Well it's good you're not a celebrity or influential person so you could negatively influence people about your poor understanding of science. This is why we need excellent science classes in public school so children can understand evolution and science in a way you don't seem willing to learn.What the senior research scientist said is true about the speculation of evolution and human origins -- it's a big mess. (yup, it is. All you have to do is read about it.) It will explain itself about the big mess. That's what I have realized as to the validity of the speculations.
-
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!
More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)
- Thread starter YoursTrue
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Now it is time for me to be facepalming you.
We Never Know
No Slack
No??? I will give you a link even kids know.
Ligers and Tigons and Grolars, Oh My! Hybridization, and How It Affects Biodiversity.
Or you can use this one...
When hybrids are fertile
We Never Know
No Slack
Because????
Here's the post again. Be sure your reply refers to the post.
You said "Feathers are a very specific structure."
I said and gill's aren't? So in other words aren't gill's a very specific structure?
Edit.....
We have remnants of gills which came before feathers.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Kid's sources? At least double check with a slightly better source:
Liger - Wikipedia
Males are sterile. Females have very limited fertility.
We Never Know
No Slack
I gave you more than one link.
Wiki??? You would be lost without wiki lol
Try this one
Type 3 hybrids are fertile and there is recombination during gametogenesis allowing introgression in further generations. Non-human-induced hybridization represents hybrids naturally found in nature, in which evolutionary opportunities arise when hybrids are fertile.
Harmonizing hybridization dissonance in conservation.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The statement doesn't actually make much sense.
There's nothing to know about "atheism" in that sense.
Theism is the thing with all the content.
Atheism is just when you don't find the theistic content believable
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
That's all very well and good for you.
I'm just trying to clarify to you what an atheist is, because you seem to be under a misapprehension.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Same here, but I've long believed they're interesting.
I still remember my first viewing in person of a huge dinosaur display at the University of Michigan natural science museum when I was in 10th grade and how much that amazed me.
However, my greatest thrill along that line was when I was in Casper, Wyoming, and the curator of the dinosaur museum there invited me to go into the back room where they prepared the fossils for display. He asked me if I would like to hold a 6 foot dinosaur rib, which I did, and the fact that I was holding this object that's over 60 million years old was mind-boggling! Heck, that's even older than I am!!!
24?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What was the "last species" to evolve, according to the theory?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
The "description" of the formation of the universe and the earth found in Genesis is not scientifically accurate. Which speaks to the point I was trying to make. The writers of the Bible didn't know anything anywhere close to what we currently know about the world we live in. But they should, given that, as you believe, they were supposedly divinely inspired writings. Gods should know this stuff. Instead, as I pointed out, the reason we know so much about the world we live in is directly attributable to diligent scientists utilizing the scientific method to observe and measure everything around us. That's one of the reasons we know that the Bible got it wrong. Or in other words, God divinely inspired people with inaccurate information they "he" should have been able to get right.and we don't know much...scientists, let's say, astronomers, are in awe of the new things they see. But they didn't make these things, they only discover them. Kind of like underground caves with water that are still being explored. Even the account of the growth of life on the earth seems to be in harmony with natural life. As described in Genesis, first water, then plant life, then animal life -- then humans -- how did the writer know that? He could have figured they all came at the same time. Apparently the account was given to Adam by God his Maker, and he, despite his sin, passed that on to his offspring, and Moses also knew about that. Imagine Adam telling his experience to his children. He knew he was never an infant. (I know I was an infant, but don't remember being born. Yes, I think that's a relevant factor in our understanding of God since He made us that way. Not by evolution, but by the force of life as yes, He initiated.)
But that's not the reason I began to believe in God.
Have a good night.
It would be awesome if you would take the time to address the actual point being made once in a while.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
OK, so it seems, if I'm understanding the term atheist correctly, that an atheist does not say there IS NO GOD, (or gods that he can't see or considers divine), but that he says he doesn't BELIEVE in God. Do you agree?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Well, as I've pointed out several times, the same "genetic content" that indicates that you are related to both your close and very distant relatives, is the same methodology used to determine relatedness between animals on the planet.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
It's just complicated, that's all. There is a lot that is understood about it, but as time goes on, we discover more and more information that changes the details slightly and grows our body of knowledge.What the senior research scientist said is true about the speculation of evolution and human origins -- it's a big mess. (yup, it is. All you have to do is read about it.
But none of it changes the fact that evolution is a fact of life. Notice how in those articles you provide, the scientists aren't saying "Oh boy, we realized that some human life may have originated somewhere slightly different than what we originally thought so evolution is totally false!" No, they don't, because it doesn't change the fact that gene frequencies in populations change over time and successive generations.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Why isn't the desciption in Genesis accurate? It has already been said that it is not a science textbook, but it lays out a very distinct systematic unfolding of life on the earth as scientists recognize. First, nothing was on the earth. It was barren and void. That has been discussed with you that the Bible is NOT a science textbook. But the question really is: How do you think Moses knew that? Did he figure somehow the green grass, the animals, humans were "always there"? Tell me why you don't think that Moses didn't figure the earth was ALWAYS filled with vegetation and animal life. After all, Moses was not a scientist either. But how did he know that humans were NOT always here? That bears were NOT always here? That plants were NOT always on the earth?
Furthermore, considering your statement that everything we know about the universe or world we live in is because of diligent scientists, this type of science has only been going on for a relatively short period of time, while "mankind," or homo sapiens have supposedly been around for at least 70,000 years by the timetable of evolutionary process?? Pretty fast development, want to tell me why? I love hearing those arguments about beintg food gatherers and the like during those almost 100,000 years, so they couldn't figure their way out of that type of thinking until lately. So be a nice person and tell me why it's only been a relatively SHORT PERIOD of time that humans have development scientific instruments and ability to follow up on these things? And by the way, still can't figure in reality how life all started. That question is one that evoluitionists like to shove aside.
And the latest developments were only in more recent time, like the past 150 years. Yet MANKIND is supposedly around for -- really more than 70,000 years considering which species one is talking about?? And gorillas have not as of yet invented a telescope. Maybe you think they will some day? Maybe you think, but don't know, if gorillas have been around a longer or shorter time than homo sapiens? Considering you think humans and gorillas are apes.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
It doesn't? How do you do it then?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
No scientist that is married to the theory of evolution will say, well, it's all been a fraud, a big mistake. But, as you said, some honest ones are saying, it's all a big mess, as they consider the discoveries and analysis. And from looking at the so-called evidence (which is NOT the ToE), it IS just that. A big mess once one comes to the realization.
OK, I have things to do, it's been interesting talking to you. Thanks for the conversation.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
C'mon, you're kidding. I don't deny science, but genetics is NOT the ToE. If anything, it supports creation. OK, I said I have things to do and I do. Perhaps later.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
That question doesn't really make sense.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Weird how you didn't answer the question.
Genetics absolutely supports the TOE. Oddly enough, Darwin came up with the theory of evolution before anyone was even aware of genetics. And then genetics came along which provided even further evidential support to confirm the reality that evolution occurs.
How do you think genetics supports "creation?"