TheOutsider
Pope Iason Ouabache the Obscure
And this is exactly why I avoid directly interacting with Creationists. They already "Know the Truth". Any extra information you give them will simply be thrown away.
Upvote
0
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.
And this is exactly why I avoid directly interacting with Creationists. They already "Know the Truth". Any extra information you give them will simply be thrown away.Don't worry, I know the truth, just asking questions to see what answers I get.
Hey, sis, if you want to ask question after question about evolution, that's certainly your prerogative.
But please be careful and remember Paul's warning:God bless ---
It is not the elemental composition that points to evolutionary relationships between us and other apes, it is the sequence similarity that does so.
We share similar dna because we are made up of the same elemets from the earth.
Just for the sake of argument, how would you know if you were mistaken? Take your compatriot's advice, for example. How weak must he think your position is that he fears you asking us questions? Is that the type of advice one is likely to give if one is convinced of the certainty of his/her argument?
Don't worry, I know the truth, just asking questions to see what answers I get.
By know science should be able to find a viable animal still in the evolution proses of changing from one type of animal to another.....
Hey, sis, if you want to ask question after question about evolution, that's certainly your prerogative.
But please be careful and remember Paul's warning:God bless ---
You think you know the truth because they have indoctrinated you to believe what they told you, (and AV1611VET is worried to death that you are about to learn something they do not want you to learn).Don't worry, I know the truth, just asking questions to see what answers I get.
Now imagine its a movie. Take these 4 generations and imagine they are frames in the movie. You will never see or understand the movie if you only observe these 4 frames which are back to back. But if you take a scattering key of frames from these movies it would be possible to re construct a storyboard. In fact that's how movies start in the first place. a few pictures to represent the movie as a whole. This are what fossils do. they tell a true story about earths history.
That's an awesome analogy, never thought of it that way. I think I'll use it, and credit you of course.
...that when I talk about evolution, I only talk about macro evolution, where a cat produces a dog, etc.
If so, can you show me evidence of one type of animal producing a different type of animal?
Maybe a Lion giving birth to a piglion or a shark giving birth to a crocodileshark?
There is no way to test the reliability of the dating methods used by scientist, do we have anything which is a million years old that is not dated by modern day dating methods to be used as a marker to test the reliability?
No I am not, give me the evidence........did a virus change into a bacteria?
Did evolution come to the conclusion that it has to stop? By know science should be able to find a viable animal still in the evolution proses of changing from one type of animal to another.....
...but with macro I do have a problem, somehow all these trees your are talking about must have started, the beginning of the cat and the dog and fish, etc, etc. how did each one start? Is there or is there not a common ancestor for all living things? please explain me your understanding......
But you're not talking about evolution then, but a Creationist strawman/misunderstanding of it. A cat giving birth to a dog would falsify evolution.
Animals don't "produce different types of animals. I'm not going to go through the whole working, but take this link and it shows groupings of animals.
Animals
If you take the bilaterian link and follow down to Terrestrial tetrapods, you can see that even with modification and diversity, no group further out on the branches of the tree stops exhibiting the characteristics it shares with higher taxa. So even if a fish develops legs and lungs, it never stops being a Sarcopterygiian.
Sarcopterygii
Actually we can. First off, the fact that we trust decay rates not to suddenly change means we can have nuclear power. Second, we can study things like the Oklo natural nuclear reactors and determine decay rates from 2 billion years ago. Just because you don't know of or can't fathom a way to study the past doesn't mean others haven't figured out a way to already.
No. Viruses are a different type of life and some would consider them marginally life at that.
Apart from the new species you have been provided, we have many examples in the fossil record of transitional that exhibit characteristics of two taxa above species level. We even have some living beings that do the same for example Monotremes that have mammalian and reptilian traits. We also have living analogues for other transitional series for which we have fossils. Whales are a good example:
- Polar bears are land animals that are good swimmers
- Otters are land animals that are excellent swimmers
- Pinnipeds (seals, sea lions, etc.) are aquatic animals that function o.k. on land.
- Sirenians are aquatic animals that don't function on land, but stick to shallows.
- Whales are fully aquatic and exploit the entire ocean.
Now, whales didn't evolve from bears, but if we have analagous species existing today and fossils of similar transitional beings, what reason is there to reject whale evolution except incredulity?
There might or might not be a single common ancestor or ancestral species. Recent studies of bacteria show a lot of gene transfer. Once we get to metazoans (animals) it's pretty clear from the genetic evidence that we're all descended from an urmetazoan species.
If you want to look at how trees are related to other green plants read this:
Green plants
If you want to see how fish, dogs and cats are related take the Sarcopterygii link above, or if you just want dogs and cats they evolved from an urcarnivore.
Carnivora
{snip bluster}
For a few examples of either gross error, fraud, deception, or hoax:
Pikaia
Mesonychid
Ramapithecus
Nebraska Man
Piltdown Man
{snip bluster} One example I read about recently was the construction of an amazing discovery based on a single tooth. It was debunked when a jawbone was found, and I'm sure this was an embarrassing situation for a giant of science.{snip more bluster}
Alot of these ideas to me supports a common design theory, designs that work.....designs needs a designer!
Alot of these ideas to me supports a common design theory, designs that work.....designs needs a designer!
The point is simple: the evidence for the evolutionary origin of man is missing. What used to be has been debunked. The method of operation among scientists trying to prove the evolutionary origin of man is gross error, imagination, fraud, and hoax. What's left is highly suspect and hanging by a thread.
Read again what I said about the tooth. I said that I read about it recently, not that it happened recently. I might have it in my notes somewhere, but it's really just one of many examples of the common M.O. Add vivid imagination and sloppy work to the M.O. The claimed evolutionary origin of man is a major embarrassment to the scientific community, and it's going to be a larger embarrassment in the future. The case is falling apart - not getting better. The more that real science learns - the more that the evolutionary origin of man falls on its face. It's elevated to a cross between comedy and fairy tale, but the die-hards are hanging on by a thread to save face and reputation.
The point is simple:
...the evidence for the evolutionary origin of man is missing. What used to be has been debunked.
The method of operation among scientists trying to prove the evolutionary origin of man is gross error, imagination, fraud, and hoax. What's left is highly suspect and hanging by a thread.
Read again what I said about the tooth. I said that I read about it recently, not that it happened recently. I might have it in my notes somewhere, but it's really just one of many examples of the common M.O. Add vivid imagination and sloppy work to the M.O.
The claimed evolutionary origin of man is a major embarrassment to the scientific community, and it's going to be a larger embarrassment in the future. The case is falling apart - not getting better. The more that real science learns - the more that the evolutionary origin of man falls on its face. It's elevated to a cross between comedy and fairy tale, but the die-hards are hanging on by a thread to save face and reputation.
And Christians are nothing but hateful people who carry placards saying God hates gay people and crash the funerals of war-dead from Iraq.
I'll be waiting on your retraction
That's not going to happen, but you can wait if you enjoy waiting. They are both pretty good examples of opposites:
Westborro nuts opposite of Christianity = TRUE
Evolutionary origin of man opposite of science = TRUE
I didn't move any goal post. The only thing I've ever talked about is the evolutionary origin of man VERSUS God's account of how He said that He Created man. You should be able to guess which one I believe. I think the chickens are still dancing, but I'll check again. Yep - they're still dancing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?