Reply With Quote
Please provide a link so others can read the whole page.
Hmmm?
copy
When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions.
If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now "evolving" into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either. Yet evolutionists continue to assume that transitional forms must have existed.
In Darwin's landmark book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as "could," "perhaps" and "possibly" plague the entire book.
Evolution is still called a theory—a possible explanation or assumption—because it is not testable according to the scientific method, as this would require thousands or millions of years. Evolutionists will counter that a theory is not a mere hypothesis but is a widely affirmed intellectual construct that generally appears to fit all the facts. Yet evolution in no way fits all the facts available. Evidence does not support it—and in many respects runs counter to it.
Please provide a link so others can read the whole page.
I agree.
holy this sentence.
look avante, you clearly don't understand anything about the theory of evolution. please read a book about it, then we can have an actual discussion
When one living thing needs another different living thing to survive, it's called a symbiotic relationship.
A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants?
Again, atheistic scientists are stumped. Theistic evolutionists are perplexed as well. Yet if you believe in a Creator who specially created the various forms of life on earth, the answer is simple—both were created at about the same time.
So where is the evidence of cats turning into other creatures?
look avante, you clearly don't understand anything about the theory of evolution. please read a book about it, then we can have an actual discussion
http://www.ucg.org/science/prove-evo...without-bible/
evolutionists can't explain that? LMAO
charles darwin literally predicted that a species of moth with a long proboscis MUST exist (even though it had not been discovered yet) due to a species of flower that must have had a symbiotic relationship to pollinate
avante seriously. this is the equivalent of trying to talk football with somebody who says "tony romo is better than joe montana because his career completion % is higher"
its just ludicrous and is showing a lack of understanding on the issue
you STILL don't understand what is wrong with that line of questioning
OKyou STILL don't understand what is wrong with that line of questioning
The same is true for the famous horse series. Looks great, doesn't it? But each of the supposed ancestors is a complete animal. They are not full of failed growths and there are no parts under construction. There are many more differences between each type of animal than their size and the number of toes. Every change in structure, function, and process would have had to develop through random trial-and-error if evolution were true, but no transitional forms have been found. The fossils have not caught any changes in the midst of being created, even though they should have occurred over long periods of time. In the late 1800's, evolutionists simply placed living and extinct species next to each other to make the horse series. However, evolutionists no longer believe there was the direct ancestry (orthogenesis) shown in this chart...
So far all you are doing is .....nothing. Where are the different stages of evolution?
United Church of God, eh?
No agenda there, nope!
you do realize that not every organism that dies leaves behind a preserved fossil right? only a very small percentage end up in a position that would lead to fossilization. those "failed" organisms who's mutations weren't beneficial (by nature of being failed) were not around for very long, at least compared to the more successful breeds. if you have a successful line of horses over a million years, you'll find some fossils. if you have a failed adaptation/version of horses that likely didn't last more than 5-6 generations, the chances of one of them fossilizing and being discovered now is much much smaller, just due to the time elapsed
last time I checked, and correct me if I'm wrong............. because I heard about this in kindergarden
lions, cheetahs, lynx.... sabertooth tigers
Man, imagine if Avante had spent even 10% of the time he allocated to memorizing the names of obscure track athletes and reading football almanacs on learning useful information, tbh..
He would've at least known it is unhealthy to get a man's in the mouth or up the ass, especially when he's also a man himself.
Evolution. We came from a fish. LOL
another of that threads ?
you do it manually or you have a bot detecting the word evolution and automatically posting a "we came from a fish
sorry, yo no speak englishyou do it manually or you have a bot detecting the word evolution and automatically posting a "we came from a fish
finalmente tu vas a reconecer que tu es un mexicano mariposa ?
What? Sorry I don't speak Spanish or whatever language that is.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
