Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Many, many, times older. It gets real scary when the mind has to accept that the bible is a bunch of old men's stories combined into a book called the bible by the so-called theologians of their day without any science background of today.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Perhaps RL has a timing problem. He believes in Biblical time; that is the earth is young; ten's of thousands years old.

If RL has to accept the slow transition of one species to another he has to accept an old earth. Creationist don't accept an earth billions of years old so if anything happens in evolution it has to happen quickly. A will have to begat B because there in no time in the Creationist world for A to slowly change into B. The period of time these changes occur is, in many instances, older than the Creationist earth.

Actually I'm referencing a very specific problem relating to 'speciation' of critters that sexually reproduce.

That is:

Ya need more than one. Birds and bees, ya know. :wink:

0 Replies

real life wrote:

xingu wrote:
Perhaps RL has a timing problem. He believes in Biblical time; that is the earth is young; ten's of thousands years old.

If RL has to accept the slow transition of one species to another he has to accept an old earth. Creationist don't accept an earth billions of years old so if anything happens in evolution it has to happen quickly. A will have to begat B because there in no time in the Creationist world for A to slowly change into B. The period of time these changes occur is, in many instances, older than the Creationist earth.

Actually I'm referencing a very specific problem relating to 'speciation' of critters that sexually reproduce.

That is:

Ya need more than one. Birds and bees, ya know. :wink:

Than you either don't understand what has been explained to you or you don't want to understand. Speciation does not occur, for example, by having a Homo erectus female giving birth to a Homo sapiens and that Homo sapiens goes around his local area looking for another Homo sapiens to mate with. It takes time to change from one species to another and time is the enemy of Creationist who believe in an earth with a very short life.

Tell a Creationist it may take ten thousand years for a change of species to take place and they will tell you the earth is not that old so such a thing can never happen.

Quote:

BERKELEY - Picky female frogs in a tiny rainforest outpost of Australia have driven the evolution of a new species in 8,000 years or less, according to scientists from the University of Queensland, the University of California, Berkeley, and the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service.

"That's lightning-fast," said co-author Craig Moritz, professor of integrative biology at UC Berkeley and director of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. "To find a recently evolved species like this is exceptional, at least in my experience."

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/10/27_greeneyed.shtml

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Perhaps RL has a timing problem. He believes in Biblical time; that is the earth is young; ten's of thousands years old.

If RL has to accept the slow transition of one species to another he has to accept an old earth. Creationist don't accept an earth billions of years old so if anything happens in evolution it has to happen quickly. A will have to begat B because there in no time in the Creationist world for A to slowly change into B. The period of time these changes occur is, in many instances, older than the Creationist earth.

I'm sure we would hit this snag with RL eventually, but at the moment he is just challenging speciation as a pure logic problem. His logic is mal-formed however, and he refuses to see it. Oh well.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

real life wrote:
xingu wrote:
Perhaps RL has a timing problem. He believes in Biblical time; that is the earth is young; ten's of thousands years old.

If RL has to accept the slow transition of one species to another he has to accept an old earth. Creationist don't accept an earth billions of years old so if anything happens in evolution it has to happen quickly. A will have to begat B because there in no time in the Creationist world for A to slowly change into B. The period of time these changes occur is, in many instances, older than the Creationist earth.

Actually I'm referencing a very specific problem relating to 'speciation' of critters that sexually reproduce.

That is:

Ya need more than one. Birds and bees, ya know. :wink:

......Speciation does not occur, for example, by having a Homo erectus female giving birth to a Homo sapiens and that Homo sapiens goes around his local area looking for another Homo sapiens to mate with. It takes time .......

If a member of species X does not give birth to a member of species Y, then where do the members of species Y come from? Are they changed during mid-life?

0 Replies

RL - Your lack of knowledge is more void than the emptyness of space.

T
K
Only an insult sure, but still a fact.

0 Replies

Yeah, I agree. Facts are facts.

0 Replies

This has all been explained to you in the past. You refuse to believe and understand. Your religion has built a wall around you and you can't see anything outside of it. Your doomed to a lifetime of ignorance.

I should say you have my sympathy but you don't. It's your choice to be ignorant and I'm sure your happy with it.

0 Replies

xingu,

If (as other evolutionists here on A2K have stated) a new species never starts with one member, how do MANY members suddenly appear?

0 Replies

Its fun hearing RL spool a line over and over and believe that hes making a point. According to him, selective breeding by animal fanciers is also impossible.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

......According to him, selective breeding by animal fanciers is also impossible.

Care to show where I've ever made such a claim?

(Reminder: This didn't work for you so well last time, when you claimed that I had endorsed 'microevolution'.) Laughing

0 Replies

So this is where the anti-IDers have snuck off to for a less challenging ride.

0 Replies

hello spendi

how's life across the puddle?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
......According to him, selective breeding by animal fanciers is also impossible.

Care to show where I've ever made such a claim?

(Reminder: This didn't work for you so well last time, when you claimed that I had endorsed 'microevolution'.)

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cat-world.com.au/images/Toyger2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cat-world.com.au/ToygerBP.htm&h=286&w=373&sz=26&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=Zq2lPPCjVyJlEM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=122&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtoyger%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us%26sa%3DN

Let us not forget the Toyger.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Hiya rl-

Not bad. The ladies are getting worse by the minute though. Too much materialism I think.

I read The Americans this week. Quite funny.

Mr Gorer said at the end (1958) that California is creating a new civilisation. Has that come true? A friend of mine did a three week stint there in July. "Total madness" was his verdict and he's a £70K man with BT. He's not quite all there himself mind you.

He said that one of the questions on the entry form was "Are you a terrorist?" He said he wanted to answer Yes but thought he might end up in Cuba despite him looking a bit like W.C. Fields.

0 Replies

California is affectionately known as 'the left coast'. Yeah it's a whole 'nother country.

Quote:

He said that one of the questions on the entry form was "Are you a terrorist?"

Probably will catch a lot of them with that trick question. :wink:

Quote:

The ladies are getting worse by the minute though.

Yeah, good women have always been hard to find. But all you need is 1. Cool

0 Replies

real life wrote:

xingu,

If (as other evolutionists here on A2K have stated) a new species never starts with one member, how do MANY members suddenly appear?

They don't "suddenly" appear you obtuse moron. It's been explained repeatedly. It just can't get past you're mis-wiring.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

So this is where the anti-IDers have snuck off to for a less challenging ride.

Jesus christ, competition has broken out now. RL and spendi, which one is the biggest loser?

0 Replies

Quote:

Care to show where I've ever made such a claim?

Im projecting dupa. Youre inability to understand statistical variance and "when is a speices a species" can leave me with no other option. If you dont wanna see one, then you surely cant see the other.

Unless of course you see how selective breeding can work? Then if thats so, merely apply it to the natural system.

RL, early in your A2k days, you "lectured' as to how microevolution doesnt count as anything Darwinian, its really interbreeding within the Biblical "kinds". Im sure that was you.You always ended with "a fsh is still a fish" or some nonsense like that If you wish to deny having said that , I cant backit up unless I run thriough all this thread, and I dont think Im going to waste my time doing that.

Wilso- spendi who?

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

real life wrote:
xingu,

If (as other evolutionists here on A2K have stated) a new species never starts with one member, how do MANY members suddenly appear?

They don't "suddenly" appear.......

Well, either a species starts with 1 member.........

.......or you suddenly go from 0 to more than 1 (6? 10? 100? ......how many?).

But nobody seems to want to definitely commit to either explanation.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know