the secular scientists studying the Big Bang (this included Stephen Hawking). You missed a lot
It goes to show that birds did not come from dinosaurs, so no macroevolution. Macroevolution does not happen. We had another thread arguing about humans from monkeys. Same thing there. No macroevolution. Macroevolution does not happen.
Using terms you don't understand does nothing to support ID'iot / creationism.
There is the FACT that species change. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can change into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They give no reason for this fabricated limitation. They just can't accept "macroevolution", because it contradicts the "truth" of the bible. But there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species. The process (simply stated) involves the potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, and initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation.
We should remember that Darwin was not operating in an intellectual vacuum regarding an old earth. The prevailing scientific viewpoint was that the earth was extremely old by the 1800s, which was at odds with a literal interpretation of the bibles.
Regarding Darwin's Origin of Species, it accomplished two very different things.
First off, it demonstrated through a tour de force of scientific detail the historical fact of evolution (keep in mind the difference between facts and the theories that explain them). Using fields as diverse as comparative anatomy, selective breeding, biogeography and animal behavior, he laid out the factual case that descent with modification (evolution) had actually occurred.
His evidence was so overwhelming that almost every major biologist of his day became convinced within the decade that evolution (the fact) was true.
Secondly, it proposed a theory for explaining this fact; “Natural Selection.” Contrary to your false characterization of it as being “through coincidence,” Natural Selection abhors coincidence completely and instead proposes the objective criterion of “reproductive fitness” as the engine for driving biological change.
What many people (especially creationists) do not understand is that during Darwin’s lifetime, the scientific community never accepted his theory, although they were convinced by his book that the fact of evolution was true. It was only long afterwards that his basic theory was combined with new discoveries in population genetics to convince biologists that Natural Selection does absolutely the best job of explaining the facts.
Religious zealots continue to attack “Darwinism” because the fossil record is a direct contradiction to a literal Genesis account. In spite of the relatively rare circumstances under which fossilization occurs, we better understand the physical processes that lead to fossilization much better than it was understood in the 19th century. What fundie zealots fail to understand, much less address, is that evolutionary biology does not explicitly require a perfect or even perfectly complete fossil record. In fact, No one should expect to see such a perfect record.
It is a misconception promoted relentlessly among the creation ministries that evolutionary theory is based primarily on the fossil record. The fossil record is just one component of evidence supporting evolution. Evidence also includes genetic data and the hierarchy of shared characteristics.
Wrong. I'm not required to "seek after" fairy tales. Rational mature adults don't do such things.
LOLink?
