The intermediate species that linked us to other apes are extinct. But they do exist and we have a very impressive collection of fossils to prove it.
The reason we don't see more intermediate species alive today is because they have become extinct.
The reason we don't see more intermediate species alive today is because they have become extinct.
And as I asked before, "What happened to all of these "in between" species. Scientists are so smart; Do they have an explanation or not (Maybe a world flood - I joke. Evolution is plausible only in the imagination and not in reality)
1. Your statement is untrue. There's no reason to believe we should see many more variations of species of all kinds. Species evolve in groups, not individually.
2. Scientists don't just "say" we have similar DNA. We have observed DNA and tested thousands of samples.
View attachment 80050
No, they're answers to how we are here through observed evidence. Scientists aren't trying to concern themselves with whether or not God played a role or not. Again, you can just as easily argue that light refraction is a scientific theory used to explain how rainbows exist without God, or how germ theory is used to explain how people get sick without the cause being God, Satan, or demons.
View attachment 80050
No, they're answers to how we are here through observed evidence. Scientists aren't trying to concern themselves with whether or not God played a role or not. Again, you can just as easily argue that light refraction is a scientific theory used to explain how rainbows exist without God, or how germ theory is used to explain how people get sick without the cause being God, Satan, or demons.
Not true. Many Christian scientists believe God was behind the Big Bang theory. The reason these scientists don't talk about God when they're discussing science is because God can't be tested through the scientific method, and therefore can't be scientifically verified.
What you said isn't true. Don't tell me what I do and do not know - especially if it's in complete contradiction with everything I've said.
So we should abstain from knowledge as to remain humble?
The reality is, arrogance is a personality trait. Knowledge is just as likely to trigger arrogance as it is to trigger humbleness.
So we should abstain from knowledge as to remain humble?
The reality is, arrogance is a personality trait. Knowledge is just as likely to trigger arrogance as it is to trigger humbleness.
No, we shouldn't "abstain" from knowledge, but we should test each piece of knowledge (even when we read it in the bible - because I have seen many things taken out of context) to see if it is true. Yes, arrogance is a personality trait but, as it is with many things, other factors can enhance traits that would otherwise be minimal.
I will go ahead and address the statement below ----> Ha Ha. Yeah, science has never assumed anything, like spontaneous generation. I am sure you know what I am taking about - the meat under glass that spontaneously generated maggots.
Science doesn't assume. In fact, science exists so we don't have to assume.
This is like saying, "Find evidence that evolution is real that doesn't contradict my statement: Evolution isn't real."
You're essentially telling me to find evidence that evolution is real, evidence that does not contradict the Bible. But that's the problem! The evidence DOES contradict the Bible, at least a literal interpretation. You say the Bible is more trustworthy, but the Bible isn't a book that gains authority through science - it gains authority through the assumption that it is the word of God.
Me and Larry just explained to you what a scientific theory is. If you still insist a theory is just an educated guess or a hunch, then you're merely revealing your lack of interest in what science really is and what science really suggests and that you're going to believe whatever you want, even if it's untrue (such as your false definition of a scientific theory), as long as it validates your belief in the Bible.
You're essentially telling me to find evidence that evolution is real, evidence that does not contradict the Bible. But that's the problem! The evidence DOES contradict the Bible, at least a literal interpretation. You say the Bible is more trustworthy, but the Bible isn't a book that gains authority through science - it gains authority through the assumption that it is the word of God.
Me and Larry just explained to you what a scientific theory is. If you still insist a theory is just an educated guess or a hunch, then you're merely revealing your lack of interest in what science really is and what science really suggests and that you're going to believe whatever you want, even if it's untrue (such as your false definition of a scientific theory), as long as it validates your belief in the Bible.
If you're not willing to learn what evolution is, then stop talking as if you do understand evolution.
I don't believe that I have said anything that is untrue about evolution. Your example is lacking, because I would just show you the part of the story that said it was water and we would go from there. Give me something to start with and we will see where it goes. Just posting some obscure pictures of skulls is not going to do it.
I deleted the rest because it was in response to someone else.
Imagine if I came on this site stating, "The Bible isn't true. Just look at the story of Noah. Noah built a giant wooden boat that sailed on a sea of lava. A wooden boat can't sail on a sea of lava!"
You would probably respond, "Before you criticize Noah and the great flood, make sure you actually understand the story first. Noah didn't sail on a sea of lava, he sailed on an ocean of water."
Now, imagine if I responded, "Well, convince me Noah's boat survived the sea of lava. And don't suggest I read stuff about Noah's flood since I have no interest in wasting my time learning about it."
This is what you're essentially doing to me with the theory of evolution.
You would probably respond, "Before you criticize Noah and the great flood, make sure you actually understand the story first. Noah didn't sail on a sea of lava, he sailed on an ocean of water."
Now, imagine if I responded, "Well, convince me Noah's boat survived the sea of lava. And don't suggest I read stuff about Noah's flood since I have no interest in wasting my time learning about it."
This is what you're essentially doing to me with the theory of evolution.
You read things like, "[SUP]3 [/SUP]When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. [SUP]4 [/SUP]Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters. [SUP]5 [/SUP]So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died." and you decide that it can't be true. I understand that. I also know that most of what I have heard and read about evolution seems unbelievable. We are in similar situations, but on opposite ends of the spectrum (in regard to believing the unbelievable).
Last edited: