Why is it so hard for you to accept that evolution is fact?
Sort:
Ken Ham is one of the leading Creationist guys , I think hes the president of a creation institute or something too
No I've heard of him before.
I think my mom knows his hairdresser actually, a little bit
May 10, 2024
0
#49
Pawn, how you tryna argue with someone that you gave up on 5 HOURS ago
Optimissed wrote:
GodsCoelacanth wrote:
LordHunkyhair3 wrote:
Animals have evolved and adapted, to better suit their environment over the years, but not into other species
Yes, Microevolution is real, with actual evidence. Macroevolution isn't supported with enough evidence. Hence, Micro(evolution) meaning Micro(small) changes, Macro(evolution) meaning Macro(big) changes.
It actually is supported because it's been shown that the supposed distinction between macro and microevolution is false and has been created simply to confuse people and win arguments with.
Where's your info from? It was created to distinguish small and big changes. It makes it more simple, not harder SMH
Also, it isn't just his(Ken Ham) stuff in AnswersInGenesis. It's articles all the way back into the 1980s, which do in fact show a link between the Bible and science. Not just from him but from thousands of other researchers.
AnswersInGenesis.com , type anything you see false in the Bible and see what it actually means
Optimissed wrote:
Animals do evolve into different species.
hapless, in my view, statisticians are taught to measure what and how much, rather than what and why. It's rather like valuing price rather than value, as though they value something on the grounds of its price, since that price must be justified if x people have bought it.
Acceptable theories are those that form the consensus. They form the consensus since they haven't been disproven and no-one can be bothered to think up more satisfactory mechanisms. So they believe in the Big Bang in exactly the same way that people once believed in YEC .... msinoitaerC htraE gnuoY.
Old Earth Creationism is waaaaaaaaaaaay worse. Try mixing the Bible with Evolution. Even Darwins 'Bulldog' said it wasn't a good idea. Oh, wait, maybe you don't know as much as a Creationist does about Evolution? No offense, but research your and others beliefs, the evidence is there, but you have to see the other sides view. Same way Darwin did.
6r1441n wrote:
Who’s Ken Ham. That’s like the Barbie movie and my sandwich I had a lunch combined or smth
I will admit I thought of Barbie and ham sandwichs when I first heard his name.... I can't unsee it now XD. We pick hilarious names nowadays
Did anybody ever read The Sirens of Titan by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.?
Kurt Vonnegut Sr. was an architect. I doubt whether you used to read him lol. Anyway, the reason I ask is that I think there could, at least hypothetically, be evidence for something like young Earth creationism that's totally testable and scientific, and that would be a much higher observation of meaningful coincidences than you would expect on a random distribution. Kurt Vonnegut plays around with the idea of fate a lot, in that book and others. But meaningful coincidences suggest to me that there is either a meaningful design from the beginning, or there is a force that acts like gravity to continuously attract people of like motives and direct events out of random patterns into meaningful arrangements. I think human meaning and fulfillment suggests a force that is superior to both Newton's and Einstein's laws of motion, and I think meaningful coincidences and chance encounters prove that there is a force that interacts with human meaning and expectations. The laws of motion don't really explain free will, for instance, so I think there's evidence for a force that science hasn't identified that makes the past not so distant.
‘Trolling will not be tolerated. In the spirit of the existing evolution thread, I will block you on a whim.’
lol. were you blocked too? ..and i thought to be the only lucky one in that particular episode.
Optimissed wrote:
2-fakevans wrote:
Why do they not let religion get talked abt but they let evolution get talked abt biased?
evolution's science.
Science can encompass all the phenomena that are usually associated with religion - telepathy, precognition, telekinesis and the transmigration of souls not least among them, so really religion isn't discriminated against because science can question every phenomenon both conceivable and yet to be imagined. The field is wide open to talk about whatever you want, just so long as you use the right language. 😎
May 11, 2024
0
#60
DrakonicStriker_17 wrote:
Bug bang hmm? Where da big bang come from. Nothing cant make something
Bro thinks nothing can't make something.
Well, he's right.
But what he doesn't realize that there was something before the Big Bang.
Meanwhile, when God created the stars, the earth, the sky, etc, etc, there was nothing before, except him.
So it can be that something can create something.
As a non-religious person, I'm gonna be impartial here, but if you're gonna question how hydrogen particles bonded, then we might as well question back where God came from.
Animals have evolved and adapted, to better suit their environment over the years, but not into other species
Yes, Microevolution is real, with actual evidence. Macroevolution isn't supported with enough evidence. Hence, Micro(evolution) meaning Micro(small) changes, Macro(evolution) meaning Macro(big) changes.