Macroevolution:

[Jimmy D]

Well, thanks for an acknowledgement for Jimmy...he will not be able to ask me questions that I cannot answer and unless he is a Nobel prize winner, he will not be able to answer my questions. Now that is funny, IMO.

I can see where you would get that idea, my hope is that Jimmy will have a different idea.

I'm open to a discussion, time permitting, I don't know why I would need to agree to a particular set of unknown restraints beforehand though.

 

[Jimmy D]

why not? the similarity is because a common designer. not common descent. very simple and we dont need the evolutionery belief.

So, any differences are the result of common designer, any similarities are the result of common design. Do you really not see what's wrong with this?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you trace your family tree back to who your ancestors were in the year 295BC? No? Well, if you can't trace your family tree back 2300 years, why do you demands that we do it for a period of billions of years?

Now you know why Paul refers to evolution as "endless genealogies."

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Notice he compares it to fables and says it:

1. ministers questions
2. does not edify Christ

It's almost as if he had us here at CF in mind when he said that.

 

[lesliedellow]

Now you know why Paul refers to evolution as "endless genealogies."

1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Notice he compares it to fables and says it:

1. ministers questions
2. does not edify Christ

It's almost as if he had us here at CF in mind when he said that.

Maybe he had 1 Chronicles 1-8 in mind.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe he had 1 Chronicles 1-8 in mind.

Do you believe that?

Neither will I.

 

[lesliedellow]

Do you believe that?

Neither will I.

"Many scholars see in genealogies a clear reference to second century gnostic emanations. But there seem stronger reasons to suppose that the anonymous false teachers were members of a sect attracted by the more speculative aspects of Judaism..... An example of the way in which Jewish delight in such speculation led to the compilation of mythical histories based upon the Old Testament is found in the Jewish book of Jubilees."

 

[AV1611VET]

"Many scholars see in genealogies a clear reference to second century gnostic emanations. But there seem stronger reasons to suppose that the anonymous false teachers were members of a sect attracted by the more speculative aspects of Judaism..... An example of the way in which Jewish delight in such speculation led to the compilation of mythical histories based upon the Old Testament is found in the Jewish book of Jubilees."

Oh.

What's this have to do with the price of T-bones in China?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Oh.

What's this have to do with the price of T-bones in China?

The main difference between bone china and fine china is that bone china mixes cow bone ash into the ceramic material.

 

[tevans9129]

So unless we can show specific life forms every step of the way, you won't be convinced?

No, I will not be convinced unless folks have enough "evidence" they can use to answer my questions, which obviously you do not have since you did not answer the questions that I asked.

Can you trace your family tree back to who your ancestors were in the year 295BC? No? Well, if you can't trace your family tree back 2300 years, why do you demands that we do it for a period of billions of years?

No. Have I made any claims about my ancestors? Have I presented anything as scientific fact that I cannot answer questions when asked? From the images of billions of fossils, how many can you show that were not complete, recognizable creatures? The biology "tree of life", there are many of them and not all of them are the same so which one is correct, with provable evidence, and which ones are incorrect?

Answer all of my questions and you will become the authority I go to for answers to my questions, can you do that?

 

[Jimmy D]

From the images of billions of fossils, how many can you show that were not complete, recognizable creatures? The biology "tree of life", there are many of them and not all of them are the same so which one is correct, with provable evidence, and which ones are incorrect?

What does this mean?

 

[pitabread]

So, any differences are the result of common designer, any similarities are the result of common design. Do you really not see what's wrong with this?

I've never understood how people can claim that similarities are a result of 'common design', but then not also argue that differences are a result of multiple designers.

 

[Jimmy D]

I've never understood how people can claim that similarities are a result of 'common design', but then not also argue that differences are a result of multiple designers.

Agreed.

Reading your quote I've realized I typed what I was thinking wrong, what I meant to say was...

Differences are evidence for special creation, similarities are evidence of a common design.

 

[tevans9129]

I'm open to a discussion, time permitting, I don't know why I would need to agree to a particular set of unknown restraints beforehand though.

In my experience and IMO, most people that post in these forums are open to "discussing" a subject which is usually nothing more than each side presenting their talking points. Most reasonably intelligent people that have the skills to articulate their views can sound very convincing but that is not always the case when they are asked questions that challenge those views. I do not process the smarts or those skills so when someone states or implies my views are wrong, which they may well be, the only way they can convince me is to answer the questions that I ask and that does not mean only the ones they choose. In my mind, that is a way for me to level the playing field somewhat.

I do not understand your, "a particular set of unknown restraints", comment, do you see a request for both parties to answer all questions they may be asked as "restraints"? Am I asking someone to agree to something that I am not willing to agree to? Apparently, and like others, you are not all that enthused about being asked questions that you choose not to answer and I understand that.

 

[lesliedellow]

No, I will not be convinced unless folks have enough "evidence" they can use to answer my questions, which obviously you do not have since you did not answer the questions that I asked.

It matters not one jot whether or not you are convinced. It does matter whether people qualified to assess the evidence are convinced.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, I will not be convinced unless folks have enough "evidence" they can use to answer my questions

Your questions are invalid because they flow from a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution actually works.

From the images of billions of fossils, how many can you show that were not complete, recognizable creatures?

None. If you would find such fossils, evolution as presently understood would be falsified.

See? Just like I have told you multiple times now. Your questions assume a strawman version of evolution theory.

The kind of evidence that you are asking for to support evolution, would actually falsify evolution if such evidence existed.

Answer all of my questions and you will become the authority I go to for answers to my questions, can you do that?

Nobody can answer your invalid questions on the count of them being invalid.
The only thing we can do is try and make it clear to you why they are invalid.

But it's kind of obvious that you aren't interested.

 

[Jimmy D]

In my experience and IMO, most people that post in these forums are open to "discussing" a subject which is usually nothing more than each side presenting their talking points. Most reasonably intelligent people that have the skills to articulate their views can sound very convincing but that is not always the case when they are asked questions that challenge those views. I do not process the smarts or those skills so when someone states or implies my views are wrong, which they may well be, the only way they can convince me is to answer the questions that I ask and that does not mean only the ones they choose. In my mind, that is a way for me to level the playing field somewhat.

I do not understand your, "a particular set of unknown restraints", comment, do you see a request for both parties to answer all questions they may be asked as "restraints"? Am I asking someone to agree to something that I am not willing to agree to? Apparently, and like others, you are not all that enthused about being asked questions that you choose not to answer and I understand that.

Fine, ask away.

But first, in response to your request for a transitional fossil I showed you several transitional fossils in the development of the modern horse and all you've done is handwave it away, I doubt you read the article I posted.

I've asked you a straightforward question twice... How do you explain thousands of fossils, in chronolgical order, that show a clear gradual development from Eohippus to the modern horse?

If you have any questions that you'd like to ask me please go ahead, at least have the decency to respond to my posts though which were only an answer to your requests.

 

[lesliedellow]

If you have any questions that you'd like to ask me please go ahead,

Atheist or not, you must have the patience of a saint.

 

[tevans9129]

Speculations, conjecture, most likely, it is believed, artistic renderings of what might have been, is that provable fact?

An excerpt from an article.

[The eohippus is an extinct prehistoric animal that is known as the “dawn horse.” It lived in the early Eocene era, about 50 million years ago. It probably looked like a miniature, spotted, cloven horse and was bigger than a fox. It was probably the size of a small dog, with a small thin tail. It lived in swamp-like forests, hid from predators in the shadows, and lived off the leaves of bushes and short trees. As time went by, eohippus changed. But for 20 million years, it didn’t change that much, evolutionarily speaking. Flash forward in time to a moment slightly before ours. There now exist paleobiologists. For many decades, they considered Eohippus to be the linear ancestor of Equus, the modern day horse.

For many decades, scientists considered Eohippus the ancestor of the modern-day horse.

Then new science replaces old science, and this idea changes. New science explains that the evolution of the horse is non-linear, like a many-branched tree. Equus happens to be the only branch of the horse now in existence. Eohippus is still considered an ancestor of Equus, but in a less linear way. For some reason, scientists seem to know more about the evolutionary lineage of the horse than any other animal.

Extinct equids. True to scale.

Also, there is now the idea that Equus is not the goal, or the crowning jewel, of a naturally-selected lineage.

As part of this many-branched tree, the indigenous horse died out in North America about 12,000 years ago. The Spanish brought domestic horses to the New world at the end of the 1400s. Therefore, if you encounter wild horses in the United States, they are feral.]

eohippus labs: Who we are, how we started, and where we think we might be going | Jacket2

They are still "horses" just like a wolf and a chiwawa are still "dogs".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Atoms do not change; molecules do, and that is what is involved in chemical reactions. The only way in which atoms change is in rearranging themselves to produce molecules of another substance.

Thanks. Let's go from there. How do molecules rearrange themselves to accomplish evolution?

 

[tevans9129]

I'm not sure what an "in between" species is exactly, what do you mean?

Using this definition of species.

"species. 1. Biology A group of closely related organisms that are very similar to each other and are usually capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. The species is the fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus."

And a quote about "horses".

[The earliest known horses evolved 55 million years ago and for much of this time, multiple horse species lived at the same time, often side by side, as seen in this diorama.]

What I mean is, what known "animal, creature, entity" (species) preceded the "horse" and what was "in between" that "entity" (species) and the horse? IOW, what is in between A and C? Does that answer your question or should I try something different?