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.
Of course I can say. People go to Darwin's island all the time. They take pictures of Darwin's finch. You can compare Darwin's finch with the finch on the mainland. Your make believe story that someday it maybe more then a finch is not even relevant to the evidence that we have. You have evidence for what you have evidence for and that is all you have. You start with a finch and you end up with a finch. End of story.See, this is where you are wrong. You start with a finch... and where you will end, you cannot say.
Care to expand? If you are saying they both have DNA, thus they are both related, I could go for that. However, if you are saying their DNA is similar, I'm gonna have to require a scosche more evidence than a condescending sentence in passing.
In Christ, GB
....And the No True Scotsman.
You said, and I quote:
Indeed, it is very difficult to find a scientist who rejects evolution who does so without having religious reasons for doing so.In other words, no true scientist would reject evolution, thus the "no true Scotsman".
You just did it again! You substituted your own declaration for mine. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether that is simply sloppy thinking OR if it is an outright lie.
I said NOTHING about a "true scientist". Instead, I proposed a CHALLENGE which bothered you because you knew it was true. (How many scientists can you name who reject evolution and have no religion reason to do so? I don't care whether they meet your definition of a "true scientist" or not.)
Dr. Kurt Wise and Dr. Todd Wood were examples already cited of "true scientists" (and Bible-believing Young Earth Creationist Christians) who freely admit that their rejection of the Theory of Evolution is for religious reasons and NOT because of the weight of the evidence. In fact, both ADMIT that the scientific evidence for evolution is absolutely enormous.
So you throw about the No True Scotsman fallacy in hopes that someone will be impressed. (They weren't.)
These kinds of tactics do NOT further the Kingdom of God. They lead to mockery, accusations of ignorance, and even contempt from the average scientifically-literate reader.
.
No, that's not the end of story. Just look at the picture you posted and see how much they have already changed, in rather a short time. I'm quite certain that you wouldn't be able to take two of these and a magpie and find out which of these are "finches". And they will change further. In ways that we do not have "evidence" for, because it hasn't happened yet. But it will happen.Of course I can say. People go to Darwin's island all the time. They take pictures of Darwin's finch. You can compare Darwin's finch with the finch on the mainland. Your make believe story that someday it maybe more then a finch is not even relevant to the evidence that we have. You have evidence for what you have evidence for and that is all you have. You start with a finch and you end up with a finch. End of story.
Of course I can say. People go to Darwin's island all the time. They take pictures of Darwin's finch. You can compare Darwin's finch with the finch on the mainland. Your make believe story that someday it maybe more then a finch is not even relevant to the evidence that we have. You have evidence for what you have evidence for and that is all you have. You start with a finch and you end up with a finch. End of story.
You start with a finch and you end up with a finch. End of story.
You said you could tell the entire story even after removing 99.9% of the frames. If an average movie is 2 hours long, you are claiming that you can tell an equally convincing story in one minute and twenty seconds. While it takes Hollywood two hours to persuade people of something, you could do it in one minute and twenty seconds. A more appropriate analogy would have been for you to say that you could convince a jury of guilt or innocence with 99.9% of the vital evidence removed. In either case, you are still incorrect my friend.Unless you are going to tell me that you failed to understand the illustration of using one out every thousand movie frames to tell a story (i.e., use ignorance as your excuse), you KNOW that you misrepresented the analogy. And that misrepresentation is also known by another term: a lie.
I'm OK with hyperbole to emphasize a point, but here you tried to dodge and ignore the very heart of the analogy by several lies:
1) I never said that an entire movie could be replaced in every artistic sense by a "single stationary picture". Instead, on a typical movie, preserving just one frame in a thousand would be about one "photo" per 42 seconds of the movie. A film synopsis often involves a far lower "resolution" than that. I stated that the movie story could be told even after removing 99.9% of the frames.
Oh, yeah right, do you just make this stuff up as you go along. We are told that "Richard Dawkins (2001) singled Wise out as "an honest creationist," willing to admit when scientific evidence does not weigh in his favor." A Visit to the New Creation "Museum" | NCSE Somehow you manage to tell a different story.Dr. Kurt Wise and Dr. Todd Wood were examples already cited of "true scientists" (and Bible-believing Young Earth Creationist Christians) who freely admit that their rejection of the Theory of Evolution is for religious reasons and NOT because of the weight of the evidence. In fact, both ADMIT that the scientific evidence for evolution is absolutely enormous.
Then show me your evidence. You are not showing me anything.Obviously, only when you investigate the evidence from a much longer span of time do you find lots of evidence to indicate that the baby eventually became an adult.
Here's a letter in response:
"To whom it may concern,
I'm looking for a garden. The only problem with my "garden" is I have only an old book telling me it exists. Of the scant few hints I have as to its location, some of them do bear a vague resemblance to the Fertile Cresent, but I cannot get them to fit with each other. One of the problems I have with my "garden", among the many, is that it is filled with mythological creatures, like a talking snake and a man made from dirt.
I am also looking for a huge wooden ark made from gopher wood. I don't know what the heck gopher wood is, but I know it is made of gopher wood. The ark is really big and held all the "kinds" of animals that have ever existed on earth. I have no idea what a "kind" is, but I know my god made them and they aren't related to each other at all.
Most people have given up on a 6,000 year old earth, who's geography was shaped by a global flood, but I haven't. Because scientists agree my ideas are outdated and wrong, science is bad. Scientists are bad, and any idea they come up with is a fraud.
I really must find some real evidence for the "garden" and the "ark" if I am going to sell this "old story" to every thinking person. Some of those pesky people that won't buy my whole "old story" believe in this "evidence" idea that says we shouldn't believe everything an old book says if it conflicts with reality.
So please, if you see any evidence of my "old story," any at all, please send it to me. Also, if you know of anyway I can convince everyone that science is a lie and full of frauds, I would be much obliged."
Thanks.
Sincerely, Creationism."
I can see what I can see. I do not see what your imagination adds to what we can all see. The finches have simply adapted to their environment. Ok, why don't we look at the Saber tooth Tiger and the woolly mammoth. Even though they went extinct in the Holocene Extinction. R U suggesting that when the elephant adapts to a cold climate with long hair that he is no longer an elephant? That the Saber tooth Tiger has become a new species? Tell me what you think is going on here. Because you may have a better chance to make your point using them as an example.see how much they have already changed,
Did you just use "phylogeny" to support evolution? Phylogeny was dreamt up for evolution! I thought you said real GENETICS supported their ancestry.The Hippo is the closest living relative, though other even-toed ungulates (including cows) are also close.
From:
A complete phylogeny of the whales,
dolphins and even-toed hoofed
mammals
Thewissen et al.1 describe new fossils from India that apparently support a phylogeny that places Cetacea
(consistent with previous phylogenetic studies
2, 3. This topology supports the view that the aquatic adaptations in hippopotamids and cetaceans are inherited from their common ancestor4.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7236/full/nature07776.html
The misconception you (as most creationists) show here is that of "species" as fixed categories that "macroevolution" would have to cross.I can see what I can see. I do not see what your imagination adds to what we can all see. The finches have simply adapted to their environment. Ok, why don't we look at the Saber tooth Tiger and the woolly mammoth. Even though they went extinct in the Holocene Extinction. R U suggesting that when the elephant adapts to a cold climate with long hair that he is no longer an elephant? That the Saber tooth Tiger has become a new species? Tell me what you think is going on here. Because you may have a better chance to make your point using them as an example.
I think the other side is saying "Head for the hills! We've been shooting blanks and don't have any real ammo and now they know it! Let's stop this crazy war!"Let's End the "Creation Science" War on Evolution!
.
No, not me, you have to talk to my wife and brother about that. I would like to know your opinion on that though. Should I tell my wife to revive me, or should I tell her to tell the doctors to leave me alone? It is not really my choice that I am alive. People like you make that choice for me. In fact yesterday I told my wife NOT to revive me. Should I go back and tell her I was not serious and if something were to happen that it would be ok to revive me?If I need surgery, I'm going to choose a trained physician who has studied anatomy and surgical techniques for many years. Not a bunch of vocal but clueless critics. And I will bet that you would make the same choice.
While it takes Hollywood two hours to persuade people of something, you could do it in one minute and twenty seconds.
Did you just use "phylogeny" to support evolution? Phylogeny was dreamt up for evolution! I thought you said real GENETICS supported their ancestry.
GB
What would you call dinosaur to bird evolution? Is that now a huge change from one species to another? What about reptiles to mammals? What about invertebrates to vertebrates? What about unicellular to multicellular? What about plants and animals? Are none of those spectacular jumps that must be made from one fixed category to another? and that is exactly what they are too, jumps. There are no smooth lines of transition, only jumps millions of years and billions of changes at a time.The misconception you (as most creationists) show here is that of "species" as fixed categories that "macroevolution" would have to cross.
What "new species" should they become? Give an example, if you can. Any example that you can think of, if you can think of one at all.
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?