Creationist questions evolution

[davewhite04]

And the best support for evolution is how we are so similar to apes...any creationist can not ignore that we are just like them.
Alex

Speak for yourself.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Speak for yourself.

What do you mean?
Alex

 

[Write4U]

Obviously, do you not?

No, I am absolutely convinced that the concept of evolutionary processes has been established beyond any reasonable doubt.
Any other possible explanation demands much greater complexity than natural universal mathematical processes and are superfluous to the fundamental question of a mathematically emergent and self-expressive universe.

 

[davewhite04]

No, I am absolutely convinced that the concept of evolutionary processes has been established beyond any reasonable doubt.
Any other possible explanation demands much greater complexity than natural universal mathematical processes and are superfluous to the fundamental question of a mathematically self-expressive universe.

Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Write4U]

Whatever floats your boat.

Why are you here?

 

[Jan Ardena]

How would you know? You apparently don't know what Darwinian evolution is.

Neither do you.
You simply memorise information, then regurgitate it, in an effort to maintain the idea as real.

(afaik You have yet to make, on this forum, a single completely accurate statement about Darwinian evolutionary theory. You seem to be almost completely unacquainted with it.)

Here is another side to your current delusion.
Unless anyone agrees with this religion, despite having academic credentials, or not. Do not know anything about Darwin’s ideas.

Quite pathetic really.

Jan.

 

[davewhite04]

Why are you here?

To reply to a post, I'm still waiting for the follow up. Few pages back.

 

[davewhite04]

Neither do you.
You simply memorise information, then regurgitate it, in an effort to maintain the idea as real.



Here is another side to your current delusion.
Unless anyone agrees with this religion, despite having academic credentials, or not. Do not know anything about Darwin’s ideas.

Quite pathetic really.

Jan.

Great words, but you'll have your work cut out. They won't stop no matter how senseless it gets.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Correct. There is just science. It applies to atheists and theists alike - even when theists deny it.

No one can deny science.
One kind of creature changinging into a completely different kind of creature, is not scientifically verified. Slight modification over time, for the purposes of adaptation is.
Show me any theist that denies the latter?

They have been updating it for 160 years. (Keep in mind that DNA had not been discovered when Darwin published his book.) And every update has only strengthened the fundamental theory of evolution.

Unless they admit that no creature has, over time, transformed itself into an entirely different type of creature (eg: whale evolution), there is no update.
It is therefore a belief

And yet you have over 11,000 posts here. You prioritize posting on the Internet over attending services. Interesting!

What’s it got to do with you, how I spend my time?
Anyways let’s get back to discussing religion. Namely yours.

Jan.

 

[Write4U]

No one can deny science.
One kind of creature changing into a completely different kind of creature, is not scientifically verified. Slight modification over time, for the purposes of adaptation is.
Show me any theist that denies the latter?

No, you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. No one claims that one kind of creature changed into a different kind of creature. The claim is that ALL creatures came from a single biological precursor, and that time and evolution has produced an astounding variety of kinds among species and even some hybrids from once separated kinds.

But changing from a hominid precursor into several different families of great apes is not changing kind. It's just changing functional cosmetics, i.e. evolution and natural selection for viability under dynamic local conditions.

 

[Write4U]

Unless they admit that no creature has, over time, transformed itself into an entirely different type of creature (eg: whale evolution), there is no update.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

Read the evolutionary process at left of the tree

Skeletons of two early whales.

Here, a phylogenetic tree shows how hippos, and cetaceans such as whales and dolphins evolved from a common ancestor

https://www.livescience.com/49922-images-hippo-ancestor.html

 

[davewhite04]

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

Read the evolutionary process at left of the tree


Skeletons of two early whales.

Here, a phylogenetic tree shows how hippos, and cetaceans such as whales and dolphins evolved from a common ancestor

https://www.livescience.com/49922-images-hippo-ancestor.html

 

[Write4U]

Here is the realist perspective on evolution.

 

[davewhite04]

Here is the realist perspective on evolution.

Who you talking to? You are looking in the wrong place for evidence.

Also, who were you posting to in the post before this?

 

[Write4U]

What are you trying to prove? Triceratops did not exist? The fossil skeleton is fake?

After 50 million years you expect to find mass graves of dinosaurs?
As long as you provide proof of the existence of these creatures you are proving science correct.

 

[billvon]

No one can deny science.
One kind of creature changinging into a completely different kind of creature, is not scientifically verified. Slight modification over time, for the purposes of adaptation is.

Slight modification over a span of 100 years results in major modification over 10 million years. Exactly the same process, exactly the same result. The only difference is the scale. We have proof of this process, and its result.

Unless they admit that no creature has, over time, transformed itself into an entirely different type of creature (eg: whale evolution), there is no update.

We have fossil and genetic evidence that shows that whales evolved from land animals. Further, we have endless examples of organisms that are in the process of evolving from land animals to aquatic animals.

 

[Write4U]

Who you talking to? You are looking in the wrong place for evidence.

Yes, you don't have any. I do and I am posting it. Any objection?

Also, who were you posting to in the post before this?

Don't worry.
You're not important enough for me to be concerned whether you read this or not. You have nothing of interest to offer.

I have tried to engage you in a civil manner and you refused to even employ normal everyday courtesy, so please stay out of my posts, ok? And another one bites the dust......

 

[davewhite04]

Yes, you don't have any. I do and I am posting it. Any objection?
Don't worry.
You're not important enough for me to be concerned whether you read this or not.

I have tried to engage you in a civil manner and you refused to even employ normal everyday courtesy, so please stay out of my posts, ok?

You won't get away that easily. Your cut and paste pictures prove nothing and it is bad form to assume I didn't know anything about evolution, in truth I've probably read more books on it then you.

 

[Write4U]

What do you mean?
Alex

He is rejecting the notion that we belong to the family Hominidae.

A hominid is a member of the family Hominidae, the great apes: orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

In his world there are only monkeys and humans.

 

[davewhite04]

He is rejecting the notion that we belong to the family Hominidae.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

In his world there are only monkeys and humans.

Who's posts are you referring to?