Mr Hinds Penguins

Originally posted by KellyJay
Ostriches don't fly do you call them birds?
Kelly

Some homo sapiens can't can't think, but we still call them homo sapiens!

Originally posted by RJHinds
I like the title Professor in front of my name; but, I must be honest,
I don't have enough education to deserve the title. I only have an
Associate in Arts degree.

Don't you realize the people making up this stuff about evolution
of Penguins over millions of years are not old enough to know
such things. They may be evolutionist, but they do not come ...[text shortened]... So believe what you want. I will
continue to believe in the Book of Truth, the Holy Bible.

Your style of argument reminds me of this timeless thread:
http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=40617&page=1

😵

Originally posted by KellyJay
Ostriches don't fly do you call them birds?
Kelly

An ostrich is a bird, it evolved from a bird that could fly the same as penguins. Penguins though have gone a stage further and adapted to life in the sea.

I see you haven't answered my question in the other thread, i'll put it here as it's more apt. You accept penguins evolved for life in the sea, yet don't accept mammals did. Explain the biological 'walls and restrictions' as you call them that are in place in mammals yet not in penguins.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I like the title Professor in front of my name; but, I must be honest,
I don't have enough education to deserve the title. I only have an
Associate in Arts degree.

Don't you realize the people making up this stuff about evolution
of Penguins over millions of years are not old enough to know
such things. They may be evolutionist, but they do not come ...[text shortened]... So believe what you want. I will
continue to believe in the Book of Truth, the Holy Bible.

Don't you realize the people making up this stuff about evolution of Penguins over millions of years are not old enough to know such things.

[head hits the desk]

No one is old enough to have seen Jesus, no one has ever seen God. What does that prove?? As for 'making it up', could you elaborate on that for me?!

They may be evolutionist, but they do not come about this information using science and the scientific method

Again, could you elaborate on how you know this. Her is a scientific paper peer-reviewed paper on penguin history.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1560011/

Could you go through and show how this isn't science and where the authors of the paper avoid the scientific method. Nice one.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
An ostrich is a bird, it evolved from a bird that could fly the same as penguins. Penguins though have gone a stage further and adapted to life in the sea.

I see you haven't answered my question in the other thread, i'll put it here as it's more apt. You accept penguins evolved for life in the sea, yet don't accept mammals did. Explain the biological ...[text shortened]... walls and restrictions' as you call them that are in place in mammals yet not in penguins.

You must be confusing me with someone else. God made the penguins
and the mammals. There is no evolving.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You must be confusing me with someone else. God made the penguins
and the mammals. There is no evolving.

That answer from me was in reply to Mr Jay's question, it's you who is confused Mr Hinds.

The post two posts above this is directed for you.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Don't you realize the people making up this stuff about evolution of Penguins over millions of years are not old enough to know such things.

[head hits the desk]

No one is old enough to have seen Jesus, no one has ever seen God. What does that prove?? As for 'making it up', could you elaborate on that for me?!

They may be evolutionist, ...[text shortened]... this isn't science and where the authors of the paper avoid the scientific method. Nice one.

Yes there were eyewitnesses to Jesus. They wrote about Him,
testifying to what He did and said and who He said it to.
Jesus was the Son of God proving God exists to us all.
There was no eyewitnesses to the evolution of penguins
because it never happened. They make up fairy tale stories
about the penguin to explain things they don't understand.

As for the paper to explain the restrictions of Penguins to
a geographical area, which as long puzzled biogeographers,
they admit there were uncertainties. So they state that this
or that is likely or unlikely or inferred by using approximations
and assumptions to suppose the result they want and then
declare the matter explained. This is not the scientific method
I learned in school. We needed exact and accurate information;
no approximations, uncertainties, or assumptions were allowed.
Because to assume something made an ass out of u and me.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is not the scientific method I learned in school. We needed exact and accurate information;
no approximations, uncertainties, or assumptions were allowed.
Because to assume something made an ass out of u and me.

You went to a bad school. I suggest that you realize that you were not taught science properly and either accept that you don't understand science (and refrain from making claims as if you do) or try to learn what science really is.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes there were eyewitnesses to Jesus. They wrote about Him,
testifying to what He did and said and who He said it to.
Jesus was the Son of God proving God exists to us all.
There was no eyewitnesses to the evolution of penguins
because it never happened. They make up fairy tale stories
about the penguin to explain things they don't understand.

As ...[text shortened]... ainties, or assumptions were allowed.
Because to assume something made an ass out of u and me.

Your just utterly clueless aren't you?! I'll remind you of a couple of your statements in another thread -

I am not a scientist so I will have to take their word for it......

and

Like I said I am not a scientist or biologist so I don't know for sure.

Now your dictating what the scientific method is. Do you see the absurdity in these two positions of yours?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
An ostrich is a bird, it evolved from a bird that could fly the same as penguins. Penguins though have gone a stage further and adapted to life in the sea.

I see you haven't answered my question in the other thread, i'll put it here as it's more apt. You accept penguins evolved for life in the sea, yet don't accept mammals did. Explain the biological ...[text shortened]... walls and restrictions' as you call them that are in place in mammals yet not in penguins.

The restrictions are that only those of the same kind will produce off spring at
least that is how it is defined in scripture, and I believe I have told you that
before. With respect to saying what did or did not evolve from what I do not
know, but can guess what came from what.
Kelly

Originally posted by Agerg
Your style of argument reminds me of this timeless thread:
http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=40617&page=1

😵

landoverbaptist church is the only ture church and its members the only true christians

Originally posted by KellyJay
The restrictions are that only those of the same kind will produce off spring at
least that is how it is defined in scripture, and I believe I have told you that
before. With respect to saying what did or did not evolve from what I do not
know, but can guess what came from what.
Kelly

So how come penguins evolved for life in the sea yet mammals cannot. Why can one happen and not the other, what 'restrictions' are in place in mammals?

Also, do you think your 'guesswork' is on a par with geneticists work on evolution?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Your just utterly clueless aren't you?! I'll remind you of a couple of your statements in another thread -

I am not a scientist so I will have to take their word for it......

and

Like I said I am not a scientist or biologist so I don't know for sure.

Now your dictating what the scientific method is. Do you see the absurdity in these two positions of yours?

Yes, I made those statements within a context. But I also took
and passed my science classes in school where we were required
to do experiments using the scientific method. To make sure
I remembered correctly, I looked it up on wikipedia.

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating
phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating
previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry
must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable
evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford
English Dictionary says that scientific method is:
"a method of procedure that has characterized natural science
since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation,
measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing,
and modification of hypotheses."

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another,
identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods
of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses
as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to
test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict
future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry
may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a
coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form
new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible,
to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation
is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they
are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the
opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This
practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the
reliability of these data to be established.

I still do not think the scientist that produced that paper did a very
strick job of following the scientific method as stated above, even
though it is more liberal than I remembered it.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That answer from me was in reply to Mr Jay's question, it's you who is confused Mr Hinds.

The post two posts above this is directed for you.

Sorry for butting in, I thought you were still talking to me.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, I made those statements within a context. But I also took
and passed my science classes in school where we were required
to do experiments using the scientific method. To make sure
I remembered correctly, I looked it up on wikipedia.

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating
phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correc ...[text shortened]... g the scientific method as stated above, even
though it is more liberal than I remembered it.

Explain to me how the method used in the paper i listed above doesn't fit the 'scientific method'.