Challenge to Creationists: Ichneumon Wasp

[Subduction Zone]

I can see how the origin of life and the evolution of life can be two different topics of study, yet if one has it wrong concerning the origin of life the this would affect and could impede the study of the progression of life...like building on a faulty foundation.

Not necessarily, too bad you have no knowledge of evolution. From multiple aspects is a slam dunk and creationists here have yet to show any scientific evidence for their beliefs.

Why would or should anyone doubt evolution?

 

[InChrist]

Why would or should anyone doubt evolution?

For one thing, I don't think there are "mountains of evidence" as repeatedly claimed. Although, there are mountains of fossils, yet to reveal any transitional stages or the progressive transformation of any kind of organism into another distinct organism. So ...now we have another theory "punctuated equilibrium". All the way of the evolutionist's "mountain of evidence" there are reasons to doubt.

Feel free to share you thoughts concerning specific evidence you think supports evolution. I'll look at it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For one thing, I don't think there are "mountains of evidence" as repeatedly claimed. Although, there are mountains of fossils, yet to reveal any transitional stages or the progressive transformation of any kind of organism into another distinct organism. So ...now we have another theory "punctuated equilibrium". All the way of the evolutionist's "mountain of evidence" there are reasons to doubt.

Feel free to share you thoughts concerning specific evidence you think supports evolution. I'll look at it.

Then you do not know what is and what is not evidence. Perhaps you should learn what that is first.

Can you be honest? Very very few creationists can be honest about the nature of evidence.

And please, no logical fallacies. You are trying to use a variation on an argument from ignorance. And since there is no scientific evidence for your beliefs you have no rational reason to doubt.

 

[ecco]

I don't recall saying that rocks, sand or diamonds are "obligate intracellular parasites

I didn't say you did. You classified viruses as non-living because they are "obligate intracellular parasites". Don't you believe that rocks, sand and diamonds are also non-living? If you do, then you would put rocks, sand, diamonds and viruses into the same classification. That is what I said.

Here are a few excerpts from the article you linked above:

Scientists are not sure whether viruses are living or non-living.

Because of this, the debate of whether viruses are living or non-living continues.

More recently, scientists have discovered a new type of virus, called a mimivirus. These viruses do contain the tools for making a copy of its DNA. This suggests that certain types of viruses may actually be living.

That is what I have been saying all along. They are not are not sure whether viruses are living or non-living. That's because there is no fine line between "living" and "non-living". How is it possible that you can post that and not understand it?


And, as I previously posted, it's not just viruses that lead to ambiguity...

Intracellular parasite - Wikipedia

Obligate intracellular parasites of humans include:
​

• Viruses
• Certain bacteria, including:

Chlamydia, and closely related species.[7]
Rickettsia
Coxiella
Certain species of Mycobacterium such as Mycobacterium leprae and Mycobacterium tuberculosis​

• • Certain protozoa, including:
    • Apicomplexans (Plasmodium spp., Toxoplasma gondii and Cryptosporidium parvum[8])
    • Trypanosomatids (Leishmania spp. and Trypanosoma cruzi)
• Certain fungi
  • Pneumocystis jirovecii[9]

 

[ecco]

concerning the origin of life the this would affect and could impede the study of the progression of life...like building on a faulty foundation.

The foundation was indeed faulty. Two hundred years ago science believed all things fit into two categories: Life and Non-Life. ToE explained how we got from the earliest "Life" to where we are now.

However, science, unlike religion, constantly evolves as new discoveries are made and new knowledge is acquired.

Science now realizes that the concept of Either Life Or Non-Life is faulty. Science now realizes that is an unbroken continuum from (and before) atoms to molecules to protein chains to ambiguous things to cells to us.

• Chemistry covers the "Atoms To Molecules To Protein Chains" portion.
• The study of abiogenesis is investigating the "Molecules To Protein Chains To Ambiguous Things To Cells" portion.
• The Theory of Evolution (ToE) covers the "Cells To Us" portion.

 

[ecco]

So ...now we have another theory "punctuated equilibrium"

Now we have another theory? NOW!? You are at least 40 years behind in you level of knowledge.

Do you even understand what punctuated equilibrium means?

 

[Audie]

Now we have another theory? NOW!? You are at least 40 years behind in you level of knowledge.

Do you even understand what punctuated equilibrium means?

It means "off through the tree tops" to those who
can use it to evade the life / non life issue.

 

[Jose Fly]

I can see how the origin of life and the evolution of life can be two different topics of study

That's good. So there's no need to equate someone noting that the origin of life lies outside of evolutionary theory with "avoiding the subject" or "saying it doesn't matter".

yet if one has it wrong concerning the origin of life the this would affect and could impede the study of the progression of life...like building on a faulty foundation.

How so? Let's take chemistry as an example. Chemists were able to understand how elements and molecules behaved (e.g., what combinations were possible) long before they figured out how those things first came to be. So can you explain how if we discovered a new process for the formation of elements, that would necessitate a revision of our understanding of how they behave/combine?

Although, there are mountains of fossils, yet to reveal any transitional stages or the progressive transformation of any kind of organism into another distinct organism.

I'm always curious when I see someone make a claim like that......where exactly have you looked to see whether or not such fossils exist?

 

[nPeace]

I find it kind of odd that you didn't read all the information you posted. Did you figure nobody would read it or something? I don't get it.
Why post something to back up your claims if you're not sure it actually backs up your claims?

.
Could you explain what you mean by this?

.
You should have gone through it in the first place, but whatever. No point harping on it now.

It would be courteous of you to address my comments on your links though, don't you think? I mean, you were the one using them to back up your claims. When somebody actually takes the time to address them, you'd rather just brush them off?

.
I don't accept it and I explained why I don't accept it. Why would you accept any of it, when you admittedly have not even put any real effort into reading it all? That's strange to me.

Do you now wish to abandon and disown the links you provided then? Like, what are we doing here?

I admit I made a mistake of not taking the portions from the links that I agreed with. I will try to avoid repeating the same mistake.
So I scraped the - according to you - garbage, and replaced it. You don't accept it? That's okay.

Could you please answer the question?

I did. Is there a script you like me recite? No thanks.

 

[nPeace]

For instance?

We look like hairless chimps because that intelligence was fond of apes, and thought it was intelligent to reuse gorillas to mold the very reason He created the Universe for?

Are you sure?

Ciao

- viole

Yes. I am sure. As sure as I am sure you are not sure.

For instance... When it comes to this subject, I don't like to give one or two instances. I like to thoroughly cover a wide range. That way, I feel it makes things clear.

I find many, many clues in support for creation, and endless clues against evolution.
So that you know, I am not talking about evolution on a small scale - that is, changes due to gene frequency.

One can say there are clues that evolution is true. One can say there are clues creation is true. Can we prove either?
To me, evolution verses creation is like a game of soccer, in which the creation team scores with all fairness, by executing well placed shots into the goal bars.
The evolution team on the other hand after taking poor shots at the bars, relies on the computer controlled mechanism dishonestly used to move the goal bars into the path of the ball.
We know that a computer program can quickly calculate the angle, and path the ball will travel. So the evolution team scores, when clearly all the spectators can see what's going on.
The referees, poor guys, just happened to look the other direction, and didn't see a thing. They want to make sure they keep their jobs, so they can continue to feed their family.
That's just a little analogy of how I view the debate.

So here are a few clues.
If you prefer things as brief as possible, you can take this agnostic's view - the first two segments (first 15 minutes), and the last segments (from 29:10), of the video - as my views of the clues. This I think, is a very, very short version.

David Berlinski—Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

This is the long version.
Has anyone ever witnessed evolution on a large scale (macro)? No. That takes million of years according to the theory.

Okay. So here is the first clue.
Clue #1
My question is this. How does that prevent one from witnessing it?
Does evolution only take place in a particular year, and all organisms evolve together at that time?

What we witnesses today, suggests to me that this is absurd.

According to research...
Birth & Death Rates | Ecology Global Network
Estimated 2011
Birth Rate Death Rate
• 19 births/1,000 population • 8 deaths/1,000 population
• 131.4 million births per year • 55.3 million people die each year
• 360,000 births per day • 151,600 people die each day
• 15,000 births each hour • 6,316 people die each hour
• 250 births each minute • 105 people die each minute
• Four births each second of every day • Nearly two people die each second

So births do not occur only at particular years and all at that same time.
Hence, we can observe changes that take place, all the time - every single day.

We see organisms producing according to their kind, and growing up in their same form, and all their organs are fully formed and working - apart from defects that were inherited.

Now if evolution were true, I expect we would see clues of similar nature.
If for example, numerous organisms were evolving, and according to the theory, some faster than others, then we expect that this process would be taking place at different, and vast periods of time.
So in our time, we should at least observe some of those organism evolving. We don't.
Why not?

Perhaps the reason we don't, is because, I believe, the goal bars are always moving.
Mankind Has Stopped Evolving
Why human evolution pretty much stopped about 10,000 years ago
Has human evolution stopped? Many evolutionary biologists have answered this question in the affirmative. For example, the distinguished paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould1 stated:
“There’s been no biological change in humans in 40,000 or 50,000 years. Everything we call culture and civilization we’ve built with the same body and brain”.

The basic rationale behind the conclusion that human evolution has stopped is that once the human lineage had achieved a sufficiently large brain and had developed a sufficiently sophisticated culture (sometime around 40,000–50,000 years ago according to Gould, but more commonly placed at 10,000 years ago with the development of agriculture), cultural evolution supplanted biological evolution. However, many evolutionary biologists have not accepted this argument, and indeed some have come to exactly the opposite conclusion.

David Berlinski is agnostic, but I think what he says is reasonable.

David Berlinski on Science, Philosophy, and Society

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. I am sure. As sure as I am sure you are not sure.

For instance... When it comes to this subject, I don't like to give one or two instances. I like to thoroughly cover a wide range. That way, I feel it makes things clear.

I find many, many clues in support for creation, and endless clues against evolution.
So that you know, I am not talking about evolution on a small scale - that is, changes due to gene frequency.

One can say there are clues that evolution is true. One can say there are clues creation is true. Can we prove either?
To me, evolution verses creation is like a game of soccer, in which the creation team scores with all fairness, by executing well placed shots into the goal bars.
The evolution team on the other hand after taking poor shots at the bars, relies on the computer controlled mechanism dishonestly used to move the goal bars into the path of the ball.
We know that a computer program can quickly calculate the angle, and path the ball will travel. So the evolution team scores, when clearly all the spectators can see what's going on.
The referees, poor guys, just happened to look the other direction, and didn't see a thing. They want to make sure they keep their jobs, so they can continue to feed their family.
That's just a little analogy of how I view the debate.

So here are a few clues.
If you prefer things as brief as possible, you can take this agnostic's view - the first two segments (first 15 minutes), and the last segments (from 29:10), of the video - as my views of the clues. This I think, is a very, very short version.

David Berlinski—Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

This is the long version.
Has anyone ever witnessed evolution on a large scale (macro)? No. That takes million of years according to the theory.

Okay. So here is the first clue.
Clue #1
My question is this. How does that prevent one from witnessing it?
Does evolution only take place in a particular year, and all organisms evolve together at that time?

What we witnesses today, suggests to me that this is absurd.

According to research...
Birth & Death Rates | Ecology Global Network
Estimated 2011
Birth Rate Death Rate
• 19 births/1,000 population • 8 deaths/1,000 population
• 131.4 million births per year • 55.3 million people die each year
• 360,000 births per day • 151,600 people die each day
• 15,000 births each hour • 6,316 people die each hour
• 250 births each minute • 105 people die each minute
• Four births each second of every day • Nearly two people die each second

So births do not occur only at particular years and all at that same time.
Hence, we can observe changes that take place, all the time - every single day.

We see organisms producing according to their kind, and growing up in their same form, and all their organs are fully formed and working - apart from defects that were inherited.

Now if evolution were true, I expect we would see clues of similar nature.
If for example, numerous organisms were evolving, and according to the theory, some faster than others, then we expect that this process would be taking place at different, and vast periods of time.
So in our time, we should at least observe some of those organism evolving. We don't.
Why not?

Perhaps the reason we don't, is because, I believe, the goal bars are always moving.
Mankind Has Stopped Evolving
Why human evolution pretty much stopped about 10,000 years ago
Has human evolution stopped? Many evolutionary biologists have answered this question in the affirmative. For example, the distinguished paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould1 stated:
“There’s been no biological change in humans in 40,000 or 50,000 years. Everything we call culture and civilization we’ve built with the same body and brain”.

The basic rationale behind the conclusion that human evolution has stopped is that once the human lineage had achieved a sufficiently large brain and had developed a sufficiently sophisticated culture (sometime around 40,000–50,000 years ago according to Gould, but more commonly placed at 10,000 years ago with the development of agriculture), cultural evolution supplanted biological evolution. However, many evolutionary biologists have not accepted this argument, and indeed some have come to exactly the opposite conclusion.

David Berlinski is agnostic, but I think what he says is reasonable.

David Berlinski on Science, Philosophy, and Society

You should realize that no one will read an excessively long post filled with nonsense and worse yet videos of a dishonest source. Let's do this properly. Bring up your claims one at a time and we can discuss them.

Meanwhile you have demonstrated that you do not understand the concept of evidence. We could save a lot of time if you took a slight side trip and learned what is and what is not scientific evidence.

 

[ecco]

I like to thoroughly cover a wide range. That way, I feel it makes things clear.

That's your first mistake.

Your second mistake is your extensive cutting and pasting. It does nothing to convince anyone that you really know what you are talking about. It only proves that you can cut and paste. We already knew that.

Your third mistake is making poorly conceived analogies.

Your fourth mistake is trying to support a scientific argument by using a Creationist, David Berlinsky, as your source.

And that's just from your first post. I may have missed some other errors because I got tired of wading through all the male bovine excrement.

 

[ecco]

... These are clues that the ear was purposefully designed.

Your argument is no different from claiming that a flower was purposefully designed. Not very convincing.

You sure know how to waste bandwidth.

 

[viole]

Yes. I am sure. As sure as I am sure you are not sure.

For instance... When it comes to this subject, I don't like to give one or two instances. I like to thoroughly cover a wide range. That way, I feel it makes things clear.

I find many, many clues in support for creation, and endless clues against evolution.
So that you know, I am not talking about evolution on a small scale - that is, changes due to gene frequency.

One can say there are clues that evolution is true. One can say there are clues creation is true. Can we prove either?
To me, evolution verses creation is like a game of soccer, in which the creation team scores with all fairness, by executing well placed shots into the goal bars.
The evolution team on the other hand after taking poor shots at the bars, relies on the computer controlled mechanism dishonestly used to move the goal bars into the path of the ball.
We know that a computer program can quickly calculate the angle, and path the ball will travel. So the evolution team scores, when clearly all the spectators can see what's going on.
The referees, poor guys, just happened to look the other direction, and didn't see a thing. They want to make sure they keep their jobs, so they can continue to feed their family.
That's just a little analogy of how I view the debate.

So here are a few clues.
If you prefer things as brief as possible, you can take this agnostic's view - the first two segments (first 15 minutes), and the last segments (from 29:10), of the video - as my views of the clues. This I think, is a very, very short version.

David Berlinski—Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions

This is the long version.
Has anyone ever witnessed evolution on a large scale (macro)? No. That takes million of years according to the theory.

Okay. So here is the first clue.
Clue #1
My question is this. How does that prevent one from witnessing it?
Does evolution only take place in a particular year, and all organisms evolve together at that time?

What we witnesses today, suggests to me that this is absurd.

According to research...
Birth & Death Rates | Ecology Global Network
Estimated 2011
Birth Rate Death Rate
• 19 births/1,000 population • 8 deaths/1,000 population
• 131.4 million births per year • 55.3 million people die each year
• 360,000 births per day • 151,600 people die each day
• 15,000 births each hour • 6,316 people die each hour
• 250 births each minute • 105 people die each minute
• Four births each second of every day • Nearly two people die each second

So births do not occur only at particular years and all at that same time.
Hence, we can observe changes that take place, all the time - every single day.

We see organisms producing according to their kind, and growing up in their same form, and all their organs are fully formed and working - apart from defects that were inherited.

Now if evolution were true, I expect we would see clues of similar nature.
If for example, numerous organisms were evolving, and according to the theory, some faster than others, then we expect that this process would be taking place at different, and vast periods of time.
So in our time, we should at least observe some of those organism evolving. We don't.
Why not?

Perhaps the reason we don't, is because, I believe, the goal bars are always moving.
Mankind Has Stopped Evolving
Why human evolution pretty much stopped about 10,000 years ago
Has human evolution stopped? Many evolutionary biologists have answered this question in the affirmative. For example, the distinguished paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould1 stated:
“There’s been no biological change in humans in 40,000 or 50,000 years. Everything we call culture and civilization we’ve built with the same body and brain”.

The basic rationale behind the conclusion that human evolution has stopped is that once the human lineage had achieved a sufficiently large brain and had developed a sufficiently sophisticated culture (sometime around 40,000–50,000 years ago according to Gould, but more commonly placed at 10,000 years ago with the development of agriculture), cultural evolution supplanted biological evolution. However, many evolutionary biologists have not accepted this argument, and indeed some have come to exactly the opposite conclusion.

David Berlinski is agnostic, but I think what he says is reasonable.

David Berlinski on Science, Philosophy, and Society

A game of soccer? You make it sound like they are at the same (intellectual) level.
They are not. Obviously.

Evolution is to creationism what embryology is to the stork theory of human birth. In exactly the same proportions. Or what meteorology is to dancing for rain. That is the real level of the "controversy".

If there is one who is playing soccer (with Himself) is God. I mean, if you really believe in a design then you are forced to believe that lions are designed to beat the design of its preys. And vice versa. God is designing things so that they overcome His own design of other things.

Are you sure?

For sure, if you are right, I would not definitely call it intelligent, would you?

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

A game of soccer? You make it sound like they are at the same (intellectual) level.
They are not. Obviously.

Evolution is to creationism what embryology is to the stork theory of human birth. In exactly the same proportions. Or what meteorology is to dancing for rain. That is the real level of the "controversy".

If there is one who is playing soccer (with Himself) is God. I mean, if you really believe in a design then you are forced to believe that lions are designed to beat the design of its preys. And vice versa. God is designing things so that they overcome His own design of other things.

Are you sure?

For sure, if you are right, I would not definitely call it intelligent, would you?

Ciao

- viole

Thank for responding in a gentlemanly manner.
I believe that God made his creation to be adaptable, and it is possible that he also played a role in that adaptability even further, after his human creation disobeyed him.
The scriptures say he cursed the ground.

So even though he created creatures at peace, change took place after.
The Bible says that God will again bless the earth in the future, and bring animals back to peace.
So this indicates, to me, God's ability to intervene, in the adaptation of his creatures.

God is greater than any scientist, so if man can modify genes, God is way ahead.

Ancient text says this:
(Genesis 2:21, 22) . . .Jehovah God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and then closed up the flesh over its place. 22 And Jehovah God built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman, and he brought her to the man
.
Modern science made a recent discovery.
Why can’t bones grow back?
Unfortunately, without the magical Skele-gro us muggles are unable to regrow whole limbs. However, the potential is there in every one of our cells.

Bones do repair themselves to some extent. But they can’t regenerate or replace themselves fully for the same reason that we can’t grow ourselves a new lung or an extra eye.

We can regenerate! Researchers reveal our ribs regrow if damaged - and say the same could be true for our entire skeleton
Team studied patient who had part of a rib removed
Eight cm of missing bone and one centimeter of missing cartilage repaired in just six months
The team found that mice and humans were able to regrow removed ribs within months - and could be used in treating osteoporosis and other skeletal disorders.

To better understand this repair process, they removed sections of rib cartilage — ranging from three to five millimeters — from a related mammal, mice.

When they removed both rib cartilage and its surrounding sheath of tissue — called the 'perichondrium,' the missing sections failed to repair even after nine months.

However, when they removed rib cartilage but left its perichondrium, the missing sections entirely repaired within one to two months.

They also found that a perichondrium retains the ability to produce cartilage even when disconnected from the rib and displaced into nearby muscle tissue — further suggesting that the perichondrium contains progenitor or stem cells.

I think the scriptures give a pretty good explanation for creation.

 

[viole]

Thank for responding in a gentlemanly manner.

You are welcome. You strike me as a nice guy, so I try to answer to your posts with vastly more respect than I usually have for this kind of creationist stuff. I really try, but you have to understand that from my point view, creationism based on the Bible is like Excaliburism based on the tales of King Arthur. Since those stories have the same evidence of being true (zero), I cannot really give more intellectual respect to one vs. the other.

I believe that God made his creation to be adaptable, and it is possible that he also played a role in that adaptability even further, after his human creation disobeyed him.
The scriptures say he cursed the ground.

I understand Him. I would also have a hissy fit if something I do would rebel against me. I would ask myself: why was I so stupid to not see it coming?

So even though he created creatures at peace, change took place after.
The Bible says that God will again bless the earth in the future, and bring animals back to peace.
So this indicates, to me, God's ability to intervene, in the adaptation of his creatures.

Are you telling me lions had no flesh eating teeth and gazelles were slower than elephants?

God is greater than any scientist, so if man can modify genes, God is way ahead.

Cool. My recommendation to Him is: next time do not be so lazy and do not make the pinnacle of your creation look like hairless gorillas. So that there is no doubt about it.

Ancient text says this:
(Genesis 2:21, 22) . . .Jehovah God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he was sleeping, he took one of his ribs and then closed up the flesh over its place. 22 And Jehovah God built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman, and he brought her to the man
.
Modern science made a recent discovery.
Why can’t bones grow back?
Unfortunately, without the magical Skele-gro us muggles are unable to regrow whole limbs. However, the potential is there in every one of our cells.

Bones do repair themselves to some extent. But they can’t regenerate or replace themselves fully for the same reason that we can’t grow ourselves a new lung or an extra eye.

Well, if you pray enough in the name of Jesus, or whomever, they could. Right?

I think the scriptures give a pretty good explanation for creation.

Yes, and the book Pinocchio gives a very good explanation why noses can get larger when you lie.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

A game of soccer? You make it sound like they are at the same (intellectual) level.
They are not. Obviously.

Evolution is to creationism what embryology is to the stork theory of human birth. In exactly the same proportions. Or what meteorology is to dancing for rain. That is the real level of the "controversy".

If there is one who is playing soccer (with Himself) is God. I mean, if you really believe in a design then you are forced to believe that lions are designed to beat the design of its preys. And vice versa. God is designing things so that they overcome His own design of other things.

Are you sure?

For sure, if you are right, I would not definitely call it intelligent, would you?

Ciao

- viole

If creationism were true, it would be ovrrwhelminly obvious,
and there would beco controversy.

Science does not operate from a fixed
drfensive position to be defended at all costs.

If the 6 day poof n flood had actually happened
the evidence would be dverywhere.

There would be no controversy, or doubts from science,
no more than there is whethrr fish need water.

 

[Audie]

Your argument is no different from claiming that a flower was purposefully designed. Not very convincing.

You sure know how to waste bandwidth.

So......

 

[nPeace]

You are welcome. You strike me as a nice guy, so I try to answer to your posts with vastly more respect than I usually have for this kind of creationist stuff.

Thanks for that.
I really appreciate that compliment. You know why?
Because it's true.

Seriously though, I understand what you mean. I try too.
Sometimes it's hard being nice to some persons here. Especially when you make a contribution, and instead of debating, persons seem to be only able to be insulting.

So to avoid being like them nasty, instead of nicety, I completely ignore the post.

Come to think of it, I have never seen any disrespectful post from you. Maybe I missed those.

I really try, but you have to understand that from my point view, creationism based on the Bible is like Excaliburism based on the tales of King Arthur. Since those stories have the same evidence of being true (zero), I cannot really give more intellectual respect to one vs. the other.

That's good.
I mean it's good you don't accept it because you want to please your mate. Some persons apparently do.
You having your reasons for disagreeing, is fine by me.
If everyone agreed, I'd think the Bible wasn't true.

I understand Him. I would also have a hissy fit if something I do would rebel against me. I would ask myself: why was I so stupid to not see it coming?

I could understand why you might see things that way.
When I look through my window, what I see, I don't expect would be the same as the man standing on a mountainside behind my house, and I don't expect what he sees to be the same as the man skydiving a hundred or more feet above him.

What we understand, has a lot to do with how much of the picture we are seeing, ad our vantage point makes a lot of difference. True?

Are you telling me lions had no flesh eating teeth and gazelles were slower than elephants?

I can't say that.
It's possible lions had teeth very close to what they have today, but I wouldn't call them meat-eating, since teeth can serve other purposes besides eating meat.
I've seen dogs and cats eating vegetation, that seem to indicate that they instinctively do so.
I can't say I know for sure though what exactly the animals' characteristics were.

Cool. My recommendation to Him is: next time do not be so lazy and do not make the pinnacle of your creation look like hairless gorillas. So that there is no doubt about it.

Well, if you pray enough in the name of Jesus, or whomever, they could. Right?

Remember, perspective.
Someone looking down on the earth from outer space, still can't see more than someone outside the universe.

Yes, and the book Pinocchio gives a very good explanation why noses can get larger when you lie.

Ciao

- viole

Good point.
Only we are not talking about giving an explanation for a fairy tale.
We might more be talking about giving a fairy tale to explain the existence of life. Hup! Evolution.

 

[viole]

Thanks for that.
I really appreciate that compliment. You know why?
Because it's true.

Seriously though, I understand what you mean. I try too.
Sometimes it's hard being nice to some persons here. Especially when you make a contribution, and instead of debating, persons seem to be only able to be insulting.

I am always nice to people. Not necessarily to their arguments. If they identify with their arguments, it is not my problem.

So to avoid being like them nasty, instead of nicety, I completely ignore the post.

Come to think of it, I have never seen any disrespectful post from you. Maybe I missed those.

I try to be always respectful with people.

That's good.
I mean it's good you don't accept it because you want to please your mate. Some persons apparently do.
You having your reasons for disagreeing, is fine by me.
If everyone agreed, I'd think the Bible wasn't true.

I agree.

I could understand why you might see things that way.
When I look through my window, what I see, I don't expect would be the same as the man standing on a mountainside behind my house, and I don't expect what he sees to be the same as the man skydiving a hundred or more feet above him.

What we understand, has a lot to do with how much of the picture we are seeing, ad our vantage point makes a lot of difference. True?

Who can say?. My Muslim friend says the same. He is also trying to salvage his theory of god, the poor soul, by using that different points of view theory. I guess everything goes when you use that.

I can't say that.
It's possible lions had teeth very close to what they have today, but I wouldn't call them meat-eating, since teeth can serve other purposes besides eating meat.
I've seen dogs and cats eating vegetation, that seem to indicate that they instinctively do so.
I can't say I know for sure though what exactly the animals' characteristics were.

Have you ever seen the teeth of a lion or a shark? Can you imagine a shark eating lettuce?
Is that where your creationist desperation is taking you? Lions, crocodiles and sharks ruminating like cows in heaven? LOL

Remember, perspective.
Someone looking down on the earth from outer space, still can't see more than someone outside the universe.

What perspective? It is obvious that lions are designed to kill antelopes and antelopes are designed to avoid to be eaten. You think there is a conscious designer that did that. I think that designer would be rather silly.

So, it should be self evident, that this is the result of a naturalistic arm races between predators and prays, without any teleology involved.

Good point.
Only we are not talking about giving an explanation for a fairy tale.
We might more be talking about giving a fairy tale to explain the existence of life. Hup! Evolution.

The problem, of course, is that the tales on the Bible have the same evidence of the stories on a fairy tale. So, it is not clear to me why we should give more intellectual respect to one than to the other.

Is it because more people believe in Jesus than Pinocchio and it is therefore more politically incorrect to ridicule the former?

Ciao

- viole