(October 5, 2013 at 6:17 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote:(October 5, 2013 at 12:57 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: Saved by grace, I asked you privately now I ask publicly, to a debate thread with me. any topic you choose.
We are discussing the topic at hand.
You have failed to refute the post for this topic.
The conclusion stands.
(October 5, 2013 at 12:37 am)Esquilax Wrote: So Grace, I've slept on it: do you have a scientific source to back up your claims that evolution is dogs breeding not-dogs, yet?
If not, are you ready to admit that this was a deliberate distortion?
Oh, and hey, since in these last few pages you seem to have a real boner for evidence, how come you just ignored the many links I gave you to some real science? Why not go back, look at them, and refute them, if you can?
PS: You can't.
Darwin's book is titled "The Origin of Species" In it Darwin tried to explain where all the species in the world came from. His thesis was not dogs produce dogs. His thesis was all dogs come from some species way back in time that were not dogs through evolution.
Creationists dispute that.
Creationists do not dispute dog breeding.
If you are saying that you are only claiming dog breeding as evolution, then you are a creationist.
(October 5, 2013 at 12:33 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: JUst one thing to add, you know there never was a theory of upward evolution right?
The evolutionist world disagrees with you.
Go google it.
(October 4, 2013 at 11:05 pm)Chas Wrote: How about chimps and humans? We have a common ancestor.
Richard Dawkins, Ph.D.
Chimps and man do not have a common ancestor. Did anyone actually see that happen? Or is it just a conclusion from assumptions.
Your assumption is not evidence.
The shared DNA is evidence.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
