• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Search results

  1. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    The ball fell because I dropped it. Same thing. What part of this is giving you trouble? Are you still unclear on the distinction between the observation of evolution and evolutionary theory? Have my explanations of that distinction been unclear? Your comment illuminates exactly how inane...
  2. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    I'm not making any assertions about which organisms evolved from which, or how. I am making the simple, unassailable observation that organisms have changed over time. I.e., they have evolved over time. There's no logical fallacy here. If organisms are different now from what they were in the...
  3. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    No. It's like saying, here's a ball in my hand, and I'm letting go of it, and it's falling. That's evidence of gravity. Let's get our analogies straight. Also, let's get our nomenclature straight. I am not, not not NOT, discussing the theory of evolution here. The theory of evolution is...
  4. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    To prove evolution has happened, you don't even have to go that far. All evolution is (as distinct from the theory of evolution) is the fact that living organisms have changed over time. All you need to do to demonstrate that evolution happens is to show that there were different organisms in...
  5. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    What's "inane" about the observation that since there were creatures in the past which do not exist today, and there are creatures in existence today which did not exist in the past, that evolution must necessarily have happened? What is "inane" is to try to argue, in the face of the above...
  6. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Absolutely, unequivocally false. Just because a particular structure could arise naturally does not in any way, shape, or form falsify the notion that it was created. There would be nothing stopping a creator from creating a flagellum even if it could be shown in step-by-step detail how a...
  7. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    And given their implicit refusal to distinguish between the fact of evolution, and evolutionary theory, I have to think it's intentional duplicity. I don't think they're conflating the two accidentally, especially when the distinction is repeatedly pointed out to them.
  8. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    You don't need any formal qualifications. I have a high school diploma. But you do need to have some familiarity with the basics of the theory, and some understanding of how science works helps, too. Unfortunately, you give no indication of having either an understanding of evolutionary theory...
  9. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Yes. The theory of evolution begins with the observation that all organisms, living and dead, can be sorted into objective nested hierarchies, a phylogenetic tree of ancestors and all of their descendants. From this observation, evolutionary theory proposes that all organisms living and extinct...
  10. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Yes, I am qualified to discuss it. I have a basic layman's understanding of the theory. You clearly do not. Which is why I wonder why you bother trying, without at least familiarizing yourself with what the theory actually says.
  11. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    What is the "it" that you don't think is fact, England? If "it" is "evolution," then evolution is a fact, and you're 100% wrong if you don't think it is. How do I know this? Simple. There were trilobites 300 million years ago, and there are no trilobites today. There are rabbits today, but there...
  12. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Why are you talking about "proof," England? Do you know anything about science? Since when is science about "proof"? Science does not deal in proof. Proof is for logic, mathematics, and alcohol. Not science.
  13. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Then why don't you start here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent
  14. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    What else can it be construed as? Do you have some alternative explanations for organisms like A. lithographica? No? I didn't think so. Want a list of transitional features of A. lithographica? Well here they are. I already told you how long. Have you forgotten already? It's almost four...
  15. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    You still don't get the difference between the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory, do you? How many times am I going to have to explain it to you before you get it? That evolution happens is a fact, as much as that the sun comes up in the morning. The fossil record is absolutely...
  16. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Tell you what: Read this brief summary of the evidence for Macroevolution. When you're finished with it, a few weeks from now, then come back and tell us about how there's no evidence for evolutionary theory. Until then, you have nothing intelligent to say on the topic.
  17. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    So in other words, you have abandoned the claim that there are no transitional fossils. Well, that's progress, anyway. Although as soon as I point out that's what you've admitted, you'll backpedal and claim you've admitted no such thing. First, new species have appeared. Second, you still...
  18. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    Well, perhaps your inebriated state is reason for why you simply cannot be made to understand that fruit-fly experiments are not intended to demonstrate macroevolution. They are intended to study the effects of mutation. Macroevolution cannot be demonstrated in the lab, any more than...
  19. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    So clearly you don't get it, because you cannot make the distinction between 100 years and 275,000 years. You do understand that 275,000 years is much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much...
  20. E

    Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

    If you "get it," then why do you continue to insist that we should be able to see major morphological change in fruit flies in a few decades? If you continue to so insist, then I'll be pretty sure that you do not, in fact, get it. Alternatively, based on your most recent post, I might just...
Top