Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Age of the earth?

Seems to me that at the end of the day, they are all gulls.

Same thing with felines…. While there are some hybrids, they are unusual and many “feline species” are unable to breed with one another.

As,with the fruit flies and gulls, the felines remain felines.


In Muller’s view, “Darwinian” changes from “kind to kind” is impossible given today’s knowledge of genetics.

Prior to Darwin, biologists and naturalists had observed that evolution was evidently a reality based on overwhelming observed evidence. What Darwin contributed was an argument for the mechanism (or one major mechanism), which he called natural selection. That theory has yet to be disproved, and is highly explanatory of what science observes.

Think and learn…. There are bird fossils and there are dinosaur fossils….you may be looking at “cartoons” showing an evolutionary transition of birds to dinosaur….just a drawing without fossil links. You still see the “evolution of the horse” cartoons that could not and did not survive scientific scrutiny.

Archaeopteryx is a ….bird…..not a dinosaur and not a transitional species.

Not according to Gerd Muller….2016

Wow!

Well…..pretty easy to find some info on this….

“Australopithecus Afarensis is an extinct species of australopithecine…..”


“ A.A is now a widely accepted species, and is now generally thought that Homo and Paranthropus are sister taxa deriving from Australopithecus, but the classification of the Australopithecus species is in disarray. …….whose members are united by their similar physiology rather than close relations with each other over over other hominin genera.”

“For a long time, A.A. was the oldest known African great ape until……Yada yada….”

A great ape…..related to other apes by physiology…..


Again….simple genetic variation within a kind…. Not much different from equines, felines, fruit flies and gulls.


Genetic variation within a kind…..like Darwin observed…. NOT kind to kind evolution. This type of genetic variation is now referred to as “micro evolution” is a flimsy attempt to justify “kind to kind” change.


Y’all need to research Gerd Muller, 2016 and read him yourself.

Hawkeye, with genuine respect, “Overwhelming observed evidence” is subjective, which is why it is still a theory. And while it hasn’t been disproven, it does not mean their conclusions or the theory are facts.

It will always remain a scientific theory. Just like the theory of plate tectonics, or atomic theory. Theory in science means something different than what it means in colloquial speech. Look into it.

"JUST" A THEORY?

Occasionally, scientific ideas (such as biological evolution) are written off with the putdown “it’s just a theory.” This slur is misleading and conflates two separate meanings of the word theory: In common usage, the word theory means just a hunch, but in science, a theory is a powerful explanation for a broad set of observations. To be accepted by the scientific community, a theory (in the scientific sense of the word) must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence. So biological evolution is a theory: It is a well-supported, widely accepted, and powerful explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. But it is not “just” a theory."

The explanation of how gravity operates is still a theory, even though the presence of gravity is very clearly observed.

Exactly.

I’m fully aware of the definition of scientific theory, although, I don’t necessarily agree with the across-the-board significance of it when applied to different topics. Plate tectonics, gravity and atomics are in current, observable effect and not nearly as widely disputed as evolution.

Just because the term, when applied to the former 3 topics are significantly more accepted, that doesn’t mean the latter has as much evidence to give equal credibility. The analogy of a warranty applies: They’re all the same in definition, but not extent.

I strongly believe in the former 3 theories, however, I don’t know them as fact and when disputed, would not attempt to pass them off as such. The problem is finding someone to dispute them.

I can’t provide a unit of measure of a theory’s quality, but whatever it is, the Theory of Evolution, clearly, is not as strong as gravity and it certainly isn’t the “fact” or certainty many portray it to be. I have no problem with any faith…but it ain’t no fact.

How do you define bird and how do you define dinosaur?

You are forgetting a creationist suggested "natural selection" at least a decade prior to Darwin. He said God used "natural selection" to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth". Like most evolutionist, he claimed credit for another person's scientific discovery.

Sorry, but Ancient Origins is utter garbage. Entertaining, but factually garbage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones

Don't be fooled. Real, legitimate, scientists, in the fields appropriate for considerations of biological concepts, are (for all practical purposes) in unison in accepting the reality of evolution.

I have never gotten a clear explanation of the cause of gravity although as you say it ''is very clearly observed''.

I asked a neighbor friend to explain what caused gravity and he said it was the spinning of the earth. I said that didn't seem right, that a spinning tire throws mud off. It doesn't hold it on. I have a son who is a bona fide genius in many things and he attempted to explain it but really it amounted to "we don't know for sure".

Gravity is a force of nature and is a good example to give an atheist that doesn't believe in something he cannot see. You can bet your a$$ he believes in gravity.

Everyone believes in evolution if they can see and think. Even a 6000 year young earther creationist that believes Adam and Eve are the parents of all humanity believe in evolution or they don't believe the various races are human.

Gravity is not tied to the spinning of the earth. It's tied to mass density. Mass warps space, and greatly massive objects warp space a lot. The warpage of space around massive objects causes other massive objects to be drawn towards them, just like if you spread a thin rubber bladder over a frame creating a large flat surface and then place a heavy steel ball in the middle. then put another smaller steel ball on it, and it will be drawn to the more massive one (or, rather, they will be drawn together, but due to the dramatic difference in mass, the less massive object will appear to be moving towards the more massive object). You can even place the small ball into orbit around the much more massive ball by the way you start it on its course.

The above is a three dimensional model of a four dimensional phenomenon. The operation of gravity involves a fourth dimension, and we cannot perceive a four dimensional model, so there's no way to show it to anyone in a way that makes the operation of gravity intuitively obvious.