Tiercel 6,986 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) yeah your right paulas,if it cant be proved thats that,but ive a conscience,an that tells me when an whats morally right an wrong,that can be proved Fraz, We all have a conscience, it's just a matter of how strong that conscience is. I have what I consider a high moral ethic, but others may disagree with me. Morality and conscience are all subjective. TC Edited November 20, 2014 by tiercel 2 Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 thats me here lads,i look forward to a load of qs when im done, paulas if we didnt evolve or be created what is mans origin,bearing in mind aliens would have to evolve lol goodnight the one thing that this planet has and we can not live without is water,a full grown humans body contains about 60% water, strangely a new born babies body is about 78% water when born but drops back to about 65% by one year of age, water is what gives this planet life, Link to post Share on other sites
Truther 1,579 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 And water is not "of the earth" unless anyone can explain how water managed on a molten ball of iron? Life is generally accepted to have started in the sea, the water in the sea came from space, so we are "aliens" logic..... 1 Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,763 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 And the iron that formed the earth is a remnant of a supernova... so everything we know is just star dust left over from the aftermath of the greatest cosmic fireworks show imaginable. Science out the window for a moment... that inspires me spiritually more than any deity could. Link to post Share on other sites
paulus 26 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 And water is not "of the earth" unless anyone can explain how water managed on a molten ball of iron? Life is generally accepted to have started in the sea, the water in the sea came from space, so we are "aliens" logic..... could have been frozen on an asteroid that collided with the earth so we are the aliens Link to post Share on other sites
kevin kiely 66 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 submit to intelligent design and love and serve the lord Link to post Share on other sites
gnasher16 30,118 Posted November 20, 2014 Report Share Posted November 20, 2014 (edited) Macro is the change above the level of species if im not wrong......and a legitimate scientific term.......so whats the hold up on the answer i dont get it ? Anything above the species level... okay that's a definition. So a wolf like species evolving into a fox like species would, by your definition, be an example of a creationists 'macro evolution'? It is after all a change in genus, which is above the species level. It's also something I'm led to believe that creationists accept as possible through evolution! Now there is a conundrum... Would a wolf and a fox be regarded as different species though....they both come from the canidae family do they not ?.....i know the family is divided into 2 types canine ( related to wolves ) and vulpine ( related to foxes ) so is it evolution above species level if they,re both from the same family....ie is it not still micro ? Also,surely there must be animals at this very moment in the transitional phase between 2 different species if macro evolution is to be believed......how do we tell what they are ?....or dont we ? Edited November 20, 2014 by gnasher16 Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,763 Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 (edited) You're right about how you classify fox and wolves, they are of the same family (Canidae) however of different Genus, which is a classification above the species level (Canis and Vulpes). So by my thinking, you will have to change your definition of 'kind' to be "family level". However, we have never actually witness evolution on the genus level (to my knowledge), yet creationists are happy with that, never mind on the family level. I'm very happy to admit that though. Evolution is continuous, so yes transitional species will be here now.... however I'm not sure how we can identify them as they require an ancestral species (which we have in the fossil record) as well as descendant species (which are obviously yet to exist). But look at the fossil record, even though it represents a tiny fraction of the history of life on Earth these transitional fossils have been documented. Edited November 21, 2014 by Born Hunter Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 hello lads,hows the banter today,bh could you give me an eg please of these transitional fossils¿ Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,763 Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 Australopithecus - transitional species between ape and man. Archaeopteryx - transitional species between theropod and bird. Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 aww you mean lucy,which only 40% of the skelton was found,that was proved wrong 50 years ago haha archeoptrex the bird,haha that only evoloution scientist say Is a link bh I knew your were gona say them two theve been proved lucy was a small monkey an archeoptrex is a perching bird, mate youl have to do better than that Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,763 Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 It wasn't 'proved' wrong at all. But you keep on with your ignorance mate. "show me evidence, show me evidence!" "oh shit, there's some evidence..." "right, lets try to discredit it any way we can and hope if we shout loud enough everyone will believe us" 1 Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 I suggest you read this bh,the first quote is from a very well known evo scientist,who says archeoptrex shouldnt even come in argument cause it has no intermediates before or after http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/archaeopteryx.htm Link to post Share on other sites
Born Hunter 17,763 Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 LOL LOL, no intermediates before or after. Do you even know what an intermediate is? You creationists are never happy! An intermediate is found and yet you want to see every single evolutionary step! Even then, you'd dispute the validity claiming they're falsified findings! You'll have to forgive me for not reading creationist propaganda, they have a bad habit of bending science and quotations to push their bullshit agenda. See, that's the difference here, science just wants to find the truth, there is no agenda! Evolution Theory is a product of science. Creationists have an agenda and they use twisted 'science' to desperately push it. They have ZERO objectivity because of that. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
frazdog 252 Posted November 21, 2014 Report Share Posted November 21, 2014 lucy was just a small ptimate who weighed 40kilos an was 3feet tall lad I researched these finds for years an 90% of scientists even evoloutionary scientists say it was a chimp,it only had 40% of its skeleton http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714_Lucy_fails_test.html Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts