Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

we cant see fish evolve into tetrapods.
Yes we can. Coelacanths have fins-on-stumps. Lose the fins and enlarge the stumps, and you have Tiktaalik, which is still a fish. However, it is a fish which can move out of the water like a mudskipper. Beyond Tiktaalik we have amphibians like Ichthyostega.
 
Look, the theory of evolution comes from the evidence. Humans haven't initially thought of the theory and then looked for the evidence.
Whilst we can even see evidence of evolution within species, we cant see fish evolve into tetrapods.
For others, even for a few atheists, when they look at evolution they see issues, or they see intelligent design. the notion of intelligent design isnt scientific empirical evidence, but it doesnt mean its wrong or the theory of evolution is entirely right.
I am not sure what your point is here. What are the assumptions made? With regards to evolution supporting an old earth, the two I mentioned are the nested hierarchy and genetics (this sort of thing). What are the assumptions? Or do you think they are just plain wrong, that, for example, there is no nested hierarchy?
 
I am not sure what your point is here. What are the assumptions made? With regards to evolution supporting an old earth, the two I mentioned are the nested hierarchy and genetics (this sort of thing). What are the assumptions? Or do you think they are just plain wrong, that, for example, there is no nested hierarchy?
Not sure why it isnt quite clear and straightforward for you. My point was not about the dating but about the evidence suggesting an intelligent design.
 
No, we cant observe it happening.
Yes we can. Some of your DNA differs from the DNA of both your parents. Each of us carries between about 50 and 150 mutations not present in either parent. That is the start of evolution.
 
Yes we can. Some of your DNA differs from the DNA of both your parents. Each of us carries between about 50 and 150 mutations not present in either parent. That is the start of evolution.
Abiogenesis is impossible without God.
And that genetic load destroys all species.
Also that is not how the first living thing evolved up to people.
 
God cannot create the first life because God is already alive, a "living God". At best, God can only create the second life. Your logic course should help you here.
I asked about living thing or creature. God is not a thing or creature. Why the deception?
 
God created all things, makes the laws, and judges all.
How does he make the laws? Does he cause them? How can there be causation independent of causal laws? Did he also make the laws that govern the causality by which he causes and creates laws? I don't think you've thought this through.
 
How does he make the laws? Does he cause them? How can there be causation independent of causal laws? Did he also make the laws that govern the causality by which he causes and creates laws? I don't think you've thought this through.
Thou shall not teach evolution.
Thou shall not teach billions of years.
Or Thou shall not bear false witness.
 
It was a question.


Then why can't you provide a truth table for material implication? Can you name one thing about logic you actually learned from any of these alleged courses?
even worse than a false accusation is to subtly imply the same.

And your educational and professional credentials are what?
 
Back
Top