Smoking-gun evidence domestic cats and wild cats share a common ancestor!

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
71
✟9,874.00
Faith
Other Religion
Originally posted by ern
Pete, have you ever thought of why this is our argument? Is it because it is a good argument maybe, I sure think it is.
I have never been shown concrete, or even convincing, evidence of a transitional fossil.

Out of curiosity, what would you consider "transitional"?
 
Upvote 0

paulewog

Father of Insanity; Child of Music.
Mar 23, 2002
12,930
375
39
USA
Visit site
✟33,938.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
/me thinks it is something in the middle. Like a mouse with bat wings.

/me thinks that instead we find completely different animals that have some smiliarities, but not at all pointing to evolution, they are not THAT close at all.
 
Upvote 0

paulewog

Father of Insanity; Child of Music.
Mar 23, 2002
12,930
375
39
USA
Visit site
✟33,938.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Nothing to do with faith?

So you are saying you actually saw the Big Bang? There is no possibility that it could not have happened?

If there is any possibility whatsoever (any OTHER theory that fits any so called evidence :)), then you must be having faith in it.

Not having SEEN evolution, I would automatically say that I would have to have faith to believe it.

Just like Creation.

Or for that matter, I am rather acting on faith that we actually DO have a hubble telescope, I actualyl haven't seen it ;)
 
Upvote 0

kaotic

Learn physics
Sep 22, 2002
4,660
4
North Carolina, USA
Visit site
✟14,836.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
Originally posted by paulewog
Nothing to do with faith?

So you are saying you actually saw the Big Bang? There is no possibility that it could not have happened?

If there is any possibility whatsoever (any OTHER theory that fits any so called evidence :)), then you must be having faith in it.

Not having SEEN evolution, I would automatically say that I would have to have faith to believe it.

Just like Creation.

Or for that matter, I am rather acting on faith that we actually DO have a hubble telescope, I actualyl haven't seen it ;)

No you don't understand what I am saying. I am saying that I accept everything that the science community finds. No matter if its right or wrong. I will accept it I don't have faith that the big bang happened I accept that science has accepted so I accept it.
 
Upvote 0

paulewog

Father of Insanity; Child of Music.
Mar 23, 2002
12,930
375
39
USA
Visit site
✟33,938.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So you are blindly accepting science then, as I understand it? :)

Yeah, I'm 17. Woot! Too old, too.

I know we can't see it. Does that mean it's an exception to the scientific method, just becuase it's imposible to observe? I didn't know you could make exceptions like that :)
 
Upvote 0

kaotic

Learn physics
Sep 22, 2002
4,660
4
North Carolina, USA
Visit site
✟14,836.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
LOL I accept science cause its the only thing in this world that can really tell use what happened in the past and what is happening and what the answers are to the question we have. NO its not impossible to observe. It will be at the dna level and we can't see ever animals dna in the world. You think evolution is just human to sup human or something. Some people think that the next evolution of human will be the mind we will be able to use more of it. It not always what the animal or incests look like.
 
Upvote 0

MSBS

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2002
1,860
103
California
✟10,591.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally posted by paulewog
/me avoids micro and macro too. However, it is teh same species. They are both cats. If it changed into something even slightly different, but out of the family .... like a dog even, or something like that. Or a cat with wings. That sort of thing. But it didn't, did it?

/me thinks they did have common acnestors, by the way :D

 

Interesting.  So you agree that things like this viral insertion are evidence of common anscestry?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

WinAce

Just an old legend...
Jun 23, 2002
1,077
47
39
In perpetual bliss, so long as I'm with Jess.
Visit site
✟16,806.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So we're all in agreement that leftover retroviral insertions shared between closely related species (a.k.a. a recently discharged gun next to a dead body with the suspect's fingerprints all over it) is pretty much undeniable evidence of a common ancestor?
 
Upvote 0

ern

Active Member
Oct 23, 2002
106
1
40
Mequon, WI
Visit site
✟266.00
Faith
Christian
Originally posted by chickenman
I don't think its a good argument at all, no creationist has ever shown me why lots of micro cannot become macro
The burden of proof is not on the creationists. Evolutionists proposed that micro leads to macro, yet they have not provided any credible evidence to support that hypothesis.
 
Upvote 0
The burden of proof is not on the creationists. Evolutionists proposed that micro leads to macro, yet they have not provided any credible evidence to support that hypothesis.

Considering all of science is BASED on evidence, I wonder why all these scientists love deluding themselves (for about a century or so even!) with ideas they completely pulled out of the air. [ /sarcasm]
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
71
✟9,874.00
Faith
Other Religion
Originally posted by ern
The burden of proof is not on the creationists. Evolutionists proposed that micro leads to macro, yet they have not provided any credible evidence to support that hypothesis.

And creationists have yet to draw a clear line between "micro" and "macro".

It's really hard to debate something when the goalposts jump around.
 
Upvote 0

jon1101

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,030
5
38
Hillsdale, Michigan
Visit site
✟1,871.00
Faith
Christian
Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
And creationists have yet to draw a clear line between "micro" and "macro".

It's really hard to debate something when the goalposts jump around.

I second that. I'd really like to see creationists clarify this issue, especially since its such a widely used argument.

-jon 
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums