Originally posted by humyThe U.S. government considers a person old at the age of 65. That is when youHumy, we all understand slow, minute, ever so gradual incremental transformations.
RJHinds didn't. Reminder: “...Creationists, such as myself, know that dogs do not give birth to any other
creature. ...” ( RJHinds quote )
[quote] Does making ape to man ever so slow and gradual erase the fact that at some POINT you leave ape and get a h ...[text shortened]... rfectly credible incremental steps rather than just have one big incredible step.
can get both Social Security and Medicare benefits because you are OLD. That's
ME.
Originally posted by humyIt does not make any difference how long you give it, IT DON'T HAPPEN!
The theory of evolution does not say that members of one species will immediately give birth to members of a totally different species in the very next reproductive cycle.
With a possible few exceptions ( from such events as natural hybridisation and the more severe mutations that do sometimes happen ) macro-evolution generally occurs as a series of many smal ...[text shortened]... now this if you understood anything about the theory.
You display complete ignorance yet again.
Originally posted by RJHinds
The U.S. government considers a person old at the age of 65. That is when you
can get both Social Security and Medicare benefits because you are OLD. That's
ME.
The U.S. government considers a person old at the age of 65
this, of course, is an arbitrary distinction between “old” and “young”.
Does a person suddenly undergoes an incredible biological change on his 65th birthday or is there a very small credible change from him being a day less old than 65 and his 65 birthday so that he doesn't really look older from our perspective?
Can you tell the difference just by looking at a person if he is a day younger or a day older than 65?
Point: remember the original extremely stupid flawed straw-man argument that evolution says species change occurs in a single generation EVEN with a long series of tiny incremental changes ( as opposed to hybridisation etc ) -which is CLEARLY false. We age through many tiny incremental changes ( tiny molecular damage to the cell machinery etc ) and yet this does not mean we undergo a sudden drastic incredible absurd biological transformation at some stage in our ageing process. Similarly, with incremental evolution, there is no single point or generation where there is a sudden species change.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsThe word you were looking for is 'doesn't'... And you are wrong.
It does not make any difference how long you give it, IT DON'T HAPPEN!
At this point you are like someone ranting that the earth doesn't spin on it's axis or that
the sun goes around the earth.
You are just wrong.
Originally posted by RJHindsWell that is simply the childish fingers in ears / head in sand / "la la la I can't hear you" type last resort of someone who has lost an argument and refuses to admit it.
It does not make any difference how long you give it, IT DON'T HAPPEN!
The grown-up response is to either come up with a flaw in the argument or to accept that the argument is valid.
--- Penguin.
1 edit
Originally posted by humyYou are talking apples and oranges. A baby grows up to be a man or womanThe U.S. government considers a person old at the age of 65
this, of course, is an arbitrary distinction between “old” and “young”.
Does a person suddenly undergoes an incredible biological change on his 65th birthday or is there a very small credible change from him being a day less old than 65 and his 65 birthday so that he doesn't reall ...[text shortened]... ental evolution, there is no single point or generation where there is a sudden species change.
over time. A puppy grows up to be a dog and a kitten grows up to be a cat.
But a puppy never grows so that over time it becomes a cat or a cow, even
though we may call a young calf a dogie.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogie
Originally posted by PenguinThat is the flaw in the argument -- IT DON'T HAPPEN.
Well that is simply the childish fingers in ears / head in sand / "la la la I can't hear you" type last resort of someone who has lost an argument and refuses to admit it.
The grown-up response is to either come up with a flaw in the argument or to accept that the argument is valid.
--- Penguin.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsEvolution (for the millionth time) does not suggest that an infant of one species will grow up
You are talking apples and oranges. A baby grows up to be a man or woman
over time. A puppy grows up to be a kitten and a kitten grows up to be a cat.
But a puppy never grows so that over time it becomes a cat or a cow, even
though we may call a young calf a dogie.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2cFji4CmHE
to be an adult of another.
Are you utterly incapable of making an argument about evolution that isn't a pathetically
transparent and ignorant straw man.
Do you really and truly lack the courage and belief in your point of view that you can't face what
evolutionary theory actually says and thus you have to lie about it?
You are a spineless chicken who can't face the actual arguments your opponents make and thus
have to lie about them to convince yourself that your position is true.
That's truly pathetic.
Evolution is change of a species over many generations due to random variation due to gene recombination
and mutation acted upon by selection pressure from the environment to cause species to adapt to their
environment.
Argue against that or admit defeat you lily livered coward.
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou are trying to redefine evolution as some kind of glorified adaptation with
Evolution (for the millionth time) does not suggest that an infant of one species will grow up
to be an adult of another.
Are you utterly incapable of making an argument about evolution that isn't a pathetically
transparent and ignorant straw man.
Do you really and truly lack the courage and belief in your point of view that you can't face what ...[text shortened]... adapt to their
environment.
Argue against that or admit defeat you lily livered coward.
the addition of mutations. You have not included the idea that evolution
is supposed to go back to one common ancestor that has changed into all
the different forms of life on the Earth. This is the real definition of evolution
and it has never happened and it never will.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWell you taught me something new. I did not know a puppy could grow into being a kitten. Who knew?
You are talking apples and oranges. A baby grows up to be a man or woman
over time. A puppy grows up to be a kitten and a kitten grows up to be a cat.
But a puppy never grows so that over time it becomes a cat or a cow, even
though we may call a young calf a dogie.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2cFji4CmHE
But if a puppy can grow into being a kitten, is there some genetic problem with the kitten now growing up to be a cat?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by RJHindsNo you are trying to redefine evolution to make your strawman arguments.
You are trying to redefine evolution as some kind of glorified adaptation with
the addition of mutations. You have not included the idea that evolution
is supposed to go back to one common ancestor that has changed into all
the different forms of life on the Earth. This is the real definition of evolution
and it has never happened and it never will.
Which you do because you are a coward who can't face reality.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI was thinking ahead of myself. I meant "A puppy grows up to be a dog."
Well you taught me something new. I did not know a puppy could grow into being a kitten. Who knew?
But if a puppy can grow into being a kitten, is there some genetic problem with the kitten now growing up to be a cat?
I am sure you must have known that unless you are stupid.
P.S. I am a slow typist.