What will replace evolution.

mrsmargaret48
mrsmargaret48: The theory of evolution is no longer the philosophy of the entire scientific or atheistic community so what will replace it.
1 year ago Report
1
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: I hope and pray that the truth will triumph.
1 year ago Report
0
tekeraoi
tekeraoi: The product of human knowledge evolution itself: Artificial Intelligence!
1 year ago Report
0
dadmansabode
dadmansabode: what needs to replace evolution is the scientific facts that lead to the conclusion that all life is derived from a source of intelligence ..... http://dadmansabode.com/cleary/year/2022/DMA/SPC/SPC-SCIENCE.html .. God bless
1 year ago Report
1
One bent axle
One bent axle: I'm hoping white chocolate magnum ice creams will, because they are God.. 😅
1 year ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Ask an evolutionist.
1 year ago Report
0
Winterson
Winterson: Whence comes the information that the theory of evolution is no longer the philosophy of the entire scientific or atheistic community? I haven't heard that myself. If it is no longer that, then something must have already replaced it, some kind of eclectic world-view in the making. But as far as I know, evolutionary science is a strong as it ever was.
1 year ago Report
1
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Well the fact of the matter is, it was never a reasonable theory and has only been continually refuted by their own research in the last few decades

DNA and the complexity of life nail the coffin shut on Abiogenesis and macroevolution forever Unfornatualy most of the world, media, scientists, evolutionists, and atheists are in denial or ignorance of the facts

(Edited by Blackshoes)
1 year ago Report
1
dadmansabode
dadmansabode: a great resource ..... https://discoveryinstitutepress.com/book/the-mystery-of-lifes-origin/
1 year ago Report
1
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Typical programmed ignorance! Almost everything stated in the video is supported by evolutionary sources. The science is irrefutable no matter who presents the evidence!
Abiogenesis is naturalistically Impossible!
Macroevolution has no genetic avenue to allow for its plausibility!
The list is long

You, evolutionist, will make up any excuse to belittle the facts












(Edited by Blackshoes)
1 year ago Report
1
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Blackshoesl, what interests us are the fossils beneath our feet. See, their presence supports the evolution of species too well to take your rhetoric seriously, so all we can do is blow you a bit fat raspberry.
1 year ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: The fossil doesn't support Macroevolution! If it did I would gladly agree. The fossil record in all honestly doesn't support either paradigm.

Of course, you have faith and believe otherwise! Just as I have faith and belief in the latter.

Evolution has two major factual problems that absolutely debunk their entire fairytale

Abiogenesis is naturalistically impossible!
Macroevolution has no genetic avenue to allow for it s plausibility!

All rhetoric, insult, arrogance, and imagination aside! THEM'S THE FACTS JACK!

The following is the best and most unbias accurate explanation ever given on the fossil record !

(Edited by Blackshoes)
1 year ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Can't but disagree with you, Blackshoes. Stratified rock layers with different fossil species certainly doesn't support Genesis, so I'm staying with evolution as an explanation.
1 year ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Typical evolutionary denial of the fact that no transitional fossils have ever been found.


(Edited by Blackshoes)
1 year ago Report
0
ghostgeek
1 year ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Blackshoes, you don't believe in transitional fossils, so don't harp on about their non existence.
1 year ago Report
0
ghostgeek
1 year ago Report
0
Blackshoes
(Post deleted by Blackshoes 1 month ago)
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Why would anyone believe in or expect nonexistent transitional fossils?



(Edited by Blackshoes)
1 year ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Dredging up Mao Tse-tung certainly suggests you're running on empty, Blackshoes.
1 year ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: But see, I'm not the one who's claiming that there are such things as transitional fossils, so you're thumping your head against a brick wall.
1 year ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: I've stated the science facts , You're in denial ! From Macro to rocks
1 year ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Thump, thump all you want, you can't get away from the fact that fossils show life changing over millions of years.
1 year ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: (1) The expectations of theory color perception to such a degree that new notions seldom arise from facts collected under the influence of old pictures of the world. New pictures must cast their influence before facts can be seen in different perspective.

(2) Paleontology’s view of speciation has been dominated by the picture of “phyletic gradualism.” It holds that new species arise from the slow and steady transformation of entire populations. Under its influence, we seek unbroken fossil series linking two forms by insensible gradation as the only complete mirror of Darwinian processes; we ascribe all breaks to imperfections in the record.

(3) The theory of allopatric (or geographic) speciation suggests a different interpretation of paleontological data. If new species arise very rapidly in small, peripherally isolated populations, then the expectation of insensibly graded fossils is a chimera. A new species does not evolve in the area of its ancestors; it does not arise from the slow transformation of all its forbears. Many breaks in the fossil record are real.

(4) The history of life is more adequately represented by a picture of “punctuated equilibria” than by the notion of phyletic gradualism. The history of evolution is not one of stately unfolding, but a story of homeostatic equilibria, disturbed only “rarely” (i.e., rather often in the fullness of time) by rapid and episodic events of speciation.

[ Eldredge and Gould, 1972, pp. 83-84 ]
1 year ago Report
0
ghostgeek
ghostgeek: Speciation, the process of macroevolution, is a process of branching. And this branching … is so rapid in geological translation (thousands of years at most compared with millions for the duration of most fossil species) that its results should generally lie on a bedding plane, not through the thick sedimentary sequence of a long hillslope.

[ Gould, 1980 ]
1 year ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Even Evolutionist reject PE
Note that PE would easily be seen in present time
(Edited by Blackshoes)
1 year ago Report
0
Page: 12345678910 ... Last