Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think so. God created all the animals. There is certainly going to be variation within the animal kingdom, though. But we don't see birds evolving into lizards, or vice versa.
I have no problem believing that elephants and mastodons came from the same ancestor--or that the mastadon was an ancestor to an elephant. Just as the 2 cats that I have likely descended from a wilde version of them, or the shih tzu I used to have is related to the neighbor's hunting dog.
One of my go-to arguments against a literal interpretation of both the Bible and the Quran is human evolution. I've had a handful of such discussions over the last several years. The most recent was on YouTube. There was a British Muslim who set up his Islam station at Speaker's Corner in London, and videoed the discussions for YouTube. The video I found was an anti-evolution, pro Quran video. I stated in a comment under the video that the Theory of Evolution had proven that a literal interpretation of the Quran was inaccurate, a fatal flaw for a book allegedly holding the "word of God". I was then asked by the video publisher to show my evidence for evolution. I provided several links to websites such as the Smithsonian and the National Geographic websites, specifically their information concerning human evolution. I was then asked to present my evidence. I responded that scientific evidence is in fact everyone's evidence, including my evidence. I said "that is how scientific works". The reply I received was that I needed to present my own evidence. I was subsequently asked to show how a fish could turn into a bird or how a chimp could turn into a human.
I eventually came to understand that his willful ignorance was a method of dodging facts and reality. I finished by saying that if he wants to remain unenlightened by scientific inquiry, that is one thing, but pedaling religious-inspired ignorance to others is shameful and perverse. That too had no impact.
I don't think so. God created all the animals. There is certainly going to be variation within the animal kingdom, though. But we don't see birds evolving into lizards, or vice versa.
I have no problem believing that elephants and mastodons came from the same ancestor--or that the mastadon was an ancestor to an elephant. Just as the 2 cats that I have likely descended from a wilde version of them, or the shih tzu I used to have is related to the neighbor's hunting dog.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1insider
Isn't that evolution?
No it isn't evolution. Dog's don't become something else such as is claimed by the evolutionist that all life on earth evolved from the single cell to a fish to a lizard eventually to a Tyrannosaurus Rex or human. That is just mere wild speculation without any facts whatsoever to back it up.
One of my go-to arguments against a literal interpretation of both the Bible and the Quran is human evolution. I've had a handful of such discussions over the last several years. The most recent was on YouTube. There was a British Muslim who set up his Islam station at Speaker's Corner in London, and videoed the discussions for YouTube. The video I found was an anti-evolution, pro Quran video. I stated in a comment under the video that the Theory of Evolution had proven that a literal interpretation of the Quran was inaccurate, a fatal flaw for a book allegedly holding the "word of God". I was then asked by the video publisher to show my evidence for evolution. I provided several links to websites such as the Smithsonian and the National Geographic websites, specifically their information concerning human evolution. I was then asked to present my evidence. I responded that scientific evidence is in fact everyone's evidence, including my evidence. I said "that is how scientific works". The reply I received was that I needed to present my own evidence. I was subsequently asked to show how a fish could turn into a bird or how a chimp could turn into a human.
I eventually came to understand that his willful ignorance was a method of dodging facts and reality. I finished by saying that if he wants to remain unenlightened by scientific inquiry, that is one thing, but pedaling religious-inspired ignorance to others is shameful and perverse. That too had no impact.
And yet there really is no real evidence for humans evolving from a single cell. Even if religion was not in the equation of the discussion, the fact remains that it is just the say-so of the Smithsonian and National Geographic web sites and not borne by actual scientific facts. Evolution is faith-based. You believe it and trust the writers of those web sites that what they say is factual when it is very far from factual.
Dear god. If you agree with the following, which are all well-substantiated, evolution is by far the most likely scenario:
1. The fossil timeline gives us a reasonably accurate picture of when various organisms existed.
2. The fossil timeline paints a picture of progressive features; successive species share some traits with both their ancestors and future organisms.
3. There are no cases of fossils belonging to "late" organisms that can reliably be dated to early time periods. In other words, there are no human fossils or remains that are 500 million years old.
4. Organisms sometimes exhibit vestigial structures, such as the human coccyx, that serve no purpose but are clear ties to previous organisms.
If you accept those points, evolution is by far the best explanation. s.
I actually got a variation of that assertion from a student, who refused to go look at an outcrop while on her Geology field trip. I advised her that science is probably not be her best choice as a career. This was the only occurrence of such an objection the whole time I was an instructor.
And yet there really is no real evidence for humans evolving from a single cell. Even if religion was not in the equation of the discussion, the fact remains that it is just the say-so of the Smithsonian and National Geographic web sites and not borne by actual scientific facts. Evolution is faith-based. You believe it and trust the writers of those web sites that what they say is factual when it is very far from factual.
So, you want to recreate the discussion I described in my previous message? Usually the person says "it's only a theory" in describing the Theory of Evolution, the person not knowing that a "scientific theory" is made of hard evidence. I like the "evolution is faith-based". This is of could not true unless you would also state that a belief in a spherical earth is a "faith-based" belief, or that the belief that germs can cause disease is a "faith-based belief". You see, all of those "beliefs" have about the same level of evidentiary support.
I like how the word "faith" is held hostage. There is the faith that God makes the sun rise, and there is the faith that tomorrow morning the sun will rise. The former "faith" is based on the notion that there is some god somewhere, the latter "faith" is based on a lifetime of sunrises as evidence.
Not really. It's natural selection. There is a difference. Darwin's finches explain that in more detail. When food was scarce, the only finches that survived were long-billed ones that could get the seeds from between rocks. The rest died. If the food had been scarce for long-enough, the short-billed gene would have disappeared from the gene pool. But they still would have been birds. It's not as if they grew a 3rd wing, or tusks.
Likewise, if I take 2 small dogs and breed them, I'm going to get a small dog. I can continue to breed the line that way for whatever trait I want -- like a long coat, or coloring, etc. But they're still canines. They won't turn into cats. Our ancestors figured that out a long time ago when dogs were domesticated from probably wolves.
That idea was also figured out by farmers that manipulated a grass, eventually turning it into what we know today as corn.
So, you want to recreate the discussion I described in my previous message? Usually the person says "it's only a theory" in describing the Theory of Evolution, the person not knowing that a "scientific theory" is made of hard evidence. I like the "evolution is faith-based". This is of could not true unless you would also state that a belief in a spherical earth is a "faith-based" belief, or that the belief that germs can cause disease is a "faith-based belief". You see, all of those "beliefs" have about the same level of evidentiary support.
I like how the word "faith" is held hostage. There is the faith that God makes the sun rise, and there is the faith that tomorrow morning the sun will rise. The former "faith" is based on the notion that there is some god somewhere, the latter "faith" is based on a lifetime of sunrises as evidence.
But there is factual evidence the earth is sort-of spherical and germs can cause disease. But evolution is not like those proofs since there is no actual, verifiable evidence all life on earth evolved from the single cell.
But I do appreciate your thoughts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
