Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
if you can call evolutionist who walk in circles tracking their own rational as getting somewhere .. well have at it...
But truth is the only thing humans and monkeys have in common is we both have the same Designer and that is God of all creation and God did not design us the same God created everything and gave everything seed after its "own kind"
( Genesis 1:1-31 )
Sounds like evolutionists would make terrible trackers. They'd be too accepting that one footprint and the next, even though they are made by two different foots, were associated because of the gap between them.
No, thanks -- before I do that, I'll just pull rank and say: GOD DID IT, as did Jacob.
Genesis 31:9 Thus God hath taken away the cattle of your father, and given them to me.
if you can call evolutionist who walk in circles tracking their own rational as getting somewhere .. well have at it...
But truth is the only thing humans and monkeys have in common is we both have the same Designer and that is God of all creation and God did not design us the same God created everything and gave everything seed after its "own kind"
( Genesis 1:1-31 )
Leet me sdhow you the error of your way. Going from the hippo to pakicetus only shows one fossil and to evolve into a different species take at least 10 intermediates.
Drawing picture of different fossil some with only 1 similar trait does not prove anything. What they showed can be better explained as separate and distinct species.
YOu continue to neglect the most important thing you need to do; explain how pakicetus and indohyus lost their legs and developed fins. Also these are drawings. did the fossil for ambulocetus show it had webbed feet? Having 4 digets is found in several land animals.
None of them had a blowhole until they became a whale. Can you explain, genetically of course, how they acquired that trait?Untrue. Well, at least not really true. In the latter steps, the nose on these creatures is moving upward.
That's basically what a blowhole is - a nose.
I am reminded of something Michael Shermer once said. It was a joke, but it contained a kernel of truth. When Creationists are presented with a gap for which they demand a transitional fossil, and that gap is filled by a transitional fossil, then the Creationist will claim that there are now two gaps.
It is amusing but complely false. Show me one intemediate fossil. What it was before it was an intemediate and what it became. Please add the biology that makes it possible.
You need to stop; calling someone dishonest unless your can prove they are
It is amusing but complely false. Show me one intemediate fossil. What it was before it was an intemediate and what it became. Please add the biology that makes it possible.
Indoctrination will not allow creationists to accept any evidence no matter what. They are set in their ways. Unlike people who accept science and are willing to change what they accept; creationists remain in a static limbo. They are not here to debate but to proselytise and preach. It is like trying to warn a moth that the light is a flame!I show you one intermediate and then you'll say that there are now two gaps to fill.
And what does "hard work and application of reason" tell you, as to how Jacob was able to predict his flocks ahead of time?I'll take the hard work and application of reason which supplies us with the real 'miracles' of the natural world.....
What evidence do you have that the God who created the universe is "incompetent"?That only works with an incompetent designer.
And what does the magnificence and wonder of the world which is continually revealed through reason and reality tell you about how we got our moon?
He must have reasoned that in reality it must have created itslef out of nothing. What could be more wonderous than that?
We are not saying that they are ancestral. We are saying that they are transitional. Transitional means that a fossil has a mixture of features from two divergent taxa.
It does not require that the fossil be directly ancestral to any living species.
ven Darwin spoke of using fossils of "collateral descendants", or side branches that are not directly ancestral to living species.
"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."--"Origin of Species"
More importantly, evolution predicts which transitionals we should see, and which we should NOT see. For example, the theory predicts that we should see fossils with a mixture of reptile and mammal features. It also predicts that we should NOT see fossils with a mixture of mammal and avian features. Every fossil has fallen in line with the predictions that evolution makes which is why it is so widely accepted amongst biologists.Since there are no transiional fossils, there goes that theory.
You know, God could plant fingerprints and DNA at crime scenes. Does that mean that we should free everyone who has been convicted based on forensic evidence?
God does not plant anything. He created DNA and that is all that is needed.
We do know that. We can determine that they are transitional by the mixture of features. For example, Australopithecines do have a mixture of basal ape and modern human features.
Then why is DNA able to disstinguish betwee all life forms. Many species have a mixture of features. We have a head, eyes, ears and hair, are we related too dogs?
What makes you reject those features? What features would a fossil need to have in order for you to accept it as transitional between modern whales and a terrestrial mammal?
You can't offer one fossil and say it is transitional. You need several and each one must not ony have a slight variation, you must say how the species acquired the new feature from pareents that did not have the gene for.
So you are saying that, according to evolution, a fully formed blue whale suddenly popped out of a dog sized mammal? Or do you think that it makes way more sense that during the transition from terrestrial mammal to fully aquatic lifestyles that those transitions lived at the meeting place of water and land?
It is the DNA shared by whales and other terrestrial mammals, and the nested hierarchy that all mammals fall into. That is the evidence that demonstrates evolution.
You have yet to show two species that do not belong to the same kind.
For example, genetic evidence demonstrates that humans and other apes belong to the same kind.
While the DNA between human and chimps are similar how the DNA is read makes the bigger differences. How the DNA is read is what makes a brain cell different from a skin cell. IIRC we share only 35% of the same proteins of chimps.Are dogs and cats the same kind?
It seems you evos are always reluctiant to produce the evidence for wht you say. Makes me wonder why. What genetic evidence do you have that apes and humans belong to t he same kind??
DNA, which is evol worst enemy, will show they ar not the same kind. Not being able to mate and reproduce will confirm what DNA has verified.
That description is meaningless. Many different species have features of other specis that even you wuld not say are related,
IIRC we share only 35% of the same proteins of chimps.
Needless to say, that is a strawman.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?