Originally posted by galveston75Why cant you see that evolution has truth in it as does creationism?
Ok then. I'll ask you a question TJ that I've asked many other evolutionist. I would think it would be easy to produce since evolution is a "fact" now. But be warned, so far not one shread of evidence has been shown to me, but I'll let you try to find this...
They say porpoises, the ones with the blow hole on top of their heads, used to be land animals ...[text shortened]... r years of asking not one piece of evidence has ever been found. Hummmmm? I wonder why?
We aren't always going to find fossils to fill in every missing link. Sometimes you just have to make an educated guess based on the available evidence. Is it not the same with scripture? (Surely it is or else we wouldn't debate over them now , would we?)
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75Actually there has been made some progress in solving this puzzle with a discovery of a creature called Rodhocetus where the nostrils are halfway between the snout and the top of the head. The blowhole at the top of the head is just one of a few reasons the porpoise and whales are considered part of a family of species that originally were amphibious or mostly land based. You can read about it in this Wikipedia article that is actually pretty good.
Ok then. I'll ask you a question TJ that I've asked many other evolutionist. I would think it would be easy to produce since evolution is a "fact" now. But be warned, so far not one shread of evidence has been shown to me, but I'll let you try to find this...
They say porpoises, the ones with the blow hole on top of their heads, used to be land animals r years of asking not one piece of evidence has ever been found. Hummmmm? I wonder why?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans
Of course you'll just dismiss all of this with your usual condescending tone. But at any rate, there is your shred of evidence.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32473
Originally posted by UllrHe's going to have a problem with it for the same reason I have a problem with it - I truly DO NOT KNOW enough about the subject to even begin to understand everything that little article is talking about. The difference between us is that he only asked the question because he read it in some propaganda tract and I am just genuinely curious and willing to learn from the work of others.
Actually there has been made some progress in solving this puzzle with a discovery of a creature called Rodhocetus where the nostrils are halfway between the snout and the top of the head. The blowhole at the top of the head is just one of a few reasons the porpoise and whales are considered part of a family of species that originally were amphibious or mostl ...[text shortened]... of this with your usual condescending tone. But at any rate, there is your shred of evidence.
I am an 'evolutionist' about the same way I am a 'Ancient Rome-ist.' People who have done the work compiling the information tell me that the civilization of Ancient Rome existed. I have no reason to call them liars. I can't conceive a reason why they would lie to me. I defer to their greater knowledge and actual work. I could spend all my free time reading Anatoly Fomenko's crazy theories and asking questions based on them but I don't.
He obviously feels threatened by knowledge - why? Are his beliefs so all fragile that they cannot be adjusted by new information? Does he already know everything? As I said before - these problems are his loss - not mine.
Originally posted by Ullr(((((These animals possessed unusual triangular teeth that are similar to those of whales. For this reason, scientists had long believed that whales evolved from a form of mesonychid; however more recent molecular phylogeny data suggest that whales are more closely related to the artiodactyls, specifically the hippopotamus.))))
Actually there has been made some progress in solving this puzzle with a discovery of a creature called Rodhocetus where the nostrils are halfway between the snout and the top of the head. The blowhole at the top of the head is just one of a few reasons the porpoise and whales are considered part of a family of species that originally were amphibious or mostl ...[text shortened]... of this with your usual condescending tone. But at any rate, there is your shred of evidence.
Here is a typical responce that is from the Wikipedia that you posted. It shows that even up to this latest info that is posted is that they still don't know what line of early animals they came from. It seems it's constantly changing and by no means do they all agree. It would seem that if evolution was a "Fact" as many constantly say, then statements like this as well as words like: Probably, it would suggest, speculated, speculation, believe or believed, some progress, solving the puzzle, which looked like, showed signs, are considered, it is unclear at present, although they look like, it appears, etc, would not be all thru this article in Wikipedia. These are not words and descriptions I would base a belief on and one that is said to be "Fact."
And these are all artist drawings, not real fossils.
Originally posted by TerrierJackI'm not threatend by any knowledge. But I have the knowledge to decide when something is by no means completely understood by the so called professionals that say it is fact when it is in fact only theory..
He's going to have a problem with it for the same reason I have a problem with it - I truly DO NOT KNOW enough about the subject to even begin to understand everything that little article is talking about. The difference between us is that he only asked the question because he read it in some propaganda tract and I am just genuinely curious and willing t ...[text shortened]... s he already know everything? As I said before - these problems are his loss - not mine.
And when the majority of ones that promote this Theory do not believe in God or that much less he actually created all life and undermine his wisdom with their own, it makes no sence at all to follow their weak thoughts.
Originally posted by FabianFnashttp://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html?gclid=CKfHhZnz7pwCFQO2sgodJyQFjw
If you deny evolution, the best achivement of god, then you deny god altogether.
Proof? Proof??? Give me a good proof of god, and I give you a a good titel of a book that explains the basics of evolution to you.
Is this religion? Then a proof is not neccesary. If you need one, then it's not religion anymore.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32473
Originally posted by galveston75Feel free to keep on turning that watch over and over in your paws.
I'm not threatend by any knowledge. But I have the knowledge to decide when something is by no means completely understood by the so called professionals that say it is fact when it is in fact only theory..
And when the majority of ones that promote this Theory do not believe in God or that much less he actually created all life and undermine his wisdom with their own, it makes no sence at all to follow their weak thoughts.
1 edit
I'm no geneticist or biologist but for the most part animals are locked into their kinds right? A Dog is a dog. A cat is a cat. on & on. Now I know they do freaky stuff experimenting with genetics but cross breeded animals are usually sterile. Like the Horse & Donkey cross makes a mule. Mules can't reproduce more Mules however. This kinda supports the notion of creation I would think. Or does it?
Manny
- Joined
- 02 Feb 06
- Moves
- 123634
Originally posted by galveston75I'm not claiming that the theory of evolution of porpoises, whales, etc. is a completely proven fact. I was merely responding to your dismissive and snarky post that there is not a "shred of evidence". What I have presented you with sir is a shred of evidence.
(((((These animals possessed unusual triangular teeth that are similar to those of whales. For this reason, scientists had long believed that whales evolved from a form of mesonychid; however more recent molecular phylogeny data suggest that whales are more closely related to the artiodactyls, specifically the hippopotamus.))))
Here is a typical resp ...[text shortened]... and one that is said to be "Fact."
And these are all artist drawings, not real fossils.
Now it's your turn. Please show me a shred of evidence that Noah's ark actually existed beyond what is written in the Bible.
Ouch. I just droped my stapler on my toe. It hurt, too. Alas, gravity is "just a theory" so I'll blame the gods or the fates or my wife.
In science, a theory is an explanation that succeeds over and over again in the explanation of observed phenomena. Evolution has done that for a century and a half. The evidence you seek is pretty thin: nearly every published study in biology, geology, archaeology, and perhaps another dozen field of science in the past 150 years or so. It would take a lifetime just to read the abstracts.
Originally posted by Ullrthat's correct for we are who we are because our ancestors were adept at dodging sabre tooth tigers?????????
I'm not claiming that the theory of evolution of porpoises, whales, etc. is a completely proven fact. I was merely responding to your dismissive and snarky post that there is not a "shred of evidence". What I have presented you with sir is a shred of evidence.
Now it's your turn. Please show me a shred of evidence that Noah's ark actually existed beyond what is written in the Bible.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIrrelevant point, i'm not talking about the lineage of species.
there was a post in the science forum, not too long ago, in which sonhouse (an evolutionist) posted material which showed that birds and dinosaurs did not share the same common ancestry, did he not?
Galveston claimed God made no inter species, Archaeopteryx clearly is. I was merely wondering where this fossil fitted in with his beliefs. But as per usual he doesn't answer.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf we lived at the same time as sabre tooth-tigers, and they are now extinct and we aren't, then i think it's safe to say we were good at dodging sabre-tooth tigers. I don't quite see what your point is here.
that's correct for we are who we are because our ancestors were adept at dodging sabre tooth tigers?????????