(February 13, 2015 at 11:47 am)Huggy74 Wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foo_fighter


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Cooper

None of this is evidence. I don't even see any pictures on that wiki. How come?

People experience things they can't explain. People make up a narrative, relevant to their culture. A hundred years earlier "Foo Fighters" would have been "Angels" or "Pixies". And maybe they'd be considered benevolent, because at the end of the day - they don't seem to do shit, except scare people crazy.

There are plenty of phenomena in the universe scientists can't completely - or indeed at all - explain. Even more - that we haven't observed yet. But jumping to a sci-fi fairy-tale about "Space Invaders" is a bit pre-mature and credulous, to say the least. I can make up a dozen explanations of those UFOs on the spot and they'd be just as valid and useful as yours, or any conspiracy nut's, because it's apparently impossible to capture one of those things for scientific testing. They might as well have been Jesus. Or the Abominable Snowman.

Let me spell it out for you: if anyone had real evidence for "alien visitors" (or pixies, or angels, or Care Bears for that matter - we'd hear about it. A lot. Governments can't cover-up shit. Read some history. Like - from a book. And scientists have no reason to hide anything - the first one to show an authentic alien artifact or life-form specimen would get Nobel prizes up his/her arse.

But nooooo. All we get are tall tales and unexplained anecdotes. That works for you? Fine. Be sure to wear your tin-foil helmet at all times. I happen to live in a world where I don't have to worry about War Of The Worlds - until there is a reason to.

(February 13, 2015 at 1:47 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: so what ever two "canines" he took aboard the Ark are the ancestors of all the canines we have today, the animals that he didn't take went extinct.

I believe animals can evolve within their group, I don't believe however, that all creatures evolved from the same ancestor.

Except that we know, just off the top of my head here, that whales evolved from early land-dwelling ungulate animals; the morphological and genetic data confirm this. So, are whales just a part of the cow "group," of animals now? Are the definitions of what goes into which group of animals going to change each time science discovers something new, or are you going to present a clear and unambiguous list of what determines these groups before we continue the discussion, so we can be sure you aren't just making this up as you go along?

For that matter, why was god using human-defined family classifications when he was populating the Ark? Did Noah know about this, even though the classifications wouldn't be defined for many years afterward?

(February 13, 2015 at 1:49 pm)robvalue Wrote: Why are you talking about Noah?

Are you being serious?

It was an example...

---

(February 13, 2015 at 1:56 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(February 13, 2015 at 1:47 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: so what ever two "canines" he took aboard the Ark are the ancestors of all the canines we have today, the animals that he didn't take went extinct.

I believe animals can evolve within their group, I don't believe however, that all creatures evolved from the same ancestor.

Except that we know, just off the top of my head here, that whales evolved from early land-dwelling ungulate animals; the morphological and genetic data confirm this. So, are whales just a part of the cow "group," of animals now? Are the definitions of what goes into which group of animals going to change each time science discovers something new, or are you going to present a clear and unambiguous list of what determines these groups before we continue the discussion, so we can be sure you aren't just making this up as you go along?

For that matter, why was god using human-defined family classifications when he was populating the Ark? Did Noah know about this, even though the classifications wouldn't be defined for many years afterward?

Since the classifications we use are Latin I seriously doubt Noah used the same system. How the animals were classified is not clear, what IS clear is that only two animals from each classification were taken.

---

(February 13, 2015 at 1:53 pm)JesusHChrist Wrote:

(February 13, 2015 at 1:47 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I believe animals can evolve within their group, I don't believe however, that all creatures evolved from the same ancestor.

Then why would humans share 25% of their genes with rice?

Possibly because they have the same creator?

(February 13, 2015 at 12:40 pm)robvalue Wrote: How much do I owe you Parker?

Kudos for my next ten posts!

---

(February 13, 2015 at 12:24 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: As you well know, slavery was a part of Americas history where they bred people like animals in order to pass on "favorable traits", do you consider African-Americans to be a different species of human?

Obviously not. I'd tell you why, but that would be too easy for you. Yours is a brain that definitely needs a challenge -- so I'm going to let you discover exactly the error you're making here.

Now run along and look up the definition of species, Buggy. We'll wait whiole you get a long-overdue edumacation.

(February 13, 2015 at 1:25 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 13, 2015 at 1:16 pm)JesusHChrist Wrote: Exactly. Given enough time and genetic isolation, it is possible a new species would result. But, in the slave case, there was neither time nor genetic isolation.

400 years not enough? keep in mind, "speciation" has been produced in a lab. Either way, you're saying that given enough time a different species of slave would be produced?

lololol
Are you f-ing kidding me? 400 years? That's like 0.0001% of what it takes for a population of complicated organisms like primates are to separate into a separate species (that cannot produce fertile offspring with the "original" species). Homo Sapiens have existed for at least 100 000-250 000 years - what is 400 going to change?

Different races, like Asians, Africans, Causcasians were breeding in isolation from each other for tens of thousands of years - and they're still the same species, because that is nothing on a planet that is 4.5 billion years old... Did you go to school? This is all pretty basic science.

(February 13, 2015 at 1:02 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: In my example of the selective breeding slaves, would you consider African-Americans a different species of human? considering they fall under the same definition.

I'll take "factually incorrect" for a true Daily Double, Alex.

(February 13, 2015 at 1:58 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Since the classifications we use are Latin I seriously doubt Noah used the same system. How the animals were classified is not clear, what IS clear is that only two animals from each classification were taken.

Is this seriously the extent of your argument? You don't know how the animals were classified, but you do know that evolution as we currently understand it doesn't represent how those classes were arrayed... despite not knowing anything at all about the situation?

Do you understand how profoundly dishonest that is? You refuse to properly define your own position, you say you don't even know what the details of your position really are, and yet you expect us to argue against this mystery conclusion you've come to? How? How can anyone properly argue against your position, when in reality it's just whatever you need it to be to continue disagreeing with a scientific subject you know next to nothing about?

You essentially don't have a position beyond "you're all wrong," because you either don't have, or refuse to provide, sufficient details to comprise a real stance on this issue.

And is the existence of Noah and the flood an "example" or is it something you truly believe in? Because if it's not the latter, then even your basis for disagreement doesn't exist.

(February 13, 2015 at 1:58 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 13, 2015 at 1:53 pm)JesusHChrist Wrote: Then why would humans share 25% of their genes with rice?

Possibly because they have the same creator?

Nope. There is no evidence for any "creator".

You do realize the sharing of genes is exactly what we would expect to see given evolution from a common ancestor? And that's just the start.

(February 13, 2015 at 1:58 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 13, 2015 at 1:53 pm)JesusHChrist Wrote: Then why would humans share 25% of their genes with rice?

Possibly because they have the same creator?

Or because they evolved from the same species? Let's see - we have species and natural selection. We don't have a creator. Occam's Razor - we have a winner. Come back with a credible proof for a creator and we'll reconsider evolution.

(February 13, 2015 at 1:47 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I believe animals can evolve within their group, I don't believe however, that all creatures evolved from the same ancestor.

That's nice. The facts disagree.

Now go play in the traffic.