Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Answer the question.
-
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!
Not only Natural Laws but Rules of Evolution?
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
People feel bad when a loved one dies.
If birds haven't evolved, why can't Emus breed with Fairywrens?
The people of the Old Testament had a really unhappy life then.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Almost the same as today.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Let's see if emus and fairywrens evolve. Oh wait, sorry...not enough time to see...
You avoided my question.
There's a lot more killing in the OT than in my life, I can't speak for yours.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Yeah, no ****. What's your point?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, and that is solved by other means. Evolution only tells us how we got here. It is not a source of morals. Why do you expect it to be one?
I have been. It is obvious who has not.
Why can't a snake breed with a penguin or a bear. Bear cobras might be a cool looking animal. Body of cobra with bear fur and a bear head with fangs.
I'd have to argue that one. Reptiles are still reptiles and mammals are still mammals. But a bear should be able to breed with a field mouse, they've never evolved from mammal. If I'm following the explanation that I keep reading....
An emu penguin cross would be pretty cool, a bird that could kick a nuclear submarine to death.
It is this example of the level of earnest gravitas repeated endlessly that is the staple of some creationist arguments that has lead me to seek rational discussion elsewhere.
Both are birds, but the emu is, as I learned when I took ornithology decades ago, a ratite or in the superorder Palaeognathae. Related to other members of this ancient lineage including cassowaries and ostriches. All large and flightless species. While the fairy wren is classified in the more recently evolved group Passeriformes which includes small, flighted songbirds of numerous species. That both groups share all the features common to birds indicates that relationship and classification, but obviously they have evolved along different lines resulting from different natural selection. At the very least, they are physically incapable of interbreeding, but no doubt there are more incompatibilities that have evolved during the diversification of the groups.
While I have no doubt that your knowledge of birds exceeds mine and you could correct any errors I have made in my generalization. It is the sort of discussion that I imagine you might have hoped for, but, from the evidence have little reason to expect from those claiming to know the science well enough to reject it. But are oddly incapable of presenting even my crude generalization in response to your question.
I find the explanations used to deny biological science to be incomprehensible at times. Jumping about as they do or so reliant on flippant responses that are in no way reasonable answers.
I wouldn't expect to see even an attempt at such a pairing, given size differences and other differences like mating queues, timing, etc., but at least is a mouse and a bear are mammals.
Genetically, I would think snakes and birds are more closely related, but even those have evolved far enough that the idea of a matting between a cobra and a penguin is more useful as a joke than a serious argument against evoltuion.
Edit: More closely related to each other than to mammals I mean.
I have difficulty calling the reasoning I have been observing employed to reject the science of evolution to fit with what I understand and call logic.
Even with my background and even having taken a formal ornithology course, I find that I am unsuited for discussions that resemble the description imparted by the phrase pigeon chess.
The whole idea of birds not evolving makes no sense to me, even some closely related species like corellas and galahs that sometimes do cross breed in the wild have sterile offspring so there's an obvious genetic difference. Yet according to the much repeated creationist theory, birds are still birds and are not evolving or have ever evolved. It's a huge group of animals that are all exactly the same and we are expected to believe it without question.
I don't know why I was, maybe because birds interest me, maybe because I forgot a sensible discussion is out of the question, maybe I thought I'd give it one more go. I thought my question was a fair one if I'm expected to believe birds are still birds and have never nor will ever evolve.