How can u believe it?

Darkness27 said:

Do you agree that there is a general progression in the characteristics of horses over the geological time? Particularly in regard to the leg?

Click to expand...

I don't personally agree with the geological time scale.

But for the sake of argument, yes. And again I ask, so what?

Legs that are 15 million years apart says very little about transition.

Different species of legs existing in different geological times 15 million years apart. So What?

Doveaman said:

Ya know, 15 million years is a long time. Horses that are dated 15 million years apart say very little about transition, especially when each horse looks like a complete horse.

Click to expand...

With the minor exception that they're not complete horses at all. They're 'horse-ish'. And they're exactly what we'd expect.

Doveaman said:

One can interpret this as different species of horse existing in different geological times. So what?

Click to expand...

So, that's exactly what we'd expect . A fossilised series of gradual changes over geological time documenting the evolution of the modern Equus genus from its ancestral Hyracotherium (the earliest known species which even remotely resembles modern horses) to its immediate ancestor, Plessipus. It is precisely what we would expect to find if the modern horse did indeed evolve.

It beggars belief that the correlation between all these species and what evolution predicts is mere coincidence. The anatomic gradation, the geographic and geological placement, the radiometric dating, all demonstrate that these are exactly where they should be. Hyracotheria are only found after Plessipi in the fossil record - precisely as evolution predicts.

I don't for one second expect you to be swayed by the evidence, even if I showed you time-lapse footage of the past 15 million years. Regardless, the evidence stands.

Doveaman said:

Ya know, 15 million years is a long time. Horses that are dated 15 million years apart say very little about transition, especially when each horse looks like a complete horse. One can interpret this as different species of horse existing in different geological times. So what?

Click to expand...

Indeed... different species and different genera of "horse" living during different geological times (some actually lived at the same times, though probably none in the diagram). So, what is the explanation for this? Why are all (not most, all) of the older horses browsers rather than grass-grazers? Where did the tall, fast-running grazing horses come from?

Doveaman said:

I don't personally agree with the geological time scale.

But for the sake of argument, yes. And again I ask, so what?

Legs that are 15 million years apart says very little about transition.

Different species of legs existing in different geological times 15 million years apart. So What?

Click to expand...

So it shows a transition in numbers of toes as well as length of the leg, over time. We call this "evolution."

Wow! Somebody revived a thread I made THREE YEARS AGO! How did they even find it?

AnswersInHovind said:

Wow! Somebody revived a thread I made THREE YEARS AGO! How did they even find it?

Click to expand...

It's AV. It's what he does. Along with counting and lamenting the status of Pluto.

AnswersInHovind said:

Wow! Somebody revived a thread I made THREE YEARS AGO! How did they even find it?

Click to expand...

You're welcome --

As I always say, a good thread never dies!

Anyone know what microevolution and macroevolution is?Micro natural changes within the same species,macro completely different species from another{such as monkey into human},No such thing has ever been proven,in fact just the opposite.Harold C.Urey{a nobel prize scientist}said that evolution in the scientific communityis a kind of religious belief rather than a logical analysis of scientific facts.In fact all the scientists Darwin tried to feed his lies to laughed in his face.Read :A Biological Challenge to Evolution.They dont put the truth in our childrens text books.

jsustik said:

Anyone know what microevolution and macroevolution is?Micro natural changes within the same species,macro completely different species from another{such as monkey into human},No such thing has ever been proven,in fact just the opposite.Harold C.Urey{a nobel prize scientist}said that evolution in the scientific communityis a kind of religious belief rather than a logical analysis of scientific facts.In fact all the scientists Darwin tried to feed his lies to laughed in his face.Read :A Biological Challenge to Evolution.They dont put the truth in our childrens text books.

Click to expand...

Sigh. Macroevolution and microevolution are the same thing.

Macroevolution is just the sum of alot of microevolution, that's all. Lots of small changes over the course of time, equals big a big change. Simple.

Also, monkey's never turned into humans, we merely evolved from the same ancestors. Perfectly simple, unless you're just denying it because it doesn't fit in with your world view.

jsustik said:

Anyone know what microevolution and macroevolution is?

Click to expand...

Yes. Not you, apparently.

Micro natural changes within the same species,macro completely different species from another{such as monkey into human},No such thing has ever been proven,in fact just the opposite.Harold C.Urey{a nobel prize scientist}said that evolution in the scientific communityis a kind of religious belief rather than a logical analysis of scientific facts.

Click to expand...

Good for Urey. Too bad he was wrong.

In fact all the scientists Darwin tried to feed his lies to laughed in his face.

Click to expand...

They laughed at Galileo, too. Like Urey, they were wrong.

Read :A Biological Challenge to Evolution.They dont put the truth in our childrens text books.

Click to expand...

Not the exact truth, no, because they need to learn the simple basics first. But it's more truth than anything else they are told about life.

Ayersy said:

Also, monkey's never turned into humans, we merely evolved from the same ancestors.

Click to expand...

Then why are we sometimes referred to as 'glorified apes'?

AV1611VET said:

Then why are we sometimes referred to as 'glorified apes'?

Click to expand...

(Psssst... monkeys aren't apes.)

Skaloop said:

(Psssst... monkeys aren't apes.)

Click to expand...

-- That's news to me.

Ayersy said:

Macroevolution is just the sum of alot of microevolution, that's all.

Click to expand...

And so the theory goes. Reality doesn't.

Lots of small changes over the course of time, equals big a big change. Simple.

Click to expand...

Big changes in the minds of evolutionists, but not in the world of reality. It has never been observed. Only inferred. In other words, assumed.

Tomatoman said:

You do seem to apply one standard to science and another to the bible. Why?

Click to expand...

Scientists apply no skepticism and no standards to evolution whereas an impossibly strict standard is applied to all evidence that contradicts evolution.

"Well, and I think that's because of a double standard in the treatment of evidence. Evidence that goes along with the current theories is treated according to one set of rules whereas evidence that radically contradicts the current theories is judged by a much stricter standard. It's as if the rules of the game are suddenly changed, as if somebody were doing a high jump and one person jumps the five meter bar and then suddenly the next person who comes up doesn't just have to jump the five meter bar they have to jump the ten meter bars. And actually the standards are so strict that even the evidence that goes along with the current theories could not possibly meet these same standards. So that's what I mean about a double standard in the treatment of evidence." -- Michael A. Cremo, author, 2005

Doveaman said:

Big changes in the minds of evolutionists, but not in the world of reality. It has never been observed. Only inferred. In other words, assumed.

Click to expand...

The reality is common descent (including common descent of primates) has real-world application particularly with respect to modern genomics. However, creationists seem completely unaware of this fact.

jsustik said:

Anyone know what microevolution and macroevolution is?Micro natural changes within the same species,macro completely different species from another{such as monkey into human},No such thing has ever been proven,in fact just the opposite.Harold C.Urey{a nobel prize scientist}said that evolution in the scientific communityis a kind of religious belief rather than a logical analysis of scientific facts.In fact all the scientists Darwin tried to feed his lies to laughed in his face.Read :A Biological Challenge to Evolution.They dont put the truth in our childrens text books.

Click to expand...

1. No one laughed in Darwin's face. In fact, it was not long after On the Origin of Species was written that evolution was accepted by most biologists of the time. Natural Selection took longer to accept, but eventually it was.

2. Speciation has been observed in the lab and in nature. I can provide you with a long list of references compiled by Lucaspa, if you like.

3. Do you have a reference for your mined quote?

AofS:

Scientists apply no skepticism and no standards to evolution whereas an impossibly strict standard is applied to all evidence that contradicts evolution.

Click to expand...

That's just false, A of S, but then you are quite clearly bonkers.

I'm more interested in AV's response to:

AV, you don't seem to apply any critical standards to the bible at all. How do you account for this?

Click to expand...

jsustik said:

Anyone know what microevolution and macroevolution is?Micro natural changes within the same species,macro completely different species from another{such as monkey into human}

Click to expand...

We share common ancestor as has been pointed out.

,No such thing has ever been proven,in fact just the opposite.Harold C.Urey{a nobel prize scientist}said that evolution in the scientific communityis a kind of religious belief rather than a logical analysis of scientific facts.

Click to expand...

Not exactly do you know what quote mining is? Urey was talking about origin of life research not evolution.

Here is the actual quote
Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"
Dr. Harold C. Urey, Nobel Prize-holding chemist of the University of California at La Jolla, explained the modern outlook on this question by noting that "all of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel that it is too complex to have evolved anywhere.
And yet, he added, "We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great it is hard for us to imagine that it did."


Pressed to explain what he meant by having "faith" in an event for which he had no substantial evidence, Dr. Urey said his faith was not in the event itself so much as in the physical laws and reasoning that pointed to its likelihood.

He would abandon his faith if it ever proved to be misplaced. But that is a prospect he said he considered to be very unlikely.

Abiogenesis research has progressed some since the original Miller/Urey experiments but the origin of life on earth is an unaswered question. Trying to conflate abiogenesis with evolution is a common creationist tactic.

In fact all the scientists Darwin tried to feed his lies to laughed in his face.Read :A Biological Challenge to Evolution.They dont put the truth in our childrens text books.

Click to expand...

Some scientists did not accept evolution many did as Split Rock has pointed out. Interesting another scientist of the time Alfred Russel Wallace proposed a very similar theory by the time Darwin published origin of species. Thomas Huxley was such an ardent defender of evolution that he became known as Darwin's Bulldog. On the other hand Agassiz and some others never accepted evolution through natural selection. Still your statement is false. I see you are new here. If you keep posting you can expect statements to be fact checked. You might want to fact check claims yourself before repeating them from some creationist publication or website.

Wiccan_Child said:

With the minor exception that they're not complete horses at all. They're 'horse-ish'. And they're exactly what we'd expect.

Click to expand...

"Horse-ish"?

If evolution is still an ongoing process then this horse-ish transition is still ongoing and what we call a horse is really still a horse-ish.

Looking for my Horse-ish

Just the other day I lost my horse-ish.
I lost my horse-ish, I lost it somewhere.
Not here for sure or I would find it.
My horse-ish is hungry, my horse-ish must drink.
These flies are horse-ish flies you know.
They zoom about my head as if to say
you are sitting on your saddle, you dummy,
your saddle under you, beneath that ... a horse-ish.

Doveaman said:

"Horse-ish"?

If evolution is still an ongoing process then this horse-ish transition is still ongoing and what we call a horse is really still a horse-ish.

Click to expand...

No, because horse defines current animals. So past things were horse-ish, current things are horses. A million years in the future, there may be descendants of horses that are significantly different and called glorcks. In which case, our current horses would be glorck-ish. And glorcks, from our perspective, would be horse-ish.