Creation vs. Evolution

[noguru]

I assert that no one has observed speciation. Instead of showing me observed speciation, he shows me variation within a species. If speciation has been observed, prove it! You know that no one has ever observed speciation. Why would I listen to some fools that say it happens but have no proof.

Your assertions are meaningless in the face of the real world. There is a large amount of evidence for speciation. Your inability to acknowledge the evidence or understand a formalyzed hypothesis that can verify/faslify it does not change the reality of the evidence.

http://www.darwinwasright.org/observations_speciation.html

Observed evolutionary events.

 

[Daniel1611]

Your assertions are meaningless in the face of the real world. There is a large amount of evidence for speciation. Your inability to acknowledge the evidence or understand a formalyzed hypothesis that can verify/faslify it does not change the reality of the evidence.

http://www.darwinwasright.org/observations_speciation.html

Observed evolutionary events.

Has it been observed? No. The evidence us fossils and speculation.

 

[alwight]

I assert that no one has observed speciation. Instead of showing me observed speciation, he shows me variation within a species. If speciation has been observed, prove it! You know that no one has ever observed speciation. Why would I listen to some fools that say it happens but have no proof.

Since you seem to be an advocate of the 1611 KJV I suggest that more people have observed speciation than have observed unicorns. lain:

 

[Daniel1611]

Since you seem to be an advocate of the 1611 KJV I suggest that more people have observed speciation than have observed unicorns. lain:

I bet. I can't think of any animal that has a single horn. ... ???

 

[6days]

Interestingly, the Piltdown hoax was not accepted by the consensus and was challenged years before the test proof arrived. But 6days knows this as he has been told before - lying his just his thing, and he can't change.

The statement I made is correct. We have gone over this before. Are you interested in once again seeing photocopies from textbooks teaching students Piltdown was one of our ancestors? Are you interested in once again seeing how Piltdown was discussed as a fact in a respected journal many years later --- even though by this time many scientists were becoming skeptical?

As I remember, you posted titles of books that upon inspection did not mention Piltdown or were not text books.

You lied then, so I'll assume you will continue lying now

You must have forgotten.
Here is one of the posts that you read previously..... In fact you posted the article from a textbook yourself. I posted several more over the next few days, and you later admitted I was correct. For today..... Here is a previous posting. Will post another for you tomorrow.


6DAYS " Hey GC... A friend emailed me saying...
"This is interesting! A college textbook that takes Piltdown Man seriously and assigns him a place in prehistoric history. It seems the hoax really did embed falsehood into education and affect worldviews after all.

College Zoology by George William Hunter, Francis Robert Hunter

1949 - W. B. Saunders Company

Page 704".....
GCTHOMAS "I have found the reference myself, reproduced below.
Well done. You have found a non-school textbook (you claimed school texts, didn't you?) that has one sentence with the word 'Piltdown', with 'so-called' and 'probably' alongside. Piltdown Man doesn't even warrant a mention in the timelime that immediately follows it's rather tangential mention. But, hey. It's mentioned! Fantastic work.
I'll leave any readers to judge whether the sentence is of the "worldview affecting" standard claimed.

Spoiler

"
........................................
These myths become true science in the minds of students and even in gullible adults.

 

[6days]

Since you seem to be an advocate of the 1611 KJV I suggest that more people have observed speciation than have observed unicorns. lain:

In 1611... What did the word unicorn mean?

 

[alwight]

I bet. I can't think of any animal that has a single horn. ... ???

How many is a unicorn supposed to have then, and has anyone ever observed them?

 

[Jose Fly]

I assert that no one has observed speciation.

6days says you're wrong. He's posted examples of the observed evolution of new species.

 

[6days]

There is overwhelming empirical evidence for various evolutionary processes. And they are replicable and testable.
.

Adaptation.... Genetic drift.... sexual selection..... natural selection ETC are all "overwhelming empirical evidence for" Biblical creation. "And they are replicable and testable."

 

[Jose Fly]

So again 6days, we all agree that Piltdown Man was a deliberate hoax, likely carried out by "evolutionists". And I'll grant that some textbooks included Piltdown Man, even to the point of including it as among our relatives.

Therefore.........?

 

[Jose Fly]

Adaptation.... Genetic drift.... sexual selection..... natural selection ETC are all "overwhelming empirical evidence for" Biblical creation. "And they are replicable and testable."

Stripe says that's not true. For example, he says there's no such thing as natural selection.

You guys still haven't figured this out?

 

[6days]

How many is a unicorn supposed to have then, and has anyone ever observed them?

|
Yes... Of course.
In 1611, the word meant a single horned animal such as rhinoceros.

 

[alwight]

In 1611... What did the word unicorn mean?

Circa 1602. Strange rhinoceros.

 

[6days]

Stripe says that's not true. For example, he says there's no such thing as natural selection.

You guys still haven't figured this out?

Hey Jose.... If you read the thread I suggested, you will know Stripe and I agree but use different terms.
(Thread is "Rapid Adaptation")

 

[Daniel1611]

How many is a unicorn supposed to have then, and has anyone ever observed them?

I was being facetious. The unicorn was probably a rhinoceros. It could have even been an auroch or something else. The Hebrew is a horned animal.

 

[alwight]

I was being facetious. The unicorn was probably a rhinoceros. It could have even been an auroch or something else. The Hebrew is a horned animal.

That may be true but the 1611 KJV Bible didn't seem to know that apparently.
Oh dear was it ...wrong?

 

[Daniel1611]

That may be true but the 1611 KJV Bible didn't seem to know that apparently.
Oh dear was it ...wrong?

That was the word they chose. Unicorn means a horned animal. The KJV is perfectly fine

 

[6days]

Circa 1602. Strange rhinoceros.

YIKES... I have just been gored by a unicorn!
ha... Mythical unicorns such as you pictured have 'existed' since antiquity. But in 1611, the definition was one horned animals.
"The original Hebrew is the word re’em. What was a re’em? Scholars cannot agree. In the late Jewish author and skeptic Isaac Asimov’s Guide to the Bible, he offers this:

“The Hebrew word represented in the King James Version by ‘unicorn’ is re’em, which undoubtedly refers to the wild ox (an urus or an aurochs) which is ancestral to the domesticated cattle of today. Re’em still flourished in early historical times and a few existed into modern times, although it is now extinct. It was a dangerous creature of great strength and was similar in form and temperament to Asian water buffaloes.”


Read more: http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists...ns-in-the-king-james-bible.html#ixzz3hnVPZYYi

 

[alwight]

So why would the KJV use a name of a creature that was already well associated with a mythical beast?
Why not say a "one horned beast" instead?

 

[alwight]

Aurochs had two horns apparently.