• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The biogeographic evidence for evolution

nPeace

Veteran Member
Sorry, but to communicate, you need to use the language in a way that is at least close to the standard.
Sorry. If I use an example, it has nothing to do with language.
If one does not understand how the example applies, there is always room for getting clarity.
Assuming and being wrong, is not a dreadful thing. Claiming that one is not prone to mistakes because they are so educated, and an expert on everything, is, imo.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
There should almost be a rule that people need to justify claims made about others. when challenged.
Actually that sort of thing is prohibited here. I've been dinged twice for it.

Far too many times I see creationists claim "assumption, speculation, . . . etc" (sorry there was at lead one more but I just can't remember) and yet when they are told that they have to prove those claims they simply run away from the fact that they cannot support their personal attacks.
Dude, that's every interaction with creationists ever. They come into a thread, make assertions, and then dodge and evade all attempts to get them to back them up. Eventually they leave and go to another thread (or forum) and make the same assertions all over again.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
.


Boy! this is one hell of a ****** up thread.

giphy.gif



Thirty-four posts and people are still debating grammar rather than "The biogeographic evidence for evolution." but it is Sunday, god's day, so maybe that's the problem. :shrug:
Apparently we cannot assume that creationists are using standard language when they post.

Too bad I lost my magic decoder ring. :rolleyes:
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Sorry. If I use an example, it has nothing to do with language.
If one does not understand how the example applies, there is always room for getting clarity.
Assuming and being wrong, is not a dreadful thing. Claiming that one is not prone to mistakes because they are so educated, and an expert on everything, is, imo.
If we lower the bar for you any further, we will have to take bids from an excavation crew to dig the new site for the bar.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Before I log off, @Hubert Farnsworth interestingly, "one of the strongest pieces of evidence for evolution" happens to be a Creationists perspective, of how life spread about in the earth.

Since apparently you haven't seen this in the Bible, take a look at Acts 17:26, and read carefully please. :)
Peace out.
Hard to see why Acts 17:26 provides any support for a Creationist perspective, since it speaks only of humans.

It is true, actually, that humans all around the world have less genetic difference than chimpanzees living in just their home territories in Africa. Pan Troglodytes comes in 5 variants, P. T. Verus, P. T. Troglodytes, P. T. Ellioti, P. T. Scweinfurthii, and P. T. Marungensis, and they have more genetic variability between them than do the Swahilis in southern Africa and the blondes of northern Europe or the Inuit of northern Canada.

And Acts 17:26 doesn't even begin to contemplate that millions of other plant and animal species on our planet, and how they can actually be mapped (something Darwin didn't know) showing how the same plant that once inhabited a small geographic area in Gondwana, that eventually split apart to become the known continents. This plant, a giant fern called "glossopteris," along with 3 other known fossils, mesosaurus, cynognathus and Lystrosaurus are all now found in fossil form various distant areas of the world. Glossopteris is found in S. America, S. Africa, S. India, Australia and Antartica. Cyngnathus is found in fossilized form in central S. America and central Africa.

From that, you can learn the rest for yourself, but this is, to anyone willing to actually look at it, incredibly compelling evidence supporting both evolution and the theory of continental drift.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Hard to see why Acts 17:26 provides any support for a Creationist perspective, since it speaks only of humans.

It is true, actually, that humans all around the world have less genetic difference than chimpanzees living in just their home territories in Africa. Pan Troglodytes comes in 5 variants, P. T. Verus, P. T. Troglodytes, P. T. Ellioti, P. T. Scweinfurthii, and P. T. Marungensis, and they have more genetic variability between them than do the Swahilis in southern Africa and the blondes of northern Europe or the Inuit of northern Canada.

And Acts 17:26 doesn't even begin to contemplate that millions of other plant and animal species on our planet, and how they can actually be mapped (something Darwin didn't know) showing how the same plant that once inhabited a small geographic area in Gondwana, that eventually split apart to become the known continents. This plant, a giant fern called "glossopteris," along with 3 other known fossils, mesosaurus, cynognathus and Lystrosaurus are all now found in fossil form various distant areas of the world. Glossopteris is found in S. America, S. Africa, S. India, Australia and Antartica. Cyngnathus is found in fossilized form in central S. America and central Africa.

From that, you can learn the rest for yourself, but this is, to anyone willing to actually look at it, incredibly compelling evidence supporting both evolution and the theory of continental drift.
Acts 17, is enough to answer the question.
If you want details for everything, then Genesis 1 is where you want to look.
I didn't think I would need to go into that, as the point I was addressing - How did different species spread to other parts of the world - was made in Acts.
Would you like details on how seeds spread, and where seeds came from? See Genesis.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Acts 17, is enough to answer the question.
If you want details for everything, then Genesis 1 is where you want to look.
I didn't think I would need to go into that, as the point I was addressing - How did different species spread to other parts of the world - was made in Acts.
Would you like details on how seeds spread, and where seeds came from? See Genesis.
So you have nothing except biblical assertions without any support of evidence.

I did not see that coming.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Acts 17, is enough to answer the question.
If you want details for everything, then Genesis 1 is where you want to look.
I didn't think I would need to go into that, as the point I was addressing - How did different species spread to other parts of the world - was made in Acts.
Would you like details on how seeds spread, and where seeds came from? See Genesis.
Then once again I point out to you, you have utterly failed in what you thought to do. Acts refers to human beings -- and only human beings. And the plain, simple truth is this -- humans are one (count them, one, 1, not 0 or 2) species. And so Acts 17 does absolutely nothing of the kind.

I confess, it seems obvious to me that, as other posters have suggested, you think that there are various "species" of human, but no, I'm afraid you are completely wrong. The Hutus are every bit as human as the Tutsis, and even Donald Trump is every bit as human as Robert Mugabe, now deceased.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I guess once you know the Bible, there's nothing else worth knowing...in the search for happiness, one must never forget that old saw "ignorance is bliss."
It is difficult for members of some sects to look beyond it when sect doctrine discourages education and provides their views for them.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Few creationists are familiar with the biogeographic evidence for evolution, yet it is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for evolution.

Why do species on islands resemble species on the nearest mainland, even if there is a vast difference in environmental conditions between the island and the mainland? If a creator was independently creating species, why would he create species on islands that are similar to those on the nearest continent or mainland? The species found on islands such as the Galapagos, while distinct from the species of the nearest mainland, resemble them more closely than they resemble the species of other islands with more similar environmental conditions, indicating that the species on the islands descended and evolved from the species on the nearest mainland.
[...]
Creationists cannot explain away this evidence. They just pretend it doesn't exist.
Just so. I'm still waiting to hear from the YECs how before the Flood the lemurs got to the Ark in the middle East from Madagascar, the capybaras from Brazil, the kiwis from New Zealand, the echidnas from Australia ─ and not only how they respectively got home afterwards, but why they're not presently found anywhere in the Levant, indeed in Africa-Eurasia. After all, the Flood happened in 2349 BCE, and since then the hyrax (to take a Levant example) hasn't gone anywhere.

(The usual YEC explanation is magic, but since no one seems to know how magic works, the explanation explains nothing.)
 
Top