Can science prove or disprove the existence of a Spiritual existence? God?

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So you are basicly saying that God created all species, but he did such a mess, that thousands of species became extinct? Is God so unwise about nature that he creates species that are so bad adapted to the enviroment that they become exitinct? :/ ;

So, if the KKK decided to kill every single person on the face of the planet that is of Afro-descent by putting a bullet in their head....those people will become extinct, right??? So let me guess, because of this, people of Afro-descent are supposed to magically evolve in a way at which their body will become bullet-proof?? I mean cmon, when does it stop.

You say they change, but they never become a new specie, so there must be a limit to the changing process. I'm asking you: why they do reach this limit? How is this process working?

There are different species of dog, right?? But they are still considered dogs. The change is limited to the kind. I believe that God created animals to bring forth after their kind, just as the bible says in Genesis. God created animals to produce many different varieties from within the kind, but it will remain the same kind of animal. That is why you have many different species and breeds of dogs...cats....bears...fish, etc....but they are all limited to their own kind. There is no dog changing to a different kind of animal, such as what evolutionists seem to think.

 

[Steve Love]

So, if the KKK decided to kill every single person on the face of the planet that is of Afro-descent by putting a bullet in their head....those people will become extinct, right??? So let me guess, because of this, people of Afro-descent are supposed to magically evolve in a way at which their body will become bullet-proof?? I mean cmon, when does it stop.

One would imagine there would be a social movement including black and white people, christians and atiests, jews and buddhists that would not stand for this redneckery. Anti apartheid! God has nothing to do with this. Nor does evolution.

There are different species of dog, right?? But they are still considered dogs. The change is limited to the kind. I believe that God created animals to bring forth after their kind, just as the bible says in Genesis. God created animals to produce many different varieties from within the kind, but it will remain the same kind of animal. That is why you have many different species and breeds of dogs...cats....bears...fish, etc....but they are all limited to their own kind. There is no dog changing to a different kind of animal, such as what evolutionists seem to think.

If you are a young earth creationist then you will not get this but if you are prepared to accept the fact that the earth is a lot older than 6000 years then, as inconceivable as it is to a species, let alone an individual, evolution takes a hideously long time to occur. No dog would give birth to a different species, but over a vast amount of time, as with chinese whispers, natural selection would make its play and a direct descendant of a dog of several million years ago would quite reasonably be completely unrecogniseable from its descendant. Why it may be so unrecogniseable that we would suggest it was a completely different species.

 

[otokage007]

So if a grey wolf evolved into a dog, that would mean that whatever produced the grey wolf wasn't a dog.....thus.....an animal producing a different kind of animal.

You are completely wrong, and the reason is because u apparently know nothing about how new species generate. Lemme xplain.

Gray Wolves always ALWAYS give birth to gray wolves. Evolution Theory doesn't claim the contrary. Evolution of the gray wolf to become a dog, goes basicly like this (and it happens this way with any species "becoming" another specie).

1) Gray-wolves reproduce. Due to the nature of sexual reproduction and behaviour of genetics, which involve mutations due to errors commited by our cells, children are never clones of their parents. This means every individual in the population of gray wolves, is different from one another.

2) This differences, make that some individuals are a bit better suited to some environments than others. In the case of gray wolves, some of them are more docile than others, some of them are also more curious than others. In the environment surrounding a human campsite, docile and curious wolves will have a higher survival probability than other wolves, because they won't be afraid of humans so they will be brave enough to aproach them. Due to their docile personality, humans will feed them directly (by throwing them food) or indirectly (by leaving food rests behind).

3) This docile and curious wolves eat now more than the others, therefore they survive more time, and reproduce more times, than their partners that fear humans. This means the next generation will have lots of children that belong to docile and curious parents. This children have the docile and curious genes of their parents.

4) Aforementioned situation, repeats once, again, again and again. Maybe hundreds, maybe thousands of times. Gray wolves still produce children that are gray wolves, never dogs, however, generation after generation, the population is becoming more curious and docile. Generation after generations the situation repeats: the more docile and curious survive, the others eventually die or migrate.

5) There will be a time, after thousands of generations, where the gray wolves following the human campaments, are NOTHING like the original gray wolves. They are MUCH MORE docile and curious, they are practically pets, because their genes have been polished through thousand of generations, hundreds of years, to make them very very docile. The original gray wolves, are what we know today as gray wolves. The new docile gray wolves, are what we know today as dogs. Or better said, the first dogs, because u know nowadays dogs are artificially created to have a huge variety of forms.

As you can see, dogs generated from gray wolves. But never a gray wolf gave birth to a dog, unless you quantify the docilness and say "those with more than 50 points of docilness will be now considered dogs". That's the only way you could find a "gray wolf giving birth to a dog". You would take the gray wolves with 49 points, and state that their 50 points children are dogs. In the end, the difference comes just because the new wolves (dogs) are too different from their great great great great (a thousand times great) grandfathers, that you simply can't consider them the same animals.

6) Now you say: ok, but dogs and wolves can still produce fertile offspring, so they are still the same species. That's true, in this particular two animals, dogs haven't evolved enough to be a different specie from wolves. But if the situation before persisted, hundres of years and generations, I think that even you, who lack knowledge about genetics, can understand that eventually this "future dogs" will be so so so much different from the original gray wolves, that their genome will be simply incompatible and they won't be able to reproduce.

Now, is this SO MUCH DIFFICULT to understand? :/ Come on, I don't believe u!

 

[Steve Love]

True is that Otokage.

If you consider that dogs have the widest known variences within a single species and this occured over hundreds, maybe a few thousand years, and you consider how different a doberman is to a "**** a poo" or whatever, then the potential for this to occur given millions of years is something that is not easy to imagine, unless you look around more carefully looking for similarities rather than differences.

A

 

[Steve Love]

Oops, I was going to say.....

A course example would be the scaley legs of birds or the twin tail fins of a sealion.

 

[ArtieE]

There are different species of dog, right??

No there aren't. There's only one species of dog.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Wait a minute, so, you believe that the origin of the first dog was not a dog, which is an example of an animal producing something different that what it is.

That's an extremely vague thing to say. Anything that reproduces could be said to produce something different than "what it is". I'm not an exact clone of my parents. Neither are you. Nor anyone else. How much difference has to be produced for it to qualify as a significant enough change?

....yet you are asking me "how does a dog have to produce a non-dog before evolution is demonstrated"?? I guess the answer would be the same way the non-dog that produced the "dog" has to be demonstrated.

It's been demonstrated that modern dogs evolved from the ancestor of all modern mammals, hence dog being a species of mammal. I just explained this: evolution is a branching tree. Everything that replicates uses it's own genetic code as a starting point, but everything replicates imperfectly and this results, over time, in speciation.

I mean, what exactly do you expect when you ask for examples of a "dog producing a non-dog"? That simply won't happen because that's not what evolution predicts. The ancestor of modern dogs was the ancestor of all modern mammals, and produced only other mammals. Is it this difficult to understand? Every phylogeny reproduces only it's own phylogeny, but reproduces variation within that phylogeny. Each domain produces it's own domain, but genetic variation splits those domains into separate kingdoms. Each kingdom reproduces it's own kingdom, but genetic variation splits those kingdoms into separate phylums. Each of those phylums reproduces it's own phylum, but variation splits thos phylums into different classes, and so on. Note that at no point does anything "reproduce other than what it is". Those that belong to Kingdom A will always reproduce things that belong in Kingdom A, regardless of whether or not that are in phylum A or B. Likewise, everything that is in Kingdom A Phylum B will always reproduce something that is in Kingdom A Phylum B but made end up in either Class A or Class B.

A dog is a species of mammal, and every dog will only reproduce a dog, but those dogs can be identified as separate breeds of dog because of variation within their own species. In the same way that the ancestor of moden mammals only reproduced mammals, but eventually those mammals could be identified as different species.

For further information, see this graph:

http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/2009/2000px-Tree_of_life_with_genome_size_svg.jpg

Now, do you understand why asking for a "dog to produce a non-dog" in order to demonstrate evolution is patently absurd?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That's an extremely vague thing to say. Anything that reproduces could be said to produce something different than "what it is". I'm not an exact clone of my parents. Neither are you. Nor anyone else. How much difference has to be produced for it to qualify as a significant enough change?

That's why I made the distinction of saying "DOGS PRODUCE DOGS"...in other words, a dog will never produce a "non-dog". And you are right, you are not a clone of your parents, but guess what, you are a human, and they are human. Your parents will never produce a "non-human being".

It's been demonstrated that modern dogs evolved from the ancestor of all modern mammals, hence dog being a species of mammal.

No it hasn't been demonstrated. How has it been demonstrated that the origin of the first dog was not a dog??? Nothing of the kind has been demonstrated, that is you, and your evolutionist counterparts adding your own presupposed interpretation to the concept. No one has ever seen an animal produce another animal that is different from what it is. All we have ever seen is dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, etc. Evolution is not part of science, because science is what we can OBSERVE, and EXPERIMENT on....no one has ever observed an animal producing a different kind of animal, nor can you conduct an experiment proving that an animal produced a different kind of animal in the distant past. So it isn't science. It is a religion.

I just explained this: evolution is a branching tree. Everything that replicates uses it's own genetic code as a starting point, but everything replicates imperfectly and this results, over time, in speciation.

Speciation is limited to WITHIN THE KIND.

I mean, what exactly do you expect when you ask for examples of a "dog producing a non-dog"? That simply won't happen because that's not what evolution predicts. The ancestor of modern dogs was the ancestor of all modern mammals, and produced only other mammals. Is it this difficult to understand?

Look at what you just said "the ancestor of modern dogs was the ancestor of all modern mammals and produced only other mammals".........right there...stop right there....with that assumption alone, you've just left science and went right to religion. It happened so fast you didn't even know it. There is no evidence that any animal evolved from anything...that is a assumption on your part. You were not there, you didn't observe it, and all science can show is similarities within DNA....but that may not be evidence of evolution/ common ancestry, it may be evidence of common designer. If you want to believe that humans came from monkeys, fine, but to say it with 100% certainty and call it science when it doesn't even meet the criteria of science by definition, is.......messed up :yes:

A dog is a species of mammal, and every dog will only reproduce a dog, but those dogs can be identified as separate breeds of dog because of variation within their own species. In the same way that the ancestor of moden mammals only reproduced mammals, but eventually those mammals could be identified as different species.

You just said that "every dog will only reproduce a dog"........but if you believe that the first dog came from a non-dog, that is the exact opposite of a dog "only" reproducing a dog.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No there aren't. There's only one species of dog.

No one is really sure what a species is in the first place, thats why I don't really like to use the word.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

No one is really sure

No, let's keep it accurate: you're not really sure.

 

[Monster!]

Depends on what the individual counts as valid evidence, even if God's existence was scientifically proven there would still be people ignoring him x

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That's why I made the distinction of saying "DOGS PRODUCE DOGS"...in other words, a dog will never produce a "non-dog". And you are right, you are not a clone of your parents, but guess what, you are a human, and they are human. Your parents will never produce a "non-human being".

And, as I have already explained, this doesn't contradict evolution in the slightest.

No it hasn't been demonstrated.

Yes it has. We have the genetics, we have the fossils, we have observed speciation in action. It happened.

How has it been demonstrated that the origin of the first dog was not a dog???

Fossil record, genetics.

Nothing of the kind has been demonstrated, that is you, and your evolutionist counterparts adding your own presupposed interpretation to the concept. No one has ever seen an animal produce another animal that is different from what it is. All we have ever seen is dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, etc.

They don't have to. I've already explained this. Everything replicates using it's own genetic makeup as a starting point, but still reproduces with variation. No taxonomic rank reproduces "outside" of it's taxonomic rank, but the variation evolution produces takes place within the taxonomic rank. Since you seem to be strangely fixated on dogs, I'll use a clear, observable example in dogs. Nobody has ever observed a dog reproduce a "non-dog". However, we do know that within the dog species there are many different breeds, and we have seen dogs reproduce different breeds of dog.

Is it starting to make sense?

Evolution is not part of science, because science is what we can OBSERVE, and EXPERIMENT on.

We have observed and tested evolution. Have you done any research on this subject whatsoever?

...no one has ever observed an animal producing a different kind of animal,

Please accurately define "kind". We already know that reproduction always results in variation, so how much variation is required before something becomes a different "kind"?

nor can you conduct an experiment proving that an animal produced a different kind of animal in the distant past. So it isn't science. It is a religion.

Now you're just being silly.

Speciation is limited to WITHIN THE KIND.

Until you can define the specific genetic or morphological limits that define what a "kind" is, that sentence is meaningless.

Look at what you just said "the ancestor of modern dogs was the ancestor of all modern mammals and produced only other mammals".........right there...stop right there....with that assumption alone, you've just left science and went right to religion.

Don't believe me, check the fossil record and genetics.

It happened so fast you didn't even know it. There is no evidence that any animal evolved from anything.

Now you've just left science completely. Speciation has already been observed, you even said so yourself. Your contension is simply that evolution only occurs "within the kind", despite the fact you (or anyone else) has yet to define exactly what "kind" means.

..that is a assumption on your part. You were not there, you didn't observe it, and all science can show is similarities within DNA....but that may not be evidence of evolution/ common ancestry, it may be evidence of common designer.

No, it isn't. If the genetics were all completely incompatible and contradicted evolution theory entirely, you'd be saying the exact same thing, so this presumption that similar DNA could be considered evidence for design is utter nonsense.

If you want to believe that humans came from monkeys,

Yep, you just demonstrated that you have no clue about what evolution states. Go read up on it.

fine, but to say it with 100% certainty and call it science when it doesn't even meet the criteria of science by definition, is.......messed up

Considering you back unscientific presuppositions like "common design", deny the existence of common evidence and throw the work of millions of scientists out of the window, I don't think you're anywhere near qualified to tell me what does and does not constitute the definition of science.

You just said that "every dog will only reproduce a dog"........but if you believe that the first dog came from a non-dog, that is the exact opposite of a dog "only" reproducing a dog.

I explained this quite thoroughly, but I'll do so again.

Before dogs existed, mammals existed. These early mammals diversified in the many species of mammal that exist today - one of which was called dogs. In fact, dogs themselves are a subspecies of grey wolf. This doesn't mean a wolf one day just gave birth to a dog, what it means is that dogs themselves as a category of grey wolf just as wolf is a category of mammal. So, you see, everything reproduces still remains within the category of what produced it, but genetic variation produces categories within those categories, and categories within them. Like following the trunk of a tree up to the ends of the branches. At no point does one branch jump onto another branch - everything that spreads out from the tree is still a part of the tree, and a part of the branch that comes off that tree.

I stronly suggest you do some research about this. You clearly don't know the first thing about genetics, biological diversity or the claims or evidence of evolution theory. There are plenty of good popular science books out there that explain this much better than I can.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Depends on what the individual counts as valid evidence, even if God's existence was scientifically proven there would still be people ignoring him x

Doubtful. The insane, perhaps. :bow:

 

[Thief]

True is that Otokage.

If you consider that dogs have the widest known variences within a single species and this occured over hundreds, maybe a few thousand years, and you consider how different a doberman is to a "**** a poo" or whatever, then the potential for this to occur given millions of years is something that is not easy to imagine, unless you look around more carefully looking for similarities rather than differences.

A

Of all the species to choose from.....dogs!

MAN has manipulated the dog into what it is now, in all of it's variety.
Saw the documentary.

We humans during the past two centuries have manipulated the dog into so many variations... and we did so, for cause of ourselves...because we can.

Now consider Genesis and the manipulation in the Garden event.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No, let's keep it accurate: you're not really sure.

It is accurate, the word "species" is not well defined in biology.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And, as I have already explained, this doesn't contradict evolution in the slightest.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, turtles produce turtles....

Yes it has. We have the genetics, we have the fossils, we have observed speciation in action. It happened.

Similarities in genetic makeup could easily mean common designer. That is my theory. You can't prove or disprove my theory...you cant even prove your theory. You are basically saying...

1. Any two or more organisms that have similar genetic makeup is evidence for evolution.

2. Humans and apes have similar genetic makeup

3. Therefore, Humans evolved from apes

This is clearly illogical, as the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

Fossil record, genetics.

There is no "fossil record". When you find a fossil, if you determine anything other than "something has died", then you've left science and resorted to religion. You don't know whether that fossil had any children, and you certainly don't know if the fossil had DIFFERENT children.

They don't have to. I've already explained this. Everything replicates using it's own genetic makeup as a starting point, but still reproduces with variation. No taxonomic rank reproduces "outside" of it's taxonomic rank, but the variation evolution produces takes place within the taxonomic rank. Since you seem to be strangely fixated on dogs, I'll use a clear, observable example in dogs. Nobody has ever observed a dog reproduce a "non-dog". However, we do know that within the dog species there are many different breeds, and we have seen dogs reproduce different breeds of dog.

Is it starting to make sense?

That isn't the question at hand. Are you lacking in reading comprehension skills? How many times have I said "there are many kinds of dogs....big dogs...little dogs....hairy dogs...tall dogs...short dogs...but they are all DOGS"....I've said this on at least two other occasions. No one is denying this, because this can be OBSERVED...this can be TESTED...only a fool would deny this. The point is, that is the limit of the variation. You will always get a dog when you mate dogs. My point is, to say or believe that the dogs of today "evolved" from a non-dog of yesterday is purely religious speculation. No evidence whatsoever. And that is what you have to believe, if you believe in evolution.

We have observed and tested evolution. Have you done any research on this subject whatsoever?

No one has ever observed an animal producing something different than what it is, such as a dog producing a non-dog. I will repeat for the 12th time at least, if the dogs of today originated from something other than a dog millions of years ago, this would be an example of an animal producing something other than what it is, which would be a non-dog producing a dog. There is no evidence of this whatsoever and it shouldn't be classified as science.

Please accurately define "kind". We already know that reproduction always results in variation, so how much variation is required before something becomes a different "kind"?

I don't think there could be that much variation for an animal to produce offspring that is different than what it is. That is why I've said there are limits to the variation. There are limits to the change. From my religion, God said in Gen 1:24 "Let the land bring forth creatures according to their kind". There is a dog kind, a cat kind, a bear kind, a snake kind, a bird kind....each animal is limited to their own kind.

Until you can define the specific genetic or morphological limits that define what a "kind" is, that sentence is meaningless.

A dog is a dog, and a cat is a cat. They are both mammals, but they are different kinds of mammals. Now, if you believe this, then there is no point in focusing on "kind". Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats. If you dont see the difference here, then I cant help you.

Don't believe me, check the fossil record and genetics.

What does the fossil record show, other than something that once lived has now died??? To think anything beyond this is pure speculation.

Now you've just left science completely. Speciation has already been observed, you even said so yourself. Your contension is simply that evolution only occurs "within the kind", despite the fact you (or anyone else) has yet to define exactly what "kind" means.

I said that SPECIATION IS LIMITED TO WITHIN THE KIND. A species of dog will not produce any other species than a dog.

No, it isn't. If the genetics were all completely incompatible and contradicted evolution theory entirely, you'd be saying the exact same thing, so this presumption that similar DNA could be considered evidence for design is utter nonsense.

I would be saying exactly what?

Yep, you just demonstrated that you have no clue about what evolution states. Go read up on it.

Well, I once saw a clip on youtube of Richard Dawkings explaining human evolution, and it was from apes. So, tell Dawkins to go read up on evolution.

Considering you back unscientific presuppositions like "common design", deny the existence of common evidence and throw the work of millions of scientists out of the window, I don't think you're anywhere near qualified to tell me what does and does not constitute the definition of science.

Well, dont have me tell you, have dictionary.com tell you "systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation". This definition kinda backs up what I said now, doesn't it.

Before dogs existed, mammals existed. These early mammals diversified in the many species of mammal that exist today - one of which was called dogs. In fact, dogs themselves are a subspecies of grey wolf. This doesn't mean a wolf one day just gave birth to a dog, what it means is that dogs themselves as a category of grey wolf just as wolf is a category of mammal.

And the grey wolf is a dog....so if all of the dogs today came from the grey wolf, that would mean that the grey wolf came from a NON-DOG, THUS, AN ANIMAL PRODUCING SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT IS ITSELF. There is no way of getting around this. Humans didn't always exist, so where did humans come from?? Non humans, right??? This is voodoo science people.

So, you see, everything reproduces still remains within the category of what produced it, but genetic variation produces categories within those categories, and categories within them. Like following the trunk of a tree up to the ends of the branches. At no point does one branch jump onto another branch - everything that spreads out from the tree is still a part of the tree, and a part of the branch that comes off that tree.

You put yourself in a larger hole. So, where did mammals come from?? Non-mammals, of course. So this "dogs are mammals, and they came from mammals" logic isn't working, because the question then becomes, where did the mammals come from? There is no way out of it and no matter what answer you give it still isn't scientific by definition. It is a faith based religion

I stronly suggest you do some research about this. You clearly don't know the first thing about genetics, biological diversity or the claims or evidence of evolution theory. There are plenty of good popular science books out there that explain this much better than I can.

If I wanted to read up on a religion, I would just open up my bible.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You are completely wrong, and the reason is because u apparently know nothing about how new species generate. Lemme xplain.

Gray Wolves always ALWAYS give birth to gray wolves. Evolution Theory doesn't claim the contrary. Evolution of the gray wolf to become a dog, goes basicly like this (and it happens this way with any species "becoming" another specie).

1) Gray-wolves reproduce. Due to the nature of sexual reproduction and behaviour of genetics, which involve mutations due to errors commited by our cells, children are never clones of their parents. This means every individual in the population of gray wolves, is different from one another.

2) This differences, make that some individuals are a bit better suited to some environments than others. In the case of gray wolves, some of them are more docile than others, some of them are also more curious than others. In the environment surrounding a human campsite, docile and curious wolves will have a higher survival probability than other wolves, because they won't be afraid of humans so they will be brave enough to aproach them. Due to their docile personality, humans will feed them directly (by throwing them food) or indirectly (by leaving food rests behind).

3) This docile and curious wolves eat now more than the others, therefore they survive more time, and reproduce more times, than their partners that fear humans. This means the next generation will have lots of children that belong to docile and curious parents. This children have the docile and curious genes of their parents.

4) Aforementioned situation, repeats once, again, again and again. Maybe hundreds, maybe thousands of times. Gray wolves still produce children that are gray wolves, never dogs, however, generation after generation, the population is becoming more curious and docile. Generation after generations the situation repeats: the more docile and curious survive, the others eventually die or migrate.

5) There will be a time, after thousands of generations, where the gray wolves following the human campaments, are NOTHING like the original gray wolves. They are MUCH MORE docile and curious, they are practically pets, because their genes have been polished through thousand of generations, hundreds of years, to make them very very docile. The original gray wolves, are what we know today as gray wolves. The new docile gray wolves, are what we know today as dogs. Or better said, the first dogs, because u know nowadays dogs are artificially created to have a huge variety of forms.

As you can see, dogs generated from gray wolves. But never a gray wolf gave birth to a dog, unless you quantify the docilness and say "those with more than 50 points of docilness will be now considered dogs". That's the only way you could find a "gray wolf giving birth to a dog". You would take the gray wolves with 49 points, and state that their 50 points children are dogs. In the end, the difference comes just because the new wolves (dogs) are too different from their great great great great (a thousand times great) grandfathers, that you simply can't consider them the same animals.

6) Now you say: ok, but dogs and wolves can still produce fertile offspring, so they are still the same species. That's true, in this particular two animals, dogs haven't evolved enough to be a different specie from wolves. But if the situation before persisted, hundres of years and generations, I think that even you, who lack knowledge about genetics, can understand that eventually this "future dogs" will be so so so much different from the original gray wolves, that their genome will be simply incompatible and they won't be able to reproduce.

Now, is this SO MUCH DIFFICULT to understand? :/ Come on, I don't believe u!

We dont even need to get in to much detail about wolves. There had to be a first dog right?? The first dog that ever walked this earth....where did it come from?? A non-dog?? I rest my case.

 

[PolyHedral]

That's why I made the distinction of saying "DOGS PRODUCE DOGS"...in other words, a dog will never produce a "non-dog". And you are right, you are not a clone of your parents, but guess what, you are a human, and they are human. Your parents will never produce a "non-human being".

A dog's great-great-great...-great grandparents will produce something you'd never recognise as a dog in a million years, though.

 

[outhouse]

how did this debate get sidetracked to evolution.???


there is no debate about evolution, it is as valid as gravity, and taught in every major university as high learning



while creation is outlawed from public schools.




lets keep the thread on topic

 

[Gui10]

If the grey wolf was produced by something that wasn't a dog, how is that not what evolution is??? There is no getting around this Gui10....I don't know what it is you are trying to say, but there is no getting around this.

I will try something with you. Kind of an expirement. It will demand you try. The experiment does not supose that you believe in evolution or not, it is an objective test to make you understand why I keep saying you are wrong about the ''dog produced by a non dog thing''. Now, listen carefully.

In your mind, take the image of a grey wolf, call it ''image 1''. Now, take the image of a black labrador dog, call it ''image 100''.

Now, in your mind, think of some sort of metamorphosis between image 1 and image 100, from the grey wolf to the dog. Lets even supose that evolution did not occur, but just for the fun of it, just picture a metamorphosis from the wolf to the dog. Divide this metamorphosis into 98 images, where each image is slightly different from the one previous to it.

Do you understand where I am getting at?

Image 1 and image 100 are completely different, but at no point in the 100 image sequence does an image does not almost identically resembles the one who precedes it.

If you dont have a clue what i am trying to have you understand, maybe this video will help you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OKQM9D1xQQ&feature=related

And I already ehar your answer about how the video is about a single same animal growing and has nothing to do with evolution. Like I said, the explanation above is not ment to make you believe in evolution, I just want you to understand how you are wrong what you say that evolution is ''a dog producing a non dog''.