Darwinian Evolution is highly questionable

[Defiance]

Responding to Gediminas.

The similarities that you note between birds and ancient reptiles are, for the most part, exceedingly basic and vague. For example, I don't see how the physical stance of the modern chicken proves that it evolved from dinosaurs anymore than the way a cat stands proves that it evolved from dogs. Plus, have dinosaurs ever even been proven to exist? Serious question.

As for the matter of mass extinction, my only point is that it just seems too convenient for evolutionists.

Regarding flight, I'm personally not sure if the theory that you postulate is plausible. I suppose it could be, but it does very little to make me any less doubtful. Gliding and flying are two entirely different things.

My point regarding the human mind is not that we can't be trusted to think logically enough, but merely that it's laughable for one to assert with conviction "there is no god" while simultaneously admitting that they're basically nothing more than highly evolved pond scum resulting from a cosmological accident.

[Gediminas]

Responding to Gediminas.

The similarities that you note between birds and ancient reptiles are, for the most part, exceedingly basic and vague. For example, I don't see how the physical stance of the modern chicken proves that it evolved from dinosaurs anymore than the way a cat stands proves that it evolved from dogs. Plus, have dinosaurs ever even been proven to exist? Serious question.

As for the matter of mass extinction, my only point is that it just seems too convenient for evolutionists.

Regarding flight, I'm personally not sure if the theory that you postulate is plausible. I suppose it could be, but it does very little to make me any less doubtful. Gliding and flying are two entirely different things.

My point regarding the human mind is not that we can't be trusted to think logically enough, but merely that it's laughable for one to assert with conviction "there is no god" while simultaneously admitting that they're basically nothing more than highly evolved pond scum resulting from a cosmological accident.

Theres bone structures within bird skeletons that are clearly theropodian. Look at my progression ive posted here.
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...=1#post5121584
Its clearly showing a progression of theropods to more avian forms.

As for the cats and dogs, theyre clearly not ancesors of each other from a paleonological standpoint and anyone who looks at their skeletons can tell that they're related but not of the same lineage.

Flight from gliding is not too hard to see, an animal glides, some of its kind have longer than average membranes/feathers and are able to use them to stear and prolong their gliding. Over time those who can do it better survive and develop powered flight.

But you see, I'm not an atheist. I dont say there is no God because I cannot prove their is no god. What I do see, however, is a very clear and demonstrable mechanism for life to change to better survive its enviroment that functions and explains things too well to not be true.

[Bobby Martnen]

Theres bone structures within bird skeletons that are clearly theropodian. Look at my progression ive posted here.
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...=1#post5121584
Its clearly showing a progression of theropods to more avian forms.

As for the cats and dogs, theyre clearly not ancesors of each other from a paleonological standpoint and anyone who looks at their skeletons can tell that they're related but not of the same lineage.

Flight from gliding is not too hard to see, an animal glides, some of its kind have longer than average membranes/feathers and are able to use them to stear and prolong their gliding. Over time those who can do it better survive and develop powered flight.

But you see, I'm not an atheist. I dont say there is no God because I cannot prove their is no god. What I do see, however, is a very clear and demonstrable mechanism for life to change to better survive its enviroment that functions and explains things too well to not be true.

Your problem is that you prioritize the flawed Word of Man over the perfect Word of God.

[Gediminas]

Your problem is that you prioritize the flawed Word of Man over the perfect Word of God.

If any one person could demonstrably prove to me that the Bible was the absolute 100% indispuitable word of God, of Dievas the Creator, I'd consider taking it into account in Biology.

But you can't, nor can anyone, because it's not true.

[Bobby Martnen]

If any one person could demonstrably prove to me that the Bible was the absolute 100% indispuitable word of God, of Dievas the Creator, I'd consider taking it into account in Biology.

But you can't, nor can anyone, because it's not true.

It is true, you've just closed your eyes to the truth because it doesn't support your sinful lifestyle.

[Gediminas]

It is true, you've just closed your eyes to the truth because it doesn't support your sinful lifestyle.

Prove it

[Bobby Martnen]

Prove it

Here's a good place to start. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/

[Gediminas]

Here's a good place to start. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/

A lot of this is just arguing that a God exists, and I already believe in a supreme creator God, he's called Dievas.

Ive seen many of these Christian apologetic arguments before, none of them stand up to scrutiny.

[Bobby Martnen]

A lot of this is just arguing that a God exists, and I already believe in a supreme creator God, he's called Dievas.

Ive seen many of these Christian apologetic arguments before, none of them stand up to scrutiny.

You're wrong. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...e-resurrection

[Gediminas]

You're wrong. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...e-resurrection

>Using the Bible to prove the validity of the Bible

lol

If you can find me actual cited scholarly sources, thatd be good