nPeace
Veteran Member
Sounds like you are guessing. In fact, it's clear, you don't even know. Which sounds like an unintentional confession of... you just believe.
-
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!
Learned and Adapted Behaviors
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
David Davidovich
Well-Known Member
nPeace
Veteran Member
Look @YoursTrue Hairy fish. 
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
A random comment that completely missed the point followed by an ignorant strawman that I've corrected a bazillion times already.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
And no one has seen Pluto complete an orbit. But we know it takes 248 years.
Nobody has seen a language like latin transform into a language like french. But we know that happened also.
Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away.
Also: tiktaalik. Found by prediction. The prediction included it's estimated age, it's anatomical features, it's historical habitat,...
Your argument from incredulity is noted.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Yes. You.
Nobody has ever made that argument.
Everybody on this side of the fence consistently and constantly justified and motivates their acceptance of science because of the evidence that exists for it. Not because "scientists believe it".
It would be more convincing if you had shown why the "Jehova Witness website"
Don't even need to.
If you wish to argue science, use scientific sources.
But you can't, because there are none that argue for your religious side.
The only sources arguing for your religious side are your religious sources, who believe this stuff on faith and by religious prerequisite.
As for "why", it's pretty obvious... they try to rationalize their religious beliefs so that their sheep followers remain in line.
That's why you only find their propaganda on their own channels, and never in scientific papers.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
That top performers are most likely to perform best, is anything but "magic".
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No. I'm simply not ignoring what it means to be an obligate carnivore. And what the implications are of such concerning digestive system, teeth, metabolism,...
I'm also considering the actual differences between obligate carnivores and herbivores.
I think I was quite clear that I don't know if it's even possible.
Which is why I said that IF it is possible, it would take quite some time and evolution.
This sort of diet change is very radical. This is not like changing a nut diet to another nut.
From obligate carnivore to herbivore requires big changes to digestive systems and whatnot.
You seem to be completely unaware of this.
No one expects a litter of pups not to be dogs or born of dogs. The theory doesn't predict that dogs will give birth to elephants, monkeys, bats, horses, voles...
To be those dead set to deny, nothing factual is true.
It's a meaningless mantra to repeat, but for some reason those that repeat it think it conjures some sort of devastating intellectual magic.
Last edited:
But you don't respond well unless everyone posts gentle to you.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It's not "fact" that water breathing fish evolved to landlubbers. There is no factual information beyond figuring (God forbid I should say conjecture -- oops that would be a big mistake, right?) from fossils and existing organisms that's what happened -- in other words, that somehow these things evolved from water dwelling breathing fish to non-water dwelling breathers. But ok, be that as it may. Take care.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No, it doesn't? (No kidding, right?) But it DOES maybe and I mean maybe predict that there could be, might be, may be, possibly be something not considered like dogs eons down the evolutionary road. Just as it is claimed there is an "Unknown Common Ancestor" from which gorillas and humans came from, somehow.
Yet no one has seen gorillas changing into advanced whatever -- I know the reasons some give -- not enough time to see it. Anyway, why not espouse the idea S. Hawking promoted -- that a "LAW" was in effect before the universe formed by itself. I have asked questions as much as possible here, I'm not about to sit through some course with a biologist who won't take the time to answer questions from someone like myself as he's lecturing. Sorry. Also -- back to fossil dating again .. so one or two kindly disposed persons here have helped me to understand that fossils really themselves (meaning the bones) cannot be dated after a time because they become rocks. I didn't know that as dumb as you all think I am and I'm not afraid to admit it. But that does settle a few questions in my mind. So -- I have a distinct feeling (thought really) that insects came around before mammals. What do you think? Were insects on the earth before mammals?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Similar to hairy impressions maybe(?) on the sides of dinosaurs or something like that. Ah well, thanks for your input. Maybe they'd have to groom themselves and the best groomers made it to evolve further. Right now I'll go back to S. Hawking's claim that did change though, that the universe came about from -- N O T H I N G -- because of the LAW of gravity. The law of gravity? So i guess he figured the LAW of gravity just either was always there, didn't need a creator or maker of the law, and was there before the "universe" came to be.Look @YoursTrue Hairy fish.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Not saying they did not. Did wolves evolve from cockroaches or from dinosaurs, by the way? Cockroaches have wings -- and legs -- I don't think wolves have wings, do you think they have vestiges of wings?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I'm going back to S. Hawking's comment about the universe came about from NOTHING because of the "law of gravity."
As I understand it, he first thought (declared evidently) that the universe was the "big bang" or something like that, then he changed his mind. Saying it came about from N-O-T-H-I-N-G via the LAW of gravity. Well, he's dead and gone now, maybe if he is resurrected he'll change his mind. I hope so.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
are wolves still evolving by "natural selection"?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Someone said here that wolves evolved into dogs. Are wolves still evolving insofar as you know?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Apparently, and I say that with emphasis, in the few thousand years of recorded history, humans have not observed or written about wolves evolving into dogs, have they? It's kind of hard to see water breathing fish change (evolve) to landlubbers so that's more understandable as to why humans would not have observed that or written about it as if they observed it.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Shows how much you know and where you bury your head.
Have you ever seen a v8 horse powered engine in a scientific paper? How about a barber's hair clipper, and his artistic cuts? Hair weaves? A tailor made jacket?
It appears science is all some people can see. You seem to think everyone should be a scientist, and everything must be in a scientific paper..
For your information, our publications are so widely distributed, they are in places that has no internet.
They reach people who don't even know what the theory of evolution is. "Theory of Who? What? Evawho?"
They reach University students, Educators, Politicians, Astronauts Physicists, Chemists, Biologists, Prisoners, and yes, the begger sleeping under the apartment steps, and the man living in a cave, or bush.
What is more, they open eyes of believers in the theory. They make an about face... because they are unintelligent? You may want to believe that.
Perhaps you haven't seen the two rock solid publications science teachers cannot argue against.
Perhaps, if you do have the time... that is, if you don't go out of your way to avoid contact, you might get to engage a young person armed with that knowledge.
The way you avoid information given you on these forums though, I doubt you would want to face a teenager presenting any information to you.
I doubt yo could manage more than... "The theory of evolution is a well established scientific theory." "The theory of evolution is a well established scientific theory." "The theory of evolution is a well established scientific theory."
Last edited: