1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsI meant for you to expand on your claim that the theory of evolution is just a bunch of guesses. How have you come to that conclusion.
I was just going by what you said and the wikipedia link
you gave me. You said "most likely", which is a guess.
The wikipedia article said it "may" have given rise to grey
wolves and coyotes. Another guess, if you ask me.
Could you tell me which evolutionary biologists work you have critiqued?
(Also it's not a guess, a guess would just be randomly picking any fossil out of the fossil record and saying 'this is the ancestor of the gray wolf'😉
Originally posted by Proper KnobI don't know any evolutionary biologists. But too me, the theory
I meant for you to expand on your claim that the theory of evolution is just a bunch of guesses. How have you come to that conclusion.
Could you tell me which evolutionary biologists work you have critiqued?
of evolution is missing something, the facts, that link it together.
Therefore, I concluded that all these links are a bunch of guesses.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you made a conclusion about something you are largely ignorant of. Those of us who know a bit more about it, can assure you that the Theory of Evolution is not just a bunch of guesses. It has met the highest standards of scientific enquiry in that it explains a lot of observed phenomena and also predicted a lot of phenomena that was later observed. It has also withstood inspection and criticism for over a hundred years.
I don't know any evolutionary biologists. But too me, the theory
of evolution is missing something, the facts, that link it together.
Therefore, I concluded that all these links are a bunch of guesses.
Originally posted by RJHindsThat may be so, but why do you feel that gives you a licence to call it a bunch of guesses, when you could not possibly know that?
I know the theory of evolution can not be true because
I believe God.
If you genuinely believe that evolution is false, then you can either ignore it and hope it doesn't bother you, or, if it does bother you (say for example you don't want it taught to your children), you could study it and prove it false.
What I don't understand is the tendency to try to prove it false (or rather simply declare it false) by making up falsehoods about it. Surely that is a very unchristian thing to do? (and somewhat in line with what you like to say Satans favorite tactics are).
Originally posted by twhiteheadI know by common sense and you should too.
That may be so, but why do you feel that gives you a licence to call it a bunch of guesses, when you could not possibly know that?
If you genuinely believe that evolution is false, then you can either ignore it and hope it doesn't bother you, or, if it does bother you (say for example you don't want it taught to your children), you could study it and p ...[text shortened]... an thing to do? (and somewhat in line with what you like to say Satans favorite tactics are).
The theory of evolution is on the verge of being proven false
by others more knowledgeable than myself, so why should
I waste my time on something that is already being done.
I don't recall making up any falsehoods about the theory of
evolution. I recall stating the truth from the Holy Bible. That
doesn't make it false because you disagree or don't like it.
I think it is very Christian to use God's word just a Jesus did
when tempted by Satan.
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobIf they can produce off spring with each other I'd say highly likely, if not than
[b]Just go to the eye lets look at all the things said about how that process occured.
Nope, i'm not going to the eye. I'm asking the questions this time, you've had countless threads where you ask the questions. This is my time to examine your thinking.
So we have Canids, Ursidae and Pinnipeds all of which you accept have a common ancestor rel do you accept that those three groups all share the same common ancestor? If not why not?![/b]
one of two things are in play. They lost the ability which means they at one time
had it, or they never had it, so they did not share one.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYour the one that thinks things had to evolve over millions of years, not me.
“...My point has been that several species have a common ancestor, …..”
so does that mean you agree that macroevolution CAN and DOES occur?
If so, and you agree that macroevolution HAS occurred for SOME linages from a common ancestor those lineages share, then what is so wrong/improbable for macroevolution to have occurred for ALL lineages from ...[text shortened]... be so incredibly minuscule that evolution has never got round to getting rid of it altogether )
It would depend on the starting point, what needed changed, if little than next to
no time is required. We can breed dogs into all kinds of shapes and sizes in little
time.
Kelly
Originally posted by RJHindsSo now you can tell the future too? Very clever.
I know by common sense and you should too.The theory of evolution is on the verge of being proven false
by others more knowledgeable than myself, so why should
I waste my time on something that is already being done.
I don't recall making up any falsehoods about the theory of evolution.
You have a remarkably short memory. Just a few posts ago you called it 'a bunch of guesses'. This is false. You made it up.
And it is not the first time you have stated falsehoods about evolution, though in the past you were often merely passing on what you had heard from others. I believe you even admitted it and apologized for it which made me give you a lot more respect than I give some fundamentalists on this site who never admit their mistakes.
I recall stating the truth from the Holy Bible. That
doesn't make it false because you disagree or don't like it.
The Holy Bible does not say evolution is a 'bunch of guesses'.
Originally posted by RJHindsLet me get this straight, you've never read a book on evolution, couldn't tell me one single evolutionary biologist and yet somehow you know that evolution is just a 'bunch of guesses'?!
No. And I don't want to because it is false theory.
Do you understand how absurd that is?
It would be like me claiming all of Beethoven's work is incoherent rubbish and then revealing i had never critically examined any of his pieces or even listened to any of them. You would think i was bonkers and rightly so, and that is what i think of you. Utterly bonkers!!!!
Originally posted by RJHindsThe theory of evolution is on the verge of being proven false by others more knowledgeable than myself.
I know by common sense and you should too.
The theory of evolution is on the verge of being proven false
by others more knowledgeable than myself, so why should
I waste my time on something that is already being done.
I don't recall making up any falsehoods about the theory of
evolution. I recall stating the truth from the Holy Bible. That
doesn't mak ...[text shortened]... it.
I think it is very Christian to use God's word just a Jesus did
when tempted by Satan.
Could you name them?
Originally posted by KellyJayIf who can produce offspring with each other? Who is 'they'?
If they can produce off spring with each other I'd say highly likely, if not than
one of two things are in play. They lost the ability which means they at one time
had it, or they never had it, so they did not share one.
Kelly
I understand the possible permutations of this scenario, i'm asking which one you think is likely. Evolutionary theory tells us that Canids, Pinnipeds and members of the Ursidae family all share a common ancestor, i'm asking if you accept this.?