outhouse
Atheistically
It wasnt made by creationist victor, nor did HH state that.
he was however correct that creationist define its distinctions differently then science, as creationist do not observe proper science to begin with.
-
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 Earth - too many coincidences for life to have evolved
- Thread starter nnmartin
- Start date
It wasnt made by creationist victor, nor did HH state that.
he was however correct that creationist define its distinctions differently then science, as creationist do not observe proper science to begin with.
cablescavenger
Well-Known Member
I see it as the conditions for life on earth, but extended to include the universe. You will know it much better than I do, I just come across these things through mild interest, I was never taught them in a classroom.:sad4:
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
It makes perfect sense if you ignore how hostile the entire universe is to life... no to mention how hostile Earth is to the life on it.
It also ignores that the weak nuclear force can be removed from the universe and it will still function. So there is one fundamental force that is potentially unnecessary. (as is pointed out in the wiki article)
wa:do
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
The whole "micro/macro" nonsense is dishonest.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
It can be, yes.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
That.........I knew.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Especially the bit about "macroevolution has never been observed"... what a load of honk.
wa:do
outhouse
Atheistically
does not proffessionals in biomechanics use speciation on a daily basis developing new medicines???
But hey you know how creationist think, its microscopic speciation so its micro evolution right??? LOL
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
[edit] darn it, Outhouse was faster than me on the draw
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
Are these books dishonest?
http://www.amazon.com/Macroevolutio...735X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320918907&sr=8-1
Amazon.com: The Codes of Life: The Rules of Macroevolution (Biosemiotics) eBook: Marcello Barbieri: Kindle Store
http://www.amazon.com/Plant-Microev...8354/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1320918933&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Cycles-Life-E...D3CK/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1320918933&sr=8-3
There goes the "species problem" again.
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
Observed Instances of Speciation
The fact that science uses a term which possesses some ambiguity, is a testament to how finely detailed things are studied. Technically speaking every living creature may contain something within it to make it a unique creature among it's relatives an peers. This ambiguity in terms is natural, given exactly what Life is.
The fact that it* [edit, sorry: 'science'] possesses a variety of ways to describe the variety of ways that Life can differentiate itself from others, isn't a weakness.
Last edited:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Yes....and we call this (Descent With Modification). This is just one mechanism of Evolution. No creationist can refute this mechanism. Even if other mechanisms were shown to be invalid this mechanism stands over all.
I totally agree.....
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
To a degree... species is a vague concept because it predates evolution. It comes from a time when species were thought to be immutable. We now know that is incorrect, but the word sticks around because it is familiar.
However, even given the strictest definition of the term (two populations are incapable of reproducing together) we have still observed speciation.
The London Underground Mosquito is no longer able to breed with it's above ground cousins. And there are several distinct populations within the London Underground Mosquito population that may be on the way to being their own unique species from each other.
wa:do
Space is huge lets take a conservative estimate and say their are a billion billion plants in the universe. Now how unlikely is that at least 1 of these planets would have the required prerequisites to form life.
RedOne77
Active Member
But they're still mosquitoes, nothing new; just like a bacteria is always a bacteria, and a fish to a monkey is still not a human.
Don't you just love creationist PRATTs
Heathen Hammer
Nope, you're still wrong
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
yeah, moving the goal posts is "fun". :sarcasticBut they're still mosquitoes, nothing new; just like a bacteria is always a bacteria, and a fish to a monkey is still not a human.
PRATT ?
RedOne77
Active Member
PRATT = point refuted a thousand times
It's a common abbreviation on other forums, it might be an old one - haven't really seen it in years.
outhouse
Atheistically
ah so all the fossils showing a clear picture of speciation like the whale were planted by the devil
as for the PRETT and mosq it has been refuted improperly a thousand times,,,,, lets now call it what it is PPRATT point poorly ,,,,,, or PIRATT ,,,,, point improperly
RedOne77
Active Member
ah so all the fossils showing a clear picture of speciation like the whale were planted by the devil
as for the PRETT and mosq it has been refuted improperly a thousand times,,,,, lets now call it what it is PPRATT point poorly ,,,,,, or PIRATT ,,,,, point improperly
Of course, and all the evidence for it is in the head of evilutionists.
P.S. On a more serious note: Very rarely, if ever, is speciation observed in the fossil record. Most of it is due to the fact that it is hard to distinguish two closely related species solely on fossils. Sometimes scientists categorize adult and junior members of the same species as two separate species for example, and only later recognize the mistake via new discoveries and/or a more detailed analysis.
What the fossil record is good at showing, however, is the major transitionals and steps between groups. Like the whale evolution you mentioned, or horse evolution, and things like dinosaurs to birds, reptiles to mammals, fish to tetrapods, things like that.
Last edited: