Page 42 of 65
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:21 pm
by davidm
PauloL wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:17 pm
thedoc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:43 am
Evolutionauts use time lines. Now they even use routes that cross the USA.
Yes, it's quite small time producing all 36 animal fila, except one, in 6 minutes. Really.
What a success for an random process dependent further on trial and error by natural selection.
Are you really this inconceivably dense? Where did you get six minutes? In the video time is converted to
distance. You can't understand a simple video, yet you propose to lecture actual biologists about evolution?
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:29 pm
by PauloL
davidm wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:21 pm
PauloL wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2017 5:17 pm
thedoc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2017 4:43 am
Evolutionauts use time lines. Now they even use routes that cross the USA.
Yes, it's quite small time producing all 36 animal fila, except one, in 6 minutes. Really.
What a success for an random process dependent further on trial and error by natural selection.
Are you really this inconceivably dense? Where did you get six minutes? In the video time is converted to
distance. You can't understand a simple video, yet you propose to lecture actual biologists about evolution?
I said before that 11 miles are equivalent to 6 minutes if that's a 24-hour trip.
Your choice to decide what you like best.
Check it:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=14226&start=600#p330058
It's funny that all you have to say about my comment is complaining about miles.
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:24 pm
by thedoc
The more education you have, the more doubts you have, because you realize that there is more that you don't know.
The ignorant are always sure of what they think they know, even though they don't know anything.
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:32 pm
by PauloL
thedoc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:24 pm
I don't see your point, doc. Understanding Evolutionomics makes you educated or ignorant?
Socratic "I know that I know nothing" is quite philosophical indeed, but some people can build powerful air jets that work.
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:57 pm
by SpheresOfBalance
Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:04 am
While I accept the theory of evolution as being explanative in a variety of cases, I still remain skeptical as to it being 100%.
Here's something to consider. From the moment that the human egg gets fertilized, it goes through stages that mimics biohistory, the fish stage and other stages of life up to the time it gets born. When it gets born, it has very little hair which is opposite to our primate ancestors having lots of hair. Then later on, the Homo Sapiens man child gets hairier as it grows into manhood and even more hair as it gets very old, opposite to human ancestors which has been losing hair throughout history (from a male perspective, females having even less hair).
Again I'm not saying that the theory is invalid. But I think there are complications it can't handle.
What do you think about this?
PhilX
I think that if you truly understood the scope of evolution over millions of years for human type animals, and billions with respect to all life on planet earth, you wouldn't have to ask such a question. In other words, there is no necessary need for the correlation between that which you've outlined above.
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:09 am
by thedoc
SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2017 8:57 pm
Philosophy Explorer wrote: ↑Sat Nov 15, 2014 5:04 am
While I accept the theory of evolution as being explanative in a variety of cases, I still remain skeptical as to it being 100%.
Here's something to consider. From the moment that the human egg gets fertilized, it goes through stages that mimics biohistory, the fish stage and other stages of life up to the time it gets born. When it gets born, it has very little hair which is opposite to our primate ancestors having lots of hair. Then later on, the Homo Sapiens man child gets hairier as it grows into manhood and even more hair as it gets very old, opposite to human ancestors which has been losing hair throughout history (from a male perspective, females having even less hair).
Again I'm not saying that the theory is invalid. But I think there are complications it can't handle.
What do you think about this?
PhilX
I think that if you truly understood the scope of evolution over millions of years for human type animals, and billions with respect to all life on planet earth, you wouldn't have to ask such a question. In other words, there is no necessary need for the correlation between that which you've outlined above.
Very few scientific theories are 100% about anything, and the idea of human hairiness is not 100% true, some are born with no hair and some are born with lots of hair.
The theory of recapitulation has been discredited in science.
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:11 am
by thedoc
PauloL wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:32 pm
thedoc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:24 pm
I don't see your point, doc. Understanding Evolutionomics makes you educated or ignorant?
Socratic "I know that I know nothing" is quite philosophical indeed, but some people can build powerful air jets that work.
Evolutionomics is not a valid word but a made up word to discredit the theory of evolution.
The fact that you don't have a good understanding of evolution, as demonstrated by your posts, makes you uneducated.
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:37 am
by Belinda
Paulol wrote:
Socratic "I know that I know nothing" is quite philosophical indeed, but some people can build powerful air jets that work.
Do you know the meaning of 'rationalisation'?
The Christian theistic myth is a rationalisation type of explanation of the human condition as it was and is found to be the case. Jet aeroplanes work, and the explanation for that is not rationalisation but causes and effects.
Rationalisation in the sense of making rational or conformable to reason. Jet aeroplanes are not explained so as to
make them rational or conformable to reason; jet aeroplanes are explained as rational and conformable to reason.
The faults in the Christian myth explanation of the human condition are remedied by the adding on of extra hypotheses to force the Myth explanation into a contemporary mould. The Christian myth is internally coherent but fails to fit natural reality. Technological advances that work fit natural reality.
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:23 pm
by PauloL
Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:37 am
Perhaps a new thread should be created to discuss that, not here.
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:28 pm
by PauloL
thedoc wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 2:11 am
PauloL wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:32 pm
thedoc wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:24 pm
I don't see your point, doc. Understanding Evolutionomics makes you educated or ignorant?
Socratic "I know that I know nothing" is quite philosophical indeed, but some people can build powerful air jets that work.
Evolutionomics is not a valid word but a made up word to discredit the theory of evolution.
The fact that you don't have a good understanding of evolution, as demonstrated by your posts, makes you uneducated.
So, what do you want me to call it? First, Evolutionism won't do, now Evolutionomics won't do, so what?
I question people who don't answer me and it's me who doesn't understand whatever you call that?
I questioned how natural selection just produced almost all animals, except a few, in 6 minutes (on the 24H trip) and then stopped production. I'm talking about Cambrian explosion.
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:43 pm
by Belinda
PauloL wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:23 pm
Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:37 am
Perhaps a new thread should be created to discuss that, not here.
Maybe. However you will recall that you started this rabbit.
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:47 pm
by PauloL
Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:43 pm
Sure, but I don't remember how.
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:22 pm
by davidm
PauloL wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 6:28 pm
I questioned how natural selection just produced almost all animals, except a few, in 6 minutes (on the 24H trip) and then stopped production. I'm talking about Cambrian explosion.
I already answered this many, many times, you creationist troll. And it's not
six minutes or
24 hours on the timeline; the timeline converts units of
time into units of
distance. Astounding you can't grasp this!
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:40 pm
by PauloL
davidm wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:22 pm
Then take it 11 miles. Everybody understands that's the same as 6 minutes in a 24H trip, no problem.
Now explain readers how almost all animal life started production at 2150 miles and how it stopped at 2161 miles.
Re: The Theory of Evolution - perfect?
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2017 8:59 pm
by davidm
PauloL wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:40 pm
davidm wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:22 pm
Then take it 11 miles. Everybody understands that's the same as 6 minutes in a 24H trip, no problem.
Now explain readers how almost all animal life started production at 2150 miles and how it stopped at 2161 miles.
It didn't
stop at 2161 miles.
As the bloody timeline
shows! Modern humans, for instance, evolved 570 feet ago. That's
plenty of evolution
after 2161 miles!
Also, all animal life did NOT "start" production at 2150 miles -- as the timeline clearly shows!
Creationist troll.
Hey, I thought you were going to edumucate us on the hemoglobin gene! What happened to that?