Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Give Me A Break, Break Me Off A Piece Of That Kit-kat Bar!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Sam Patterson on October 10, 2002 15:07:29 UTC

"Bison evolution is entirely different than elephant evolution. You don't expect Bison to evolve into elephants anymore than you expect a fly to evolve into a mosquito."

I told you it was just an example. I was not saying that bison evolve into elephants.

"What you won't admit (and cannot admit due to your home schooling indoctrination) is that once you accept evolution into different species (e.g., Bison evolution of species), natural genus evolution (e.g., Bos and Bison evolution), and even evolution of families, then you have completely eliminated whatever boundary that you think exists to prevent further evolution. The fossil record shows gaps, but you accept those gaps by the mere fact that we do not have a complete fossil record showing evolution from Bison to Bos, yet you accept this evolution without so much as a concern for the fossil record. Given that, it is obvious that having exact transitional fossils is not even necessary for evolution by your own account of macro evolution."

Come on. My point was simply this: Species can adapt to their enviroment to a certain degree. I thought my dog example was a good one.

Do you really believe, that, given enought time, a dog will evolve into a (for example) horse? Dogs are very different from eachother, but you could not eventually breed a Saint Bernard into a horse.

"Huh? I can't believe this. The radiometric datings of fossils show nothing more clearly."

Oh boy. Here are some links showing that radiometric dating is not reliable:

That last one is really good. If you truly want to further your scientific knowledge, read these links.

"Sam, you are being utterly ridiculous. There are hundreds, in not thousands, of known dinosaur species. Most of these creatures probably had off-spring who were born larger than a car. This just demonstrates the lengths you will go to believe in ridiculous pseudo-scientific ideas. What I don't understand is why you simply don't place dinosaurs before the flood. Not that it makes you more rational, but certainly some light must go off inside the young mind of your's. You cannot be so indoctrinated by your parents that you will accept the most ridiculous explanation. Well, I guess you are otherwise we wouldn't even be having this 'conversation'."

Place dinosaurs before the flood? Dinosaurs were before the flood. Do you mean they all died before the flood? No. The dinosaurs do not present a challenge to the creation model, so why would I?


Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins