I've Sacrificed my belief in Evolution for Religion

[Thermos aquaticus]

Having a faith based position is not evidence that that opinion is true. I did not ask you to provide a declaration, I asked for actual evidence.

That would require you to define what you mean by evidence. We have plenty of evidence for species sharing a common ancestor, but it doesn't seem that you will accept that evidence.

 

[1robin]

Since that has already been done there would be no use to do so again. Until you learn the basics I would be wasting my time.

No it has not, especially in your own case. You haven't even tried.

Nope, he gave an example of macroevolution. You do not even understand the terms that you are using.

I have been given over a dozen links in the past few days alone. I don't have an idea which part of which link you are referring, and neither do you.

Only due to your refusal to learn.

Why are you so afraid to learn the basics? If you do know them it will take very little time to go over them. You keep demanding what you cannot understand when it is given to you.

Your wasting your (and what is even worse) my own time. See post#472.

 

[1robin]

So you are defending a myth that you can't even define. Tell us:

First you must explain how you know that what I referred to is a myth. Even if a scripture is a myth you couldn't possibly know it. This is intellectual dishonest and also a form of virtue signaling.

What is a "kind"?

I have already explained this specifically for you dozens of times. Your wasting my time. See post #472

 

[1robin]

This is what you originally stated:

The bible claims evolution only occurs within breeding populations. I affirm that and claim no one has observed one breeding population evolve into another.

So to counter my position you must show that in fact one breeding population is known to have evolved into another.​

And that's exactly what I posted, observed examples of populations giving rise to new separately breeding populations.

Your challenge has been met and your position is simply wrong.

[/quote] I know what I have stated.

1. The most common general interpretation of "kind" is breeding population. However you pressed me for a firm fixed idea of what "kind" means.
2. So I went to the bible to give you the exact biblical passages in question.
3. What exactly is your complaint here?

 

[1robin]

What features would a fossil need in order to disprove what you are defending? What shared genetic markers would disprove what you are defending?

Are you having trouble interpreting the verse I supplied?

What proof would you accept?

The proof that one type of animal evolved into another. For example the proof that whales and cows share an ancestor. Basically that common descent is true.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Are you having trouble interpreting the verse I supplied?

I am having difficulty in applying it to biology in any meaningful way.

The proof that one type of animal evolved into another. For example the proof that whales and cows share an ancestor. Basically that common descent is true.

Whales and cows are the same type of animal. They are both mammals. See the problem?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it has not, especially in your own case. You haven't even tried.

Sure I have, after satisfying your demand early on I switched to offer to help you to learn. You never took me up on the offer.

I have been given over a dozen links in the past few days alone. I don't have an idea which part of which link you are referring, and neither do you.

Links help, but not if you do not understand the basics. The dozens of links tend to support your early demand of proof of macroevolution.

Your wasting your (and what is even worse) my own time. See post#472.

You are only wasting your own time. I quit wasting my time with trying to offer you proof once you demonstrated that you do not understand evidence.

You are a bit like an uneducated kid demanding to understand calculus before he understands algebra or even simple multiplication and division.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The proof that one type of animal evolved into another. For example the proof that whales and cows share an ancestor. Basically that common descent is true.

Science is evidence based. Do you understand that there is evidence that whales and cows share a common ancestor? Perhaps if we start with you understanding that evolution is supported by scientific evidence and creationism is not we may get somewhere.

 

[Subduction Zone]

lovely

Sounds like a disagreement. Failure is not the word.

Actually failure is the word. Perhaps you have not been following the discussion or you do not know how the poster failed. He appears to be afraid to learn. Do you deny reality as well?

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Actually failure is the word. Perhaps you have not been following the discussion or you do not know how the poster failed. He appears to be afraid to learn. Do you deny reality as well?

There are as many realities as there are its perceives. That another does not agree with you does not imply that they have failed. If it did imply that it would mean that were they to agree with you they would succeed. If they do not succeed by agreeing they cannot fail by disagreeing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are as many realities as there are its perceives. That another does not agree with you does not imply that they have failed. If it did imply that it would mean that were they to agree with you they would succeed. If they do not succeed by agreeing they cannot fail by disagreeing.

No reality is testable and confirmable. Make believe cannot be tested. And by denying reality one does fail. Try it when you are near the edge of a cliff some day. The lesson will be short and painful.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

No reality is testable and confirmable. Make believe cannot be tested. And by denying reality one does fail. Try it when you are near the edge of a cliff some day. The lesson will be short and painful.

That is not true.

 

[exchemist]

Are you having trouble interpreting the verse I supplied?



The proof that one type of animal evolved into another. For example the proof that whales and cows share an ancestor. Basically that common descent is true.

Proof is the wrong word. Proof is for law and mathematics, not science.

What there is is evidence that common descent is true. DNA shows the closest living animal to the whale genetically is the hippopotamus. Cool, huh?

And, as evolution predicted, intermediate fossils have now been found showing how whales developed from terrestrial mammals. You can look up Indohyus and Pakicetus if you want more on this. You will read there is evidence these were artiodactyls, the same broad family of mammals that included pigs and cattle - and hippos, of course.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not true.

Then for your safety I suggest that you take a long walk on a short pier. The lesson will be much less painful and only humiliating, assuming that you can swim.

Why one Earth do you think that reality can't be tested?

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Then for your safety I suggest that you take a long walk on a short pier. The lesson will be much less painful and only humiliating, assuming that you can swim.

Why one Earth do you think that reality can't be tested?

Because I have never seen it have material to test.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Proof is the wrong word. Proof is for law and mathematics, not science.

What there is is evidence that common descent is true. DNA shows the closest living animal to the whale genetically is the hippopotamus. Cool, huh?

And, as evolution predicted, intermediate fossils have now been found showing how whales developed from terrestrial mammals. You can look up Indohyus and Pakicetus if you want more on this. You will read there is evidence these were artiodactyls, the same broad family of mammals that included pigs and cattle - and hippos, of course.

Proof - evidence - evidence - proof. Same **** different name.

 

[exchemist]

Proof - evidence - evidence - proof. Same **** different name.

No it isn't at all. Any criminal lawyer will tell you that. Proof means something must logically be true. Evidence means something appears, so far, as if it may be true.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

No it isn't at all. Any criminal lawyer will tell you that. Proof means something must logically be true. Evidence means something appears, so far, as if it may be true.

The difference - though theoretically existent - is not that clear. They can mostly be used interchangeably, and in this case arguing about it is waste of time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because I have never seen it have material to test.

Then perhaps you should learn the scientific method so that you can see how ideas are tested.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Proof - evidence - evidence - proof. Same **** different name.

Not at all. But if that is your definition then the theory of evolution is proven.