[_ Old Earth _] Evolution is not based on empirical evidence

[Asimov]

There were giants on the earth at one time,yet they are no longer here today.

Where?? Have giant skeletons been found?

Have you measured the skeletons of anyone from
the middle ages? How would you know these things?

Yes, I've been to museums, I've seen suits of armour that wouldn't have fit the average person today. I've seen skeletons of people before. Lucy, one of the early human skeletons found, was only about 4' tall. So you have to show me where there have been giant skeletons found.

We no longer have giants on the earth,but at one time they did exist.
This could explain why there are some people who are taller than the
normal individual,but they are not the majority.[/b]

I didn't say tall people are the majority, I said the average person today is taller than the average person then.

I am backing up what I say,but I have yet to see you
do the same.

Where have you backed what you say up?? Show me a scientific experiment to prove that DNA can 'age' as you said.

If you are so bright,why did peoples DNA change due to the location
where they lived?

They changed because of geographic isolation. Humans were nomadic, so they moved to different parts of the world, and due to the climate, children born with mutations that benefit them (darker skin, or more hair) would have a better chance at surviving and having children. More children with those mutations would be selected, and have more children, eventually, everyone would be the same colour in that region.

 

[Featherbop]

[quote="Darck Marck":7a74c]I mean I would have to witness the process of humans evolving from the [insert whatever you beleive they evolved from]. Observe it.

That's tantamount to asking a Geologist to create mountains in minutes.[/quote:7a74c]

I don't care. If you claim it is true, then let me watch it happen. If you can't, then I'd beleive by faith alone, and there is no suitable evidence for me to have faith that it happend.

 

[Featherbop]

I mean I would have to witness the process of humans evolving from the [insert whatever you beleive they evolved from]. Observe it.

:D You are right,and it hasn't ever been seen by anyone,not even
once. It's more invisible than they claim God is.

It is a shame. If only I could observe it once, I would believe it.

 

[Featherbop]

Quote;
''I mean I would have to witness the process of humans evolving from the [insert whatever you beleive they evolved from]. Observe it.''

Evolution can be definetly observed. 4 or so hundred years ago there were several dozens of species of dogs. Each one fully domesticated, noted and catalouged. Today there is something like two hundred species of dogs. Breeds such as fox terriers didn't exist then. They have been bred into existence by controlled breeding.
This is a form of evolution - a species changing over time.

1. I don't consider that evolution.

2. It is irrelevant to what I was talking about.

 

[goliwog man]

Hey I have a bit of catching up to do. But first I want ask ppl what they think bout this.

Australopithecines- Scientists believe that this could be the closest common ancestor of both apes and humans found so far. However Doctor spoor dit varies CAT scans of the inner ear region of some of the skulls. The scans showed that there semi circular canals which determine balance and abilty to walk upright resemble those of the extinct great apes.

Homo habilis (aka handy man) More CAT scans showed that handy man walked more like a baboon than a human.

Homo erectus (or upright man) CAT scans show thier posture was just like ours even some evolutions say they should be put in the species of homo sapiens.

Is this observing evolution?

Evolution can be definetly observed. 4 or so hundred years ago there were several dozens of species of dogs. Each one fully domesticated, noted and catalouged. Today there is something like two hundred species of dogs. Breeds such as fox terriers didn't exist then. They have been bred into existence by controlled breeding.
This is a form of evolution - a species changing over time.

So does this mean if we breed various human we will get supernatural smarties or just new human races? God forbid. That isnt evolution the bible says be fruitful and multiply. If U plant a orange tree in an apple tree Ur not gonna get a orapple or apporange

 

[B]

Quote;
''Quote;
''I mean I would have to witness the process of humans evolving from the [insert whatever you beleive they evolved from]. Observe it.''

Evolution can be definetly observed. 4 or so hundred years ago there were several dozens of species of dogs. Each one fully domesticated, noted and catalouged. Today there is something like two hundred species of dogs. Breeds such as fox terriers didn't exist then. They have been bred into existence by controlled breeding.
This is a form of evolution - a species changing over time.


1. I don't consider that evolution.''

Well what would YOU consider evolution. Never mind the thousands of independant studies carried out, the tens of millions of thinkers that do term this evolution, we must alter the meaning of the word to what YOU want it to mean.
Or rather, what fits in the bible.

 

[ThinkerMan]

B...this is the second time you have referred to "species of dogs".

Make sure your definitions are correct. Different species means that the two organisms cannot mate.

Chihuahuas and pit bulls can still mate. They are the same species, just different breeds.

You point it still valid though, in that inherited differences have been observed, and significantly so.

For examples of speciation, I would stay away from dogs, and look at plants other examples of speciation that have been observed.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/far ... VOLII.html

If the ideas, concepts, implications and evidence in the above reading do not fit into what your idea of evolution is, then your idea of evolution is probably a strawman.

 

[goliwog man]

Just an interseting link on evolution. This says some interesting things about scientific evidence of late

http://www.biblebash.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=150

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Goliwog, the reading provides a very poor explanation of the history and development of Darwinian evolution. It leaves out Wallace for one, and the fact that evolution is based more on Malthusian population statistics theory.

"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long- continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work".

Charles Darwin, from his autobiography. (1876)

Here is the work that Darwin read that helped him formulate that theory.
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.0.html

 

[keebs]

I don't consider that evolution.

Nobody cares what you consider evolution. People care about what "science" considers evolution. Heck, I could define "pigs flying" as "creation" and say it doesn't happen. Just because my form of "creation" doesn't happen, doesn't mean that what society considers as creation doesn't happen. Yours is a problem of notions versus notations. Language is an abstract set of rules used to convey reality. Reality is what matters, not the words.

 

[Featherbop]

I really couldn't care less.

If I don't consider something to be what another person calls it, then in my book, it doesn't matter what the other person(s) define it as to me.

In simpler terms: I don't care that you don't care.

 

[goliwog man]

If I don't consider something to be what another person calls it, then in my book, it doesn't matter what the other person(s) define it as to me.

well said Darck Marck well said. I totatly agree

Nobody cares what you consider evolution. People care about what "science" considers evolution. Heck, I could define "pigs flying" as "creation" and say it doesn't happen. Just because my form of "creation" doesn't happen, doesn't mean that what society considers as creation doesn't happen. Yours is a problem of notions versus notations. Language is an abstract set of rules used to convey reality. Reality is what matters, not the words.

Ok in reality do you believe that there could be A infinate God? If you studied the law of chance youd find that there is more chance of an infanite God existing then the concepts of evolution be true. In reality Mans decisons and theories can be wrong and are subject to change yet they think they have a decant arguement against God

 

[keebs]

You don't even understand what I wrote. I called it a problem of notions versus notations. The whole point was that we are not discussing the word, we are discussing the meaning.

 

[Asimov]

I really couldn't care less.

If I don't consider something to be what another person calls it, then in my book, it doesn't matter what the other person(s) define it as to me.

In simpler terms: I don't care that you don't care.

Evolution isn't a relative definition, neither is any word. You can personally define any word any freakin way you like, that doesn't mean that what you define it as is true.

"Evolution is false because the evolution I think of doesn't happen"

That's very convenient, and intellectually dishonest.

 

[Asimov]

Ok in reality do you believe that there could be A infinate God? If you studied the law of chance youd find that there is more chance of an infanite God existing then the concepts of evolution be true. In reality Mans decisons and theories can be wrong and are subject to change yet they think they have a decant arguement against God

Where did you get that information from? Or did you, as everything else you believe, just make it up?

 

[Featherbop]

Goliwog man: Thanks.

keebs: I'm not disscussing the meaning of evolution.

Tuatha'an: I don't care.

 

[keebs]

keebs: I'm not disscussing the meaning of evolution.

Really? You were the catalyst of the whole discussion.

 

[Asimov]

Goliwog man: Thanks.

keebs: I'm not disscussing the meaning of evolution.

Tuatha'an: I don't care.

Then why exactly are you posting in an evolution/creationist forum?? If it's not to discuss evolution, or the meaning of it, then everything you say is pointless, meaningless, and inane.

 

[Featherbop]

keebs: I'm not disscussing the meaning of evolution.

Really? You were the catalyst of the whole discussion.

You started harping about it. I simply stated that I define what I consider evolution, and not evolution. You are making a mountain out of a molehill that doesn't exist.