[_ Old Earth _] Plants?

[lordkalvan]

Yes, I'm going to break your theoretical, atheistic stranglehold on the science section. I'm your new shadow.

Wow, my very own stalker. Just like jennifer Aniston.

Ok I would like to observe one please. Can you show me?

A classic example of speciation in progress is seen in the case of the Ensatina escholtzi salamander of Southern California.

But you dont have any to accept or reject>>>>>>>?

Denying that something exists does not mean that it does not exist.

Ok. Dont.

You make it sound as if I am avoiding doing so. i am only trying to respect your wishes. Given your previous comments about questioning my presence here, would I be overly suspicious if I thought maybe you are hoping to draw me into saying something about the Bible that you can report as a forum violation?

Oh Goody! So becasue your beloved Dr,White states it then its immediate truth. If he told you that fossils of sheep with five heads were found would you accept that without seeing the evidence for yourself?

I see you get names wrong too. Welcome to my world. Dr Wise is no 'beloved' of mine. Again, I can only assume that you use ridicule and snide remarks to hide the fact that you don't have a reasoned response to make.

Nope. Its just you and me Kalvan.

I asked because in one of my previous posts (just five before the one you responded to) I referenced just the lines of evidence you asked about.

Actually cosmologists have to embrace heliocentrism which is the lifeblood of evolution.

The evidence for the validity of evolutionary theory would stand independent of whether or not heliocentrism is incorrect. Other than presuming that you regard a recent supernatural creation and geocentrism as in some way going hand-in-hand, I can see no reason why you should think that 'heliocentrism is the lifeblood of evolution'. Heliocentrism as an explanation of Earth's position in our Solar System long predates evolutionary theory.

Because those are the ones I wanted to address after a cursory glance over your post. You look worried and defensive already. ed!

Don't flatter yourself. I was just curious, that's all. I would have hoped for something more considered than replies based on 'a cursory glance'. I try to treat all of your comments in the posts you make that I am responding to by at least acknowledging that they were made.

 

[Strangelove]

Wow, my very own stalker. Just like jennifer Aniston.

No need to lose control of your lower bodily functions just yet Kalv. I'm just a cyber-stalker.

A classic example of speciation in progress is seen in the case of the Ensatina escholtzi salamander of Southern California.

So what did that animal evolve into?

Denying that something exists does not mean that it does not exist.

And saying something exists doesnt make it so either.

You make it sound as if I am avoiding doing so. i am only trying to respect your wishes. Given your previous comments about questioning my presence here, would I be overly suspicious if I thought maybe you are hoping to draw me into saying something about the Bible that you can report as a forum violation?

Would I be overly suspicious if I thought you are coming to a Christian forum with no interest whatsoever in Christianity but only to engage Christians with false science causing them to doubt their faith and draw them away from God?

I see you get names wrong too. Welcome to my world. Dr Wise is no 'beloved' of mine. Again, I can only assume that you use ridicule and snide remarks to hide the fact that you don't have a reasoned response to make.

You didnt answer the question. Would you believe in 3 headed sheep on the basis of Dr. Wise' writings only?

I asked because in one of my previous posts (just five before the one you responded to) I referenced just the lines of evidence you asked about.

Fine. Seeing as you know where they are why dont you cut and paste them into your next post. Saves me searching around.

The evidence for the validity of evolutionary theory would stand independent of whether or not heliocentrism is incorrect. Other than presuming that you regard a recent supernatural creation and geocentrism as in some way going hand-in-hand, I can see no reason why you should think that 'heliocentrism is the lifeblood of evolution'. Heliocentrism as an explanation of Earth's position in our Solar System long predates evolutionary theory.

See this is where your lack of understanding in the bigger picture exposes your faulty knowledge. Heliocentricity is the lynchpin of evolutionary theory becasue if the Earth is not spinning then the entire universe must be revolving around us every 24 hours. If thats true then the furthest stars are much closer than you think they are and the universe is much smaller than modern "science" says it is. The whole bunkum of 15 billion light year, 15 million billion year old ever expanding totally theoretical universe that evolution emphatically relies on, comes crashing down like a house of cards if the Earth is stationary.

Don't flatter yourself. I was just curious, that's all. I would have hoped for something more considered than replies based on 'a cursory glance'. I try to treat all of your comments in the posts you make that I am responding to by at least acknowledging that they were made.

I'm flattering myself? Lolz....your the one calling yourself lord.

I for one will not bow down to your false science m'lord.

 

[lordkalvan]

No need to lose control of your lower bodily functions just yet Kalv. I'm just a cyber-stalker.

You don't mind if I keep a baseball bat handy just in case?

So what did that animal evolve into?

You asked for an example of observed speciation; this is such an example. I hope you are not trying to propagate the monkey-giving-birth-to-a-man distortion of what evolutionary theory proposes. Do we need to define species and speciation?

And saying something exists doesnt make it so either.

Which is why we consider the evidence available and draw reasoned inferences based on that evidence.

Would I be overly suspicious if I thought you are coming to a Christian forum with no interest whatsoever in Christianity but only to engage Christians with false science causing them to doubt their faith and draw them away from God?

I like exchanging views with people who don't have exactly the same POV as me. Many Christians have no problems with what you speciously propagandize as 'false science', maintain a strong and vibrant faith regardless and post in forums just like this one (you may have encountered Barbarian, for example). My and their understandings coincide at this point. Do you think I have any expectation or intent of causing them to doubt their faith and drawing them away from God by (gasp) agreeing with what they say? Anyway, look at the fun we're having. Would either of us get the same enjoyment out of making posts just to have the other respond with appreciative agreement, cries of 'Right on!' and virtual high-fives all round?

You didnt answer the question. Would you believe in 3 headed sheep on the basis of Dr. Wise' writings only?

A silly question deserves to be ignored.

Fine. Seeing as you know where they are why dont you cut and paste them into your next post. Saves me searching around.

The thread isn't that long. Indeed, we're only just onto page 2. How much trouble would it have been to review the preceding posts before leaping in with both feet to demand information that has already been posted?

See this is where your lack of understanding in the bigger picture exposes your faulty knowledge. Heliocentricity is the lynchpin of evolutionary theory becasue if the Earth is not spinning then the entire universe must be revolving around us every 24 hours. If thats true then the furthest stars are much closer than you think they are and the universe is much smaller than modern "science" says it is. The whole bunkum of 15 billion light year, 15 million billion year old ever expanding totally theoretical universe that evolution emphatically relies on, comes crashing down like a house of cards if the Earth is stationary.

In one word, nonsense. Why? Because a stationary Earth does not axiomatically require that the Universe be young, old or middle-aged. How much closer than I think are the furthest stars, by the way? What evidence supports your understanding?

I'm flattering myself? Lolz....your the one calling yourself lord.

You certainly make comments that suggest you have a high opinion of yourself. As to the 'lord', I guess you're not an H. Beam Piper fan, then?

I for one will not bow down to your false science m'lord.

What does this have to do with trying to reply to posts in their entirety where it appears reasonable to do so, i.e. serious points have been made relevant to the discussion and not just throwaway one-liners like we also exchange?

 

[Strangelove]

You don't mind if I keep a baseball bat handy just in case?

Yeah but be careful you dont swing and miss and hit your lifesize cardboard cut out of Mr. Spock.

You asked for an example of observed speciation; this is such an example. I hope you are not trying to propagate the monkey-giving-birth-to-a-man distortion of what evolutionary theory proposes. Do we need to define species and speciation?

Whatever. You got any evidence of one species turning into another?

Which is why we consider the evidence available and draw reasoned inferences based on that evidence.

Yeah I got nothing against that. you can infer...and guess,,....and assume your heart away but the problem is we teach it in schools as fact. Thats wrong. Especially when the evidence is weak or non-existant at best.

I like exchanging views with people who don't have exactly the same POV as me. Many Christians have no problems with what you speciously propagandize as 'false science', maintain a strong and vibrant faith regardless and post in forums just like this one (you may have encountered Barbarian, for example). My and their understandings coincide at this point. Do you think I have any expectation or intent of causing them to doubt their faith and drawing them away from God by (gasp) agreeing with what they say? Anyway, look at the fun we're having. Would either of us get the same enjoyment out of making posts just to have the other respond with appreciative agreement, cries of 'Right on!' and virtual high-fives all round?

Yeah I can see a the multitude of people speaking with you Kalv. ((yoinks......just me really)):o

Talking to likeminded people and agreeing with them is nice actually. We Christians call it being of one mind in the name of Jesus Christ. Maybe you could study the Gospels one more time and see the truth in them and you could dive on in!

I can see you are only on these boards to antagonize and argue though. I mean....why else would you be here?

A silly question deserves to be ignored.

Becasue your scared of the implications of the answer?

The thread isn't that long. Indeed, we're only just onto page 2. How much trouble would it have been to review the preceding posts before leaping in with both feet to demand information that has already been posted?

Nope. Cant find anything of note.

In one word, nonsense. Why? Because a stationary Earth does not axiomatically require that the Universe be young, old or middle-aged. How much closer than I think are the furthest stars, by the way? What evidence supports your understanding?

It's simple. A stationary Earth = automatically means that stars orbit Earth each Sidereal Day (23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds) = proves that universe is small = no 14 billion light-year radius of universe = no 14 billion year age of universe = destroys time needed for Evolution Myth.

Got that??

You certainly make comments that suggest you have a high opinion of yourself.

Such as?

As to the 'lord', I guess you're not an H. Beam Piper fan, then?

Riiiiiiiiiight. Now I understand why you talk so much Sci-Fi! :toofunny

 

[lordkalvan]

Yeah but be careful you dont swing and miss and hit your lifesize cardboard cut out of Mr. Spock.

This is your thirty-fifth attempt to elicit an emotional response from me.

Whatever. You got any evidence of one species turning into another?

Which is why we need a mutually agreed definition of what constitutes a species and a speciation event. What are your definitions?

Yeah I got nothing against that. you can infer...and guess,,....and assume your heart away but the problem is we teach it in schools as fact. Thats wrong. Especially when the evidence is weak or non-existant at best.

If it's non-existent, it's scarcely 'at best'. What is taught in schools is the inferences drawn from the best evidence available. If you knows of a better 'ole, go to it.

Yeah I can see a the multitude of people speaking with you Kalv. ((yoinks......just me really)):o

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Talking to likeminded people and agreeing with them is nice actually.

But not always very stimulating or thought-provoking.

We Christians call it being of one mind in the name of Jesus Christ. Maybe you could study the Gospels one more time and see the truth in them and you could dive on in!

You can call it what you like. I doubt I am likely to see what you define to be the truth in the gospels, or any other part of the Bible for that matter.

I can see you are only on these boards to antagonize and argue though. I mean....why else would you be here?

What? You don't like the competition? I've told you why I'm here. I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but at least I can enjoy the to-and-fro with differently-minded people. Have you no experience of debating societies?

Becasue your scared of the implications of the answer?

Yes, that's right, I'm quaking in my proverbial boots.

Nope. Cant find anything of note.

Maybe you should try harder.

It's simple. A stationary Earth = automatically means that stars orbit Earth each Sidereal Day (23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds) = proves that universe is small = no 14 billion light-year radius of universe = no 14 billion year age of universe = destroys time needed for Evolution Myth.

Got that??

Got what? Maybe you're not an engineer. Maybe you're an accountant. I note you have completely failed to answer my questions and instead offer some specious nonsense about the radius of the Universe in some way equating to the age of the Universe, not to mention the unsupported assumption that because a geostationary Earth 'proves' that the Universe is small (How small? How does it 'prove' this?), a small Universe must axiomatically be 'young'. And you accuse me dealing in assumptions and weak and non-existent evidence?

Such as?

Umm:

As long as you are spouting contra-Biblical material I will fight you for the benefit of the flock. The simple fact that I am Christian and you are not and that I can more than match you in the debate is enough for my brethren to see the light of the Word of God.

Riiiiiiiiiight. Now I understand why you talk so much Sci-Fi! :toofunny

Maybe I should have called myself Little Fuzzy?

 

[Strangelove]

This is your thirty-fifth attempt to elicit an emotional response from me.

Yes the emotional response i'm attempting to elicit is called "humor". Loosen up buddy really.

Which is why we need a mutually agreed definition of what constitutes a species and a speciation event. What are your definitions?

Um...Ok I'll take a crack at that...without any googling

species = a kind of animal

speciation event = one animal evolving into another animal

How'd I do?

If it's non-existent, it's scarcely 'at best'. What is taught in schools is the inferences drawn from the best evidence available. If you knows of a better 'ole, go to it.

Ya I'll go to the Bible! As you say yourself its a fantastic guide morally and contains all the fundamental scientific essentials we need no guesswork needed. And we know its true cos its the Word of God. Thats way we might have less substance to teach youngsters but at least we know that we wont be teaching them guesswork and musings that discrdit the Bible with all of its fantastic moral codes. Agreed? Oh and theres always the option to believe in the Son of God and be saved and live with Him eternally on the New Earth. Just if you wanna.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

The point was I seem to be the only member engaging in consistant conversation with you. You should come on over to the Christianity related boards some time theres lots of nice people over there to chat with and the mods are pretty free and easy with the talking off topic. Just a thought.

But not always very stimulating or thought-provoking.

Yeah but theres this other thing called love.

You can call it what you like. I doubt I am likely to see what you define to be the truth in the gospels, or any other part of the Bible for that matter.

I thought exactly like you did only a short time ago. A coupla years. But then I gave the New Testament a fair shot with an open heart and mind and its done wonders for my life. Indeed when you see the truth of Jesus Christ the rest of the Bible becomes quite interesting just cos you know its the inspired Word of God.

What? You don't like the competition? I've told you why I'm here. I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but at least I can enjoy the to-and-fro with differently-minded people. Have you no experience of debating societies?

No I dont like the competition. Not at all. I'd much rather have unity in truth. I have no experience of debating societies. The whole idea makes me feel ill. I debate only when I need to. Hence why I'm on a Christian forum.

You enjoy the to and fro? I dont think so. I think you like the one upmanship. I think it gives you a great buzz when you can be satisfied when a thread goes dead and your false science goes unchallenged. I think you get a sinking feeling whenever you see my name next to that thread and you realise that your theoretical science is going to be exposed again. I feel the same sinking feeling when I see your name. Because I know I have to fight for the truth one more time and work even harder and do even more research to challenge you.

Are you man enough to admit the truth? That you would rather I stopped challenging your ideas and go away. Are you man enough Kalvan?

Got what? Maybe you're not an engineer. Maybe you're an accountant. I note you have completely failed to answer my questions and instead offer some specious nonsense about the radius of the Universe in some way equating to the age of the Universe, not to mention the unsupported assumption that because a geostationary Earth 'proves' that the Universe is small (How small? How does it 'prove' this?), a small Universe must axiomatically be 'young'. And you accuse me dealing in assumptions and weak and non-existent evidence??

Tell you what. Why dont you explain to me how modern theoretical science arrives at a 14 billion year old universe and then maybe we can solve that little conundrum together.

Umm:

As long as you are spouting contra-Biblical material I will fight you for the benefit of the flock. The simple fact that I am Christian and you are not and that I can more than match you in the debate is enough for my brethren to see the light of the Word of God.

This is what you quote to show that I have a high opinion of myself?

I'm stating two things about myself here:

1) I'm Christian i.e. I believe Jesus is the Son of God and I follow His commandments.

2) I can more than match you in a debate.

If no.1 is the reason for you to say such a thing then you must consider all God fearing Christians have high opinions simply because of their faith. Which is simply ridiculous and quite insulting.

If no.2 is your reason then you must elevate yourself to a high opinion in order for my opinion to be high. And believe me....I dont have a high opinion of your debating or reasoning skills (case in point, non recognition of a blatant circular fallacy) so thats not the case from my end at all.

Maybe I should have called myself Little Fuzzy?

Yes that would be a lovely and very apt name for you. Or maybe Very Fuzzy?

 

[lordkalvan]

Yes the emotional response i'm attempting to elicit is called "humor". Loosen up buddy really.

Oh, I try, I honestly do! That was a Spock quote from Star Trek. Maybe you need to loosen up a bit too.

Um...Ok I'll take a crack at that...without any googling

species = a kind of animal

speciation event = one animal evolving into another animal

How'd I do?

Not so good, IMHO. If you say a species is 'a kind of animal', it raises the question of what a 'kind' is, so really you haven’t defined anything at all. If you say a speciation event is 'one animal evolving into another', you seem to be implying that a fish can be a fish one day and a frog the next, which isn’t going to happen and isn’t what evolutionary theory indicates. If I have misunderstood what you were trying to convey, I apologize.

My understanding is that, as a general guide, a species is a grouping of organisms that can only interbreed and produce fertile offspring with one another. A speciation event occurs when a sub-group of a species that has become isolated for some reason leads to genetic changes in the sub-group so that its members can no longer interbreed and produce fertile offspring with members of the original group.

Ya I'll go to the Bible! As you say yourself its a fantastic guide morally and contains all the fundamental scientific essentials we need no guesswork needed.

Feel free to misrepresent what I said. As you are quite well aware, I most certainly did not say that the Bible ‘contains all the fundamental scientific essentials we need’. I don’t even recall categorizing it as ‘a fantastic guide morally’; certainly some of the actions depicted in the OT are very far from anything I would regard as a paradigm of moral excellence.

And we know its true cos its the Word of God.

This classic example of circular reasoning still fails to convince.

Thats way we might have less substance to teach youngsters but at least we know that we wont be teaching them guesswork and musings that discrdit the Bible with all of its fantastic moral codes. Agreed?

No. Obviously. That’s all we need, to teach children ‘less of substance’. Why bother to teach them anything at all? All they need is the Bible, after all.

Oh and theres always the option to believe in the Son of God and be saved and live with Him eternally on the New Earth. Just if you wanna.

I don’t need false promises, thanks.

The point was I seem to be the only member engaging in consistant conversation with you. You should come on over to the Christianity related boards some time theres lots of nice people over there to chat with and the mods are pretty free and easy with the talking off topic. Just a thought.

Thanks, but no thanks. Not really my field of interest.

Yeah but theres this other thing called love.

Plenty of that in my life as well, thanks. Churches and religions are not the exclusive purveyors of this ‘other thing’.

I thought exactly like you did only a short time ago. A coupla years. But then I gave the New Testament a fair shot with an open heart and mind and its done wonders for my life. Indeed when you see the truth of Jesus Christ the rest of the Bible becomes quite interesting just cos you know its the inspired Word of God.

I’m happy that you managed to find some sort of improvement in your life in this way. This doesn’t mean that it convinces me that it is what you imagine it is.

No I dont like the competition. Not at all. I'd much rather have unity in truth. I have no experience of debating societies. The whole idea makes me feel ill. I debate only when I need to. Hence why I'm on a Christian forum.

But clearly you ‘like’ it enough to bring your views on geocentricity to debate with fellow-Christians who take a quite different viewpoint.

You enjoy the to and fro? I dont think so. I think you like the one upmanship. I think it gives you a great buzz when you can be satisfied when a thread goes dead and your false science goes unchallenged.

I’m afraid you think wrong.

I think you get a sinking feeling whenever you see my name next to that thread and you realise that your theoretical science is going to be exposed again.

Whoops, there you go again with the high opinion of yourself. Actually, your opinion should be higher, because, believe it or not, I do find your views and arguments stimulating and thought-provoking (bizarre, as well, but still stimulating and thought-provoking).

I feel the same sinking feeling when I see your name. Because I know I have to fight for the truth one more time and work even harder and do even more research to challenge you.

Sounds like aversion therapy to me.

Are you man enough to admit the truth? That you would rather I stopped challenging your ideas and go away. Are you man enough Kalvan?

If you want to believe this and it comforts you to think so, do so.

Tell you what. Why dont you explain to me how modern theoretical science arrives at a 14 billion year old universe and then maybe we can solve that little conundrum together.

You appear to be quite unwilling or incapable of answering any question directed towards illuminating whatever supports your grand assertions. The implication of your evasions of such questions makes it appear that the sum total of that support amounts to nothing whatsoever. All you can do is iinstintively try and shift the burden of proof to the other side, as if by so doing you can avoid any intellectual responsibility to justify your claims.

This is what you quote to show that I have a high opinion of myself?

I'm stating two things about myself here:

I'm Christian i.e. I believe Jesus is the Son of God and I follow His commandments.

You are also stating that you are ‘fighting’ me ‘for the benefit of the flock’. Lucky flock to have such a mighty advocate spring to the forefront of the ‘battle’. That you are one particular brand of Christian as opposed to another is not relevant to the inference I draw from the tone of your statement.

I can more than match you in a debate.

It’s the ‘more’ that I found a tad overweening.

If no.1 is the reason for you to say such a thing then you must consider all God fearing Christians have high opinions simply because of their faith. Which is simply ridiculous and quite insulting.

Nope, see above. Although some that I have encountered clearly do and are very pleased with themselves at being amongst the ‘elect’ or the ‘saved’. This is a particular observation, however, and not a general one and is not directed at anyone here.

If no.2 is your reason then you must elevate yourself to a high opinion in order for my opinion to be high. And believe me....I dont have a high opinion of your debating or reasoning skills (case in point, non recognition of a blatant circular fallacy) so thats not the case from my end at all.

This doesn’t even begin to make sense. I am sure you don’t have a high opinion of anyone who disagrees with you.

Yes that would be a lovely and very apt name for you. Or maybe Very Fuzzy?

Heh-heh. Your own handle seems to be entirely appropriate from my memories of the film.

 

[Strangelove]

My understanding is that, as a general guide, a species is a grouping of organisms that can only interbreed and produce fertile offspring with one another. A speciation event occurs when a sub-group of a species that has become isolated for some reason leads to genetic changes in the sub-group so that its members can no longer interbreed and produce fertile offspring with members of the original group.

So will this speciation event result in one species turning into a different species then?

I'll leave the rest of your post as I'm really not interested in disecting and bickering anymore. To be honest your banter is acidic and abrasive and I'd rather just stick with the topic.

 

[lordkalvan]

So will this speciation event result in one species turning into a different species then?

I can't put it any clearer than I have. If you want to categorize it as so, do so. In the case of the Pacific Coast salamanders referred to previously, each sub-species in the 'horseshoe' can interbreed successfully with the subspecies on either side of its habitat range, but the species at either end of the 'horseshoe' cannot; effectively they have become separate species.

I'll leave the rest of your post as I'm really not interested in disecting and bickering anymore. To be honest your banter is acidic and abrasive and I'd rather just stick with the topic.

And your banter is what - sweet and soothing? Ah well, never mind. I suppose you are using this as an excuse not to take on the intellectual responsibility of your assertions and claims that I asked you about before and that you avoided the first time by trying to shift the burden of proof to me.

 

[Strangelove]

I can't put it any clearer than I have. If you want to categorize it as so, do so. In the case of the Pacific Coast salamanders referred to previously, each sub-species in the 'horseshoe' can interbreed successfully with the subspecies on either side of its habitat range, but the species at either end of the 'horseshoe' cannot; effectively they have become separate species.

Ok so do me a favour and post a picture of the first species Salamander and then a picture of the second species at the other end of the "horseshoe" (?) so I can see how different they are. Ta.

And your banter is what - sweet and soothing? Ah well, never mind. I suppose you are using this as an excuse not to take on the intellectual responsibility of your assertions and claims that I asked you about before and that you avoided the first time by trying to shift the burden of proof to me.

But you failed to engage me on the intellectual stuff by failing to state how modern science comes up with a 14 billion age of the universe. The ball was in your court and you....um.........hit an airshot. As soon as you answer that we can carry on. We can link size of universe to age of universe. Whenver your ready big boy. Do you even know how they end up with that humungous figure....?.....?.....? I doubt it actually.

 

[lordkalvan]

Ok so do me a favour and post a picture of the first species Salamander and then a picture of the second species at the other end of the "horseshoe" (?) so I can see how different they are. Ta.

To what purpose. I have defined what a species is, I have defined speciation and I have described how the two salamanders at either end of the 'horseshoe' cannot interbreed successfully, despite intervening sub-species being able to interbreed successfully with the sub-species in adjacent habitats. What do you expect to be able to see by looking at photographs of them?

But you failed to engage me on the intellectual stuff by failing to state how modern science comes up with a 14 billion age of the universe. The ball was in your court and you....um.........hit an airshot. As soon as you answer that we can carry on. We can link size of universe to age of universe. Whenver your ready big boy. Do you even know how they end up with that humungous figure....?.....?.....? I doubt it actually.

Bull puckey. You dodged my questions asking you to provide evidence for your assertions about the distance to stars and the size of the Universe, by trying to shift the burden of proof to me so that you could simply avoid any and all responsibility for supporting your claims and point the finger of ill-informed derision at the evidence provided and inferences arrived at by 'false science.' I am not going to dance to your tune and will simply note that your continued efforts to avoid having to back-up your assertions are instructive and significant.

 

[Strangelove]

To what purpose. I have defined what a species is, I have defined speciation and I have described how the two salamanders at either end of the 'horseshoe' cannot interbreed successfully, despite intervening sub-species being able to interbreed successfully with the sub-species in adjacent habitats. What do you expect to be able to see by looking at photographs of them?

To what purpose you ask? Because I wanna see evolution in action thats what. You say you got 2 different species here I want to see how different they are. Come on lets see one species change into another. You can talk all day about sub-species and breeding and wotnot but where is your hands on evidence? Lets see the two different animals.

Bull puckey. You dodged my questions asking you to provide evidence for your assertions about the distance to stars and the size of the Universe, by trying to shift the burden of proof to me so that you could simply avoid any and all responsibility for supporting your claims and point the finger of ill-informed derision at the evidence provided and inferences arrived at by 'false science.' I am not going to dance to your tune and will simply note that your continued efforts to avoid having to back-up your assertions are instructive and significant.

So is it a coincidence that modern science has a figure of 14 billion light years for the radius and also 14 billion years old for the age of the universe? :

 

[lordkalvan]

To what purpose you ask? Because I wanna see evolution in action thats what.

Wow, so you can just look at a photo and decide whether or not you are seeing 'evolution in action'? Maybe you should have your eyes patented as scientific analysing devices? Unless your children happen to be identical clones of yourself or your wife, you can look at them and see 'evolution in action' as well.

You say you got 2 different species here I want to see how different they are.

I still remain intrigued as to how you suppose you can look at a photograph of one species of salamander and then at a photograph of another species and determine whether or not they can interbreed successfully? Go on, let us into your secret.

Come on lets see one species change into another.

Let me guess. You're going to say that a salamander is a salamander and the fact that two salamanders cannot interbreed is not evidence of speciation, because 'different' salamanders do not, in fact, represent 'different' species because you do not accept the biological definition of what is generally regarded as constituting a species and a speciation event. What, you don't think I failed to notice your avoiding either agreeing with my definitions or posting robust ones of your own that could bear any serious scrutiny?

You can talk all day about sub-species and breeding and wotnot but where is your hands on evidence? Lets see the two different animals.

The 'hands-on evidence' of an example of speciation in the process of occurring is represented by Ensatina escholtzii. Again, what do you think looking at photographs of these animals is going to tell you about their genetic differences?

So is it a coincidence that modern science has a figure of 14 billion light years for the radius and also 14 billion years old for the age of the universe? :

No matter how frequently you try to shift the burden of proof onto my shoulders, I will continue to point out that this evasive technique only demonstrates for everyone to see your reluctance/unwillingness/inability (choose one) to support your own assertions that you were previously asked about and that you have used this attack-dog technique to assiduously avoid responding to. Here's a deal: you answer my (earlier) question and I'll answer your (later) one.

 

[Strangelove]

Kalvan,

Do you think that humans evolved from monkeys?

 

[lordkalvan]

Kalvan,

Do you think that humans evolved from monkeys?

What's this I see before me? Another diversionary effort? Maybe you try answering my questions and I'll try answering yours. Using large font and bold emphasis does not make your questions any less of an evasive manoeuvre nor myself any less inclined to decline to dance to your tune.

 

[Strangelove]

What's this I see before me? Another diversionary effort? Maybe you try answering my questions and I'll try answering yours. Using large font and bold emphasis does not make your questions any less of an evasive manoeuvre nor myself any less inclined to decline to dance to your tune.

s'just a question dude......chill out.

 

[lordkalvan]

s'just a question dude......chill out.

You mean just like the questions I ask of you and that you have consistently and assiduously avoided even attempting an answer to? If it's such a laid back, 'just a question', perhaps you can explain why you decided it was relevant to the preceding posts and why you found it necessary to post it in such a large, bolded font? After all, you had to make an effort to do it, so you must have had a reason.

 

[Strangelove]

So...does anyone have any evidene of plants evolving?

 

[lordkalvan]

So...does anyone have any evidene of plants evolving?

Is it possible for you to define your terms: specifically, evidence and evolving? In other words, what sort of evidence would lead you to conclude that plants are evolving? The evidence referred to in earlier posts provides every support to the conclusion that modern plants evolved from algae.

 

[Strangelove]

Is it possible for you to define your terms: specifically, evidence and evolving? In other words, what sort of evidence would lead you to conclude that plants are evolving? The evidence referred to in earlier posts provides every support to the conclusion that modern plants evolved from algae.

Nah....I dont think I wanna define the terms. I'll just leave the question open to the forum. Just to see if anyone wants to chime in.

Anyone got evidence of plants evolving?