"Tiktaalik" <corneliusjmchugh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> skrev i melding
news:83cceca4-40fa-408d-a4cb-4d049ab38f9b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Apr 26, 7:29 am, "~saba*gracile~" <veron...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Bob T." <b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> skrev i
>
meldingnews:7334e8c3-cb81-4d65-aa8a-fb07bd6489e7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Apr 24, 3:53 am, Gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The point is you were asked to show where it's ever been
> > _observed first hand_ (i.e., witnessed by human eyes) an
> > _animal_ producing another animal over generations (supposedly
> > by mutations and ac***ulation of small changes) that is
> > clearly no longer that type of animal. Animal, not insects, and
> > you can't even show it for insects.
>
> > Instead of showing, over generations, how a beetle produced
> > something no longer a beetle, a wasp produced something clearly
> > no longer a wasp, and so on, you show a beetle producing a
> > beetle, a wasp producing a wasp, a fly producing a fly. Then when
> > it's pointed out, you snip them all and start acting like you
> > don't know what you're being asked to show - as if you don't know
> > what it is you believe in: that every single animal came from
> > animals that were clearly not that kind of animal once upon a
> > time.
>
> > What you believe that have not ever even once been observed is
> > exactly this: a beetle producing something over generations that
> > is clearly no longer a beetle, a giraffe producing something that
> > is clearly no longer a giraffe, and so on (over generations,
> > supposedly via mutations and ac***ulation of small changes). The
> > critical aspect of your beliefs that have never once been
> > observed in the entire recorded history of the human race.
>
> Gabe, this been explained to you many times before. Let me try one
> more explanation that makes use of an analogy.
>
> 1) The "entire recorded history of the human race" is about five
> thousand years.
> 2) It took fifty million years for the horse to evolve from a fox-
> sized forest-dwelling creature
> 3) Fifty million divided by five thousand is ten thousand
> 4) Therefore, the entirety of human history is only long enough to
> observe one ten-thousandth of the difference between a hyracotherium
> and a horse.
> 5) Why, then, does Gabriel expect there to be a noticeable amount of
> macro-evolution in the very short time span of human history?
>
> Let's compare the evolution of the horse to a human's lifetime. Ten
> thousand days is a little more than 27 years, and we all know that
> children become adults in less time than that. Gabriel's argument is
> similar to an alien who visits Earth, and sees that there are various
> sizes of humans. People tell the alien that the small humans
> gradually turn into big humans. This is not what happens in his
> galaxy, so the alien decides to verify this for himself by returning
> the following day. When he gets back, he sees no increase in size by
> the small humans, so he concludes that he was lied to: there is no
> evidence, over the entire span of his visits to Earth, that humans
> change from small creatures to large ones.
>
> In fact, though, if the alien examined the children closely enough he
> would observe very tiny changes. If the alien allowed himself to
> study the evidence of past events, instead of relying on his own eye-
> witness experience, he would see that there are pictures of adults
> when they were children, birth certificates, and other evidence that
> children do indeed start out small and end up big.
>
> It's the same thing with evolution. Gabriel is pretending that five
> thousand years is plenty of time for a creature to evolve into a very
> different creature, just like the alien thought that a child would
> become visibly different in a single day.
>
> - Bob T.
>
> P.S. We all know that Gabriel will ignore this argument, and continue
> to post exactly the same nonsense as before. Just watch - later today
> or tomorrow, he will reply to someone with the exact same debunked
> points. When he does so, I might mock him - but I won't bother to
> explain why he's wrong again. Gabriel will never understand, because
> he believes that his eternal soul is in jeopardy if he ever learns
> something that contradicts Genesis. It's very sad, really - another
> life wasted in delusion.
>
> -->so because the timeframe is bigger than our observation ability
> it must be true?
While the creatio**** position is because the timeframe is bigger than
our observation ability it must be false. Must really hurt to be hoist
on your own petard. Please feel free to remove your foot from your
mouth any time you want to.
-->LoL we're not the ones who claims God or creation is hard science,
(although it might be), YOU do. You bluntly dismiss opposition with a
lame ass argument like' it's too big a timeframe to know that evolution is
true..
but it is anyways'.
S
"I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the
better for it". (Abraham Lincoln).
> another fallacic mistake, you still have no proof, only
> weak framed hearsay.
>
> S- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
