evolution caused by changes in the environment.
-
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!
Cardinal Pell and Evolution
- Thread starter Kevin Armstrong
- Start date
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Kent Hovind doesn't have any of those. He has only lies and distortions to offer.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
The ones who have made the claims (geologists) have already demonstrated the veracity of their claims as another poster (a geologist) already explained in depth. If you are saying they are wrong, then you'd need to show how and why.
Sorry, I don't think that is true and I don't think they have proved their claims are true.
Please give some real observable difference, like for example different color, size....
Why do you think so?
How can it be known, if people were not there to measure it "millions of years" ago?
Sorry to hear that, I think I gave the explanation already.
How do you know it is the mountain rising and not the water level decreasing?
Hmmm... ...so, you mean I should answer to the issues in The Talk.Origins Archive: Flood Geology FAQs If so, I think the best way would be that you pick the worst case for the Biblical flood and then we start from it.
Because you don't understand the point?
In different environment and conditions, Panda would eat differently. If that counts for different species, then Asian people are different species than Italian people.
Spanish people have siesta, Scandinavian people don't have, they must be different species?
They can't or they have not even tried?
How long do you think it took?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No. Rather because the willful ignorance and stupidity contained in that post was nothing short of cringy.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Try feeding a grizzly bear 95% bamboo. See what happens.
Also, asians and italians are the same species. They produce viable off spring. Very strong off spring actually, since the genetic diversity between both is very healthy.
Panda's and grizzly's can't even produce infertile off spring.
Do you even know what a "species" is??
Also, Giant Panda's in the wild can pretty much only survive in China regions as those are the only ones which supply them with enough bamboo.
Again: try feeding a giant panda with the diet of a grizzly. See what happens. It won't end well.
Spanish people have siesta, Scandinavian people don't have, they must be different species?
Do you even know what hibernation is?
They can't.
The Spectacled bear is one of eight species of bear that we share the planet with today. Ancestors of the Giant Panda were the first to differentiate, splitting off from the rest of the bear family tree around 19 million years ago. Six of the modern species, the Sloth, Sun, Brown, Asiatic black, American black, and Polar bears, belong to the same subfamily, Ursinae, which experienced significant diversification around 5 million years ago — leading to the first members of the Ursus genus to which modern grizzlies belong.
Unearthing the story of bears’ evolution - Grizzly bear conservation and protection
By Kayla Heinze, Communications Specialist Living peacefully alongside bears can require innovation. Each year, as grizzlies emerge back onto the […]
Humans and chimps are more closely related then giant panda's and grizzly's.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It doesn't matter what you believe. It is what a person can properly support.
I can show how you call your own God a liar by using reliable sources. What can you show to be reasonable and rational?
You also seem to know that scientists can support their claims and that you cannot. It seems that all that you can do is to claim that God is a liar.
Are you still using that word "proved"? Science doesn't prove. The best it does is demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt, and we have that, but YOU don't, and never will for as long as you aren't interested in studying the evidence. You're still implying that your opinions are informed and should be considered seriously, but as you've been told repeatedly, you're not just not scientifically sophisticated, there's no evidence you've seen any except in creationist resources. That's likely where you heard about radiocarbon dating and learned a few apologetics tropes about mixing and original composition, and you're not only content with that, you're disagreeing with both the scientific community and those who HAVE done the studying.
I guess you not only took none of my advice about posting honestly about why you believe what you believe - by faith, not evidence or science - but appear to not have seen it at all. That's fine with me.
Why? What good would it do you? How would you use those answers? To decide what?
There's another creationiston another thread who wanted to see ocean volume measurements over time in an argument against climate change actually occurring, and I asked him the same (rhetorical) question. I provided him fictional numbers so that he could demonstrate how he would use them. It looked like this, and I don't think that anybody is surprised that he never responded:
Suppose you had that data. Suppose this was fact rather than illustrative numbers. Please show me how you'd use it to arrive at a conclusion about AGW:
1973 - 1.333 billion cubic kilometers
1993 - 1.334 billion cubic kilometers
2003 - 1.334 billion cubic kilometers
2023 - 1.335 billion cubic kilometers
My point is that you're deflecting with these kinds of comments. The bottom line is that nothing can answer that question for you.
You could benefit from this illustration. This is you in this thread, with special requests for data that I don't believe you'd know how to interpret. And I guess I shouldn't expect you to address this comment either.
We look at the evidence available now to determine what have come before, but you have to have an educated and prepared mind to do that. Detectives can do that. They can look at forensic evidence in a car today and determine that you had been in it in the past.
I'll bet that you can do that, too. You find a dead man on the street with two bullet holes in the back of his head. I'll bet you can say a lot about the past from the evidence present now. Do you think he was ever born? Do you think he took a first breath then? Do you think he lived many years? Do you think he has been murdered since that first breath? Do you think he took his last breath about then? Of course you do. So I ask you the same question: how can you know if you weren't there to see any of that?
Education and study. What water level? I'm standing at the foot of Everest, measuring its altitude, and comparing that to last year's measurement. Maybe you think the earth is stretching or the ground compacting or something else. It's not. The mountain is rising and its elevation increasing due to plate tectonics. That you don't know that is a result of your indifference to a science education. You relegated yourself to having to guess about these matters, but you're fine with that, because science isn't your path to truth anyway. Faith is.
And here you show an indifference to the difference between biological and cultural evolution. Diets evolve by biological evolution. Cuisines diverge according to cultural vagaries over time, which does not involve the DNA.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe it is only fiction in your eyes because you are blind.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe I do not admit that and I am being honest.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe it is not a good analogy.
I believe language changes but I do not see it as evolution. As an analogy: Language can't evolve into telepathy.
I believe it doesn't work. I believe in biological changes but they are not evolution. So my father had black hair and my mother blond but I had light brown hair. That isn't evolution because hair color is still within the range of natural heredity.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Here is the problem, you cannot be honest and investigate the prophecies and say that they were fulfilled. An ignorant person can believe the lies that were told to him. A dishonest person will claim that the prophecies were fulfilled when they were not, or even worse when they were not prophecies in the first place.
Here is a challenge to you, find a very convincing prophecy and explain how it helps your Jesus claims. Now you may not allow yourself to be honest, but I am very sure that I can show to you either why it was not a prophecy or that it was a failed one.
One of my favorite failed prophecies is the Tyre prophecy. It is also a way to test the honesty of the person I am debating with. No honest person can support it since it is such a badly failed prophecy.
Audie
Veteran Member
I'm not blind, though you, my friend,
are uneducated.