• 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

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
By refuted we mean that there is no evidence to support the claim of a global flood. Despite this, many keep repeating it happened over and over and over, but cannot support that claim.
Not only that, unless one shrinks the "Flood" down to at best a large local flood, the evidence that should be abundantly clear for that flood does not exist. Which leads to my friend calling after claiming that a herd of buffalo stampeded through his house and not a single hair of a buffalo can be found, much less any damage that they would have caused. One quickly concludes that there was no herd of buffalo just as we can conclude that there was no global flood of Noah.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Oh, I'm sorry. I did *assume* you were using standard English in the normal way.
Great. So one assumption let you to making another assumption, which makes two assumptions. What a great example of how most modern scientific theories are established. :)

At least, that's still better than sticking out that you did not assume, as those do, who think they are always right, in everything they say. :)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Great. So one assumption let you to making another assumption, which makes two assumptions. What a great example of how most modern scientific theories are established. :)

At least, that's still better than sticking out that you did not assume, as those do, who think they are always right, in everything they say. :)
Once again you should not use terms that you cannot justify.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Species may get from land to islands by various means.

Two that come to mind include:
Waters after the flood can be lower due to a short ice age causing land bridges
Creatures can float on masses of floating plant materials and logs

I often cite the Pygmy three-toed sloth in my "discussions" with creationist. They live only on the island of Escudo de Veraguas off the Carribean coast and show how quickly evolution can happen.

This species of sloth has been isolated on the tiny, food scarce island for just 9,000 years following the rising sea levels after the ice age which cut the then peninsula off from the mainland.

They are only half the size of their mainland ancestors, evolution has found a way to compensate for the little and un-nurishing food
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Great. So one assumption let you to making another assumption, which makes two assumptions. What a great example of how most modern scientific theories are established. :)

At least, that's still better than sticking out that you did not assume, as those do, who think they are always right, in everything they say. :)
You made an obvious mistake in calling Caucasians and dark-skinned PEOPLE two different species when we are all the same species. Now you are just doing the usual creationist two step to dance away from that fact, while smearing a person that correctly called you on it. How ethical of you.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
There has been no justification for anything I have seen from that direction. Just blather and double talk.
There should almost be a rule that people need to justify claims made about others. when challenged. 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.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
There should almost be a rule that people need to justify claims made about others. when challenged. 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.
I am uncertain if the people that cannot support their arguments turn to extreme and fundamentalists versions of religion or if those versions indoctrinate them to use the tactics they do. I imagine it is both.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Great. So one assumption let you to making another assumption, which makes two assumptions. What a great example of how most modern scientific theories are established. :)

At least, that's still better than sticking out that you did not assume, as those do, who think they are always right, in everything they say. :)

You made a statement, whether based on racism or ignorance i not know and now you blame the world for your error when the honest thing to do is apologize
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I often cite the Pygmy three-toed sloth in my "discussions" with creationist. They live only on the island of Escudo de Veraguas off the Carribean coast and show how quickly evolution can happen.

This species of sloth has been isolated on the tiny, food scarce island for just 9,000 years following the rising sea levels after the ice age which cut the then peninsula off from the mainland.

They are only half the size of their mainland ancestors, evolution has found a way to compensate for the little and un-nurishing food
We call it adaptation. So?
Has been going on from creation. So?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Great. So one assumption let you to making another assumption, which makes two assumptions. What a great example of how most modern scientific theories are established. :)

At least, that's still better than sticking out that you did not assume, as those do, who think they are always right, in everything they say. :)

Sorry, but to communicate, you need to use the language in a way that is at least close to the standard.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
.


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:




.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I quote

"Did God make Caucasians, and then make dark skinned people,..."

Do you not see a problem with that?
Umm. No.
But I know why you would.
It has to do with assuming. Which not surprisingly, up to now you can't see how.
 
Top