If evolution is true

[inquiring mind]

Your comments read otherwise.
And secondly: scientific speculation, which is essentially another form of hypothesis, is based on information draw from the facts that we have. Facts based on the real world. Faith does nothing of the sort.

We both know the difference in faith and science. But, I see faith as very real, whether you can put a finger on it or not.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

We both know the difference in faith and science. But, I see faith as very real, whether you can put a finger on it or not.

But unfortunately, faith can't be used in science since faith is untestable, unevidenced, unprovable and unfalsifiable.

 

[inquiring mind]

I proposed they lived in both environments AND the intermediate.



They are an example of exactly what I described: a forest dwelling primate, that can and does venture into the savanna.

In addition modern chimps aren't the only apes, nor are they the ancestors of modern humans.



Are you ready to concede that animals can and do change environments?

Sure, but the question is did this scenario take place the way you think, and if so... what caused such a profound and un-natural change to occur? We're talking about a lot more than rabbits moving around here.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sure, but the question is did this scenario take place the way you think, and if so... what caused such a profound and un-natural change to occur? We're talking about a lot more than rabbits moving around here.

Just because you say it's unnatural doesn't mean it is or was.

 

[inquiring mind]

But unfortunately, faith can't be used in science since faith is untestable, unevidenced, unprovable and unfalsifiable.

Now that's science's problem, isn't it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Now that's science's problem, isn't it?

Not at all really. Science is science and religion is religion. Two very different and separate things. That's why you can't bring religion into science and expect to be treated like an equal. Apples and oranges.

 

[inquiring mind]

Not at all really. Science is science and religion is religion. Two very different and separate things. That's why you can't bring religion into science and expect to be treated like an equal. Apples and oranges.

Why not, from a faih perspective I'm not anti-science. I'm just questioning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, but the question is did this scenario take place the way you think, and if so... what caused such a profound and un-natural change to occur? We're talking about a lot more than rabbits moving around here.

What makes you think that the change was unnatural? You appear to have a strange belief of what happened. It is more likely that the tropical forest "left" our ancestors rather than the other way around. Have you not thought of that? Climates can change over the millennia. Even in the farily recent past the Sahara was much smaller. There could have been other causes as well. Your inability to understand something does not refute it. It does not even make it "unnatural". Your argument amounts to:

"I do not understand, therefore science is wrong".

That should not convince anyone.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why not, from a faih perspective I'm not anti-science. I'm just questioning.

Your comments like "macroevolution regurgitation" say otherwise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why not, from a faih perspective I'm not anti-science. I'm just questioning.

When one rejects science just because one does not understand it one is anti-science.

 

[inquiring mind]

What makes you think that the change was unnatural? You appear to have a strange belief of what happened. It is more likely that the tropical forest "left" our ancestors rather than the other way around. Have you not thought of that? Climates can change over the millennia. Even in the farily recent past the Sahara was much smaller. There could have been other causes as well. Your inability to understand something does not refute it. It does not even make it "unnatural". Your argument amounts to:

"I do not understand, therefore science is wrong".

That should not convince anyone.

Like I said I'm just questioning, others can decide for themselves.

 

[inquiring mind]

Your comments like "macroevolution regurgitation" say otherwise.

No, my comment was referring to you only repeating what you've read without thinking yourself.

 

[inquiring mind]

When one rejects science just because one does not understand it one is anti-science.

What makes you think I reject all science?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No, my comment was referring to you only repeating what you've read without thinking yourself.

How do you know that I'm not thinking for myself when I make comments that you don't agree with?
*gasp of shock* Are you a mind reader?

No. No you're not.

 

[Shemjaza]

Sure, but the question is did this scenario take place the way you think, and if so... what caused such a profound and un-natural change to occur? We're talking about a lot more than rabbits moving around here.

Could you please attempt to understand this point:
Animals changing environments is common

Multiple examples have been given.

Chimps do not spend very much time in the savanna.

However chimps do travel into and through the savanna, so your description of forest primates moving into a nearby savanna as a "profound and un-natural change" is simply ludicrous.


Given that you do not believe in macroevolution, how do you justify the existence of transitional fossil primates who clearly lived in savanna areas?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said I'm just questioning, others can decide for themselves.

No, you are only demonstrating ignorance and refusing to learn from your errors.

It is not that hard to understand. Bogus questions will never refute the theory, all they can demonstrate is your own ignorance. And the only people they would fool are those that has an even lower level of education in the sciences than you have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What makes you think I reject all science?

Your posts here. Refusing to learn when people have tried to help you time and time again.

When it comes to science if one does not understand it and rejects it that makes the person a science denier. If one understands it and rejects it that makes a person a liar. There are a few creationists that are liars, but most merely keep themselves ignorant so that they can pretend to have a valid excuse for rejecting reality.

 

[inquiring mind]

How do you know that I'm not thinking for myself when I make comments that you don't agree with?
*gasp of shock* Are you a mind reader?

No. No you're not.

If it looks like a crow and flies like a crow... it's probably a crow.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If it looks like a crow and flies like a crow... it's probably a crow.

That same comment applies much more to your comments then mine. Especially since it's clear that you hold evolutionary science with such disdain as you do.

 

[inquiring mind]

That same comment applies much more to your comments then mine. Especially since it's clear that you hold evolutionary science with such disdain as you do.

I believe evolution happens, just not to the extent you do.