Originally posted by Proper KnobThat is not exactly the way I remember it.
I don't recall going over why you think evolution is a poor theory with you. In fact, as i recall in our conversations on the subject, you stated you had never read anything on the subject. How do you know which parts are 'poor' when you don't know anything about it?!
In fact, when i explained how evolution works to you, you agreed with everything i wrote?!
But I don't have the time or inclination to
repeat myself and I've got some work I must
do now. So I must leave this forum at this time.
Originally posted by RJHindsBy “kinds” I assume you mean “species”?
I only believe in adaptation and mutation within kinds.
I do not believe it is possible for evolution from one kind
to another. I've told you this before.
If so, then, given that microevolution is just a series of mutations selected by natural selection to give rise to an adaptation, I take it you are saying that microevolution happens but not macroevolution?
If so, since a macroevolution event is just a series of microevolution events happening to the same lineage of living thing, what barrier is stopping a series of microevolution events continuing until they become a macroevolution event? (answer, no barrier).
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNo, I am afraid he doesn't. He means a broader grouping of life forms as mentioned in the Bible (but not clearly defined as far as I know). The important thing though is that the Bible says 'each according to its kind'.
By “kinds” I assume you mean “species”?
Of course the Bible predates the word 'species' which is after all a man made classification term.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think "kind" is more or less the same as "family", at least for dogs and cats.
No, I am afraid he doesn't. He means a broader grouping of life forms as mentioned in the Bible (but not clearly defined as far as I know). The important thing though is that the Bible says 'each according to its kind'.
Of course the Bible predates the word 'species' which is after all a man made classification term.
Originally posted by AgergClear
I don't disagree with what you post here, but the initial motivation for this thread was to undermine the fundie's attempt to cheapen evolution as "just a theory" when in fact evolution holding that status is very profound indeed. In a strict sense however, whatever laws of gravity we hold to be true have not and never will be proven - though defending that po ...[text shortened]... st's objections than as a means to advance a grave concern about how the universe operates.
😵
Originally posted by AgergNot necessarily. Satire's difficult on here, even when you choose an example (as you did) that is clear enough that one would think it unlikely to be taken seriously. Those of us who know you got it. 🙂
Is it considered bad satire if those whom you actually agree with and are meant to see straight through the charade think you're being deadly serious? 😕
[Well there was the possibility that you are no longer really Agerg, but have become possessed.... 😉 ]
Originally posted by karoly aczelI believe the God of the Holy Bible is the only God that was not
Can you even acknowledge ,on some verbal level prefferably, that the god of the bible is not the only idea of god that humans have dreamt up?
dreamed up. The Christian idea of God is the only true idea of
God. I believe all other ideas of God are distortions.
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat a coincidence! Out of all the thousands of gods that have been made up by humans throughout the ages, the religion you were indoctrinated with happens to be the truth 😞
I believe the God of the Holy Bible is the only God that was not
dreamed up. The Christian idea of God is the only true idea of
God. I believe all other ideas of God are distortions.