Prove it or remove it challenge

[FutureAndAHope]

I'm not even going to dignify this nonsense with a response.

Instead of contuing with the nonsense that I already addressed several times, please answer the question about dogs that I actually asked you. You know, the whole point why I brought up dogs in the first place.

I'm trying to teach you something about evolution here, because as I have said, you have a wrong idea on how it is said to work. I'm not even trying to convince you that evolution is correct. Just that you actually understand what it really says. Surely, you don't mind actually KNOWING what you are arguing against, right?

So please, answer the question....

Was the dog ancestor of a chiuwawas, st bernards, great danes and pitbulls a "full species / breed" of its own, or was it "half a breed"?

And if the latter, half-what exactly? Half chiuwawa, half st bernard, half great dane, half pitbull,... all of the above?

Or do you agree that it would be rather stupid to talk about "half a pitbull" when talking about that particular dog species / breed? Also keep in mind that when that ancestor breed lived, pitbulls, great danes, etc didn't exist yet.

Think it through and take your time if you must.

You Are right it is nonsense that a dog could grow wings. It is also nonsense that a dinosaur could.

Also why do you want me to talk about dog breeding it is off topic. We all know how dogs breed.. They have sex and pass on Thiet traits.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Look I know what you are saying ... I will use dogs as an example ... A dog starts to grow bone tissue in its side due to mutation. Over millions of years it is passed on slowly parts of the dog population get increased bone size. It turns out that this bone help the dog balance, so it is a better hunter. The trait gets passed on. Then another mutation occurs that gives the dog a swivel joint. The more I think about it the less sensible evolution is. Do you know how much complexity would be needed to form a wing, even by natural selection.

 

[VirOptimus]

Look I know what you are saying ... I will use dogs as an example ... A dog starts to grow bone tissue in its side due to mutation. Over millions of years it is passed on slowly parts of the dog population get increased bone size. It turns out that this bone help the dog balance, so it is a better hunter. The trait gets passed on. Then another mutation occurs that gives the dog a swivel joint. The more I think about it the less sensible evolution is. Do you know how much complexity would be needed to form a wing, even by natural selection.

Seriously, educate yourself. Your posts are downright embarassing. Its clear you dont understand anything about evolution (and are a very poor theologican to boot).

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Ok ... I am crying here you have broken my heart ... Sob ... Ok smarty pants you explain in a few paragraphs how a dog would grow wings. No science jargon give me you best educated story.

 

[RedPonyDriver]

Ok ... I am crying here you have broken my heart ... Sob ... Ok smarty pants you explain in a few paragraphs how a dog would grow wings. No science jargon give me you best educated story.

ONE MORE TIME:
IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN. DOGS DO NOT NEED WINGS TO BE SUCCESSFUL PREDATORS.

 

[Nithavela]

Learn about the evolution of bats.

Should dogs, for whatever reason, evolve towards becoming flying dogs, their evolution might follow that path.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/13/bat.evolution

 

[joshua 1 9]

Interesting how Einstein didn't require the help of judges to "force" his ideas into schools or on the scientific community.

No one is forcing anything. We live in a democracy where we have majority rule. Actually even under communism they vote for people. The only difference there is they have a one party system so all the candidates have to be party members to be legible. That still gives them the ability to get rid of someone if the community does not like them. We elect our judges and even our clerk of court. They are not appointed.

 

[VirOptimus]

Ok ... I am crying here you have broken my heart ... Sob ... Ok smarty pants you explain in a few paragraphs how a dog would grow wings. No science jargon give me you best educated story.

:eyeroll: if evolution was not correct, dont you think that scientists who study it all their working life should have noticed it by now?

 

[joshua 1 9]

No, it can not.

Of course Science confirms the Bible. If your Science contradicts the Bible then your science is not true or accurate. Science helps us with our understanding and interpretation of the Bible.

 

[VirOptimus]

Of course Science confirms the Bible. If your Science contradicts the Bible then your science is not true or accurate. Science helps us with our understanding and interpretation of the Bible.

This is bad science and bad theology.

 

[joshua 1 9]

:eyeroll: if evolution was not correct, dont you think that scientists who study it all their working life should have noticed it by now?

They did notice and they did what they could to correct the theory. That is why it is in a constant state of change and needs constant revision. The current theory is simply a reflection of what most people are in agreement with. The Bible says let God be true and every man a liar. That suggests that even if everyone agrees they can still be wrong. That is why we have the test of time. The Bible has maintained it's integrity and has passed the test of time. Each and every generation tests the Bible and looks into how to apply the truth in the Bible to them in their lives during the time they are alive here on the Earth.

 

[joshua 1 9]

This is bad science and bad theology.

Not at all, you just have no idea what I am saying or what I am talking about. You presume you know and that is why presumption is the mother of error.

 

[joshua 1 9]

That is why I thanked him for that post.

We tend to win the elections. I lived in Utah for a while and you can be sure that if you are not a Mormon then there is not a very good chance you will win an election in that state. Creationism needs to be taught in Sunday School. Evolutionist is taught in Science class. Evolution is a method or a way to teach the material and they would have a lot of trouble teaching science without the theory of evolution. Contrary to claims the theory does not have much application in the real world. Unless you want to produce flys with legs growing out of their head.

 

[VirOptimus]

Not at all, you just have no idea what I am saying or what I am talking about. You presume you know and that is why presumption is the mother of error.

Nope, you are in error.

 

[VirOptimus]

They did notice and they did what they could to correct the theory. That is why it is in a constant state of change and needs constant revision. The current theory is simply a reflection of what most people are in agreement with. The Bible says let God be true and every man a liar. That suggests that even if everyone agrees they can still be wrong. That is why we have the test of time. The Bible has maintained it's integrity and has passed the test of time. Each and every generation tests the Bible and looks into how to apply the truth in the Bible to them in their lives during the time they are alive here on the Earth.

Word salad, incoherent and wrong.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Word salad, incoherent and wrong.

 

[Shemjaza]

Look I know what you are saying ... I will use dogs as an example ... A dog starts to grow bone tissue in its side due to mutation. Over millions of years it is passed on slowly parts of the dog population get increased bone size. It turns out that this bone help the dog balance, so it is a better hunter. The trait gets passed on. Then another mutation occurs that gives the dog a swivel joint. The more I think about it the less sensible evolution is. Do you know how much complexity would be needed to form a wing, even by natural selection.

You don't understand what evolution is actually proposing.

In evolutionary theory animals don't evolve with a goal in mind, each and every little change is either helpful or not harmful and changes build up. The changes are tiny and random, but survival is anything but random.

Dinosaurs were able to evolve wings because they were already running on their hind legs and using their arms for balance. They already had long feathers on their arms for balance, display or warmth. The steps from running to gliding to actual flying are possible.

Now a dog uses all of it's limbs to run and isn't very good at jumping or climbing, so isn't ever likely to start down the path to flight. The intermediate stages probably wouldn't be beneficial to survival.

However if you look at flying possums and flying squirrels you can see an intermediate form of a four legged animal developing into a flyer like a bat.

 

[JacksBratt]

Ok ... I am crying here you have broken my heart ... Sob ... Ok smarty pants you explain in a few paragraphs how a dog would grow wings. No science jargon give me you best educated story.

They cannot use the fossil record to prove anything. It is a static snapshot of an animal or organism that once was alive and then died. It cannot tell you how old it was, in its age (as an animal, infant, youth, adult etc.) whether it had any brothers or sisters, if it ever mated, it is just bones. It existed. They may find bones of similar animals and line them up to say that animal A slowly changed into animal B over time. But they cannot prove it. It is all assumptions, extrapolation and surmising. Sure you can change dogs into many kinds of dogs, bacteria into other strains of bacteria, virus's into other mutated virus's but they are still dogs, bacteria and virus's.

The only reason that the fossil record pulls as much weight as it does is due the the sheer numbers of "accredited" "educated" people who support it. That is all. Go get an education, doctorate in this field of study and then try to go against the mob and you will be harassed, discredited, shunned have your character assassinated.

For something to be accepted in any other field of science, it has to be observable, testable and repeatable. The farce of evolution is none of these.

They want this to be true so badly that they have stretched and bent and pressed the fossils into the cookie cutter shape they need them to be in order to fit their theory. They then get every graduate to back it as if it was the gospel itself and ridicule anyone that argues against it.

They, then, ignore the one solid piece that pulls the bottom card of their house of cards....... how did it all start?

They can tell you an astonishing line of how this organism became this and this and then this as they draw an elaborate tree of branches and twigs. However they cannot tell you where the first organism came from, where it got life, how it knew how to eat, replicate etc. Don't ask them that. They are not going there...... BUT after that they will tell you it's solid gold truth what happened to the next organism..and the next and the next.

My kids are now young adults. They were inundated with the TOE and all the spin off "science" that "supports" it as it is woven throughout the education process. NONE of them, even now, believe the "ape minded" white coat idea that we came from apes......

Don't lose heart. Raise them up knowing that God formed Adam with His OWN hands and breathed the breath of life into this first human body....... then, used a rib to create the first woman. There was no other female human, until their was a God formed human man. SO...... Biblicaly..... evolution dies right there. You cannot ignore the blatant fact written in scripture that God formed the first human male, then the female.

So, anyone that is a God fearing, bible believing person cannot say that that was not a distinct, obvious, in your face description of where humans originated from.

 

[Extraneous]

Y

However if you look at flying possums and flying squirrels you can see an intermediate form of a four legged animal developing into a flyer like a bat.

Why would we assume that this squirrel is evolving into a flying creature? Perhaps its only evolving into a gliding creature, which is what it is after all.

Why would we assume such a thing? Because we are looking for evidence of something which lacks evidence, therefore this absence of evidence is itself the evidence that our scientific methods are flawed. If we assume its evolving into a flying creature, when there is no evidence to support this assumption, this is not actually science is it?

 

[joshua 1 9]

Reinterpreting the Bible after the fact does not mean that the Bible was right.

There are rules for Bible interpretation. Just like you have rules for science. Do a google search and do a little bit of research. It is amazing how much science you expect me to know in comparison to how little you know about the Bible. You should play by the same rules you want to apply to others. Atheistic double speak and double standards are little more then propaganda.