-
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!
A Disproof of Evolution Disprovers
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
You undoubtedly are aware that I chose this particular example because of the obvious heritability of polydactyly. In my view, that poses a pretty serious problem for those who suggest that there must have been a first polydactyl person -- and yet even those who are polydactyl do not always produce polydactyl offspring -- while those five-finger offspring can certainly produce another six-fingered member of the clan!
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
Maybe not the word "needed" but look back at post 188.For any specific set of genes there was ONE individual that had those traits. YOUR words. For the specific set of genes that define Macropus Giganteus there was ONE individual that had those traits. That was the first Macropus Giganteus. Now explain it to all the others who do not see it. And I accept your apology.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is too bad that you did not understand that post. The fact that the offspring of such an individual would not have all of those necessary traits refutes the definition. Cladistics outranks poor definitions. If the definition of "first kangaroo" does not have children that are kangaroos that would violate cladistics. It means that the problem is in the definition.
Once again, evolution deals with populations, not individuals. There really cannot be "fist kangaroo. You are attempting to misuse labels. The label is not the thing.
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
And you are trying to back out of what you said. I am not talking about parents or offspring. There was an individual that had the genes of Macropus Giganyeus. It was the first. If you stop trying to prove someone wrong maybe you will see. It has nothing to do with evolutions or populations or offspring. If you cannot see that there was an animal that had the genes of Macropus Giganteus before any other animal had those genes then there is nothing left to say.
I've told you 6 times what YOU CAN'T SEE -- and you've ignored every one of them.
Therefore, I do believe it only sensible that I should now ignore you. I've tried to be nice, and to explain -- but you are a waste of my time, since learning the facts about evolution is the very last thing that you intend to do.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Every individual Macropus giganteus has a different genome and every individual has some mutations, hence the phrase "had the genes of Macropus giganteus" is not something you can be completely exact about.
This really isn't hard. You are trying to apply an argument that would be appropriate if evolution proceeded in neat, large changes, but it doesn't.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
O earth a stone planet.
Heavens hot gases that cooled in a vacuum.
Life dead.
Not the past. Just dead.
Gases same atmosphere cooler due to ice mass.
Notified variation. Newly born ice. Every year newly born ice. A science teaching stable earth state. Ice mountains.
Law mountain.
Law mountain hit by UFO radiation ark a stone converter.
A mountain one body becomes owner of a disintegrated pile of dust at its feet mountain. Two forms.
False science machination temple pyramid fake mountain.
Atmosphere plus living life the present.
No status past. Status destroyed or dead.
Present correct status.
Age counted as an alight gas burning heavens with O earth moving one cycle counted only by human around the sun.
Life continuance sex.
Ignored.
Heavens hot gases that cooled in a vacuum.
Life dead.
Not the past. Just dead.
Gases same atmosphere cooler due to ice mass.
Notified variation. Newly born ice. Every year newly born ice. A science teaching stable earth state. Ice mountains.
Law mountain.
Law mountain hit by UFO radiation ark a stone converter.
A mountain one body becomes owner of a disintegrated pile of dust at its feet mountain. Two forms.
False science machination temple pyramid fake mountain.
Atmosphere plus living life the present.
No status past. Status destroyed or dead.
Present correct status.
Age counted as an alight gas burning heavens with O earth moving one cycle counted only by human around the sun.
Life continuance sex.
Ignored.
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
I was talking to subduction zone. He says he does not need anyone to defend him. So maybe we should ignore you.
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
I thought science had all the answers. They act like they can explain every detail of evolution. Now you say they cannot even tell what species an animal is. I have definiately learned something. Science only thinks they know everything. I wish the others on here could learn that.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
So you're cool with evolution being taught, and OK with Islamic invocations before public meetings/High School football games, etc. Good to know.
They might, seeing as how religious fanatics continuously try to inflict their mere beliefs in ancient middle eastern deities upon the public at large. 10 Commandments in court houses, prayers before sessions of congress, etc...
See above.
Again, see above.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
This fits into one of the few 'basic types' of creationists - the disingenuous interlocutor.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Not to mention unwarranted condescension and a lack of self-awareness.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Firstly, science has never claimed to know everything. As Dara O’Briain puts it: "It gets on my nerves when people say science doesn’t know everything. Science knows it doesn’t know everything otherwise it would stop. Just because science doesn’t know everything doesn’t mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy-tale appeals to you."
Secondly, not being able to define a species to the extent of being able to identify a first instance of it, is not a gap in what science knows, it's a gap in what you understand about it. Many people have explained this to you in different ways, most of which you've ignored, so it looks a great deal as if you simply don't want to understand it because it might upset something you believe.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Theories CAN change, but... so what? Isn't that a good thing?
Religion will never change, regardless of what is learned.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It drives me a bit nuts that people think that the ability of science to improve is a flaw. I wonder how that cure for leprosy using blood dove is coming along?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
You are confusing science with religion.
We can explain far more detail than creationists can about creation, this is true. We can definitely explain far more than anti-science types seem able to grasp.
That we can explain more than Google experts can does not warrant the sarcastic denigration you seem to be going for.
You do not appear to have learned anything.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Have they tried tying the dove's wings with thread and draining its blood into an earthen vessel over running water? Because I/m betting that will work - as long as they anoint their tapestries with oil of Hyssop....
ecco
Veteran Member
Yes, indeed "you can lead a horse to water". You can even try to put a hose in its mouth. But if the horse stubbornly refuses all attempts to hydrate it, it will die a long slow painful death.
GardenLady
Active Member
Given that this is in the evolution/creationism forum, I have this question: Are you equating those who accept the scientific evidence supporting evolution and deep time with atheism? Because the majority of Christians (other than fundamentalists) accept the science and still believe in God and in a divine hand in creation. How many Christians have said something like "God is who, evolution is how."