More proof of evolution: change in one generation.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I'm sorry I just don't see it the way you do.

What would it take to persuade you?

Originally posted by googlefudge
What would it take to persuade you?

Seeing one kind of animal being born from a different kind of animal,
like a bear being born from a lion, would convince me that evolution
is possible and that the Holy Bible is in error on that subject.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Seeing one kind of animal being born from a different kind of animal,
like a bear being born from a lion, would convince me that evolution
is possible and that the Holy Bible is in error on that subject.

actually, if that happened, it would disprove evolution and prove creation.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well, did you read the Barton piece? Who does he say were the founding fathers discussing evolution?

No, I did not read where he states the names of those founding fathers.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Seeing one kind of animal being born from a different kind of animal,
like a bear being born from a lion, would convince me that evolution
is possible and that the Holy Bible is in error on that subject.

Sigh, but that is not what evolution says. As the other response says that would disprove evolution.


Evolution does not claim that any creature has ever given birth to another of a different species.
In fact it says that such a thing is impossible.

If you were to take a picture of your mother, and place it on a shelf, and then behind it a picture of
your maternal grandmother, and then your great grandmother, and so on and son on.
about (I think) 186 million generations, then without at any point two adjacent pictures being from
different species you would have a row of pictures that had you on one end and a fish at the other.

In the mean time it would have gone through various species of (now extinct) apes and monkeys,
then going back to smaller more primitive mammals, including mouse or shrew like creatures... all the
way back till the common ancestor of all vertebrates which was a kind of fish.

There is evidence in abundance for all of this, but you are going to have to read some books on evolution by
evolutionary biologists to hear about it. The ones by people trying to discredit evolution for religious reasons
are lying.

Speciation has actually been witnessed and documented numerous times so the fact that it can and does
happen is a known fact. As are all the other precesses of evolution, facts all.

Evolutionary theory is just the over arching explanatory framework that ties all the observed facts and laws together.

Most Christians have no trouble with evolution because they recognise that genesis is not a literal account of creation.
So accepting evolution as valid does not require giving up your faith in god, just your faith and belief in the literal
truth of the bible.

I of course would be more than happy for you to stop believing in god, but I don't see that ever happening.
But it's not true to say that you have to do that to accept evolution as being true, or that the world is 4.5 billion yrs old
and not 6000. The vast majority of Christians accept evolution and science, and still believe in god.
In fact the success of northern Europe and 'the west' is down largely to the northern protestant religions rejection of the
pope and the embracing of science. Your country was founded by people who believed in science and its power.
If they had been creationists who denied science and its methods the west would long ago have been defeated or overshadowed
by someone who did value science.

To really and truly believe that requires the dismissal of the entirety of science and the scientific method of investigation.

Every civilisation throughout history who has ceased to expand their knowledge or apply scientific principles has fallen, usually
to those that didn't abandon science, sometimes to the barbarian hoards they could no longer stave off.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Sigh, but that is not what evolution says. As the other response says that would disprove evolution.


Evolution does not claim that any creature has ever given birth to another of a different species.
In fact it says that such a thing is impossible.

If you were to take a picture of your mother, and place it on a shelf, and then behind it a pictu t didn't abandon science, sometimes to the barbarian hoards they could no longer stave off.

The books you are referring to have pictures and drawing and I like
those kind of books. I guess I am still like a kid for I like more pictures
and less words. But the problem is the same as other books of fiction.
The pictures can be made to show anything. Most of the pictures are
just drawings of make-believe animals to fill in spots to make it look as
if it changed over time from the fish to the monkey and finally to you.
I just don't believe such things.

P.S. Those so-call Christians you are talking about have blind faith in
almost everything some authority figure tells them. Like those that
believed in the teachings of Jim Jones. Sometimes, it is just a matter
of who gets to them first with the simplest explanation.

Originally posted by Dasa
Why do you come to the defence of violent groups of people?

In 1940 ..........should we have removed the SS Nazis from society?

As has been pointed out already, show me where i've been defending violent groups of people?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Seeing one kind of animal being born from a different kind of animal,
like a bear being born from a lion, would convince me that evolution
is possible and that the Holy Bible is in error on that subject.

WTF?????

You clearly have absolutely no idea of how evolution works? A bear being born from a lion?! Good God man!!!

Go and read a science book Ron, i'd suggest starting with one on what evolution actually does.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
WTF?????

You clearly have absolutely no idea of how evolution works? A bear being born from a lion?! Good God man!!!

Go and read a science book Ron, i'd suggest starting with one on what evolution actually does.

That was just an example you could provide me with another kind that
brought forth a different kind. I am not restricting it to lions and bears.

P.S. A human baby being born from a gorilla would do.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That was just an example you could provide me with another kind that
brought forth a different kind. I am not restricting it to lions and bears.

P.S. A human baby being born from a gorilla would do.

That's is not an example of how evolution works, evolution works by cumulative steps over large periods of time. I suggest you go and read some science books because you are absolutely clueless.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That was just an example you could provide me with another kind that
brought forth a different kind. I am not restricting it to lions and bears.

P.S. A human baby being born from a gorilla would do.

because you evidently didn't read it the first time...

Sigh, but that is not what evolution says. As the other response says that would disprove evolution.


Evolution does not claim that any creature has ever given birth to another of a different species.
In fact it says that such a thing is impossible.

If you were to take a picture of your mother, and place it on a shelf, and then behind it a picture of
your maternal grandmother, and then your great grandmother, and so on and so fourth for
about (I think) 186 million generations, then without at any point two adjacent pictures being from
different species you would have a row of pictures that had you on one end and a fish at the other.

In the mean time it would have gone through various species of (now extinct) apes and monkeys,
then going back to smaller more primitive mammals, including mouse or shrew like creatures... all the
way back till the common ancestor of all vertebrates which was a kind of fish.

There is evidence in abundance for all of this, but you are going to have to read some books on evolution by
evolutionary biologists to hear about it. The ones by people trying to discredit evolution for religious reasons
are lying.

Speciation has actually been witnessed and documented numerous times so the fact that it can and does
happen is a known fact. As are all the other precesses of evolution, facts all.

Evolutionary theory is just the over arching explanatory framework that ties all the observed facts and laws together.


If you can't be bothered to read up on what evolution actually is from actual evolutionary biologists then you will
just have to take our word that what the creationist books you have been reading say about evolution and the evidence
for it are not just wrong, but intentionally so, making them lying and fraudulent. If you want to know what evolution is
about, and you can't argue that you do know because you have made it abundantly clear that you don't with just this
one post let alone all the others, then you are going to have to find out from evolutionary biologists and not creationists.
It's in the creationists vested interests to lie about the truth, to distort and malign evolution and the people who research it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
because you evidently didn't read it the first time...

Sigh, but that is not what evolution says. As the other response says that would disprove evolution.


Evolution does not claim that [b]any creature has ever given birth to another of a different species.
In fact it says that such a thing is impossible.

If you were to take a pict ...[text shortened]... sts to lie about the truth, to distort and malign evolution and the people who research it.[/b]

No, I am not just going to have to take your word that it's in the
creationists vested interests to lie about the truth, to distort and
malign evolution and the people who research it.

Maybe, you should just take my word that it's in the evolutionists
vested interests to lie about the the truth of creation, to distort
and maligh creation and the people who research and believe in it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No, I am not just going to have to take your word that it's in the
creationists vested interests to lie about the truth, to distort and
malign evolution and the people who research it.

Maybe, you should just take my word that it's in the evolutionists
vested interests to lie about the the truth of creation, to distort
and maligh creation and the people who research and believe in it.

because some of us have read both sides of the argument and found that the creationists consistently quotemine, distort the truth and misrepresent evolution theory by creating strawmen arguments and outright lies to mislead their ignorant audience who they know will read nothing else or make any attempt to verify their nonsense; you being a prime example of such an audience.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No, I am not just going to have to take your word that it's in the
creationists vested interests to lie about the truth, to distort and
malign evolution and the people who research it.

Maybe, you should just take my word that it's in the evolutionists
vested interests to lie about the the truth of creation, to distort
and maligh creation and the people who research and believe in it.

There is creation research? What peer reviewed papers have been written? What journals? Show me the research.

I assume they have documents, charts, timelines and such worked out from non-biblical sources.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Seeing one kind of animal being born from a different kind of animal,
like a bear being born from a lion, would convince me that evolution
is possible and that the Holy Bible is in error on that subject.

Actually, if that happened, you would rationalize it away and still believe your programming.