Skip to comments.Predation Did Not Come from Evolution
Posted on 03/28/2009 7:56:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
Why do you bother to put the “LOL” on the end of that. Seems kind of dorky to me. What are you... 15? (ROTFL)
I won’t get into an IQ dispute with a mental midget... And don’t assume. It makes an a** out of you and you alone, Chachi...
Hey! I forgot what you were responding to!!!
You made some stupid statement about Christians beheading folks and I called you something like a stupid little booger-head.
I think if you refer to your earlier statement you will find who has the low IQ, Chachi...
(mumbling now)... waste my time on little, sniveling...
I know you quit being a Mormon and all, but I figure you’d want to see this post if you haven’t yet.
You heard about it?
You continue to claim there is no evidence after I gave you the evidence you originally asked for, of one species becoming two different species, so yes, there is evidence.
I have also explained I dont know everything there is to know about it,
If you dont know enough about it, then how can you assert that the theory of evolution is wrong? It sounds like you have made your decision on other grounds than the actual evidence.
but what I do know is that there is little to no current evidence of any past species to species change.
I have already given you current evidence of species change.
Lets discount the fossil record.
No, I wont discount the fossil record, as its powerful evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Why do you want to discount good evidence?
Number one, the fossil record does not support evolution... number two I’m not discounting because it is less supportive. You can make more of an argument with something that doesn’t exist because you can make it up as you go along.
I don’t know how to rephrase the question so you understand what I’m asking. I want to know how you support evolution with so many species and not a single thing to fill the millions and millions of gaps. You answered my original question and I have acknowledged that in every post yet you still ignore the central issue: Fill in the gaps... seems like a simple task.
How do you figure that? It certainly does to me when I examine the evidence. In keeping with a discussion based on facts and evidence, please explain how it does not.
number two Im not discounting because it is less supportive.
Then why discount it?
You can make more of an argument with something that doesnt exist because you can make it up as you go along.
That statement doesnt make sense to me. The theory of evolution came about as an attempt to explain observed facts. Subsequent discoveries have only made the theory as a whole stronger as fossil discoveries and DNA evidence continue to fill in blank areas and confirm the predictions.
I want to know how you support evolution with so many species
How do you come to that as an argument against evolution?
and not a single thing to fill the millions and millions of gaps.
I think its been explained on this and other threads, but Ill go over it again. The odds are against any particular animal or plant becoming fossilized are high. The climate, soil etc. have to be exactly right. The odds against people then finding those fossils are also high we continue to find fossils and many may be in strata or formations that are inaccessible. So yes, there will be gaps. But - surprise! we continue to find fossils that fill in those gaps.
You answered my original question and I have acknowledged that in every post
Not exactly. You continue to say there is no evidence of speciation after Ive given you some. Id like to see you acknowledge there is evidence of speciation.
yet you still ignore the central issue: Fill in the gaps... seems like a simple task.
That was not the issue you initially declared central, it seems a late add-on. However to answer you, Ive told you above why it is not a fast or simple matter. Its like saying, find all the diamonds in the world now seems like a simple matter.
“Id like to see you acknowledge there is evidence of speciation.” And I would have to see the evidence myself... see my brother told me Lana is a good kisser, but I wouldn’t believe it until I locked lips with her myself. I mean, he’s a lady’s man and all and I’m sure he knows but...
(tongue in cheek - no pun intended)
What I’m saying is it seems odd to me that every single one of the lines in between what you see as the evolutionary scale died out. That’s why I first said let’s leave the fossil record out of it. The “evidences” in the fossil record do not show step by step (by step) links from any given species to another. And current life doesn’t show it either. From monkey to man we lost them ALL to extinction? That’s ludicrous. So monkey is more primitive than man and man is more advanced it would stand to reason all the steps in between would be more advanced than monkey. That being said some or all of them should have survived... at least one!
That’s not faith or conjecture or supposition from distantly and remotely related fossil records or slippery salamanders... that’s logic.
Thanks for the heads up. It looks like an interesting thread. Hadn't heard anything at all about a Mormon uprising, but I am not exactly in the loop.
What Im saying is it seems odd to me that every single one of the lines in between what you see as the evolutionary scale died out.
Not sure what you mean here, can you elaborate?
The evidences in the fossil record do not show step by step (by step) links from any given species to another.
Fossils need specific conditions to form. Then we need luck to find them. So not surprising that every step isn't seen or known. Yet when we do find them, they keep confirming the theory of evolution.
And current life doesnt show it either.
Ive already given you evidence of current speciation. You dont seem to want to acknowledge it.
From monkey to man we lost them ALL to extinction? Thats ludicrous.
Thats a fundamental misunderstanding of what the theory of evolution is about. Monkeys did not evolve into men. Rather, monkeys and men have a common primate ancestor. Humans are more closely related to chimpanzees and apes than we are to monkeys. And yes, there are several hominids that are extinct, such as Australopithecus, homo habilus, etc.
Thats not faith or conjecture or supposition from distantly and remotely related fossil records or slippery salamanders... thats logic.
Logic says that when the DNA is so closely related, we are related. Logic says that as we find series of fossils closely related to current species, they are ancestors of current species. Logic says that as fossils and DNA findings confirm predictions of the theory of evolution, it is evidence that the theory is correct. Logic also dictates that when we can actually see speciation in progress via ring species, we acknowledge the reality of speciation.
You can be arrested for that...
Perhaps youve heard of assexual reproduction.
I've also heard it will make you go blind... But, do continue...
Absolutely. You're also a liberal, a fascist, an evilutionist, an atheist, a heretic, an evo-tard, a Darwinista, a satanist, and a eugenicist. Not to mention a baby-killing Nazi-loving, liar who's headed straight to hell. But you're not supposed to notice when you're called these things by the "Christians" on these threads. As they will remind you regularly, they take great offense at name calling.
Dude, I made it clear I was kidding right from the very beginning. What do you think the face d:op was for? Lighten up, Francis!
Apparently he is waiting for his sense of humor to evolve.
I have a feeling he will be waiting for millions upon millions of years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.