[lobrobster]

The question is thousands of years from now IF humans are extinct, and IF another INTELLIGENT life form comes along and finds fossils of Great Danes and Chihuahuas, will they think that evolution produced these breeds? :)

You're probably joking around, but this is an incredibly excellent point! It shows just how hard it can be to discern exactly what has happened in the past just through fossils. Fortunately, fossils play only a minor role in evolutionary theory.

[Credendovidis]

... It shows just how hard it can be to discern exactly what has happened in the past ....

Well : of course we also know through papers and stories from the past what the capabilities were of people around 2.000, 4.000, 10.000, or 100.000 years ago.
The smarter humanity gets through evolution, the bigger influence that will have on future developments. From what we know from the past, humanity never reached the levels of today ever in the past. So that problem is irrelevant for the findings of today, but indeed will be a problem of "tomorrow"!

Good point from inthebox, excellent reaction by yourself !

:rolleyes:

·

[inthebox]

The smarter humanity gets through evolution,
:rolleyes:

·

Explain this sentence please.

Explain to children why they should go to school to learn and get an education if what you posted is true. ;)

[inthebox]

You're probably joking around, but this is an incredibly excellent point! It shows just how hard it can be to discern exactly what has happened in the past just through fossils.

Exactly, my point fossils do not necessarily confirm evolutionary theory.

Fortunately, fossils play only a minor role in evolutionary theory.

An admission of the incompleteness of the "fossil record" to support evolutionary theory? ;)

[lobrobster]

Exactly, my point fossils do not necessarily confirm evolutionary theory.

They don't confirm everything about evolutionary theory. There are gaps. We know this. Scientists fully admit to not having all the answers (unlike Creationists who claim to know things no human being could possibly know). But that doesn't change the fact that fossils still fit neatly within the framework of the theory.

An admission of the incompleteness of the "fossil record" to support evolutionary theory? ;)

Do you know what it takes for an organism to fossilize? We are incredibly fortunate to have ANY fossils at all. But the point is, that even if there weren't a single fossil, the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming.

[WVHiflyer]

I think we have to be careful with our wording here for people who really have little to no grasp of how evolution works. Otherwise, you'll get questions like, 'how come evolution hasn't produced a Great Dane?'.

It is not just a matter of man being able to reduce the time it takes to produce varying characteristics and traits, but also a difference between artificial selection and natural selection....
So artificial selection is quite a bit different than natural selection in this way. I don't mean to be a nit, but it's an important distinction, especially for those with little understanding of how evolution works to begin with. To even ask the question, 'why hasn't evolution produced a chihuahua?', shows an astounding ignorance on the subject.

That's the idea when I posted a response to Sass when she used decades of e. coli research as evidence of no macro evo. At this point, we don't know if any wild e.coli have evolved into something other than a bacteria. But in the lab, it's all artificial selection just like with animal husbandry.



-

[Credendovidis]

Explain this sentence please. Explain to children why they should go to school to learn and get an education if what you posted is true.

Ok : I'll explain it once more on your level...

"The smarter humanity gets through evolution, the bigger influence that will have on future developments. From what we know from the past, humanity never reached the levels of today ever in the past. So that problem is irrelevant for the findings of today, but indeed will be a problem of "tomorrow"!"

The smarter humanity gets, the more it will change it's natural habitat. And seeing global warming that will not always be for the better!
In the future results of that higher intellect will result in loads of items and effects that are not natural and therefore may - much later - confuse archaeological findings into incorrect conclusions.

Over the last 8.000 years mankind developed agriculture, changing our animal lifestyle of hunting apes for ever.
Only for the last thousand years or so mankind has added to nature's trove of research via selection and breeding.
Only for the last 50 years DNA research has allowed mankind to actively change part of natural evolution developments.

This is a new situation, and it's effect will increase with time and intellect. At present we base our conclusions on findings that are mainly natural based, not yet influenced by mankind. But in the future it will more and more difficult to see what was natural, and what was human developed.

Two examples : Internet is a blessing for distribution of knowledge and other information. But computer viruses distributed over the Internet are not.

DNA research is a blessing for those with genetic based / caused diseases. But for future research our current DNA experiments may cause all kinds of confusion on the origin of these changes.

===

Children should go to school to learn as much as possible within their capacities and capabilities. But that does not mean that the increase of that knowledge is in all aspects of life always a positive. It can also be a cause for problems, problems like I pointed out before.

:rolleyes:

·

[achampio21]

[QUOTE=sassyT]

The bible also does not specifically mention kangaroos, but that does not mean it loses its credibility because of it.
So to say the Bible is not credible because it does not mention a particular animal is an invalid supposition.
Besides the Bible does describe animals with a tails as large as a cedar tree which is very consistent with what we know of dinosaurs today.

We have been over that before, the bible could very well be making reference to crocodiles not dinosaurs.

I know you hate Christians but I think you are going over board with your hate speech. I would put you in the same category with hateful people like the KKK nazis etc. with this kind of speech.
I don't believe in Hindu teaching but I would never tell Hindus that their teaching is Bull Sh*t.
I think that is a very hateful thing to say about another person's Beliefs.
I really think you should be ashamed of that.

Funny thing about you SassyT. You claim to know that I hate christians. I have never said that. And if you think you KNOW so much please show me the post where I stated that I hate christians.

And if you would read my post, you will see that it says "could that maybe mean" I am not saying it is BS I am simply arguing that the fact that the bible doesn't state certain things that science has proven could show that it is not 100% accurate. Besides, I said the bible may be BS not the christian beliefs. Get it right.

Please do not make false claims that you have no proof to back up. I would be ashamed of myself if I posted a claim that harsh that wasn't true.

[achampio21]

How about this one for you...

If evolution isn't real, then that would mean that the earth was developed, I mean appeared, just as it is now. Because you can't say that God made the earth with all of the continents touching and all of the animals had free reign over every part, and then it broke apart and those animals didn't ADAPT/EVOLVE to live in the NEW earth.

And where is the garden of Eden? Why is it hidden, why doesn't the bible tell everyone where it is? Is it simply coincidence that scientist haven't found EVIDENCE of the Garden of Eden? But they have found evidence of dinosaurs and other animals not in the bible?

What of the cavemen I brought up earlier? How come they weren't smart enough to write god's word down? But 100's of years later man decides to write the bible, and it doesn't mention the invention of the wheel, cavemen, or anything that was before the bible came along.





You know what, never mind.. Why argue. Those that do not have the desire to know will always refuse to learn.

That is my quote for the day. From yours truly. 52 pages into this and we are still arguing the same crap. And now I am being compared to a group of idiots like the KKK by someone who has degraded every single person on this thread that doesn't think like her. Whatever.

AND SASSYT.. I just want to say you seem to be more in the classification of KKK. EXTREMELY simple minded people that refuse to believe any other way but the way their leaders tell them to believe. Good luck with that.

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

It is all over the place Sassy if you want to study it, instead of spending all your energy denying it exists. Did you know that there are snakes that have remnants of a hip bone?

The so called "hip bones" are not vestigal. The pelvic bone serves as an anchor for certain muscles, and the hind limbs are used during mating and serve to grasp during locomotion in certain species of snakes. A vesitgal is just a name given to a organ with an unknown function. Instead of doing work to see what their function is, Dawinists jump to the conclusion that it is evidence for macro evolution. If snakes and lizards had a common anscetor we should see plenty of nice neat transistionals. What do we find in the fossil record? Distinct lizards and distinct snakes and zero intermediates. Just like every other group that supposedly shares a common anscetor.

We see birds with feathers that no longer fly.

Again this is Micro evolution because the bird is still a bird even though it does not fly

We have found fossils that show nostrils moving up and back into the skull and merging as a single blow hole to show that dolphins and whales were once land creatures.

There is no evidence that these are in fact transitional form. Darwinists fail to make the distinction between "transitional forms" and extinct lineages.
Dawinists have determined whales were once land animals based on the Andrewsarchus fossil which is said to be a relative of the actual ancestor. Andrewsarchus is a terrifying wolf–like creature, with a large head and fierce teeth. All these "inferences" were made from one skull!. lol please if you are going to claim a wale evolved from wolf like creature, you are going to have to give more evidence than a 90–centimetre scull. :rolleyes:

We see that mole rats and bats have lost much of their sight as they moved into environments that have little use for sight.

Again micro evolution.. adaptation to new environment.

Just as you cannot actually see the earth orbit the sun in real time, neither can you observe evolution occur in real time. Nor should you expect to. I am not a scientist OR a biologist, so I'm certainly not qualified to teach or present the best evidence to convince you. Go to talkorigins.com if you really want to learn more about macro evolution.

How could they Sassy? We are talking time spans of MILLIONS OF YEARS! Why would you expect humans to have observed this? You're being completely unreasonable.

Lol Fossil evidence... If evolution were true we should have millions of these imaginary transitional creatures in fossil record. However when fossils are found they are always fully fuctional with evidence of transitional ancestors.

It is not a leap of faith at all. It is logical conjecture based on overwhelming evidence. Evidence that you simply refuse to acknowledge, because it can't be shown in real time. At least I guess that's your reason.

You see this where you and I don't see eye to eye. You claim macro evolution is FACT and then in the same breath you admit it is a theory based on conjectures. Well lets see what conjecture really means.

con·jec·ture (kən-jĕk'chər)
n.
Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.
A statement, opinion, or conclusion based on guesswork

So you admit the theory depends upon some conjectures but you find it amazing that I don't believe it is FACT.
So you want me to believe a theory based on GUESS WORK to be TRUTH?. lol

I am not refusing to acknowledge the so called evidence, I am scientifically refuting it.

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

They don't confirm everything about evolutionary theory. There are gaps. We know this. Scientists fully admit to not having all the answers (unlike Creationists who claim to know things no human being could possibly know). But that doesn't change the fact that fossils still fit neatly within the framework of the theory.

Fossil evidence actually refutes Macro evo. Darwinists are the ones who despirately try to force the fossil evidence into the framework of the theory using their "conjectures" i.e guess work.

Do you know what it takes for an organism to fossilize? We are incredibly fortunate to have ANY fossils at all. But the point is, that even if there weren't a single fossil, the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming.

How convenient for you.. lol
Out of the "few" fossils we have none of them have irrefutably proved macro evolution. Dawinists have fail to make a distinction between "transitionals" and extinct lineages.

[sassyT]

[QUOTE]

But you insist evolutionists are 'believers' and you denegrate them every chance you get. How Christian of you.

There is nothing degrading about referring to Darwinists as "believers" in the theory of evolution. That is reality. MACRO evolution is a THEORY that has not been proven factual. So if you claim it is fact despite the fact that it is not a proven irrefutable fact, then I am accurate in saying you BELIEVE or have FAITH in the theory.
Sorry if that offends you but that is reality.

[achampio21]

[QUOTE=sassyT]

There is nothing degrading about referring to Darwinists as "believers" in the theory of evolution. That is reality. MACRO evolution is a THEORY that has not been proven factual. So if you claim it is fact despite the fact that it is not a proven irrefutable fact, then I am accurate in saying you BELIEVE or have FAITH in the theory.
Sorry if that offends you but that is reality.

Lets go over this one more time...

Faith(n): (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

Belief(n): a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

So with that said, AGAIN, darwinist do NOT BELIEVE IN OR HAVE FAITH IN ANYTHING!! So therefore you calling them believers would be the same as calling a christian an atheist. It is not true so it would be considered degrading. And here is one more definition for you...

Reality(n): : in actual fact

Fact(n): a proven truth

Something is not reality unless it is a proven fact. Webster says so. So do not make false claims.


( sorry, I couldn't bite it hard enough!! :p )

[sassyT]

Lets go over this one more time...

Faith(n): (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

Belief(n): a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing

So with that said, AGAIN, darwinist do NOT BELIEVE IN OR HAVE FAITH IN ANYTHING!! So therefore you calling them believers would be the same as calling a christian an atheist. It is not true so it would be considered degrading. And here is one more definition for you...

again faith does not pertain to God only. There are 6 definitions of Faith four of which do not relate to God/dieties.



faith


faith (fāth)
n.
1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

So people who claim something that has not been proven have FAITH.

Reality(n): : in actual fact

Fact(n): a proven truth

The theory of Macro evolution is niether of these. :)

[achampio21]

again faith does not pertain to God only. There are 6 definitions of Faith four of which do not relate to God/dieties.



faith


faith (fāth)
n.
1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

So people who claim something that has not been proven have FAITH.

Where does it say that people who claim something that has not been proven have faith?
Did you read all 6. because I don't see that anywhere in there.

Hmmm, not sure why you high-lighted #2, because "darwinist" use logical proof and material evidence to back up their ideas. So in all truth you just shot your own statement out of the water.




The theory of Macro evolution is niether of these. :)[/QUOTE]

Um, I was referring to you calling "darwinist" "believers". No where in my post did I even refer to macro evolution. So again, please read the WHOLE post before you give a response.

[sassyT]

AND SASSYT.. I just want to say you seem to be more in the classification of KKK. EXTREMELY simple minded people that refuse to believe any other way but the way their leaders tell them to believe. Good luck with that.

Like wise you believe in Darwinism because that is what Darwinists tell you to believe. So why does it bother you that I have different beliefs?

[achampio21]

Like wise you believe in Darwinism because that is what Darwinists tell you to believe. So why does it bother you that i have different beliefs?

Hmmm, again where did I ever say I believed in darwinism? Give me the post #.

I am done arguing with you. All you keep doing is taking people's posts and turning them inside out and reposting them to say what you BELIEVED they said and responding to only the one's you choose to resepond to but expecting everyone to respond to ALL of yours.

Futile attempts. I am bored with this debate.

I think I will go pray for you.

[sassyT]

[

QUOTE=achampio21]Where does it say that people who claim something that has not been proven have faith?
Did you read all 6. because I don't see that anywhere in there.

Hmmm, not sure why you high-lighted #2, because "darwinist" use logical proof and material evidence to back up their ideas. So in all truth you just shot your own statement out of the water.

1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

There is no evidence for MACRO evolution, there is however evidence for MICRO evolution. So those who believe Macro to be truth despite lack of evidence have Faith.

[sassyT]

Hmmm, again where did I ever say I believed in darwinism? give me the post #.

.

Oh I'm sorry, I got the impression that you the theory of evolution considering your were becoming highly defensive about it. I appologise for that misconception.
So you Don't believe in Darwinism?

[achampio21]

I BELIEVE in God. But I think that "evolution" may have poss occurred throughout our history.

Thank you for apology. That was nice.

Do you really not think we evolved at all?