[Didymus Much]

Re: Sharks disprove evolution!

Because of reasons that you would understand, if you were just a bit open-minded.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies:

...- Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem...
...- Moral high ground fallacy – in which one assumes a "holier-than-thou" attitude in an attempt to make oneself look good to win an argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_high_ground...

Go read those, then try again.

[DemonThinker96]

Re: Sharks disprove evolution!

According to Atheist, fish walked on land and became dinosaurs. Those dinosaurs evolved into birds... and monkeys evolved into people.


So... Atheist, answer this - If sharks have been around since before the dinosaurs - hundreds of millions of years as you claim - how come they have not evolved?

All they do is swim around and hunt. If you can say mankind evolved from monkeys within a couple million years, why haven't sharks evolved into super intelligent creatures during the tens of millions of years they had?


Checkmate Atheist!

Mankind did not evolve from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys but did not evolve straight from them.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: Sharks disprove evolution!

Mankind did not evolve from monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys but did not evolve straight from them.

Have you got any evidence to support this theory given that there are no transitional fossils and the Bible says we came from dirt (Gen 2:7)?

[Cefirul]

Re: Sharks disprove evolution!

the Bible says we came from dirt (Gen 2:7)?

Have you got any evidence to support this theory that there is not the bible?

[DemonThinker96]

Re: Sharks disprove evolution!

Have you got any evidence to support this theory given that there are no transitional fossils and the Bible says we came from dirt (Gen 2:7)?

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/humans-descended-from-apes.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

There is actually alot of scientific evidence supporting the theory that humans are related to apes. Genetic studies show how similar human DNA is to that of an ape's, fossils have been found, etc.

[Didymus Much]

Re: Sharks disprove evolution!

Have you got any evidence to support this theory that there is not the bible?

Wut?

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Re: Sharks disprove evolution!

Have you got any evidence to support this theory that there is not the bible?

What? There is a theory that there is not the Bible? Obviously there is the Bible - I have one - KJV (1611) of course - right next to me on the desk.

[Cefirul]

Re: Sharks disprove evolution!

Have you got any evidence to support this theory that is not the bible?*

[MaxRoach1]

Re: Sharks disprove evolution!

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies:



Go read those, then try again.

I have to admit that I found it interesting, expecially the argumentum ad hominem (probably because I like latin). Anyway, I think that both those accusations cannot be addressed to me.
What I said was an observation. When M.E. first asked me who was Decartes (without knowing anything about him), she seemed to be already interested in him (which explains the question). Then someone said the philosopher's theory is basically methodological scepticism, which is right and made me gain a 30 points strike for "Butchering the American language" (?). Anyway, what's important is that this single information blocked any kind of approach for her to a not biblically accepted knowledge.
So my personal question is: why should a person refuse to learn just because he thinks his personal knowledge is unquestionable?
...And here comes my last comment.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Re: Sharks disprove evolution!

When M.E. first asked me who was Decartes (without knowing anything about him)

No, she didn't. She asked who Cartesius was, which is a perfectly reasonable question given that Descartes (not to be confused some imaginary person called Decartes) is generally referred to by the name under which he published.

...And here comes my last comment.

I'm sure I'm not alone in not holding my breath.

[MaxRoach1]

Re: Sharks disprove evolution!

No, she didn't. She asked who Cartesius was, which is a perfectly reasonable question given that Descartes (not to be confused some imaginary person called Decartes) is generally referred to by the name under which he published.



I'm sure I'm not alone in not holding my breath.

Could you express "She asked who Cartesius was, which is a perfectly reasonable question given that Descartes (not to be confused some imaginary person called Decartes) is generally referred to by the name under which he published." in another way? I'm not sure about what you wat to say (I'm serious, I don't want to be offensive).
The last line of my comment should have been "and this all explains my previous comment" (mb)

[Jim Farmer]

Re: Sharks disprove evolution!

Have you got any evidence to support this theory that is not the bible?*

What more do you need than the Bible?
Genesis 2:7
God wrote the Bible. God is omnipotent. God is all-knowing. If man was not created from the dirt, God wouldn't have said that he was. I can't get over the stupidity that is being displayed in this thread.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Re: Sharks disprove evolution!

Could you express "She asked who Cartesius was, which is a perfectly reasonable question given that Descartes (not to be confused some imaginary person called Decartes) is generally referred to by the name under which he published." in another way? I'm not sure about what you wat to say (I'm serious, I don't want to be offensive).

Oh dear. I will do my best.

Sister Mary Etheldreda did not ask who Descartes (not Decartes) was "without knowing anything about him". She is a highly educated woman who home-schools her children! She asked who Cartesius was. She asked this because Descartes is never referred to in American as Cartesius. Even in French his name was not Cartesius! He did not publish as Cartesius, he published as Descartes, or Des-Cartes. This is an American website, we do not use fake imaginary Latin names here.

The last line of my comment should have been "and this all explains my previous comment"

Thank you for the clarification.

[Roland]

Re: Sharks disprove evolution!

I must say I am a bit disappointed in the arguments brought by the advocates of evolution theory in this thread.

So... Atheist, answer this - If sharks have been around since before the dinosaurs - hundreds of millions of years as you claim - how come they have not evolved?

Had it not been for a omnipotent creature that had created all we know with all it´s flaws, I might have pointed out that evolution does not always need change. Being merely survival of the fittest and sharks being quite efficient in what they do, there is no need for change.

[Dr Laurence Niles]

Re: Sharks disprove evolution!

I must say I am a bit disappointed in the arguments brought by the advocates of evolution theory in this thread.



Had it not been for a omnipotent creature that had created all we know with all it´s flaws, I might have pointed out that evolution does not always need change. Being merely survival of the fittest and sharks being quite efficient in what they do, there is no need for change.

And just how does so called evilution 'know' that the shark does not need to 'change'?

Answer that one, smart guy.

YIC