Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,055 Year: 5,312/9,624 Month: 337/323 Week: 181/160 Day: 17/38 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No Witnesses
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


(2)
Message 166 of 215 (660662)
04-28-2012 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Chuck77
04-28-2012 4:32 AM


Taken from Message 549 for discussion.
quote:
If I have insulted anyone in that thread like the way I am being insulted whatever penalty is given out to the members doing it to me i'll accept the same.
I found the comment Dr Adequate responded to far nastier - and insulting - than the comment made by Dr. Adequate, who merely suggests that your argument would look silly in a courtroom.
Establishing "facts" to fit the theory maybe. If you cannot provide examples of micro-evolution happening with evidence of witnesses then how is it factual? Or is it just assumed and speculated?
If you merely have questions about the evidence then why is the first sentence in the quote even needed ? Leave out the insinuations and the hostility and then you might be able to complain about being mistreated.
Even leaving the exaggerations of CSI behind us, it is true, is it not that forensic evidence - such as ballistic markings, fibres, fingerprints and DNA matching are given considerable weight in the judicial system ? Do you suggest that this is a fraud designed to support the prosecution ? If you do not then you not only concede Dr. Adequate's point, you were also being premature in your own comments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Chuck77, posted 04-28-2012 4:32 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 181 of 215 (660744)
04-29-2012 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Chuck77
04-29-2012 4:41 AM


quote:
Yes, I know that, but Rrhain says it's been witnessed. I'm just wondering what it is he means.
What makes you think that Rrhain is using one of the Creationist definitions of macroevolution (there are at least two common ones) rather than the usual scientific definition ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Chuck77, posted 04-29-2012 4:41 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 187 of 215 (660752)
04-29-2012 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Chuck77
04-29-2012 5:50 AM


It's pretty obvious. It shows three different mammals with different levels of adaption to life at sea. Which adds to the plausibility of a transition from land to sea. Add in the evidence from fossils genes and morphology and you have a pretty strong case for the transition.
And your only argument against it is that the process takes too long to have been directly observed ? Really ? Why should we take such an argument seriously ? Do you even apply that standard to your own views on the matter ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Chuck77, posted 04-29-2012 5:50 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Chuck77, posted 04-29-2012 6:07 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 194 by foreveryoung, posted 04-29-2012 12:20 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


(3)
Message 190 of 215 (660758)
04-29-2012 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Chuck77
04-29-2012 6:07 AM


quote:
Ok, thanks PaulK. So Scientists are using pictures to determine that they evolved from land dwelling creatures to become sea dwelling creatures? I thought there was more to it.
Come off it. You can't honestly believe that Panda's post, which merely provides illustrations pointing you at evidence represents the entirety of the scientific case.
quote:
So the fossils come with name tags?
Who said anything about name tags ? What good would name tags even do ? Fossils do, of course, give us a good deal of information about morphology and more may be inferred from what they directly tell us.
quote:
Well, I have a completley different argument now. Mainly using pictures as evidence, and unlabled fossils.
And you wonder why you don't get respect ?
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Chuck77, posted 04-29-2012 6:07 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 195 of 215 (660787)
04-29-2012 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by foreveryoung
04-29-2012 12:20 PM


quote:
Are you saying that seals and walruses used to be otters and beavers? Are you saying that otters and beavers will one day be seals and walruses?
If I meant to say that I would have said it. I didn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by foreveryoung, posted 04-29-2012 12:20 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by foreveryoung, posted 04-29-2012 1:35 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17848
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 197 of 215 (660794)
04-29-2012 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by foreveryoung
04-29-2012 1:35 PM


I would suggest that communication is a two-way street and that in this case the primary problem is at your end. Certainly my statement contained no speculation on the future evolution of any of these species or any reference to it.
In short I meant precisely what I said, and I cannot take responsibility for your inference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by foreveryoung, posted 04-29-2012 1:35 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024