Darwinism Proved! Dog Gives Birth to Kittens!!

[kenblaster5000]

You're incorrigible. You're the reason I don't come here anymore. Half a dozen of us have explained quite clearly to you how evolution works, what it is and isn't; and yet you persist with your fallacies. It's as though you don't even read the posts, or you lack the mental capacity to comprehend them. Either way, I don't see any way I can profit from discussing this with you, so I'm going to step out. I'm no longer a fan of talking to a wall.

Heh.

 

[Skaloop]

Darwinism Proved! Dog Gives Birth to Kittens!!


Actually, the title of this thread is contradictory.

If a dog actually gave birth to kittens, it would disprove evolution by natural selection, as it would be an actual observed miracle, and thus prove god, or at least, magic.

That is why dogs never give birth to kittens.

LOL.

I've heard the saying (not sure where it came from though) regarding this is along these lines:

"The irony is that if a dog gave birth to a cat creationists would be forced to accept evolution, and evolutionists would be forced to reject it."

 

[kenblaster5000]

I expect to be accountable to God. But I have not had my opinions handed to me by popes, priests, preachers, or prophets and promulgated those opinions without checking them against evidence and reason.
Organized religion is, in my experience, always anti-reality. So I don't belong to any.

Popes, priests, and the Roman Catholics in general are lame. The pope, also called the vicar of Christ, is supposed to be a substitution for Jesus Christ. Alot of these people cannot have faith in the unseen kingdom because they are not born-again. From John 3. I think the position of pope is blasphemous and the church in general is a farce saying, I am it and there is no other. As for preachers. I am under pastors, a prophetess who is the main pastor of the church, and pastors that are preachers. As for not checking those opinions against evidence and reason, I have to agree with you. Would you not say that the bible is a good measuring stick for whether or not something is true? We should cast down every argument that exhalts itself against the knowledge of God. Anyhow, I was just wondering. I thought if you were prophetic, you might go all thus sayeth the Lord on me, but the evidence shows that you are not a true prophet. The word does say that many false prophets will rise up in this time and carry many people away, and the hearts will wax cold. That is why we need to stick close to Him who sticks closer than a brother. I am glad you do not take offense to comments. It shows maturity.

 

[OllieFranz]

Darwinism Proved! Dog Gives Birth to Kittens!!


Actually, the title of this thread is contradictory.

If a dog actually gave birth to kittens, it would disprove evolution by natural selection, as it would be an actual observed miracle, and thus prove god, or at least, magic.

That is why dogs never give birth to kittens.

LOL.

Quite right, if you are indeed talking about evolution by natural selection.


But Creationists talk about something they call "Darwinism," which has little, if any, similarity to evolution by natural selection. And they say that it would take something like a dog giving birth to kittens for them to accept it.

That's why I used that example to try to explain the difference.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually, the title of this thread is contradictory.

If a dog actually gave birth to kittens, it would disprove evolution by natural selection, as it would be an actual observed miracle, and thus prove god, or at least, magic.

That is why dogs never give birth to kittens.

LOL.

Would a dinosaur having a navel disprove evolution?

 

[kenblaster5000]

It. Has. Already. Been. Explained.

But I will do it again.

A lizard evolves downy feathers to keep warm. This gives it increased insulation. Increased chance of survival.
These downy feathers become more complex feathers. Either for displaying in courtship or to frighten predators, or later on when they're useful as lizards are learning to glide
This lizard also evolves lightened bone structure. This lets it move faster. Increased chance of survival.
Now say these lizards spend a considerable amount of time in tree tops. Their survival depends upon them jumping from branch to branch. Those lizards with the ability to glide to some extent have an increased chance of survival.
As for wings these lizards being able to generate upwards thrust (even a small amount) would let it jump and glide through tree tops better giving it a better chance of survival.
The stronger these wings are the better these lizardbirds are at flying, and hence survival.
As for lungs I can't say I know a great deal about the differences between avian and reptilian internal anatomy but presumably the characteristics of an avian lung are better suited to flight than a reptilian one so these early birds which developed such characteristics in their lungs had an increased chance of survival.

The sad thing is I know I've almost certainly wasted my time in writing all this.

Yes you have. Maybe we will evolve enough that the human race will be smart enough to understand science. Then we can sit around and really enjoy life knowing that someone is not smarter than us, and it will bring in utopia and eternal bliss, until we die and go to hell.

 

[TheBlueBlurr]

Ya think?

Then go preach in another section. Contribute to the topic of the thread or leave.

 

[kenblaster5000]

Then go preach in another section. Contribute to the topic of the thread or leave.

Your mama teach you manners. I have probably contributed as much as you have, but you still keep coming back. You must like the aftershave. I know I haven't contributed much. I already know what I think about the whole evolution scam.

 

[Skaloop]

Would a dinosaur having a navel disprove evolution?

Really? This again? Your behemoth argument is meaningless even if you could demonstrate that the behemoth mentioned in the Bible was a dinosaur (or heck, even a reptile of some sort). Then you'd have to demonstrate that it existed. Neither of which you can do, so really, you should just drop this one. You drop this benign argument, and I'll drop the whole pi=3 thing. Or the contradiction between Gen. 1 and Gen. 2, because I actually think your explanation is pretty good.

Please, just stop with the behemoth=dinosaur with a navel junk.

 

[Meshach]

You're incorrigible. You're the reason I don't come here anymore. Half a dozen of us have explained quite clearly to you how evolution works, what it is and isn't; and yet you persist with your fallacies. It's as though you don't even read the posts, or you lack the mental capacity to comprehend them. Either way, I don't see any way I can profit from discussing this with you, so I'm going to step out. I'm no longer a fan of talking to a wall.

I read the posts, I just dont accept it all. Do you realize there is more than one way to interpret the evidence? You explain how evolution works and claim it as fact yet all most all conclusions are drawn by presuppositions of the theory with no regard to anything to the contrary. You get angry at me because I dont accept what you consider to be right? To be honest I dont recall other than my last post to you saying anything to you. What it boils down to I think is you can not accept someone not accepting what you accept. Dont feel bad though, I think its quite common. And as far as explaining how evolution works or what and how transitions happened is always filled with would of's could of's and might of's. Far from facts as far as I am concerned.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I read the posts, I just dont accept it all. Do you realize there is more than one way to interpret the evidence?

And what makes your "interpretation" worthy of serious consideration?

You explain how evolution works and claim it as fact yet all most all conclusions are drawn by presuppositions of the theory with no regard to anything to the contrary.

Such as magic gnomes?

 

[Meshach]

It. Has. Already. Been. Explained.

But I will do it again.

A lizard evolves downy feathers to keep warm. This gives it increased insulation. Increased chance of survival.
These downy feathers become more complex feathers. Either for displaying in courtship or to frighten predators, or later on when they're useful as lizards are learning to glide
This lizard also evolves lightened bone structure. This lets it move faster. Increased chance of survival.
Now say these lizards spend a considerable amount of time in tree tops. Their survival depends upon them jumping from branch to branch. Those lizards with the ability to glide to some extent have an increased chance of survival.
As for wings these lizards being able to generate upwards thrust (even a small amount) would let it jump and glide through tree tops better giving it a better chance of survival.
The stronger these wings are the better these lizardbirds are at flying, and hence survival.
As for lungs I can't say I know a great deal about the differences between avian and reptilian internal anatomy but presumably the characteristics of an avian lung are better suited to flight than a reptilian one so these early birds which developed such characteristics in their lungs had an increased chance of survival.

The sad thing is I know I've almost certainly wasted my time in writing all this.

No, the sad thing is all you speak of is would of's, could of's and might of's. How does this consitute facts. Rewrite your post exactly and post in bold those things which are fact in it. I noticed none. All speculation and assumptions. All "just so stories".
Of course you dont know about the transition of these lungs, no one does. There are some scientists I have read about that say the transition of a reptilian lung to avain is impossible. Most of the believers in ToE often over look the improbabilities and impossibilities and hold up the finished product and have faith that some how mindless natural selection go it there. What I hear is found consistently in the fossil record is fully developed scales, feathers that are fully feathers, and skin that is clearly skin. As far as I know no transitional structures consisting of feathers that are part feather and part scale, or even feathers that are less than modern types, have ever been uncovered. Even Archaeopteryx had perfectly developed ‘completely modern’ feathers that are ‘nearly identical with those of modern birds’, in spite of the fact that Archaeopteryx was a very different kind of bird compared to modern birds.Even though fossil impressions of feathers are abundant in the fossil record, and much has been written speculating on how scale-to-feather evolution could have occurred, not a shred of fossil or other evidence has ever been found to support the scale-to-feather evolution theory. Yet its claimed as fact. Guess who does that? What upsets me is not so much the "just so stories" but the anger if someone does not accept them .

 

[AV1611VET]

Please, just stop with the behemoth=dinosaur with a navel junk.

Thank you, but I'll respectfully decline.

1. Behemoth is taught as being a dinosaur.
2. Behemoth has a navel.
3. Behemoth pwns evolution.

I suppose next you'll want me to drop the "my cat ate a dinosaur" argument?

 

[gaara4158]

I read the posts, I just dont accept it all. Do you realize there is more than one way to interpret the evidence? You explain how evolution works and claim it as fact yet all most all conclusions are drawn by presuppositions of the theory with no regard to anything to the contrary. You get angry at me because I dont accept what you consider to be right? To be honest I dont recall other than my last post to you saying anything to you. What it boils down to I think is you can not accept someone not accepting what you accept. Dont feel bad though, I think its quite common. And as far as explaining how evolution works or what and how transitions happened is always filled with would of's could of's and might of's. Far from facts as far as I am concerned.

I'm sure there's a little discomfort that comes with encountering someone of a different belief, sure. But you're trying to attribute all of my frustration to that, and that's yet another place where you're wrong. I've got nothing better to do, so I'm going to refute your points one by one:

1. Natural selection needs a mind in order to design all these incredibly efficient organisms.
False. Natural selection doesn't design anything. Natural selection is the fact that organisms with the best-suited genes for the environment are the most likely to pass their genes on to the next generation. Over time, with the help of mutations and selective pressures, populations of organisms change. This is how animals become camouflaged, bigger, smaller, you name it. This has been observed in countless populations of animals. This is proven fact. There are no "woulda coulda shoulda's" in natural selection. Natural selection happens.

2. There is another way to interpret the evidence for evolution.
Is there? There are multiple lines of evidence that point to evolution, not just one specimen that could go either way. The only thing you have to presuppose in order to accept evolution is the same thing you have to presuppose to accept all of science and rational inquiry: that the evidence accurately represents reality. It's really not as iffy as you seem to think.

Hm. Well, it seems you only really had two points, and it didn't take much to bring them down. Read what the other posters are telling you, and read what I'm telling you. There is no possible way you can continue thinking the way you do if you actually understand what we're telling you.

 

[Split Rock]

Would a dinosaur having a navel disprove evolution?

Sure thing. Show us one... no, not your fallible interpretation of some lines from scripture. An actual dinosaur with a navel. Then you can show us an angel, a four-legged grasshopper, a bat with feathers, a centaur, pixie and an elf.

 

[Split Rock]

Thank you, but I'll respectfully decline.

1. Behemoth is taught as being a dinosaur.
2. Behemoth has a navel.
3. Behemoth pwns evolution.

I suppose next you'll want me to drop the "my cat ate a dinosaur" argument?

You don't have any arguments, just dodges.

Behemoth was not a dinosaur.
Behemoth has a navel.
Behemoth is not even real.

 

[Split Rock]

A goaless process. There is NO WAY, thats impossible. NO WAY. I dont buy that for a second.
I dont understand why it is offensive to call it mindless natural selection.It doesn't have a mind,does it?Yet it is able to deal with knowledge somehow? It is able to deal with the unknown as well. Again, I must insist you stop making light of something so powerful.
As I said just a couple posts ago, in the transitional stages of a leg to wing , how does mindless natural selection know how to develop this wing with no clue whatsoever about flight? And somehow mindless natural selection which you say is goalless is able to transform these scales to feathers, legs to wings, reptilian lung to avian lung over possibly millions of years and had no goal for flight when it started.

I explained this. Did you read my post, or are you just being obtuse on purpose? Did you go to the website I recommended? There is a lot there I know, but the answers to your questions are there. As is an explanation of how evolution really works, in the real world (not the creation ministry fantasy world).

As I originally surmised, you really don't want to know the answers to the questions you ask. This is why I think we should be referring to "Mindless Creationism." When you ask questions you don't want answered and you don't listen to the explanations you claim to seek, that is pretty mindless. It is also the essence of creationism.

 

[Meshach]

I explained this. Did you read my post, or are you just being obtuse on purpose? Did you go to the website I recommended? There is a lot there I know, but the answers to your questions are there. As is an explanation of how evolution really works, in the real world (not the creation ministry fantasy world).

As I originally surmised, you really don't want to know the answers to the questions you ask. This is why I think we should be referring to "Mindless Creationism." When you ask questions you don't want answered and you don't listen to the explanations you claim to seek, that is pretty mindless. It is also the essence of creationism.

I thought I missed something after what you stated in this post so I went back and reread it. Nope , did not miss a thing. None of my questions have been answered. At least not without would of's, could of's and might have's.

 

[caustic]

I thought I missed something after what you stated in this post so I went back and reread it. Nope , did not miss a thing. None of my questions have been answered. At least not without would of's, could of's and might have's.

You could get rid of the could've/would've/might've and replace them with "the evidence points towards", "there's broad consensus that" or "it's most likely that". By showing you how it could've happened surely you can see that non-theistic evolution is a totally valid possibility?

 

[MoonLancer]

]How can you use the word "simply" when applying it to ANYTHING mindless natural selection has done. Where does it get its information?

Mutation, among other things

How is it able to deal with the information given and cause a limb for walking to one for flight without a clue what flying is?

You assume that it is flying or walking that is the goal, when it is survival. wings and legs are simply the end product of life trying to survive for 3 billion years

If it has a direction or end means, who is leading it, who is directing it?

The direction is to diversify and find niches that allow survival. No one is directing.

Its seems to me to be an entity all in itself capable of all these transformations without guidance, without a mind, without knowing the process is going to work or what lies ahead at the end of the transformation or even what the final transition will be.

You fail to see because you keep looking for a bearded man with loges with the intention to build wings or legs.

As we are in the intermediate stages of the reptilian lung, before it is complete, to avian lung. Is mindless natural selection able to foresee even prior to this reptile flying great heights that the lung has to be specifically designed for it?

there you go again with that word. Cant maintain an honest argument can you? anyway what your describing is akin to Irreducible complexity. All of Behes examples have been falsified. Your argument comes from ignorance.

While it is in the process of developing which must of took many many years regardless of improbabilities or even impossibilities it continues its process not knowing the end result or anything about flying and umpteen years later , voila. We have a bird with feathers, wings and avian lung intact. This is some force. Powerful.

Death and the struggle to live is a powerful force indeed.