Bible contradictions?

[Phil]

Could someone explain to me how a wolf evolves into a blue whale?

Chiapet and Undecieved in Dumb and Dumber opening March 16th 2012 at an atheist forum near you.

---

Could someone explain to me how a wolf evolves into a blue whale?

It didn't. Anything else I can answer for you?

PBS doesn't think so.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change...ocene.html

"Gradually, over 5-10 million years, whale ancestors abandon their terrestrial ties in favor of a sea-going existence. Hoofed, wolf-like, carnivorous mammals called mesonychids hunt for food along the seashore. They probably spend more and more time offshore because a more abundant food supply exists in the water."

Do you know how stupid you are? Here is my good deed for the day and it probably will save your life someday (probably many times). Ready for it? Just remember the words - Breathe in, breathe out.

[chi pan]

Dogs have been around for more than a few hundred years but the breeding of wolves into dogs (separate species) shows that speciation is possible (contrary to ID proponents assertions, that microevolution happens but there is some sort of barrier that prevents speciation or macroevolution).

Agreed that speciation is possible and does not take millions of years. However, it is one thing to say all dogs have a common ancestor and then to say everything has a common ancestor.

Evolution does not feature dramatic changes at all. Dramatic changes, like a horse giving birth to a giraffe, would disprove evolution and be evidence for a supernatural influence.

Did you read the quote I posted? I said a transitional form would show gradual NOT dramatic change. Saying all fossils are transitional fossils is clearly pointing out how nothing will convince you evolution is wrong. You pretty much said life exists therefore evolution is true as if that is significant. Delusional.

There is none. Again, that would disprove evolution.

Think wolf to dog. Even though that was artificial selection, the same process is at work.

The difference with wolves and dogs is according to the widely accepted definition of species (animals that can interbreed) they are the same species. Dogs can breed with wolves to get half wolf dogs. We can see it and observe and study it so it's science.

You don't just need to assert a conspiracy here. You need to assert the BIGGEST CONSPIRACY OF ALL TIME AND A VAST INTERNATIONAL ILLUMINATI STYLE ORGANIZATION BEHIND IT!

Then you would need even more evidence to to claim conspiracy for things like Jesus never existed as a person then I would to say evolution is a conspiracy according to what you said. It's been accepted longer and by more people than evolution has. I would say a very low percent of people claim Jesus never existed.

As frauds successfully exposed by the rigorous process of peer review proving that science can be relied upon to factor in all available evidence and discard what turns out not to be true.

I would give then credit for that if it weren't for a few things. First, we aren't talking about oops, I made a mistake. We are talking about scientists lying through their teeth. They take a man skull and ape jaw and call it piltdown man and present it as evidence. It wasn't proven wrong for 20 years. Some process. Nebraska man was made up from a single tooth. It was big in the day but now of course they try to forget it. A single tooth was taken to say we found a missing link and it turned out not even to be human or ape but a pigs tooth. That's your great scientific process? Something is wrong.

Really? Source please?

I gave examples didn't I? I didn't even bring up java man, made of 3 teeth, a leg bone and a skull fragment found miles apart from one another. I named the hoaxes what else do you want as evidence?

[Phil]

Coincidentally, your "wolf-like creature" is not even on the fossil record, so I should be able to call it what I like.

Nope, call it by it's proper scientific name and why do you think there are no fossils? Are you really that deluded?

[The Grand Nudger]

UD, you're thinking of "dogs" to dolphins etc, not whales (even then this is shaky as the "dogs" that are proposed to have been the transition between land and water for dolphins aren't actually dogs, again, convergence). The closest analog whales have on land are hippos. Even this though isn't something we expect to see a transitional form from, as hippos are not the ancestor of whales, they merely share a common ancestor (or so dna would suggest)

(isn't it amusing that we're still talking ungulates btw...even when we talk about whales. Poor things seem to have lost their hooves along the way, guess they just didn't need them. Quite the successful group as far as mammals go, ungulates)

[Phil]

I find it extremely comical that our deluded duo of chiapet (Dumb) and Undeceived (Dumber) brought up the two best known evolutionary pathways as evidence that evolution is wrong. It is pretty apparent that irony is not in either of their dictionaries nor do they have the ability to read. As a matter of fact chiapet, horse evolution has the horse slowly losing fingers until only one remains and it's the middle one and he is giving it to you fucking creotard morons.

[Faith No More]

I agree with you Phil, but I think Undeceived is Dumb and chiapet is dumber.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, figure that they both actually believe that theyre arguing against evolution by these statements and it becomes easy to understand why they refuse to consider evolution as a well demonstrated fact. The things they are looking for are not evolution, they are not demonstrated facts, they are infantile strawmen I can only assume some "religious authority" (I use the term loosely) handed them in their ignorance. That's what happens when you ask a holy man about science. If I made my living off the beliefs of others I wouldn't shit in my own cereal either. It's not impossible to finally come to the realization that ID and "creation science" is politics and marketing, it's happened on these very boards...I'm hoping to pull off a repeat.

(as Phil has mentioned Chip, UD, this family of animals you keep invoking is one of the better demonstrated cases of evolution. This branch contains almost every animal that has ever been important to us, and as such, we've had a great deal of interest in them since before we had any interest in evolution whatsoever.)

[Phil]

I agree with you Phil, but I think Undeceived is Dumb and chiapet is dumber.

That is because they are symmetric about the empty head axis.

[NoMoreFaith]

Saying all fossils are transitional fossils is clearly pointing out how nothing will convince you evolution is wrong.

So what are fossils. Why does one type of animal die out, and a slightly different version propagate.

Rather than focus on the gaps, why are there any transitional fossils at all? How does your hypothesis of God fit into that.

We are talking about scientists lying through their teeth. They take a man skull and ape jaw and call it piltdown man and present it as evidence.

And disproven by other scientists. Self-correcting.

There are many elements of the bible have been conclusively disproved as lies, yet you continue to state it as fact.

Who is being more dishonest here? Catching fraud and exposing them, or Catching fraud and ignoring it.

You are stating Evolution has had examples of fraudulent evidence therefore all evidence is fraud, and equally stating, The Bible gives fraudulent evidence, therefore it is the exposure of the fraud is wrong.

Double standards.

Would you like to demand that practitioners of faith never lie to defend their beliefs? Would you like to discuss that, or brush it under the carpet? Turin Shroud? Letters to Pontius Pilate? The Coffin of James? etc *cough*

The problem is that Evolution stands on Evidence, and Faith stands on the denial of it.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think the stumbling block for the faithful, is that they haven't considered that they can still have their god and the demonstrated evidence for evolution (or any other science, really). Evolution and science need not call into question any god, only the stories about gods which are just as easily demonstrated to be the product of human minds, in their entirety. If you insist that the stories be factually accurate for your god to exist then you are the one removing your god from consideration, not evolution, not science. One might ask, what is left without the stories, well, that's not for me to decide, but I can say this, what's left is exactly equivalent to what you had before the stories were removed, so I don't see the problem. Perhaps the faithful should be asking whether it's the stories or the god that is more important to them?