False.
They don't. That's why you have not a shred of evidence to back up the lie that they do.
Plenty of evidence to support that claim.
That evidence can support many claims. Including a universe that functions by stable natural lawsPlenty of evidence to support that claim.
Hahahaha
Based from many posts here by evolutionists - it's hard to tell.
You gave that article without really understanding it..................... didn't you?
Mulefoot had to point it out to you!
It didn't occur to you that the article makes a good example for creation and design!
HOW?
Think about it:
Would all those materials used to make that life, have come together on their own without any scientist.......................and, without scientists doing anything at all, except look at them?
If you guys really want to simulate what you think happened in the beginning - that it all happened by chance/random - here's what scientists need to do:
First: simulate "NOTHING."
Since we don't know what "nothing" is - like, what's it like with no space - I don't even know how you can begin!
You want life, you say?
Then - you just wait for the first ingredient to appear!
You’re responding to someone who willfully ignores all things Science and all things evolution. She also refuses to adhere to basic definitions of even the most common words used in the english language.
It's just an exercise in getting attention. Ever seen this poster post about ANYTHING else? Nope.
Can you point to a single life form on earth that exists today in the same state that you believe it was 'created and designed' in?Hahahaha
Based from many posts here by evolutionists - it's hard to tell.
You gave that article without really understanding it..................... didn't you?
Mulefoot had to point it out to you!
It didn't occur to you that the article makes a good example for creation and design!
HOW?
Think about it:
Would all those materials used to make that life, have come together on their own without any scientist.......................and, without scientists doing anything at all, except look at them?
If you guys really want to simulate what you think happened in the beginning - that it all happened by chance/random - here's what scientists need to do:
First: simulate "NOTHING."
Since we don't know what "nothing" is - like, what's it like with no space - I don't even know how you can begin!
You want life, you say?
Then - you just wait for the first ingredient to appear!
You’re a glutton for frustration and tedium aren’t you?
Sometimes I just can't take the stupid lying down.You’re a glutton for frustration and tedium aren’t you?
Yes, she does. One that’s drank way too much extra large Starbucks.
theconversation.com
That's not a real chart of how thngs really happened.
That's just a conjecture.
Below here, in this article is a given chart for elephants.
It doesn't include some of the creatures shown in your chart.
Once it reached Europe, the Palaeoloxodon antiquus had to adapt to new conditions.
One of its new homes was the island of Sicily and, as is common when large animals settle on an island, it evolved into a dwarf species.
This is a way for large animals to deal with the paucity of resources common on islands.
There’s a problem, though: DNA revealed some years ago that the Palaeoloxodon falconeri wasn’t descended from or related to any of the African elephant species as expected.
Its closest relative was actually the Asian elephant.
That made no sense. How could the straight-tusked elephant be related to African elephants and its dwarf descendant be related to Asian elephants? Was that study wrong? The new study, which examined Palaeoloxodon antiquus DNA, could help unravel the mystery.
This is because the Palaeoloxodon antiquus’ DNA appears to be a mixture of many species’ DNA, which would have happened when they interbred.
This process, known as admixture, probably occurred once Palaeoloxodon left Africa. That’s how its descendents ended up with Asian elephant DNA, and even DNA from the famous woolly mammoth.
Ancient DNA changes everything we know about the evolution of elephants
DNA studies reveal that African elephants belong to a very successful and widespread family.
They're from the same species or kinds, otherwise they wouldn't be able to interbreed.
It's................ADAPTATION!
Looks can deceive you!
But when we get right down to it, what really make a species a species?
Organisms that look alike often belong to the same species, but this isn’t always the case.
I for one can't tell the African fish eagle and the bald eagle apart from the photos below. But they are, in fact, different species.
According to the biological species concept, organisms belong to the same species if they can interbreed to produce viable, fertile offspring.
Examples are rarely complete.That's not a real chart of how thngs really happened.
That's just a conjecture.
Below here, in this article is a given chart for elephants.
It doesn't include some of the creatures shown in your chart.
Once it reached Europe, the Palaeoloxodon antiquus had to adapt to new conditions.
One of its new homes was the island of Sicily and, as is common when large animals settle on an island, it evolved into a dwarf species.
This is a way for large animals to deal with the paucity of resources common on islands.
There’s a problem, though: DNA revealed some years ago that the Palaeoloxodon falconeri wasn’t descended from or related to any of the African elephant species as expected.
Its closest relative was actually the Asian elephant.
That made no sense. How could the straight-tusked elephant be related to African elephants and its dwarf descendant be related to Asian elephants? Was that study wrong? The new study, which examined Palaeoloxodon antiquus DNA, could help unravel the mystery.
This is because the Palaeoloxodon antiquus’ DNA appears to be a mixture of many species’ DNA, which would have happened when they interbred.
This process, known as admixture, probably occurred once Palaeoloxodon left Africa. That’s how its descendents ended up with Asian elephant DNA, and even DNA from the famous woolly mammoth.
Ancient DNA changes everything we know about the evolution of elephants
DNA studies reveal that African elephants belong to a very successful and widespread family.
They're from the same species or kinds, otherwise they wouldn't be able to interbreed.
It's................ADAPTATION!
Looks can deceive you!
But when we get right down to it, what really make a species a species?
Organisms that look alike often belong to the same species, but this isn’t always the case.
I for one can't tell the African fish eagle and the bald eagle apart from the photos below. But they are, in fact, different species.
According to the biological species concept, organisms belong to the same species if they can interbreed to produce viable, fertile offspring.
Maybe the dinosaurs were starting to turn GAY…
Whether your amateur technical criticisms of taxonomic classification have any validity or not, it still doesn’t result in an iota of support for Biblical myth.That's not a real chart of how thngs really happened.
That's just a conjecture.
Below here, in this article is a given chart for elephants.
It doesn't include some of the creatures shown in your chart.
Once it reached Europe, the Palaeoloxodon antiquus had to adapt to new conditions.
One of its new homes was the island of Sicily and, as is common when large animals settle on an island, it evolved into a dwarf species.
This is a way for large animals to deal with the paucity of resources common on islands.
There’s a problem, though: DNA revealed some years ago that the Palaeoloxodon falconeri wasn’t descended from or related to any of the African elephant species as expected.
Its closest relative was actually the Asian elephant.
That made no sense. How could the straight-tusked elephant be related to African elephants and its dwarf descendant be related to Asian elephants? Was that study wrong? The new study, which examined Palaeoloxodon antiquus DNA, could help unravel the mystery.
This is because the Palaeoloxodon antiquus’ DNA appears to be a mixture of many species’ DNA, which would have happened when they interbred.
This process, known as admixture, probably occurred once Palaeoloxodon left Africa. That’s how its descendents ended up with Asian elephant DNA, and even DNA from the famous woolly mammoth.
Ancient DNA changes everything we know about the evolution of elephants
DNA studies reveal that African elephants belong to a very successful and widespread family.
They're from the same species or kinds, otherwise they wouldn't be able to interbreed.
It's................ADAPTATION!
Looks can deceive you!
But when we get right down to it, what really make a species a species?
Organisms that look alike often belong to the same species, but this isn’t always the case.
I for one can't tell the African fish eagle and the bald eagle apart from the photos below. But they are, in fact, different species.
According to the biological species concept, organisms belong to the same species if they can interbreed to produce viable, fertile offspring.
I know. But I'm saying even if. Even if there were valid opinions about taxonomic classification, e.g. biologists classified as a different genus something someone else thinks should be part of the same genus with something else, or that they all belong to the same species, that's ultimately just getting pedantic about taxonomic procedure and classification. It doesn't end up supporting creationist myth at all.Validity???
Nor does it debunk evolution.
reasons.org
www.science.org
And then, barely a breath later, responding to why God would wipe out the dinosaurs:you guys are trying to fit your ideas into something it doesn't belong to.
It is so mind-bogglingly obvious how circular (assuming the conclusion) this is, and how it immediately displays what you just accused others of above.
This is so fallacious it's painful. The impact they did have on early mammals prevented mammals from evolving and "blossoming" (as your link points out) into larger and more diverse mammals for almost 100 million years. The earliest mammals for which we have found fossil evidence were around over 160 million years ago.The existence of a huge, diverse, and enduring population of dinosaurs during past eras when much of Earth’s continental landmass was covered by huge shallow seas significantly contributed to Earth’s present store of biodeposits.
Examples of such biodeposits include limestone, marble, coal, oil, and natural gas.
Dinosaurs, therefore, are expressions of God’s love and generosity.
It is thanks in part to God’s creation of dinosaurs that humans possess more than 76 quadrillion tons of biodeposits that we can use to develop the civilization and technology to take the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ to billions of humans within just a few millennia.
Why Did God Create Dinosaurs and Then Destroy Them?
Question of the week: If God is merciful, then why did he create dinosaurs and then destroy them? My answer: God subjected the entire universe to a pervasive law of decay or thermodynamics (Romans 8:20–22) as a means to efficiently eradicate evil and suffering (see Why the Universe Is the Way It...How life blossomed after the dinosaurs died
Science | AAAS
Imagine the devastating impact they'll have on people and other life forms, had they not gone extinct.