Quote from: Przemax on March 16, 2018, 10:01:50 PM

Quote from: Astargath on March 16, 2018, 09:50:34 PM

Quote from: Przemax on March 16, 2018, 09:47:12 PM

Quote

1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)

2. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035.html

3. The theory of Mendel has provided a great contribution to the theory of evolution

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_characteristic https://www.nextgurukul.in/nganswers/ask-question/answer/Acquired-traits-are-incapable-of-directing-evolution-Justify-the-statement/Diversity-in-Living-Organisms/86260.htm

Just like you can read things that supposedly disprove evolution, you can also read rebuttals of them on google, why don't you ever read those I wonder?

1. Wow. Life evolved because life exist? Wow... That is deeply religious statement.
2. What is this? No abstract, no conclusion. What is that? They had to hoax the original experiment by finding the missing vials in 2008. Why? Because there were no other ways to cheat the truth - the fraud was needed.
3. Sorry, but... it is probably the same reasoning as in point 1. Am I right? Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible.
4. "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name."

1. Actually, life evolved but we don't know for sure how life originated, is it really that hard to understand? I thought it was quite a self explanatory point.

2. ?? Your book is a hoax made by idiots thousands of years ago.

3. ''Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible.'' Tell that to badecker

4. I provided 2 links, do you and badecker only see wikipedia when you read something?

1. It is a sylogism.
2. My point was - your link gives no info for the reader.
3. Ok. He is just a man. Not all of those points are about impossibility, some of them are about improbability.
4. Sorry I thought it was one link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_characteristic - geneticists are talking about phenotypes and genotypes. The so called hereditary is more in touch with phenotypes.

The answer in the second link:

a) Acquired traits mostly are concerned with somatic cells.

b) Acquired traits cannot be carry forwarded to next generation as there is no change in the genetic material of the reproductive cells.

c) Acquired traits mainly include changes in the behaviour which are due to life style followed by an organism.

Is not b) point proving the Baddecker point? And isnt the c) proving phenotype concept?

In addition, God is a giving God. but, at the same time He can't deny Himself. So, what does He do?

Because God is giving, and because nobody can change this quality of His, He gives evolutionists the answer that they want to see, by blinding their minds to the truth. After all, He isn't going to deny Himself by changing the truth, or by denying evolutionists what they ask for and changing His nature thereby.

Cool