• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Madagascar and Australia, a question for creationists.

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
Again, a dog that eventually develops wings would not falsify evolution, but a dog that developed bat or bird wings would falsify it. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

not at all. again; the magic words: "convergent evolution".
 
Upvote 0

The Stamp

Active Member
Mar 7, 2017
217
190
35
UK
✟5,256.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
do you think that radioactive dating is scientific? if so: what is the mystake space for a dating?
Prove science and evolution wrong tomorrow and it won't bring us one iota closer to there being a God.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,249
52,665
Guam
✟5,156,761.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Prove science and evolution wrong tomorrow and it won't bring us one iota closer to there being a God.
Science has been "proving itself wrong" ever since science departed from the living God.

If you look at its history, it's one big Laurel-and-Hardy style escalation fight.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,249
52,665
Guam
✟5,156,761.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
check this argument:
One of the best arguments against evolution is the lack of time.

The universe has only been in existence for 6020 years.

THE BEST argument against evolution is Genesis 1.
 
Upvote 0

Skreeper

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2017
2,471
2,683
32
Germany
✟91,021.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

The Stamp

Active Member
Mar 7, 2017
217
190
35
UK
✟5,256.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
One of the best arguments against evolution is the lack of time.

The universe has only been in existence for 6020 years.

THE BEST argument against evolution is Genesis 1.
Thinking like this today is tragic and unforgivable, three hundred years ago perhaps but not today.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
not at all. again; the magic words: "convergent evolution".
Why is it "magic" that creatures should develop functionally similar structures in similar selective environments?
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟288,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
One of the best arguments against evolution is the lack of time.

The universe has only been in existence for 6020 years.

THE BEST argument against evolution is Genesis 1.
And Harry Potter is evidence for wizards.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,334
7,529
31
Wales
✟433,529.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
not at all. again; the magic words: "convergent evolution".

No it wouldn't. Birds have four limbs (feet and wings), so do dogs (hind- and fore-limbs). For a dog to have wings, it would need to evolve a completely brand new set of limbs to turn in to wings, let alone the various other things needed for an animal to take flight.
It would not be convergent evolution since what you are describing ISN'T EVEN CONVERGENT EVOLUTION!!!
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,249
52,665
Guam
✟5,156,761.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And Harry Potter is evidence for wizards.
Scientists like to call themselves "Homo sapiens," which means "wise man."

Witchcraft uses the term "wizan" instead.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: HitchSlap
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
not at all. again; the magic words: "convergent evolution".

You keep repeating errors despite the fact that we have corrected them. X evolves wings = convergent evolution. X evolved bird wings = a falsification of evolution. Not sure how we can make this any simpler for you.
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
No it wouldn't. Birds have four limbs (feet and wings), so do dogs (hind- and fore-limbs). For a dog to have wings, it would need to evolve a completely brand new set of limbs to turn in to wings, let alone the various other things needed for an animal to take flight.
It would not be convergent evolution since what you are describing ISN'T EVEN CONVERGENT EVOLUTION!!!
there is no limit for convergent evolution. anything is possible. including a bat wings.
 
Upvote 0

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
555
44
tel aviv
✟119,055.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
You keep repeating errors despite the fact that we have corrected them. X evolves wings = convergent evolution. X evolved bird wings = a falsification of evolution. Not sure how we can make this any simpler for you.

again: false. if a dog will evolve a bird wings its also will be a convergent evolution.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,334
7,529
31
Wales
✟433,529.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
there is no limit for convergent evolution. anything is possible. including a bat wings.

NO there is! For a dog to have wings, it would need to have six limbs. But it cannot evolve them because six limbs will limit it's movement and kill it.

All you have shown in this thread, and almost literally every other thread you take part in, is that you know absolutely nothing about evolution.
 
Upvote 0