Just Accidental?

[AndromedaRXJ]

Yes, but what if that raindrop was unique from all other raindrops.

Like I said, I wouldn't assume the raindrop is anything special from the other raindrops.

What if it was discovered

It hasn't been discovered. You're assuming it's special. That's what you're not getting.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Evolution is a negative. It isn't "proven"...it is suggested.

Umm... that's not what "being a negative" means. A negative is a claim that something isn't true. A positive is a claim that something is true. Evolution is a positive claim, as is creationism.

You're asking for proof that things are NOT designed. You're asking for proof of a negative, but a negative can't be proven. And lack of proof of the negative certainly isn't proof of a positive. In your case, that means proof of a creator.

I cannot accept suggestions as facts and I can dismiss everything that is suggested when it has nothing to back it up except the power of suggestion and some good computer graphics.
I personally do not see evolution as a science that is built on knowledge, but on imagination and wishful thinking.

The problem is you're not even arguing against claims that Evolution makes. You're arguing against something you think it says when it says another.

It would be like me saying your belief is wrong because there's no proof of the Greek Gods. You keep arguing that there's no proof that animals will change from one kind to another, but I've explained to you repeatedly that Evolution doesn't even claim that it happens that way.

 

[Deeje]

What else would you call it? Death by accidental swallowing?
'Excuse me, Mrs Krill, I have some bad news. Your son, and 3.7 million of his closest friends were eaten by a whale. We're considering it an accidental death.'

Do we take the size of the predator compared to the size of the prey into consideration here?
Do you consider swatting mosquitoes to be hunting?
Will it be reported in the termite news that a whole colony was wiped out by "the Exterminator" who was quoted as saying "I'll be back"?

Nope. I have no need to argue with you on that. Why would I?
An Orca is larger than an elephant, and eats prey a little larger than krill. I would imagine you don't feel the need to argue with me on that. There are plenty of big arse carnivores. And herbivores. And in the case of certain bear species, some pretty big omnivores. Heck, in the case of some other bear species, some pretty big insectivores. How you get over 100kg on a diet of bugs is beyond me, but there you go.

Portion size is obviously important and the food pyramid too....I wonder how they know what to eat? Do they have a diet book based on calories or nutritional value, I wonder....?

What were we trying to prove/disprove again?

Dunno..... But it was fun chatting to you......

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do we take the size of the predator compared to the size of the prey into consideration here?
Do you consider swatting mosquitoes to be hunting?
Will it be reported in the termite news that a whole colony was wiped out by "the Exterminator" who was quoted as saying "I'll be back"?

The imagery made me chuckle. But for me the distinction is simple. If I deliberately seek out and kill something, I'm hunting it, regardless of size.
And if i deliberately seek out, kill and eat something sentient, I'm a predator.
Blue whales are both hunters and predators, as are Orcas.

Portion size is obviously important and the food pyramid too....I wonder how they know what to eat? Do they have a diet book based on calories or nutritional value, I wonder....?

Like how Italians eat pasta and tomato sauces? Of course that is a recent innovation after those items were introduced from overseas. I guess environmental considerations impact on diet?

Dunno..... But it was fun chatting to you......

Always.

 

[Deeje]

The imagery made me chuckle. But for me the distinction is simple. If I deliberately seek out and kill something, I'm hunting it, regardless of size.
And if i deliberately seek out, kill and eat something sentient, I'm a predator.

Are krill "sentient"? Has there been any experimentation to 'grill krill' on their ability to "feel" anything but...crowded?

How do 'sentient' creatures fail to allow for the "feelings" of other creatures? I know that a lioness will kill the young of other species to feed her own......I hope humans wouldn't do that....yet I know that we allow others to do the killing for us. (Lamb and veal e.g.) We choose not to think about that for the most part, and I think there would be a lot more vegetarians if we had to kill our own food.

Does our 'sentience' differ from that of other creatures? If we hunt for food.....is that different to hunting for sport or trophies?

Only humans truly "know" the 'sentience' of other creatures.....so does that make it worse if they are predators?

Is there a distinction to be made between wild and domestic animals in this issue?

Blue whales are both hunters and predators, as are Orcas.

Yes, I know, but for the sake of the argument, I was concentrating on the largest land animals who are herbivores.

Meat is highly overrated ya know.....not really needed for health and strength....ask any gorilla.

Like how Italians eat pasta and tomato sauces? Of course that is a recent innovation after those items were introduced from overseas. I guess environmental considerations impact on diet?

You mean like Chinese people don't really eat what they serve in Chinese restaurants?

Always.

Nice 'hagglin' witcha.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Are krill "sentient"? Has there been any experimentation to 'grill krill' on their ability to "feel" anything but...crowded?

Yeah...I hesitated on that word actually. I'm just distinguishing the animal kingdom from plants. If you prefer to think of herbivores as beings that kill living things for food too, I can live with it, but that doesn't really help your viewpoint. And even allowing for krill as non-sentient....well...Orcas.

How do 'sentient' creatures fail to allow for the "feelings" of other creatures? I know that a lioness will kill the young of other species to feed her own......I hope humans wouldn't do that....yet I know that we allow others to do the killing for us. (Lamb and veal e.g.) We choose not to think about that for the most part, and I think there would be a lot more vegetarians if we had to kill our own.

Actually history doesnt bear that out at all. What you're seeing is a group of people who have eaten meat without killing it then needing to adjust. Any major change like that would have massive impact. But consistently across the world through history, people who have been forced to kill their own food remain meat-eaters.

Does our 'sentience' differ from that of other creatures? If we hunt for food.....is that different to hunting for sport or trophies?

It's absolutely different. But it's still hunting.

Only humans truly "know" the 'sentience' of other creatures.....so does that make it worse if they are predators?

We at least kid ourselvrs that we do. We are more capable of self-delusion than other animals.

Is there a distinction to be made between wild and domestic animals in this issue?

There is, but I don't think it's too important in this context. But anyways, domestic animals are farmed as there is no 'searching' aspect. Wild animals are hunted. And sometimes eaten.

Yes, I know, but for the sake of the argument, I was concentrating on the largest land animals who are herbivores.

Meat is highly overrated ya know.....not really needed for health and strength....ask any gorilla.

It's more environmental than that though. What creatures need isn't meat or plant (at a macro level) but sources of protein, etc. Certain species of gorillas supplement their herbivorous diet with insects, for example.

You mean like Chinese people don't really eat what they serve in Chinese restaurants?

You need to find better Chinese restaurants.

 

[Deeje]

The problem is you're not even arguing against claims that Evolution makes. You're arguing against something you think it says when it says another.

Am I? What are some of the scientists themselves saying?

"Many scientists give the impression that the fossil record supports the theory of a common origin for life. They also claim that because all living things use similar “computer language,” or DNA, that all life must have evolved from a common ancestor."

Is that a proven fact?

"In recent years, scientists have been able to compare the genetic codes of dozens of different single-celled organisms as well as those of plants and animals. They assumed that such comparisons would confirm the branching “tree of life” proposed by Darwin. However, this has not been the case.

What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”

Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”

Many scientists point to the fossil record as support for the idea that life emerged from a common origin. They argue, for example, that the fossil record documents the notion that fish became amphibians and reptiles became mammals. What, though, does the fossil evidence really show?

“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”

In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor.

In fact, more than half of all the major divisions of animal life seem to have appeared in a relatively short period of time. Because many new and distinct life forms appear so suddenly in the fossil record, paleontologists refer to this period as “the Cambrian explosion.”

What, though, of the fossils that are used to show fish changing into amphibians, and reptiles into mammals? Do they provide solid proof of evolution in action? Upon closer inspection, several problems become obvious.

First, the comparative size of the creatures placed in the reptile-to-mammal sequence is sometimes misrepresented in textbooks. Rather than being similar in size, some creatures in the series are huge, while others are small.

A second, more serious challenge is the lack of proof that those creatures are somehow related. Specimens placed in the series are often separated by what researchers estimate to be millions of years. Regarding the time spans that separate many of these fossils, zoologist Henry Gee says: “The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.”

Commenting on the fossils of fish and amphibians, biologist Malcolm S. Gordon states that the fossils found represent only a small, “possibly quite unrepresentative, sample of the biodiversity that existed in these groups at those times.” He further says: “There is no way of knowing to what extent, if at all, those specific organisms were relevant to later developments, or what their relationships might have been to each other.”"

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010346?q=creation+evolution&p=par

Is the truth really out there?

You keep arguing that there's no proof that animals will change from one kind to another, but I've explained to you repeatedly that Evolution doesn't even claim that it happens that way.

Even honest scientists argue that evolution didn't happened the way that some claim it did. If there is no real consensus about the way things supposedly took place, how can it be taught as a fact?

 

[Deeje]

Yeah...I hesitated on that word actually. I'm just distinguishing the animal kingdom from plants. If you prefer to think of herbivores as beings that kill living things for food too, I can live with it, but that doesn't really help your viewpoint. And even allowing for krill as non-sentient....well...Orcas.

Do you believe that sentient creatures just invented their own diet? I know if I allowed my dog to freely choose what to eat in a smorgasbord, she would not differentiate between healthy or unhealthy food....a bit like humans really but with an excuse. She is a slave to her taste buds and has no knowledge of food's nutritional values. We are slaves to our taste buds too but with no excuse to eat junk and then complain about our health issues as we waddle into the doctors office trying to find a chair that will not heave under our bulk.

Actually history doesnt bear that out at all. What you're seeing is a group of people who have eaten meat without killing it then needing to adjust. Any major change like that would have massive impact. But consistently across the world through history, people who have been forced to kill their own food remain meat-eaters.

And yet according to scripture, humankind were vegetarians to begin with and were granted permission to eat flesh only after the flood of Noah's day. (and no, I don't need to debate whether it has what science calls evidence for this event or not)
Of all the 'apes' in existence which ones are naturally meat eaters?
Why are humans the exception?

Does our 'sentience' differ from that of other creatures? If we hunt for food.....is that different to hunting for sport or trophies?

It's absolutely different. But it's still hunting.

Does the motivation justify the killing if it isn't for food? Is blood sport "natural" for human kind? Or is it a perversion? I know how I feel when I see trophy hunters displaying their "kill". It sickens me to think that wild animals can be bred for this "sport". I feel a similar revulsion to seeing wild animals being exploited in circuses.

Only humans truly "know" the 'sentience' of other creatures.....so does that make it worse if they are predators?

We at least kid ourselves that we do. We are more capable of self-delusion than other animals.

I have to agree on that......self delusion is an inherited disorder that affects the entire human race.....who has a permanent dose of reality that will cure this condition? I believe our Creator does.
Humans don't have a clue.....they are too busy making themselves rich to worry about the slaughter that is happening all around them...especially to their own kind.

What creatures need isn't meat or plant (at a macro level) but sources of protein, etc. Certain species of gorillas supplement their herbivorous diet with insects, for example.

As do humans. We, as omnivores should know consciously what a healthy diet consists of, yet the majority of food consumed in this world is hardly health promoting. Animals do not make that mistake in the wild...they instinctively "know" what to eat. They often instinctively know what is poisonous to them as well.

You mean like Chinese people don't really eat what they serve in Chinese restaurants?

You need to find better Chinese restaurants.

Not much choice in the small country town where I live.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Do you believe that sentient creatures just invented their own diet?

I think their diet changed as they themselves changed. I don't think mammals appeared, remember?

I know if I allowed my dog to freely choose what to eat in a smorgasbord, she would not differentiate between healthy or unhealthy food....a bit like humans really but with an excuse. She is a slave to her taste buds and has no knowledge of food's nutritional values. We are slaves to our taste buds too but with no excuse to eat junk and then complain about our health issues as we waddle into the doctors office trying to find a chair that will not heave under our bulk.

You seem to be agreeing with me that environment is the major impact on diet?

And yet according to scripture, humankind were vegetarians to begin with and were granted permission to eat flesh only after the flood of Noah's day. (and no, I don't need to debate whether it has what science calls evidence for this event or not)

I think humans were vegetarians originally too. There ya go. No debate. My version of 'originally' is just different to yours.

Of all the 'apes' in existence which ones are naturally meat eaters?

Apart from us, chimps and bonobos. They're our closest relatives. Well, depending on your point of view they are. So...not sure on your point?

Why are humans the exception?

We're not. Human exceptionalism is not really something I buy into. But I thought you did? You're not gonna flip over to my side of the fence soon, are you...

Does the motivation justify the killing if it isn't for food? Is blood sport "natural" for human kind? Or is it a perversion? I know how I feel when I see trophy hunters displaying their "kill". It sickens me to think that wild animals can be bred for this "sport". I feel a similar revulsion to seeing wild animals being exploited in circuses.

Justify? Not to my mind. For some people they might talk about cultural considerations above and beyond mere trophy hunting. Coming of age, etc.

 

[Deeje]

I think their diet changed as they themselves changed. I don't think mammals appeared, remember?

The fossil record seems to disagree with you. There is no ape to human "chain" except in the fertile minds of evolutionists.....
Early "man", if he looked like an ape, probably was.
Science has no real way to tell the difference...but you knew that, right?

You seem to be agreeing with me that environment is the major impact on diet?

I agree that we all eat what is available to us. But that doesn't explain how animals know instinctively "what" to eat in their environment so that they remain healthy. They know nothing about nutrition.

Humans show a great disregard for health when they knowingly consume vast quantities of unhealthy food. Its laziness more than anything else. And it keeps the coffers of 'big pharma' filled to capacity. No one is taking steps to really discourage it, are they? (a means of population control perhaps?)
How advanced are we as a sentient, cognizant species really?

I think humans were vegetarians originally too. There ya go. No debate. My version of 'originally' is just different to yours.

I have never seen proof for your position on this, so I prefer my own, naturally.

Apart from us, chimps and bonobos. They're our closest relatives. Well, depending on your point of view they are. So...not sure on your point?

The natural diet of apes is not flesh. It was only relatively recently discovered that chimps and bonobos ate meat at all, but is not generally observed.

Human exceptionalism is not really something I buy into. But I thought you did? You're not gonna flip over to my side of the fence soon, are you...

Humans are by far the exception to anything we see in the animal kingdom. Our skills in communication e.g. are so advanced that no other living thing on this planet can communicate like we do. We involve multiple senses of speech, hearing, sight and mental comprehension of a written language that can be demonstrated in pictorial or written form. These skills are unparalleled in the animal kingdom.
When was the last time you saw cave paintings by chimps or bonobos?
No flip will be happening anytime soon.

For some people they might talk about cultural considerations above and beyond mere trophy hunting. Coming of age, etc.

When I see the American Indians e.g. and their attitude to life and the respect shown to the buffalo that they used as their food source and for many other things that they used in everyday life, I don't see blood-lust in their culture except perhaps in their tribal disputes.

Humans warring with other humans over trivial issues dates back to Cain and Abel. But hunting animals for sport and not for food betrays a particular defect of character in humans that I don't see reflected in general in the animal kingdom. We of all species on this planet have NO excuse for the things we do....we know better but we still carry on this ridiculous bloodshed in a time when civilization should have advanced beyond this surely?

Without God there is no hope for humanity IMO. Our greed and selfishness will lead to the extinction of all life on this planet, unless there is divine intervention soon. I am counting on that for the future of humankind.
What are you counting on?

 

[Olinda]

To tell you the truth, I don't even remember what questions you asked.

Nor do I care really.

I asked you to explain a contradiction, and you responded with an accusation. Now, instead of backing it up or backing off, you attempt the politician's defence (I don't remember).

I am never quite sure how to take you Olinda...you seem syrupy nice sometimes and sarcastically mean-spirited at others. Is playing mind games something you enjoy generally, or is it just with me?

And yet you think I'm the one playing games??

Perhaps I am the wrong person to "play" with you. I shall leave you in the sandpit to play by yourself. I am sure others here will be glad to join you.
Perhaps you can ask your questions of someone who wants the play the same games you do?

I have lost interest....sorry.

I'm normally friendly; there's no need to squabble just because we have differing beliefs. It isn't sarcastic or mean spirited to ask you to back up your statements on a debating forum.
But if it's too big an ask. . . fine, keep well and happy!

 

[Deeje]

I asked you to explain a contradiction, and you responded with an accusation. Now, instead of backing it up or backing off, you attempt the politician's defence (I don't remember).

And yet you think I'm the one playing games??

I'm normally friendly; there's no need to squabble just because we have differing beliefs. It isn't sarcastic or mean spirited to ask you to back up your statements on a debating forum.
But if it's too big an ask. . . fine

The difficulty arises when one seems to play both sides of a card. I just find your questioning confusing and deliberately confrontational. It goes beyond debating....I have done that for years here, and very seldom do I encounter someone who completely rubs me up the wrong way, but when I do, it is better to back off than to say things I will regret.
You might think that you appear "friendly", but I do not find you friendly at all. I find you somewhat like a Jekyll and Hyde character.....sorry.
I am the wrong person to respond to you obviously, so I refrain and that way, I will avoid a bad conscience.

keep well and happy!

and the same to you.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

"Many scientists give the impression that the fossil record supports the theory of a common origin for life. They also claim that because all living things use similar “computer language,” or DNA, that all life must have evolved from a common ancestor."

Is that a proven fact?

Yep.

"In recent years, scientists have been able to compare the genetic codes of dozens of different single-celled organisms as well as those of plants and animals. They assumed that such comparisons would confirm the branching “tree of life” proposed by Darwin. However, this has not been the case.

What has the research uncovered? In 1999 biologist Malcolm S. Gordon wrote: “Life appears to have had many origins. The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root.” Is there evidence that all the major branches of life are connected to a single trunk, as Darwin believed? Gordon continues: “The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla.”

Recent research continues to contradict Darwin’s theory of common descent. For example, in 2009 an article in New Scientist magazine quoted evolutionary scientist Eric Bapteste as saying: “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality.” The same article quotes evolutionary biologist Michael Rose as saying: “The tree of life is being politely buried, we all know that. What’s less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change.”

These quotes don't go in depth enough. What the fossil record shows is lifeforms becoming more and more basic as you go back in time. These scientists that you're quoting need to show that this is not the case.

I've said this repeatedly to you, that everything is just a variation of a more basic ancestor.

“Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life,” says evolutionary paleontologist David M. Raup, “what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record.”

In reality, the vast majority of fossils show stability among types of creatures over extensive amounts of time. The evidence does not show them evolving from one type into another. Unique body plans appear suddenly. New features appear suddenly. For example, bats with sonar and echolocation systems appear with no obvious link to a more primitive ancestor.

Do you doubt birds evolved from dinosaurs?

What, though, of the fossils that are used to show fish changing into amphibians

Ancient lobe finned fish and tiktaalik.

and reptiles into mammals?

Synapsids and therapsids. I happen to be much more familiar with reptile-to-mammal evolution, so I'll have an easier time posting pictures and proof of this than I would with amphibians and fish.

By the way, fish and reptile are informal terms. They're used loosely. So loosely that you could call mammals a variation of reptiles and a type of land-fish, in the same way that you could call a mouse a variation of a rodent and a variation of a mammal.

First, the comparative size of the creatures placed in the reptile-to-mammal sequence is sometimes misrepresented in textbooks. Rather than being similar in size, some creatures in the series are huge, while others are small.

Size is something that can change quick. Look at the variations of size in cat species for example. Compare a Siberian Tiger to a Desert Sandcat (a fully mature one is the size of a domestic kitten).

Do you doubt the Siberian Tiger and the Sandcat have common ancestory? Also, consider the various sizes of domestic dogs.

“The intervals of time that separate the fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent.”

This is true. But you probably think it means one thing when it means another. For example, if we find an ancient cat fossil, we'll know it's a cat, and we'll know it's related to all modern cat species. But it's exact relationship will be difficult to determine. What might be in dispute is whether it's more related to lions, or cheetahs, or or something along those lines.

I've said this before. The fossil record gives us a very clear picture of the bigger picture. It's not very good at giving us insight on very specific and small details.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The fossil record seems to disagree with you. There is no ape to human "chain" except in the fertile minds of evolutionists.....
Early "man", if he looked like an ape, probably was.
Science has no real way to tell the difference...but you knew that, right?

Why would there be an ape to human chain? Don't think I've ever heard anyone make that claim.

I agree that we all eat what is available to us. But that doesn't explain how animals know instinctively "what" to eat in their environment so that they remain healthy. They know nothing about nutrition.

http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/factsheet/2_3_1.pdf

Humans show a great disregard for health when they knowingly consume vast quantities of unhealthy food. Its laziness more than anything else. And it keeps the coffers of 'big pharma' filled to capacity. No one is taking steps to really discourage it, are they? (a means of population control perhaps?)
How advanced are we as a sentient, cognizant species really?

Advanced? You can run with that line if you like. Our brains are capable of complex thought relative to krill, but intelligence is relative. People would be better off if they were willing to accept that they don't have all the answers.

I have never seen proof for your position on this, so I prefer my own, naturally.

Fair enough.

The natural diet of apes is not flesh. It was only relatively recently discovered that chimps and bonobos ate meat at all, but is not generally observed.

Pretty sure anything a bonobo does that hasn't been taught to him by a human is 'natural'. They eat more plant materials than meat, but they eat meat. They're also sex fiends. Naturally. Created that way, from your point of view, the randy little devils.

Humans are by far the exception to anything we see in the animal kingdom. Our skills in communication e.g. are so advanced that no other living thing on this planet can communicate like we do. We involve multiple senses of speech, hearing, sight and mental comprehension of a written language that can be demonstrated in pictorial or written form. These skills are unparalleled in the animal kingdom.
When was the last time you saw cave paintings by chimps or bonobos?

The blue whale is a bloody big whale, but it's still a whale. We might be more cognitively advanced than other animals, but it's a relative term. I understand your opinion is different, but I don't see us as fundamentally different. Just smarter. And more self delusional.

No flip will be happening anytime soon.

Oh well. Fair enough. It would be boring if we agreed.

When I see the American Indians e.g. and their attitude to life and the respect shown to the buffalo that they used as their food source and for many other things that they used in everyday life, I don't see blood-lust in their culture except perhaps in their tribal disputes.

Hmmm...an area of interest and study to me, actually. A couple of general comments;
1) Be careful making statements about so many different groups and cultures. I don't mean that to sound judgmental, although I know it does. They are just an incredibly diverse grouping.
2) In general terms, animals were not wasted. That can be both due to respect and necessity.

Humans warring with other humans over trivial issues dates back to Cain and Abel. But hunting animals for sport and not for food betrays a particular defect of character in humans that I don't see reflected in general in the animal kingdom. We of all species on this planet have NO excuse for the things we do....we know better but we still carry on this ridiculous bloodshed in a time when civilization should have advanced beyond this surely?

You snuck in the phrase 'in general' to provide some coverage, but it's not only humans who kill without the motivation of food.
Surplus killing, for example, is common to many species. Foxes are the common example, but there are plenty of others, including dear old tabby cats.

Without God there is no hope for humanity IMO. Our greed and selfishness will lead to the extinction of all life on this planet, unless there is divine intervention soon. I am counting on that for the future of humankind.
What are you counting on?

People to provide a good model for their children, to treat others as they wish to be treated, and to see things as they are.
Seems far-fetched to you, perhaps, but consider your position from where I sit...

 

[Deeje]

Yep.

Nothing in evolutionary science is an established fact...it is an accepted belief....just like mine.

These quotes don't go in depth enough. What the fossil record shows is lifeforms becoming more and more basic as you go back in time. These scientists that you're quoting need to show that this is not the case.

I've said this repeatedly to you, that everything is just a variation of a more basic ancestor.

Or so you have been led to believe.

Do you doubt birds evolved from dinosaurs?

You don't think dinosaurs could have feathers? You don't think some creatures flew without them? Don't some creatures fly without them even now?

I see no evidence for evolution at all. I see extinct curious creatures that no longer exist.

"In the absence of fossil evidence, controversy rages among evolutionists over how feathers originated. “Fundamentalist fervor,” “vitriolic name-calling,” and “paleontological passion” pervade the debate, states the magazine Science News. One evolutionary biologist, who organized a symposium on feather evolution, confessed: “I never dreamed that any scientific matter could possibly generate such bad personal behavior and such bitterness.” If feathers clearly evolved, why should discussions of the process become so vitriolic?

“Feathers are a little too perfect—that’s the problem,” notes Yale University’s Manual of Ornithology—Avian Structure and Function. Feathers give no indication that they ever needed improvement. In fact, the “earliest known fossil feather is so modern-looking as to be indistinguishable from the feathers of birds flying today.”* Yet, evolutionary theory teaches that feathers must be the result of gradual, cumulative change in earlier skin outgrowths. Moreover, “feathers could not have evolved without some plausible adaptive value in all of the intermediate steps,” says the Manual.

To put it simply, even in theory, evolution could not produce a feather unless each step in a long series of random, inheritable changes in feather structure significantly improved the animal’s chances for survival. Even many evolutionists find it a stretch of the imagination that something as complex and functionally perfect as a feather could arise in such a way.

Further, if feathers developed progressively over a long period of time, the fossil record should contain intermediate forms. But none have ever been found, only traces of fully formed feathers. “Unfortunately for evolutionary theory, feathers are very complicated,” states the Manual."

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102007250

Ancient lobe finned fish and tiktaalik.

Here he is.....

and here is what he really looks like....

That is like taking a skeleton and turning it into.....

 

[Deeje]

Synapsids and therapsids. I happen to be much more familiar with reptile-to-mammal evolution, so I'll have an easier time posting pictures and proof of this than I would with amphibians and fish.

By the way, fish and reptile are informal terms. They're used loosely. So loosely that you could call mammals a variation of reptiles and a type of land-fish, in the same way that you could call a mouse a variation of a rodent and a variation of a mammal.

Thank you for the definition....it fits just about everything else evolution wants to nail down.

Size is something that can change quick. Look at the variations of size in cat species for example. Compare a Siberian Tiger to a Desert Sandcat (a fully mature one is the size of a domestic kitten).

Assuming of course that all cats evolved from a single ancestral source. Why couldn't the various species of cats be a product of creation to be exactly as they are?

Do you doubt the Siberian Tiger and the Sandcat have common ancestory? Also, consider the various sizes of domestic dogs.

Here are the scientific facts....from a quick internet search......

"Felids (which include lions, tigers, cougars, and yes, domestic cats) are all evolved from a common ancestor less than fifteen million years ago. Domestic cats are thought to have evolved from Near Eastern wildcats, probably the African wildcat Felis silvestris lybica."

All cats are in the Felidae family. It's not wrong to call them felids. Within the felidae family are two living subfamilies: Pantherinae (which includes jaguars, lions, leapards and tigers) and Felinae (which includes cougars, cheetahs, lynxes, ocelots and house cats). There was a third Felidae subfamily -- Machairodontinae, which included the smilodon, aka the saber-toothed tiger -- but they died off. The most recent common ancestor of all three families, extant and extinct, is the pseudaelurus. Its predecessor, the proailurus, may have been the first true felid.


The First Cats

Pseudaelurus was a prehistoric cat that lived in Eurasia and North America roughly 20 million years ago. The pseudaelurus had slender proportions and short legs, not unlike a weasel. It died out about 8 million years ago. In scientific literature it's sometimes cited as the basal stock of the Felidae family. Its predecessor was the proailurus, which lived in Eurasia roughly 25 million years ago. The proailurus was slightly bigger than a domestic cat. It had a long tail and probably hung out in trees. Some scientists posit it as the basal stock of the Feliformia superfamily -- this includes Felidae and similar animals -- but other scientists dub it the first true felid."

Do you see again the vague language of "may have's" and "probably's"...."Some scientists" said this....."other scientists" said something else....is this the language of facts?

This is true. But you probably think it means one thing when it means another. For example, if we find an ancient cat fossil, we'll know it's a cat, and we'll know it's related to all modern cat species. But it's exact relationship will be difficult to determine. What might be in dispute is whether it's more related to lions, or cheetahs, or or something along those lines.

Loose interpretation is again not the language of facts.

I've said this before. The fossil record gives us a very clear picture of the bigger picture. It's not very good at giving us insight on very specific and small details.

The fossil record is not a record at all. It is bits and pieces strung together with imagination. There are no intermediate species to back up a single thing that evolution teaches about the origin of species. The missing links are all still missing. But you will never know this if you listen to the men of science. Unless you see through the supposition and realize that there is no evolutionary chain of species gradually changing from one to another, the greatest con in the history of the world will be perpetuated.

 

[viole]

Even honest scientists argue that evolution didn't happened the way that some claim it did. If there is no real consensus about the way things supposedly took place, how can it be taught as a fact?

Simple. Because a fact does not stop being a fact once you have different interpretations about how it came to be.

According to your logic, JF Kennedy assasination is not a fact. 9/11 destruction of the twin towers was not a fact. gravitation is not a fact, life on earth is not a fact, the dinosaurs extinction is not a fact, etc.etc.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

We can no more testify to that with any certainty, than you can testify to the mode of evolution you promote. You "suggest" how life evolved....we "suggest" how life was created. One requires random chance and no intelligent direction whatsoever....the other requires intelligent design that clearly demonstrates purpose. I know which one appeals to my logic when you understand that "magic" doesn't describe the process in any way. Humans have no idea what powers exist in the universe that remain to be discovered. We are ants compared to a power who can create and organize matter and then give it "life". Can you define "life"?

Maybe you could just answer the question. If you think an ant or a tree is so complex that some creator god must have had a hand in it, it's only logical to ask how vastly much more complex this god you believe in must be than a simple tree or a duck.

I didn't say anything about certainty.

By the way, I know this has been pointed out to you before ... Evolution isn't merely "random chance," because natural selection is not random.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, they aren't. The blue whale is carnivorous.

Beat me to it!

 

[Deeje]

Why would there be an ape to human chain? Don't think I've ever heard anyone make that claim.

How many of these illustrations were fed to school children over the last few decades?

or

or

This one could be more valid I think.....

http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/factsheet/2_3_1.pdf

Thanks for the link...it made me think about the plovers who rear their babies outside my house. This is one species of bird that is loudly protective of its young, but right from the moment they hatch, these little guys know what to eat. Their parents do not feed them, nor do they instruct them....they just stand watch over them and keep predators away as best they can. How do these babies know what to eat if their parents have nothing to do with feeding them? A little while ago, I heard the mum and dad squawking away and went to investigate. Magpies were flying overhead and the parents immediately took off and fended them off. The babies immediately went to ground and didn't move. This is pure programming and I cannot see how this can possibly be a product of evolution.

Advanced? You can run with that line if you like. Our brains are capable of complex thought relative to krill, but intelligence is relative. People would be better off if they were willing to accept that they don't have all the answers.

My brain doesn't work like that. I have to know "why" about as many things as I can. The logical things are the most instructive and if someone says "because I suggest that it happened like this and I am a scientist with degrees so you must believe me".....is no reason for me to accept the suggestions of anyone who is trying to feed me bulldust.

I don't know of any other species apart from man who has so completely changed his environment to suit himself....do you? Doesn't evolution teach the opposite?

Pretty sure anything a bonobo does that hasn't been taught to him by a human is 'natural'. They eat more plant materials than meat, but they eat meat. They're also sex fiends. Naturally. Created that way, from your point of view, the randy little devils.

Yes I know, but animals do not have any morals. If humans start copulating or defecating in public, it is because they have come to believe that they are animals...I wonder where that notion came from?

The blue whale is a bloody big whale, but it's still a whale. We might be more cognitively advanced than other animals, but it's a relative term. I understand your opinion is different, but I don't see us as fundamentally different. Just smarter. And more self delusional.

Don't you just hate that about humanity? Self-delusion is everywhere.

Hmmm...an area of interest and study to me, actually. A couple of general comments;
1) Be careful making statements about so many different groups and cultures. I don't mean that to sound judgmental, although I know it does. They are just an incredibly diverse grouping.
2) In general terms, animals were not wasted. That can be both due to respect and necessity.

I understand what you mean, and I was only using this as an example of their respect for life. I don't see much respect for life at all anywhere these days....do you?

You snuck in the phrase 'in general' to provide some coverage, but it's not only humans who kill without the motivation of food.
Surplus killing, for example, is common to many species. Foxes are the common example, but there are plenty of others, including dear old tabby cats.

I did sneak that in because as a general rule, animals don't "play" with their food.....there are exceptions to every rule though.
Orcas are also known to play with their food....but the with a name like "killer whale" what do we expect?
I wonder if Hannibal Lector played with his food?

People to provide a good model for their children, to treat others as they wish to be treated, and to see things as they are.
Seems far-fetched to you, perhaps, but consider your position from where I sit...

You know, I see you as an eternal optimist LnM.....do you not watch the news or observe anyone who lives in a seedy neighborhood with seedy neighbors? You seem as if you live far away from any of that, with little contact with the outside world......it seems like a rosy place where nothing bad happens.....don't let word get out because everyone will want to come and live where you do......but it isn't on this planet apparently. Can I come and visit?