All eyes evolved from a common ancestor!

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Oh, this is my fault, is it? You have not any responsability to stay on topic, do you?
Then it is my fault that you whines as a pig going to its slaughter too, is it?

I normally am in more than one discussion, you on the other hand
pop into each of them once or twice with "your anti-science" or you
inform me how you created other threads I need to talk about because
you think it important some how. Your fault, I'd say yea...if you took
half the time proving your points as you do belittling those that
disagreed with you, you'd be famous.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I normally am in more than one discussion, you on the other hand
pop into each of them once or twice with "your anti-science" or you
inform me how you created other threads I need to talk about because
you think it important some how. Your fault, I'd say yea...if you took
half the time proving your points as you do belittling those that
disagreed with you, you'd be famous.
Kelly

But you are antii-science, aren't you? You are a fundamentalist creationist, aren't you? There! Do I need to spell it out for you?

Noone thinking scientifically cannot ever belive in such impossible things as dinosaurs in the ark. Now you say that is your opinion, and your opinion only. That's a progress, KJ, don't you see! You are in the verge to understand that dinos living at the same time as humans is scientifically impossible. And that, my dear KJ, is a remarkable progress for you!

You are beginning to believe in evolution as the force of bilology. That's also a progress. You are about to throw your erlier fundamentalist anti-science creationists misconception over board, and I am happy on your behalf. I'm glad that your are starting to think for yourself. I'm happy for you!

It's your denial you have to wrok with, so you can understand your own progress. You have to feel for yourself your progression. Then the door is wide open for you to enter the true world, without any satanic preachers whispering in your ears.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
But you are antii-science, aren't you? You are a fundamentalist creationist, aren't you? There! Do I need to spell it out for you?

Noone thinking scientifically cannot ever belive in such impossible things as dinosaurs in the ark. Now you say that is your opinion, and your opinion only. That's a progress, KJ, don't you see! You are in the verge to unde ...[text shortened]... for you to enter the true world, without any satanic preachers whispering in your ears.

Are you suggesting only atheist are not anti-science?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Are you suggesting only atheist are not anti-science?
Kelly

Have I told you so?

I say that fundamentalists are anti-science. Can you honestly say that science can prove that dinos were on the ark?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Have I told you so?

I say that fundamentalists are anti-science. Can you honestly say that science can prove that dinos were on the ark?

Why would I say that, have you ever seen me attempt to prove that
point? If you have a topic you'd like to engage me in I'd find one of
the many I am involved in.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why would I say that, have you ever seen me attempt to prove that
point? If you have a topic you'd like to engage me in I'd find one of
the many I am involved in.
Kelly

Yes, I have, and you failed.

So your opinion cannot ever be proven.
You have a religion based on opinions. Why? Because you are a fundamentalist.

Originally posted by KellyJay
God does not make it appear 13.6 billion years older, people come up
with what they think it is as they come up with different ways to look at
the universe around them. God made the universe period, what you
think about it, the conclusions you draw about it are between your ears
not necessarily does that mean your getting it right! Have you seen
what 1 ...[text shortened]... ater is allowed to go under
ground there isn't an issues with the amount of water!
Kelly

The universe is 13.6 billion years old. We have been working on this for several hundred years. Our theories are extremely good. You treat science as if it was the imaginings of children - people have worked hard on this, and we have considerable evidence, it is more than just theory. We can see extremely distant galaxies that would be causally disconnected from each other if the universe were as young as you say. Causally disconnected, for one thing, means not in thermal equilibrium, the observational consequence of this is that there would be no reason for the universe to be isotropic, as regions in opposing parts of the sky would not have had time to come into equilibrium. Careful observations find a highly isotropic universe. If the universe is young it has been created to look old.

You do not seem to understand that the earth is dense. We know it´s mass and we know it´s volume. There are no underground pockets sufficiently big for you to hide the truly phenomenal quantities of water that are needed. The mass of water you need is far too large to go unobserved. This is not something that you can provide evidence for because it did not happen.

The theory of evolution, now that the genetic mechanism is better understood, is on firm foundations. There is considerable evidence that life on this planet has existed for at least 3.5 billion years. It has changed over time. There is very good quality evidence for this.

You could argue for God creating the universe and but guiding its development and then tinkering with evolution to get the desired outcome in such a way that we could not tell the difference. A subtle God cannot easily be ruled out. What you are arguing for is trivially dismissed, there is overwhelming evidence against it.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Yes, I have, and you failed.

So your opinion cannot ever be proven.
You have a religion based on opinions. Why? Because you are a fundamentalist.

Than I'd say I question your ability to read and understand.
Kelly

Originally posted by DeepThought
The universe is 13.6 billion years old. We have been working on this for several hundred years. Our theories are extremely good. You treat science as if it was the imaginings of children - people have worked hard on this, and we have considerable evidence, it is more than just theory. We can see extremely distant galaxies that would be causally disco ...[text shortened]... ut. What you are arguing for is trivially dismissed, there is overwhelming evidence against it.

I treat science as if it were mankind looking at the world around them
coming up with what they think is right, changing it as new information
comes along. My point to you is again the same, you have painted the
universe to be 13.6 billion years old, what ever the age is, it is that
if it is 4 billion, 20 billion, 3.4 million, or 7 thousand. Your beliefs on
the age are your beliefs on the age, they could be correct too, it isn't
something I concern myself with, but I do know you are using things
you don't know for a fact they are right, you compare apples to
oranges off and on hoping they react the same way over time.
Kelly

Originally posted by DeepThought
The universe is 13.6 billion years old. We have been working on this for several hundred years. Our theories are extremely good. You treat science as if it was the imaginings of children - people have worked hard on this, and we have considerable evidence, it is more than just theory. We can see extremely distant galaxies that would be causally disco ...[text shortened]... ut. What you are arguing for is trivially dismissed, there is overwhelming evidence against it.

I've not seen one person here show me how natural selection helps
guild the building process of life. I have seen how it can make one
life form move into an area and spread beause there is nothing to
kill it, I have seen life forms die off because there was some change,
but I have not seen life froms become something new.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Than I'd say I question your ability to read and understand.
Kelly

Very nice thing say to people, very nice indeed. Where have you tought these kind of manners? In your church, maybe, where you have the fundamentalistic friends of yours? They who teach you science like, eh, dinos at the ark and such?

Originally posted by DeepThought
The universe is 13.6 billion years old. We have been working on this for several hundred years. Our theories are extremely good. You treat science as if it was the imaginings of children - people have worked hard on this, and we have considerable evidence, it is more than just theory. We can see extremely distant galaxies that would be causally disco ...[text shortened]... ut. What you are arguing for is trivially dismissed, there is overwhelming evidence against it.

The earth can change shape and remain the same as far as its mass
is concern, the earth can look one way today and another thousands
of years ago and you'd never know it. It today now there is water
under the earth that all of a sudden came up, and the earth flattened
out the land would be covered, just moving the known land masses
into the water. What you seem to be looking at is additional water to
cover the current shape of the earth.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
The earth can change shape and remain the same as far as its mass
is concern, the earth can look one way today and another thousands
of years ago and you'd never know it. It today now there is water
under the earth that all of a sudden came up, and the earth flattened
out the land would be covered, just moving the known land masses
into the water. What you seem to be looking at is additional water to
cover the current shape of the earth.
Kelly

It's official! I'm adding "Geologist" to your list of accolades. 🙄

Originally posted by KellyJay
I treat science as if it were mankind looking at the world around them
coming up with what they think is right, changing it as new information
comes along. My point to you is again the same, you have painted the
universe to be 13.6 billion years old, what ever the age is, it is that
if it is 4 billion, 20 billion, 3.4 million, or 7 thousand. Your belief ...[text shortened]... ht, you compare apples to
oranges off and on hoping they react the same way over time.
Kelly

I do know this for a fact. This is not dependent on vague belief, we have clear measurements concerning this. The measurements have been made by lots of different people who have measured different things and all come up with consistent answers. We have several reasons for believing that the universe is the age and size we believe it is, and the chances we are wrong is small.

In reply to your next post:
We have shown at great length that there is evidence that the origin of species is evolutionary adaptation. The reason you have not seen one animal turn into another is that you refuse to accept the evidence when it is put in front of you.

To the 3rd of your posts:
There is 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of water missing. Where did it go KellyJay?

Originally posted by DeepThought
I do know this for a fact. This is not dependent on vague belief, we have clear measurements concerning this. The measurements have been made by lots of different people who have measured different things and all come up with consistent answers. We have several reasons for believing that the universe is the age and size we believe it is, and the chanc ...[text shortened]... your posts:
There is 4.5 billion cubic kilometres of water missing. Where did it go KellyJay?

You are saying that no matter how the land mass of the earth is
shaped there is not way the water on the planet is covering it and the
math proves this, by all means show your work!

As I have told you more than a few times, I do not care how old the
earth is according to your beliefs. It is what it is! You may be very well
right, if not no matter how close you think you are, you will be in error.

I would say you have not shown me anything to prove evolutionary
adaptation can cause changes in the life form by adding new things
to it like a heart that was not there before, since I already told you I
agree with you there is adaptation but it is limited I'm not sure what it
is you think you have proven to me. I agree you can get larger dogs,
or smaller dogs through breeding them, but the botton line is they are
dogs, they are not dogs with wings or gills.

I again ask you to show me your work on how you came up with this
4.5 billion cubic kilometer of water! I'm telling you no more than is
on the planet currently is enough to do the job of covering it if the
land were to be altered.
Kelly