Tiktaalik ha ha

[Loudmouth]

I would think that because of the evidence. They are not fossilized yet I know that fish and animals and man was here right from the beginning.

What evidence do you have that dolphins were present in the Devonian?

If they were created it would have been the same time as all animals. In that case, they would be what I call 'Eden's creatures'. Trilobites and the stuff in the fossil record early on were not that. So, man and Eden's creatures we might call them, could not fossilize until after the nature change, which was after the flood. Yes, some exceptions exist. The conditions on earth, and with evolving and adapting creatures may have allowed fossilization. But that is as I say the exception to the rule, and I don't want to go there in this thread.

That is all make believe. I am asking for an explanation based in reality, not fantasies.

I said my opinion is that dinos evolved from birds and maybe reptiles also. Rapid evolution could allow that. That might explain why they were not in the ark, if they were not the kind, but the birds were!!!!!!!!

Evidence?

I am saying that all flowering plants more or less are an adaptation of plants to this state! There were flowers and trees and grass before we see them in the record!

Evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, your past state that you claim has no proof. It is just a belief you impose on evidence.

I have given you the proof.

CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates

No belief necessary.

 

[dad]

I have given you the proof.

CF210: Constancy of Radioactive Decay Rates

Not even close actually. No ones says decay existed, let alone changed rates. That needs support if you claim it! Oklo requires a series of miracles such as dunking the site miles under ground at the right time, and resurfacing it at the right time. You have no proof at all.

Supernovae must be at the right distance for the size and decay curves to be known. Unless time is the same, you have no distance therefore no size and no possible clue how long whatever we think we saw decay actually took to do it!!!

No belief necessary.

That is all you have.

 

[dad]

What evidence do you have that dolphins were present in the Devonian?

What evidence do you have that dolphins were not present in the Devonian?

That is all make believe. I am asking for an explanation based in reality, not fantasies.

You have no authority to call creation make believe, what you mean is you do not chose to believe it.

Evidence?

The dino/bird connection is widespread in science. The issue of whether it was bird to dino, or dino to bird, or both is a side issue.

Some feel it was the other way round.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100209183335.htm

As far as I am concerned it could have been BOTH!!!! Dinos from birds, and later some dinos TO birds again.

Evidence?

The evidence is that flowering plants came at a certain point in the record. That point is after the split. Have you evidence that man could have fossilized if he were here in the Cambrian? Or birds or etc?? If not, you have nothing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not even close actually. No ones says decay existed, let alone changed rates. That needs support if you claim it! Oklo requires a series of miracles such as dunking the site miles under ground at the right time, and resurfacing it at the right time. You have no proof at all.

I just gave you the proof. Running away from it doesn't make it go away. You have been defeated again.

Supernovae must be at the right distance for the size and decay curves to be known.

No, they don't. The drop in luminosity is the same no matter the distance or the size of the supernova.

 

[Loudmouth]

What evidence do you have that dolphins were not present in the Devonian?

Avoided the question, didn't you? Defeated again.

You have no authority to call creation make believe, what you mean is you do not chose to believe it.

And more avoidance. Defeated again.

The dino/bird connection is widespread in science. The issue of whether it was bird to dino, or dino to bird, or both is a side issue.

Some feel it was the other way round.

Bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution challenged: Was it the other way around?

Neither dinosaurs nor birds are found in the Devonian, so this doesn't even come close to solving your problems. You are defeated again.

The evidence is that flowering plants came at a certain point in the record. That point is after the split.

That is a bare assertion. You are defeated again.

Have you evidence that man could have fossilized if he were here in the Cambrian? Or birds or etc?? If not, you have nothing.

Yes. It is called chemistry. You are defeated again.

 

[Heissonear]

How is it busted, dad?

You have not made a lick of sense yet.

Your first reply to the tread, and the start of the usual.

And you "promote" a rational discussion when you deny, degrade and twist everything?


.

 

[Heissonear]

What evidence do you have that dolphins were present in the Devonian?



That is all make believe. I am asking for an explanation based in reality, not fantasies.



Evidence?



Evidence?

.

You have it backwards, you need to supply the "fossil record" evidence for Evolution. There are no transitional finely-graduated creatures in the fossil record.

You do not have evidence to prove Evolution. Period.

You still do not get it.

You scream for evidence but YOU do not have any!

Naturalists are in a dilemma. When are you going to face it? You cannot even "prove" the elements you are composed of are not Created by God! But of course you deny that Naturalists do not walk by faith. How blind!

Now are you going to look in a mirror or keep putting down any and everything dad posts?

.


.

 

[Heissonear]

Avoided the question, didn't you? Defeated again.



And more avoidance. Defeated again.



Neither dinosaurs nor birds are found in the Devonian, so this doesn't even come close to solving your problems. You are defeated again.



That is a bare assertion. You are defeated again.



Yes. It is called chemistry. You are defeated again.

.


It is pretty high up there, the lofty place you have put yourself above dad.

But you will not see you walk by faith, preaching of Evolution with zero stone bearing fossil evidence to prove Evolution happened. Naturalists openly proselytize but are blind to the very foundation they stand on - there is only the natural yet they can't prove it!

What a dilemma. What a mess Naturalists are in. They promote God is nowhere to be found. Look at your foundation.

.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

.


It is pretty high up there, the lofty place you have put yourself above dad.


.

Lol, one only needs to be knee high to a daschund to tower over dad - metaphorically speaking.

 

[BaconWizard]

.

You do not have evidence to prove Evolution. Period.

.

Meh. who needs fossils? You can just WATCH Evolution happen, real-time, right now. You can set up conditions in a lab that might make it happen and see if it does or not... and it does.

I really don't understand the debate. Evolution is as proved to exist as gravity and it's almost as easy to test.

 

[Heissonear]

Meh. who needs fossils? You can just WATCH Evolution happen, real-time, right now. You can set up conditions in a lab that might make it happen and see if it does or not... and it does.

I really don't understand the debate. Evolution is as proved to exist as gravity and it's almost as easy to test.

.

You like to promote nonsense. Are you not "evidence based" in what you believe or know?

Then look at what Evolution says has happened on earth - the very fossils in the strata should confirm it. But the fossils in the strata do not show Evolution happened. All we see are "gaps" between already formed creatures. Where are the finely-graduated transitional creatures? Why do the Paleontology texts lack these creatures? Why do we not see them in Natural History museums?

Look at you foundational evidence, wiseguy Naturalist. You stand and preach by faith. I've been one of you, a formally educated one, but have found God exists.

Now who are you fooling, having only a dust perspective to promote?


.

 

[freezerman2000]

Angels agree that the bible is true, so did the apostles and Jesus, and the prophets and holy men of all ages. My peers all agree with creation and the flood.

The Bible is NOT a science book.
If you have no SCIENTIFIC peer reviewed material,you have nothing when it comes to the question at hand,just baseless opinions.
The Bible is for SPIRITUAL guidance,nothing else.
There is a HUGE difference between the two.

 

[Delphiki]

.

You like to promote nonsense. Are you not "evidence based" in what you believe or know?

Then look at what Evolution says has happened on earth - the very fossils in the strata should confirm it. But the fossils in the strata do not show Evolution happened. All we see are "gaps" between already formed creatures. Where are the finely-graduated transitional creatures? Why do the Paleontology texts lack these creatures? Why do we not see them in Natural History museums?

Look at you foundational evidence, wiseguy Naturalist. You stand and preach by faith. I've been one of you, a formally educated one, but have found God exists.

Now who are you fooling, having only a dust perspective to promote?


.

There is a gap between 4 and 6. It can be filled with 5.

Only, when we find 5, there are now two more smaller gaps... Those can be filled with 4.5 and 5.5....

Only now we have 4 more even smaller gaps... 4.25, 4.75, 5.25, and 5.75

And so on and so on...

To ask for a complete record of every single individual organism that ever lived is unreasonable and completely unnecessary for understanding the evidence.

When will creationists stop using such a dishonest and ridiculous argument?

 

[Loudmouth]

But you will not see you walk by faith, preaching of Evolution with zero stone bearing fossil evidence to prove Evolution happened.

We already wiped the floor with your empty claims in the other threads.

Tell us. What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps?

 

[BaconWizard]

Again, fossils are not required for evolution to be proven as true.

You can SEE it happen. Therefore it happens.

 

[dad]

I just gave you the proof. Running away from it doesn't make it go away. You have been defeated again.

Wish all you like. Your pratts were flicked aside for the unsupported nonsense they are. You can't take it or discuss the details. No one cares about your obsession to appear like a winner. It is pathetic.

No, they don't. The drop in luminosity is the same no matter the distance or the size of the supernova.

What does luminosity tell us that relates to time then exactly? Try to beef up your little quips.

 

[dad]

Avoided the question, didn't you? Defeated again.

The clear question is how do you know there were not dolphins then? You must prove that our state existed, and therefore dolphins (man lions, etc) would be expected to leave remains we could see in the record. Let's see you do that, ot stop claiming it. I do not claim there were not here, so the onus is on you who do claim that. I claim most life was here, but was not under the present nature, therefore we expect no fossils! No one can prove what nature it was. If you can, then you win. You can't. You lose somethin fierce.

Neither dinosaurs nor birds are found in the Devonian, so this doesn't even come close to solving your problems. You are defeated again.

Why should they be? No present state was found there either!

Yes. It is called chemistry. You are defeated again.

Vague blather. What chemistry doing what when and where? Ha. Ha ha.

 

[dad]

Meh. who needs fossils? You can just WATCH Evolution happen, real-time, right now. You can set up conditions in a lab that might make it happen and see if it does or not... and it does.

I really don't understand the debate. Evolution is as proved to exist as gravity and it's almost as easy to test.

Great, so let's see you produce a Marylyn Monroe from a worm! Your lab will be popular.

Of course we may see evolving and adapting of what is already here! Creations does stuff. Live moves and responds like that, it is a sign of life and a created trait of life.

The issue is where it started, and how it used to work compared to now. You are flaying wildly about, and can't even seem to figure which direction to aim.

 

[dad]

The Bible is NOT a science book.

Maybe that's why it doesn't change every four days!!

If you have no SCIENTIFIC peer reviewed material,you have nothing when it comes to the question at hand,just baseless opinions.

If I wanted peers for so called science I would look in a loony bin. My peers are people who actually are true and honest and tested and knew stuff.

The Bible is for SPIRITUAL guidance,nothing else.

Absurd. Telling us about how creation happened is more than spiritual.

Jesus was more than just a ghost when He rose from the dead also! He is going to rule the world...not some silly spiritual pi in the sky.