Chieftain

@buperac This plane were slowing down, it was close to a halt. The fire truck is fairly small. The planes you compare this to slammed in to the buildings at great speed.

So you mean to tell me, an airplane can go right through the World Trade Center that had steel structure beams of 4 inch plate every 40” using 12 different grades of steel with a yield strength of 100,000 psi but if the same plane were to run into a firetruck on a runway the plane is completely destroyed. Got it!

@Knipplebo @GenesisSverige @Skolinspektion Fast nu var det du som påstod att det var olagligt.

@Norse_Chieftain @GenesisSverige Bra fråga. Kolla gärna med @Skolinspektion vad de grundar sina beslut på. Här kan du läsa lite om hur de beter sig: genesis.nu/site/assets/fi…

Här frågar @Knipplebo hur #BjörnRanelid ser på att den kritik av #evolutionsteorin han framfört i sin bok och i SVT skulle ha lett till vite eller nedstängning av skolor. Lyssna på vad Björn har att säga om detta! Hela avsnittet: genesis.nu/video/genesisp… #skolan #skola #darwin

@BLeBlan68656830 @TiffaniMarie483 The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. Macroevolution is a scale, not a scientific theory. I'm quite sure that you don't know what a scientific theory is. Can you define it for us?

@Norse_Chieftain @TiffaniMarie483 The THEORY of evolution from single cell organisms to man is an untestable theory.

Evolution is the most unsettled science ever.

@Andrew_Moser @Hutchbunch1000 @ToddBurkh21222 @BiblicalBeauty Micro and macroevolution are two scales. One describe single or smaller changes, the other describe the accumulation of changes at or above the species level. You can't have one without the other.

@Hutchbunch1000 @ToddBurkh21222 @BiblicalBeauty Hello! I’m very much a creationist and believer in intelligent design… i was talking specifically about microevolutions within species, which are widely observed, not macroevolution, which Darwin hypothesized but is untrue!

Oxford professor John Lennox in an interview with Jordan Peterson in 2023 explained his view that there is no conflict between science and Christianity: "I never saw the tension between Christianity and science because very early on as a teenager I was introduced to the writings of a scientist who was a Christian who drew my attention to something Alfred North Whitehead wrote, and it was really put in much simpler language by C.S. Lewis when he wrote 'Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a Lawgiver.' And so, very early on, and I was fascinated by the idea, that actually modern science is a legacy of the biblical worldview, and therefore, it's no accident that the pioneers—Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, and so on—were believers in God. And as you pointed out, it underpins the tradition that lies behind the great universities of the world that the doctrine of Creation was actually the belief, the underlying presupposition, that allowed people to do science. So I've come over my life to the conclusion that science and the biblical worldview sit very comfortably together, but it's science and atheism that do not sit comfortably together."

@BLeBlan68656830 @TiffaniMarie483 No. Macroevolution isn't a scientific theory at all. It's just a scale we use when we talk about larger evolutionary trends above the species level. Speciation is a form of macroevolution, and we we observe speciation take place.

@Norse_Chieftain @TiffaniMarie483 Ok, it is an untestable scientific theory. We cannot observe it or repeat it as experimentally. Happy?

@BLeBlan68656830 @TiffaniMarie483 There is no such thing as "only a scientific theory". That's the highest form of explanation model we got. Macroevolution is just the accumulation of changes over time. It's a scale, not an event.

@TiffaniMarie483 Macroevolution can only ever be a scientific theory. It is unobservable.

@surskitmaxxing @TiffaniMarie483 The evidence shown that this is the case however.

@TiffaniMarie483 Microevolution can't be disputed. Macroevolution seems kinda sus to me. I just have a hard time believing that a fish can eventually become a human being. It doesn't seem like microevolution gives us a wide enough range of options to do that.

@AF_GenZer @RegTheDude Speciation is something we can observe. What school system failed you this hard? Most teenagers grasp this.

@Norse_Chieftain @RegTheDude Sure. It may change over generations but only within species. We don’t see shit turning into completely different species. That’s all guesses and assumptions presented as fact. That can’t be reasonably confirmed because it supposedly takes millions of years

Creationist says that diagrams aren't useful for explaining things.

@AF_GenZer @RegTheDude Sure you can. In this case, the fossil record, genetics, species distributions, Nested Hierarchies of Traits etc. This is just two scales, you can't have one without the other. We know that life change over generations and we can see how this occured in the past as well.

@RegTheDude Diagrams are good for explaining already established evidence. The issue here however is that the diagrams ARE the evidence for macroevolution. Why? Because we can’t reasonably show direct evidence for something that supposedly happened over time “millions of years ago”

@CoachOates1 @TonyBaduy @TAFKAB2 @GlynnErnesto Macroevolution is any change at or above the species level. This include speciation, which we can observe. Nr please go on and show us that you don't grasp speciation is either.

@TonyBaduy @TAFKAB2 @GlynnErnesto Shapes?! Haha Antonio you saying a lot of words to not name a single macro evolution. I'm gonna make you stay on topic before we shift to one fish 2 fish, red fish blue fish elementary talk with shapes.

Oops. The god of the gaps just got a little smaller.

@The_Archangel_1 @frostiestofmen A clear sign that they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

@frostiestofmen @Norse_Chieftain Man what the fuck is "New DNA" man? Creationists be saying the most ridiculous meaningless shit.

Never debate fundamentalists on evolution worst mistake ever

@frostiestofmen No, it's just a scale. You have invented your own definition here.

@Norse_Chieftain Apples & oranges. Microevolution is simply changes in the frequency of existing alleles (versions of genes, existing DNA). Standard gamete combos. Macroevolution involves DNA code itself changing. New DNA. Requires a long string of perfect mutations. Unrealistic. Not the same!

@frostiestofmen @Coalz511 @Aventenius "I believe in meters but not kilometers. Length isn't a magic ingredient that causes one to lead to the other." This is just two scales. One describes smaller changes, the other one is the accumulation of smaller changes at or above the species levels.

@Coalz511 @Aventenius I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution. Time isn’t a magic ingredient that causes one to lead to the other. Micro acts upon existing DNA, changing the frequency of alleles. Macro requires the emergence of completely new, perfect, functional chromosomes. Impossible.

@GenesisSverige @Knipplebo Det gjorde han. Alla som klarat gymnasiet skämdes när de hörde detta.

Björn Ranelid stack ut hakan och kritiserade evolutionen i SVT:s 30 minuter. Nu gästar han Genesispodden i ett mycket intressant samtal med @Knipplebo . Årets händelse, minst! 🙌 #evolutionsteorin youtu.be/L7G4IcRZrBg

@BGatesIsaPyscho This is smoke from from power stations or factories. This is often seen on foggy mornings.

This genuine authentic footage filmed by a passenger on a plane, has never been explained….

@DAConsult @and_catch_fire @DivinelyDesined You have evolution. Micro is small or single changes, macro is the accumulation of many smaller changes at or above the species level. It's nonsensical to the claim that we can't observe changes accumulate.

@Norse_Chieftain @and_catch_fire @DivinelyDesined You can have micro without macro. In fact, that's exactly what has been observed.

I made a mistake. I'd like to clarify something that seems to be causing confusion on the linked post. Evolutionists, you're right...Body plans CAN be mutated...if you want to kill the developing organism. All research on DGRNs - the gene networks that orchestrate development of a growing organism - shows that mutations which could affect the overall body plan of an organism are always catastrophic. They end in rapid death or serious birth defects which result in death. There is no way to mutate body plans that results in a novel, functional body plan. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

@DAConsult @and_catch_fire @DivinelyDesined Micro and macroevolution are two scales, bit separate events. You can't have one without the other.

@and_catch_fire @DivinelyDesined To be fair, I'm not a proponent of macroevolution, because it's never been observed. I'm just saying that there are 3 views among Christians: TE, Old Earth Creationism, and Young Earth Creationism.

@erichovind Ask three theists the same question on morals and you'll get four different answers. The claim that religious moral come from their specific deity fall as soon as you do that.

Atheists have no right to tell others what to do, since they have no objective morality to tell others what is right and wrong.

@burgundy202 @The_Archangel_1 @OpticFsn @oliverburdick Is there anything that stop you from reading up on feather evolution yourself?

@The_Archangel_1 @Norse_Chieftain @OpticFsn @oliverburdick If you can show me an animal in nature that is exhibiting changes of the CALIBER of something like a feather growing on a dog, then we can talk. Meanwhile, you’re showing microevolution changes…similar to Darwin’s finches.

Imagine thinking this makes more sense than believing in God.