"Kelsey Bjarnason" <kbjarnason@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> skrev i melding
news:2afoe5-vck.ln1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 06:12:13 +0200, ~saba*gracile~ wrote:
>
>> "Tiktaalik" <corneliusjmchugh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> skrev i melding
>>
news:83cceca4-40fa-408d-a4cb-4d049ab38f9b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On 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'.
>
> If you'd learn to read, you'd realize that that was not what was said,
> and in fact an example was given which directly refutes your statement.
>
> Of course, we're not actually expecting such breathtaking honesty from
> you.
>
But you do blame the unfortunate timeframe for not directly sup****ting
your
theory. That's enough to know what it's about.
Saba
|
