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
Re: Give Me A Break

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Harvey on October 10, 2002 18:38:38 UTC


Here's my reply to a post you posted below:

***H: "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." S: I told you it was just an example. I was not saying that bison evolve into elephants.***

I understand your example, and that was why I said it was faulty.

***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.***

It seems that you are alloting much more than that. It seems to be true that you will accept that dogs, wolves, coyotes, hyenas, jackals, foxes, etc have all evolved from a common ancestor. I like your acceptance of evolution, but you should allow a few million years plus include a whole slew of extinct species (69 for the hyenas alone (family: Hyaenidae).

***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.***

The question, as I said, is foolhardy since we are not talking about fly-to-mosquito evolution. We are talking about fly evolution, mosquito evolution, etc. There is no evolution into another existing lifeform.

***"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.***

I want to get you out of the habit of posting and running. If you want to establish that radiometric dating is inaccurate, then start a new thread and let's discuss it. You can use those links as further references, but I don't want to be linking to your sites. I'm getting requests by my system to accept downloads once I visit your sites, and I don't prefer getting files from unknown sources. State your argument here, otherwise I see that you aren't interested in real scientific discussion.

***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?***

You have dinosaurs on the Ark, why? Why not just have them die out at the flood. Back when I researched 'creation theories' this was the approach. What has changed in creationism that now they are telling their young devotees that the some dinosaurs survived the flood by being brought on Noah's Ark. It sounds like heavy duty scientific research has taken place to change minds in this community (snicker snicker).


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 1994-2022 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