24 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadi think that if I was Galvo i would give it up, liar, arrogant, from the middle ages, blinkered, simply for offering an alternative theory...yep i would give it up. You do realise of course Whitey that he is a human being and not a computer.
So do you believe that swifts that have radar are unrelated to swifts that do not have radar?
And your claim that 'evolution didn't happen in any species' is a clear lie as we both know that evolution is an on going observable process - I am fairly sure you admitted as such earlier in this thread.
24 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNope wrong again.
i think that if I was Galvo i would give it up, liar, arrogant, from the middle ages, blinkered, simply for offering an alternative theory...yep i would give it up. You do realise of course Whitey that he is a human being and not a computer.
I didn't say he was blinkered or arrogant because of his alternative theory, i said he was arrogant and blinkered for claiming that because i don't share his belief system, God or other superstions i therefore am blind to anything spiritual.
It's elitist garbage. The irony is that he is guilty of the very same behaviour he has accused us so called 'evolutionists' of throwing at him.
24 Nov 09
Originally posted by Proper Knobnoobster noobster, dear noobster, its a simple misunderstanding, as is so much friction. it is not that you cannot comprehend beauty, of course you can, nor that you have no spirituality, of course you have, it is just that when you examine a natural entity from the physical world, say the working of a single cell, you may marvel at the ingenuity, or the order or the interdependence of the functions, but you shall not attribute to this, anything of the divine. Perhaps this is what Galvo was meaning? and it does seem a great pity, for it seems to me that the theist, in examining the wonder, gets confirmation for his suspicions, that yes, this entity appears to harbour hints of design, thus, and this is the point, it becomes to him a spiritual experience. can the same be said of those who view it in primarily materialistic terms? even if this was not Galvos intentions, you must understand that we are also learning and therefore try to make allowances 🙂
Nope wrong again.
I didn't say he was blinkered or arrogant because of his alternative theory, i said he was arrogant and blinkered for claiming that because i don't share his belief system, God or other superstions i therefore am blind to anything spiritual.
It's elitist garbage. The irony is that he is guilty of the very same behaviour he has accused us so called 'evolutionists' of throwing at him.
24 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes I do. That is no excuse.
You do realise of course Whitey that he is a human being and not a computer.
I and others already explained to him earlier in the thread that species do evolve and as far as I recall he agreed that it was true. He now contradicted that claim, so I called him on it.
What is your opinion? Could a swift evolve echo location and still be a swift? Or are the two types of swift unrelated?
24 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadi think that you are getting confused, what you state as evolution and what Galvo believes is evolution may be two different things. I have no idea about swifts, not having read anything on the subject in order to make an evaluation. If one professes creationism , then it is diametrically opposed to the idea, that animals or humans evolved anything, for it claims that in this instance, they were 'designed' for the purpose of the function with which they perform. This is no mere coincidence, for it is taken by creationists as evidence of Gods wisdom.
Yes I do. That is no excuse.
I and others already explained to him earlier in the thread that species do evolve and as far as I recall he agreed that it was true. He now contradicted that claim, so I called him on it.
What is your opinion? Could a swift evolve echo location and still be a swift? Or are the two types of swift unrelated?
24 Nov 09
Originally posted by galveston75I was joking about your worldview but didn't claim people were 'better' back then. And smarter? That depends on what you mean by that. What has been developed since was a method to acquire knowledge, which sets the knowledge gathered through this method apart from fiction and religion. Unlike what you seem to think, you can't just pull something out of your hat and present it as science. The lumping together of fiction, religion and science is what struck me as medieval in your posts.
So how are we soooo much better then humans were then? Still have wars, famins, crime, starvation, pestlence, inhumanity to one another, the planet is being destroyed by polution, etc, etc.
So what's your case that were better and SMARTER?
24 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadDon't put words into my mouth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So do you believe that swifts that have radar are unrelated to swifts that do not have radar?
And your claim that 'evolution didn't happen in any species' is a clear lie as we both know that evolution is an on going observable process - I am fairly sure you admitted as such earlier in this thread.
Did I say the two swift's were not related? I don't believe I ever did.
Did I say evolution was an ongoing process? I don't believe I ever did.
Pay attention...If you look back I believe I said that animals adapt, but never change species as evolution pleads.
OK we are around 360 something postings on this thread now and so far no proof of evolution being real. What's up guys? Can't find any yet?
24 Nov 09
Originally posted by galveston75You are just silly, like all other silly creationists are.
Don't put words into my mouth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Did I say the two swift's were not related? I don't believe I ever did.
Did I say evolution was an ongoing process? I don't believe I ever did.
Pay attention...If you look back I believe I said that animals adapt, but never change species as evolution pleads.
OK we are around 360 someth ...[text shortened]... hread now and so far no proof of evolution being real. What's up guys? Can't find any yet?
You want proofs of evolution, but you deny them all.
And yet you cannot provide a shred of a proof of your little silly theory.
Just silly, that's what creationism is.
24 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, the organism changes first. When the environment changes, all the versions of that organism that can't hack the new environment die. The only organisms left are those who can handle the environment.
You are looking in the wrong places because you don't yet understand the basics of the theory.
[b]Well your scenorio actually hurts evolution because evolution states that given time, life will change to live in any enviroment. Am I wrong?
Live can change to suit an environment but it is the environment that changes first, not life. Life does not ...[text shortened]... it need to.
Not all species adapt - that is why extinction takes place (more often than not).[/b]
24 Nov 09
Originally posted by galveston75The iguana is still a reptile. So is a crocodile. But they're both still reptiles. They are also both animals; tetrapods; eukaryotes; vertebrates; etc.
Interesting reading. ( and yes I did read it ) But is that just not adapting to your surroundings? It's still a mouse isn't it? Don't most other animals adapt in such ways? Didn't the iguana learn or adapt to eat sea plants to survive? But still it's an iguana.
I would learn to eat sea plants if that was my only food source and probably have larger lu ...[text shortened]... from preditors like venom when it bights it's victums in defence.
Just my thought....
If a cow developed gills, it would still be a cow, and still be a mammal, and still be a tetrapod, and a eukaryote, and a vertebrate, etc...
It would just be a different species of cow; a species that could breathe water.
24 Nov 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRemember Copernicus, people...we'd all do well to remember how deeply the Christian YECs are interested in the search for truth.
there is no danger whatsoever, science as you rightly state is not concerned with truth, but with plausibility! we on the other hand are deeply interested in the search for truth, you shall do well to remember that Noobster old son!
24 Nov 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadAlso known as the Strawman logical fallacy.
Now you are getting really confused. You want to understand how evolution works, but instead you dictate to us how it works. Next, because we assure you that that is not how it works you tell us that we are too 'stuck on this idea' of evolution that we cant see how you want evolution to work - but then again you don't believe evolution how you want it to ...[text shortened]... man. Now prove to me that Jesus was a woman or I won't believe that Christianity is correct.
24 Nov 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasJust your opinion and that's all it is, one mans opinion which means nothing to me personally.
You are just silly, like all other silly creationists are.
You want proofs of evolution, but you deny them all.
And yet you cannot provide a shred of a proof of your little silly theory.
Just silly, that's what creationism is.