Originally posted by Proper KnobMaybe, I am pretty arrogant to even suggest that these other
The difference between you and me is that i have read books on evolutionary biology and have a rudimentary understanding of how evolution by natural selection works. You on the other hand have read nothing on the subject and continue to display a shocking understanding of the basic concepts of how evolution works. Added to that you make up your own defin ...[text shortened]...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arrogance
Explain to me how that doesn't fit.
arrogant people who have read more books than me can dig
up a bone and state it is 2 million years old are wrong, wrong,
wrong, and wrong.
Originally posted by RJHindsI do not have a religion. Atheism isn't a religion. Evolution is simply a part of science to me. It was taught to me in school and by my family and from science books. I grew up in a predominantly Christian country and all my family are Christian. I see no connection between evolution and atheism. Evolution is science.
Evolution has become part of your religion as an atheist.
If evolution is such a well defined term, then why does it have
different meanings to so many different people.
I wasn't aware that it did. It has one meaning to scientist and most other people. A few creationists like you give it other meanings because it suits your religion to do so. You see deliberately misunderstanding science as a way to argue against what you see as a threat to your beliefs.
Also what is this definition that all agree with and what is your source.
Evolution is the change of life over time. It has been discovered that this change takes place because of mutations, gene transfer and a number of other mechanisms, and the change is guided by environmental pressures in a process usually refereed to as natural selection. However I must note that even breeding carried out by man is evolution.
My source is my knowledge of Biology.
Maybe, you are making it up as you go along. Do Penguins mate with Pigeons?
If not they are different "kinds" of birds.
That's not what you said in your definition. You seem to at one moment not know what a kind is, and at another, be very sure what it is.
You said: two animals that can mate are therefore one 'kind'.
You did not include: two animals that cant mate are therefore different 'kinds'.
Are you now adding that to your definition or not?
Do you say a "canine" is a "species" or a "kind"?
Canine is not a species. Whether it is a kind or not I don't know, and unless you answer my question above. If you have added the new clause, then 'canine' is not a kind.
What is it? Do you know that a horse is the same "kind" as a lion, or is that a guess?
It is not a guess, nor something I know. It is a question I posed to you to get a better understanding of what a 'kind' is and whether your claims regarding it are based on knowledge or whether you are just guessing all the time.
Originally posted by RJHindsHow exactly is someone who uses the laws of nature to date something 'arrogant'?
Maybe, I am pretty arrogant to even suggest that these other
arrogant people who have read more books than me can dig
up a bone and state it is 2 million years old are wrong, wrong,
wrong, and wrong.
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat if they don't 'state' that it is two million years old, but rather just point out that the chemical signatures in the bone indicate that it is highly likely that it is 2 million years old?
Maybe, I am pretty arrogant to even suggest that these other
arrogant people who have read more books than me can dig
up a bone and state it is 2 million years old are wrong, wrong,
wrong, and wrong.
What if there are several different ways of estimating ages that depend on different independent factors and they all indicate that it is 2 million years old?
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf all your family are Christian, they must feel very sorry for you.
I do not have a religion. Atheism isn't a religion. Evolution is simply a part of science to me. It was taught to me in school and by my family and from science books. I grew up in a predominantly Christian country and all my family are Christian. I see no connection between evolution and atheism. Evolution is science.
[b]If evolution is such a well de ...[text shortened]... g it are based on knowledge or whether you are just guessing all the time.
Evolution is science? I am sure it is at least part of a religion.
A false religion, like atheism and evolution is no threat to the
truth. The truth will always prevail in the end. Perhaps your
knowledge of biology is a bit lacking since you think penguins
mate with pigeons. I have always been sure of what a "kind"
is, but you keep wanting to have it explained to you because
you can not understand what a "kind" is. I have said many
time that "canine" is a "kind". That was the main example I
gave when defining a "kind" a long time ago. It should be
obvious to you that a horse is a differnt kind than a lion if you
really understood biology. You apparently don't know the
difference between knowledge and guessing.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat if? What if? What if?
What if they don't 'state' that it is two million years old, but rather just point out that the chemical signatures in the bone indicate that it is highly likely that it is 2 million years old?
What if there are several different ways of estimating ages that depend on different independent factors and they all indicate that it is 2 million years old?
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsHang on a minute. How can a canine be a kind when they can't all interbreed? Your definition of a 'kind' were animals that could reproduce together, those that couldn't were not in that 'kind'. It's been explained to you now more than once that not all canines can interbreed. Yet still you keep repeating this flaw in your 'kind' scenario.
If all your family are Christian, they must feel very sorry for you.
Evolution is science? I am sure it is at least part of a religion.
A false religion, like atheism and evolution is no threat to the
truth. The truth will always prevail in the end. Perhaps your
knowledge of biology is a bit lacking since you think penguins
mate with pigeons. I have d biology. You apparently don't know the
difference between knowledge and guessing.
Again, atheism does not equate with evolution. There are millions, if not hundreds of millions of people, worldwide who believe in God and accept evolution. I have told you this at least four times now, why do you keep repeating this when you know it is incorrect?
Do you accept people can believe in God and accept evolution as the reason for the diversification of life on this planet?