Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Time For Class Proving Evolution

I still think he must be digital, but if not, then the only other possibility is fungal. He has the mindset of a good portabella, but the imagination of a Psilocybin 'shroom.

Ten bucks says you woke up right after that!

That's the closely-related unihorn. everyone knows unicorns went extinct with the dinos.

Oh you so owe me a ten spot. You can't imagine being a single dr driving a 79 mark 5. You can't imagine the things I was called. I had to remove the screen from a back window of the apt I had and put a set of steps below the window.

That would plum tucker a guy out....

Hard to keep from telling the same stories over and over to the same person.

Walt,
Not all religions are "religious". Webster backs me up on this: Religion: cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Evolution and environmental sciences certainly fit that definition. But I commend adherents for the faith extended. I don't have it in me.

ricky,
There certainly are people who "believe" in evolution. But what you fail to understand is that there are also a large number of people who actually understand it. They follow the inescapable logic and mathematics and they know what evolution is at a very fundamental level. They are not "believers" nor could evolution as a science fit that description.

Sadly, today, few folks even attempt to understand something as simple as the basics of evolutionary biology. If they did, they would no more argue against it than they would argue that the earth is round, not flat.

Strange how after all these years those finches didn't get bigger or faster so they could avoid being kestrel food.

really old news. What's your point - it is a nice example of character displacement - natural selection - in action.

Natural selection- they would get bigger, tougher, faster, hooked beaks, and meaner- anything for survival.

They aren't evolving for survival - they are staying kestrel dinner.

No.

Again, you display a total lack of understanding of the concept in just about every way imaginable.

If amoebas became Protozoa, why is there still amoebas? Did the stupid ones stay behind the curve like today's dimocraps?

Who said amoebas became protozoans?

That is like saying oranges became trees (all trees)...

Please try to learn something before asking stupid questions.

A six day creationist (I forgot his name but could come up with it) at San Dias national Lab developed the program for modeling plate techtonics which actually fit the world as we see it.

I do not accept that definition as valid as stated. I'm guessing it was down the list of definitions a bit?

By that definition virtually any "system" that people get horned up over is religion. That is simply not the case.

Or lack thereof.

Here's a quote from the introduction of the 1956 printing of Origin of Speices

On the other hand, it does appear to me, in the first place, that Darwin in the Origin was not able to produce paleontological evidence sufficient to prove his views but that the evidence he did produce was adverse to them; and I may note that the position is not notably different to-day. The modern Darwinian paleontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary hypotheses which, however plausible, are in the nature of things unverifiable. Introduction to The Origin of Species 6th Edition (1956) pp. xvii-xix

Who wrote the intro?