Evolution? How?

How can anybody shoot a bear unless it's rifling the fridge and eyeing up your squeeze.?

0 Replies

As with most large critters, you try to place your shot in the center of the chest mass. If its a really big bear, you should plan on placing 2 shots as rapidly as you can work the rifle's action and maintain accuracy (not as hard as it sounds - the range for the second shot, if needed, likely will be considerably less than for the first). Its important to remain calm and focussed. Just take your time, lay the crosshairs, inhale deeply, snug the rifle tight against your shoulder, exhale, and gently, slowly, smoothly squeeze the trigger.

0 Replies

Somehow I suspect that is not the answer spendius was looking for.

0 Replies

Clearly, bears that riffle through fridges and eye up squeezes are less likely to survive and pass their hungry lustful genes on.

For their own bad habits, I guess they have only to blame their forebears.

0 Replies

Stumbled across a good visual timeline of prehistoric events, and thought it might inflame RL, so I had to post it Wink

0 Replies

A few pages of good discussion of speciation and some goofy bear bullshit, all without religionist drivel . . . how did we ever get so lucky . . .

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Stumbled across a good visual timeline of prehistoric events, and thought it might inflame RL, so I had to post it

Thanks, Ros. I did get a few laughs out of it. Especially heart warming was the way that matters of speculative inference are intoned with an air of absolute certainty. Laughing

0 Replies

rl,weve been taking graphics lessons from the Creationist's , however, were still stuck with all this damned pesky evidence.

Speculation still beats out mythology when it comes to science. Our discussions on bears could be considered speculation , but, it has, at all levels, evidence that can be interepreted many ways.

Its gotta be tough for you, being stuck back in the 17th century when all about you are mounds and mounds of evidence for evolutionary descent.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Stumbled across a good visual timeline of prehistoric events, and thought it might inflame RL, so I had to post it

Thanks, Ros. I did get a few laughs out of it. Especially heart warming was the way that matters of speculative inference are intoned with an air of absolute certainty.

No problem RL, I thought you would like it. Smile

0 Replies

rl
Is there a site that presents the Creationist model without it primarily being an attempt to discredit science and evolution? In other words, is there a place that presents what you believe clearly and scholarly?

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

In other words, is there a place that presents what you believe clearly and scholarly?

Have you not been reading my posts?

Quote:

Its gotta be tough for you, being stuck back in the 17th century when all about you are mounds and mounds of evidence for evolutionary descent.

The main evidence is that religion's evolutionary descent is us lot.None of the other evidence was ever considered before us.

Do you really believe we could have got to here with no religion.Religion evolves too.It is you fm who are stuck arguing in the 17th century with 21st century hindsight.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

.......... it has....evidence that can be interepreted many ways.............

Just what I've been saying all along. Very Happy

farmerman wrote:

Is there a site that presents the Creationist model without it primarily being an attempt to discredit science and evolution? In other words, is there a place that presents what you believe clearly and scholarly?

I know you won't believe this, but I really don't spend a lot of time on Creationist websites, so I really couldn't say if there is or not. As I mentioned a few months ago, there's a new baby at our house (well 5 months old now) and that keeps me pretty busy. I really do have a life apart from A2K.

You are familiar with many of the major creationist groups, AIG, Reasons to Believe, ICR, etc so you have probably followed the links on their sites and are as familiar or more than I with what they are saying.

I do know , as you doubtless know also, that there is quite a variety of opinion among creationist/IDers so 'one site' probably isn't going to tell you what they all believe.

You ask about not attempting to discredit evolution. A lot of creationists are heavily anti-evolution, and that's probably unavoidable. And come to think of it, why should it be avoided? A lot of evolutionists spend a lot of time talking down creation/ID as well. I guess it's natural to compare your view with opposing views and it's not really a bad thing.

But discrediting evolution and discrediting science are not the same thing at all, although I'm sure you think it is. But that brings us full circle for this post.

farmerman wrote:

.......... it has....evidence that can be interepreted many ways.............

Just what I've been saying all along. Very Happy

Have a good day, my friend. I'm off to a theatre production of the life of Amelia Earhart.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

You ask about not attempting to discredit evolution. A lot of creationists are heavily anti-evolution, and that's probably unavoidable. And come to think of it, why should it be avoided? A lot of evolutionists spend a lot of time talking down creation/ID as well. I guess it's natural to compare your view with opposing views and it's not really a bad thing.

Perhaps, but Evolution supporters have plenty of other arguments besides talking down Creationism/IDism. All Creationists and IDers can do is talk down the other side.

Quote:

But discrediting evolution and discrediting science are not the same thing at all, although I'm sure you think it is. But that brings us full circle for this post.

Ah, but since evolution is accepted by the majority of the scientific community, you are discrediting the scientific process. After all, if it weren't for the

Quote:

Have a good day, my friend. I'm off to a theatre production of the life of Amelia Earhart.

Really? I can't imagine that having a really good ending, what with her disappearing at all.

0 Replies

spendius, that comment was directed to real life.
r

RL interpretation has got to be based upon something that is at least testable or give a clue where observations can fill in gaps.
BTW, Ive not found any Creationist/ID sites dont begin with referring to a Creation /Evolution controversy. Most all the sites on science (with the exception of talk origins) devote their time to actual data and discovery, they pretty much ignore Creationism. Its irrelevant to someones work.

When you make a comment that the data that science uncovers is open to (even)Creationist interpretations, I challenge you to give such an example.

I know, I dont have much of a life but, since much of this IS my job, I have a place to play and work(when I feel up to it). You should be so lucky

Wolf-people went to see Titanic in droves, yet they knew the ending didnt turn out so well.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

RL interpretation has got to be based upon something that is at least testable or give a clue where observations can fill in gaps................

When you make a comment that the data that science uncovers is open to (even)Creationist interpretations, I challenge you to give such an example.

A great example is the bears we have just been discussing. My question was 'Isn't it possible that the so-called intermediates between the brown bears and the polars which 'evolved from the brown bears' are actually just examples of the results of interbreeding between 2 kinds of bears that have both existed all along?'

Of course the answer is yes, they could be.

0 Replies

Who cares about bears.If we all decided to fire the latest gizmo penis substitute into their chests with a slow smooth squeeze of the finger there wouldn't be any flipping bears.The only reason there are bears is that only a few of us need to do that sort of thing and bears have evolved so they can breed fast enough to keep up with the demand.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
But discrediting evolution and discrediting science are not the same thing at all, although I'm sure you think it is. But that brings us full circle for this post.

Ah, but since evolution is accepted by the majority of the scientific community, you are discrediting the scientific process. After all, if it weren't for the

If every time a scientist goes against prevailing scientific opinion he somehow becomes therefore antagonistic to the the scientific process itself--- then you have impugned a large number of mainstream scientists, and quite a few famous inventors who didn't accept the scientific consensus that was common in their day.

0 Replies

rl, as you see, I never took issue with "interbreeding" . It goes along with evolution. You state that the bears "existed" all along, and how did they get so placed as to be exactly adapted to such temporary environmnets as the polar north? How come no polar bears in the South Pole? Youre now talking "special creation" of two species (or more when it comes to bears) What about all the other finely adapted animals?

We argued from transitional evidence, there are polar bear fossils in places like Baffin Island, and they show that, as recent as 30K years , many of the morphological features that distinguish polar bears (nares, large canids, larger
"paddle" paws) werent fully developed so maybe there was some interbreedin goin on and speciation was occuring as the climate of the last Ice Age maximum was slowly warming and open water was becoming more common. (we have other evidence on the climate such as Ice cores that show the temperature moderating

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

rl, as you see, I never took issue with "interbreeding" . It goes along with evolution.

Yeah I know. As I mentioned, I thought an evolutionist would, by definition, believe that two groups of critters that were diverging did interbreed for a period of time. I was surprised that some on the evolutionary side didn't seem to see that the theory practically demands it.

My position simply is, since interbreeding is the simplest explanation for so-called transitionals between browns and polars, there is really no need for anything else to have occurred to cause their existence.

farmerman wrote:

What about all the other finely adapted animals?

What about them? It is perfectly consistent with creation that an animal would be designed so as to thrive in the environment in which it lives.

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

My position simply is, since interbreeding is the simplest explanation for so-called transitionals between browns and polars, there is really no need for anything else to have occurred to cause their existence.

,Interbreeding in this case implies that there are diverging species that evidence shows have arisen from a single species , and these diverging species can be seen in a fossil record . We know that these species are now sexually isolated. They dont interbreed naturally any longer and they occupy different niches.

I can easily explain how multispecies got here by gradual divergence due to adaptation. You require special creation that never ends. Your way of thinking is like taking photographs of life every twenty years or so and saying that " heres an example of creation in action " whenever a new species appears . Its a nice try but your "theory" doesnt handle time well, and it ignores the fact that environmental conditions are always in flux so major adaptation to a changing environment , while a normal occurence in evolution, , your position totally ignores the evidence available from a particular fossil record. This evidence is quite compelling , since polar bear morphology gradually follows adaptive radiation as the species emerges to become well adapted to living on ice floes. You would want us to ignore the many fossils that show some gradual changes and the small differences in the genomes that , although minor, are, significant enough to record a million year journey of change. Now, as the environment is changing ever more quickly in an interglacial stage, thepolar bears may not be fully adapted to a total marine environment as the polar ice cap diminishes. Given another million years of interglacial conditions, perhaps the polar bear will fully disappears, or evolve into a full time marine animal

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know