Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
evolution&dogs, book 2
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Key" data-source="post: 34679802" data-attributes="member: 32065"><p>I can say I expected this answer.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>About the Theory of Evolution, or the Definition?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Please explain the contradiction, or is this where you just take one line here and and one line there and place them out of context and think this makes you look smart, or proves a point. </p><p></p><p>I'll let you know, it does not.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I am only unhappy with people passing of the delusion of common decent Evolution, as science, or supported by science.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p>Fair enough, It seems we agree here.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ok let me explain this to you, in the Theory of Creation, life was created at a base level, what this level is, we are not sure, but, all types of life where created, each with it's own distinct differences. IE: Fish, Birds, Mammals.</p><p></p><p>Now, ID says, that things like complex structures like eyes, were designed, because not only are they complex, they are not allowed to not be complete in their function. IE: an eye that does not have a developed iris is no better then photosensitive cells, as such, in cases like this, progression is not plausible. thus it had to be made complete and functional or, in the case of ID, it may have been cultivated and controlled to the point that the life forms could develop the eye structure with artificial selection in a controlled or even unnatural environment, IE: a Lab. </p><p></p><p>Now, in this case, if the eye did not fully form, or make a complete jump between say Photosensitive Cells and a fully formed eye, there would have been selective forces against it, or it would have to have been a neutral development, and we would find animals that did not have fully developed eyes or eyes.</p><p></p><p>So ID makes the claim that in cases like this, a designer must have intervened, when a half point or a progressive "steps" is not a plausibility.</p><p></p><p>I am sure you will have a rebuttal to this, and I would like so very much to see it. In a way, I want to see if it is more then smoke and mirrors.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>Pity, that is so well supported, because we have discovered that there are a great many limitations to it. Given it was via artificial selection, but it is still a good study.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I have no idea what you will and will not do, I can make a prediction, based on what you have done in the past, but that does not mean I know what you are going to do.</p><p></p><p>However, Allow me to enlighten you, Evolution as Defined:</p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Dictionary.com</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.</strong></p><p></p><p>However, notice, in the definition, Artificial Selection, is not listed.</p><p></p><p>Now it would be great if we all could make up our dentitions for things, wouldn't it, then we could throw out dictionaries, and make words mean what ever we wanted them to, to suit our own needs and agenda.</p><p></p><p>Now, maybe you don't like that Definition. It does not suit your needs.</p><p></p><p>Maybe you would like a few of these:</p><p></p><p><strong><u>Oxford:</u></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong> <strong>noun </strong><strong>1 the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed, especially by natural selection</strong></p><p><strong><u>Merriam-Websters:</u></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p> <strong>the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) </strong><strong>: <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/phylogeny" target="_blank">[SIZE=-1]PHYLOGENY[/SIZE]</a> </strong><strong>b </strong><strong>: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; <em>also</em> </strong><strong>: the process described by this theory</strong></p><p></p><p>Or will you just be tossing around your own as it suits you.</p><p></p><p>See the problem I had with you, is that you asked me to define a word, this word was "Evolution", now why should I have to do that, when others before me, have taken the time to make entire volumes that have these definitions ready for me at my fingertips.</p><p></p><p>Help me out with that one, what was your motive?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Maybe I do, maybe I don't.</p><p></p><p>Eh.. <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/scratch.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":scratch:" title="scratch :scratch:" data-shortname=":scratch:" /></p><p></p><p>God Bless</p><p></p><p>Key</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Key, post: 34679802, member: 32065"] I can say I expected this answer. About the Theory of Evolution, or the Definition? Please explain the contradiction, or is this where you just take one line here and and one line there and place them out of context and think this makes you look smart, or proves a point. I'll let you know, it does not. I am only unhappy with people passing of the delusion of common decent Evolution, as science, or supported by science. Fair enough, It seems we agree here. Ok let me explain this to you, in the Theory of Creation, life was created at a base level, what this level is, we are not sure, but, all types of life where created, each with it's own distinct differences. IE: Fish, Birds, Mammals. Now, ID says, that things like complex structures like eyes, were designed, because not only are they complex, they are not allowed to not be complete in their function. IE: an eye that does not have a developed iris is no better then photosensitive cells, as such, in cases like this, progression is not plausible. thus it had to be made complete and functional or, in the case of ID, it may have been cultivated and controlled to the point that the life forms could develop the eye structure with artificial selection in a controlled or even unnatural environment, IE: a Lab. Now, in this case, if the eye did not fully form, or make a complete jump between say Photosensitive Cells and a fully formed eye, there would have been selective forces against it, or it would have to have been a neutral development, and we would find animals that did not have fully developed eyes or eyes. So ID makes the claim that in cases like this, a designer must have intervened, when a half point or a progressive "steps" is not a plausibility. I am sure you will have a rebuttal to this, and I would like so very much to see it. In a way, I want to see if it is more then smoke and mirrors. Pity, that is so well supported, because we have discovered that there are a great many limitations to it. Given it was via artificial selection, but it is still a good study. I have no idea what you will and will not do, I can make a prediction, based on what you have done in the past, but that does not mean I know what you are going to do. However, Allow me to enlighten you, Evolution as Defined: [B] Dictionary.com Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.[/B] However, notice, in the definition, Artificial Selection, is not listed. Now it would be great if we all could make up our dentitions for things, wouldn't it, then we could throw out dictionaries, and make words mean what ever we wanted them to, to suit our own needs and agenda. Now, maybe you don't like that Definition. It does not suit your needs. Maybe you would like a few of these: [B][U]Oxford:[/U] [/B] [B]noun [/B][B]1 the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed, especially by natural selection[/B] [B][U]Merriam-Websters:[/U] the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) [/B][B]: [URL="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/phylogeny"][SIZE=-1]PHYLOGENY[/SIZE][/URL] [/B][B]b [/B][B]: a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations; [I]also[/I] [/B][B]: the process described by this theory[/B] Or will you just be tossing around your own as it suits you. See the problem I had with you, is that you asked me to define a word, this word was "Evolution", now why should I have to do that, when others before me, have taken the time to make entire volumes that have these definitions ready for me at my fingertips. Help me out with that one, what was your motive? Maybe I do, maybe I don't. Eh.. :scratch: God Bless Key [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
evolution&dogs, book 2
Top
Bottom