Kinds only bring forth after their kind - just as the Bible says from Genesis 1. In total contradiction to the never-observed religious belief of Darwinism
It takes a special kind of person to claim that a textbook is saying 'life is formed from rain on a rock' when the very page you quoted, and also posted in context in the video mind you, says that 'oceans formed as it rained' nothing about life.
@TheScienceFoundation ...let's see, where did life come from? It rained on the rock, oceans formed and then, ONCE UPON a time, what supposedly occurred in the Darwinian belief system? Rather than argue against what you believe, why not admit you were wrong and God's Word is rights?
@CreationMinistries Not even a little bit, the origin of life would've been an catalyzation of organic compounds, though I can see how organic chemistry would be indistinguishable from magic to a group of people who still think a 400 year old man put 6 million animals on a boat.
Can't admit something that isn't true, the fact remains you are unable to present anything but pure a blatant fallacy, in this case, a strawman.
@CreationMinistries Again, Noah's Ark is already definitively debunked by the African Cheetah's genome.
/watch?v=rIlWKp44T50
The Cheetah is an example of what happens after a drastic population bottleneck, low sperm count, high infant mortality rate etc. so if every species incurred such a bottleneck, we would expect to see such afflictions in every organism on the species level, we don't at all. Nothing even resembling such an event.
@TheScienceFoundation I understand that genetic depletion puts an end to the fairy tale of Darwinism - as demonstrated by the depleted gene pool of the cheetah. You got nothing - admit it "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?' 1 Corinthians 1:20
The problem of genetic variability in the cheetah is from inbreeding following a bottleneck, a problem that should be faced by every species if they were so bottlenecked, but it isn't, at all.
Why don't you just admit you don't care about the facts? You'd look better than pretending you do while obviously knowing absolutely nothing about anything you're saying as you do now.
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
'kind' is a useless classification as no practical definition is ever given. Evolution doesn't say that a dog should give birth to a non-dog but it is a fact that
1: in a population, generation one is more genetically homologous to generation two than it is to generation three
2: The changes that cause this disparity are continual from generation to generation
3: There are no genes that are immutable to change
Kinds only bring forth after their kind - just as the Bible says from Genesis 1. In total contradiction to the never-observed religious belief of Darwinism
CreationMinistries 11 months ago
@CreationMinistries What is a 'kind'? And how could this claim be falsified?
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@CreationMinistries For reference if you attempt to define kind
Species is most generally accepted as: A population that can potentially mate and produce fertile offspring.
Also, what mechanism did god use to produce kind? And since you're so fond of the 'we don't have a time machine' argument, who observed it?
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
It takes a special kind of person to claim that a textbook is saying 'life is formed from rain on a rock' when the very page you quoted, and also posted in context in the video mind you, says that 'oceans formed as it rained' nothing about life.
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation ...let's see, where did life come from? It rained on the rock, oceans formed and then, ONCE UPON a time, what supposedly occurred in the Darwinian belief system? Rather than argue against what you believe, why not admit you were wrong and God's Word is rights?
CreationMinistries 11 months ago
@CreationMinistries Not even a little bit, the origin of life would've been an catalyzation of organic compounds, though I can see how organic chemistry would be indistinguishable from magic to a group of people who still think a 400 year old man put 6 million animals on a boat.
Can't admit something that isn't true, the fact remains you are unable to present anything but pure a blatant fallacy, in this case, a strawman.
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation
Creatures on Noah's Ark - Homepage video # 28
CreationMinistries 11 months ago
@CreationMinistries Again, Noah's Ark is already definitively debunked by the African Cheetah's genome.
/watch?v=rIlWKp44T50
The Cheetah is an example of what happens after a drastic population bottleneck, low sperm count, high infant mortality rate etc. so if every species incurred such a bottleneck, we would expect to see such afflictions in every organism on the species level, we don't at all. Nothing even resembling such an event.
Which part of that don't you understand?
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I understand that genetic depletion puts an end to the fairy tale of Darwinism - as demonstrated by the depleted gene pool of the cheetah. You got nothing - admit it "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?' 1 Corinthians 1:20
CreationMinistries 11 months ago
@CreationMinistries Again, you can't 'understand' something that isn't true
The problem of genetic variability in the cheetah is from inbreeding following a bottleneck, a problem that should be faced by every species if they were so bottlenecked, but it isn't, at all.
Why don't you just admit you don't care about the facts? You'd look better than pretending you do while obviously knowing absolutely nothing about anything you're saying as you do now.
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
"all 300 kinds of dogs came from two on the ark?"
Another good point, Noah's flood is utterly refuted by population genetics; /watch?v=rIlWKp44T50
'Beats telling them all 300 evolved from a rock'
Who, besides creationists, are claiming this is how evolution works?
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
'Big bang produced a big rock"
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago
'kind' is a useless classification as no practical definition is ever given. Evolution doesn't say that a dog should give birth to a non-dog but it is a fact that
1: in a population, generation one is more genetically homologous to generation two than it is to generation three
2: The changes that cause this disparity are continual from generation to generation
3: There are no genes that are immutable to change
TheScienceFoundation 11 months ago