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.
What is this "new" theory of horse evolution that you presented? Just give me a brief overview. This "new" theory describes horse origins, but not in terms of evolution? How did this new theory invalidate evolution?JohnR7 said:Often I do this by concentrating on things that evolutionists have already falsified. Take horse evolution for example. The old theory was falsified over 40 years ago, but one evolutionist came here and actually tried to defend the old theory of horse evolution with the arguement that they went from small to large and so forth. So I simply presented the new theory to show that the evolutionist who was trying to debate the old theory was wrong.
The only differnece between me and the way a evolutionist would do this is I do not care if I make evolutions look bad. That gets people mad at me.
You used a new theory of horse evolution to falsify an old theory of horse evolution?JohnR7 said:Often I do this by concentrating on things that evolutionists have already falsified. Take horse evolution for example. The old theory was falsified over 40 years ago, but one evolutionist came here and actually tried to defend the old theory of horse evolution with the arguement that they went from small to large and so forth. So I simply presented the new theory to show that the evolutionist who was trying to debate the old theory was wrong.
The only differnece between me and the way a evolutionist would do this is I do not care if I make evolutions look bad. That gets people mad at me.
IIRC, everybody agreed that the "old" theory was falsified. That the "old" theory was linear evolution, the "new" theory was a branching tree/bush. The only thing that happened was that John didn't understand the concept of a branching line (in stead of a linear one). John didn't understand that whether one talks of a "bush" or a "tree", the same thing is meant, a branching pattern.Ishmael Borg said:What is this "new" theory of horse evolution that you presented? Just give me a brief overview. This "new" theory describes horse origins, but not in terms of evolution? How did this new theory invalidate evolution?
Ohhhhhh. Thanks Tomk80. As I suspected, evo theory hasn't suffered a bit.Tomk80 said:IIRC, everybody agreed that the "old" theory was falsified. That the "old" theory was linear evolution, the "new" theory was a branching tree/bush. The only thing that happened was that John didn't understand the concept of a branching line (in stead of a linear one). John didn't understand that whether one talks of a "bush" or a "tree", the same thing is meant, a branching pattern.
The new theory invalidate the old theory. Yet I have had people on this very board argue the old theory that horses evolved from small to large. That is why more and more I am just dealing with the area of evolutionary theory that evolutionists themselves have falsified. That give me LOTS to work with, because lots of evolutionary theory has been falsified. Also a lot of what people call evolutionary theory is nonsense to begin with and was never accepted by mainstream science as having any validity in the first place. Yet this nonsense pops up all over the place and is peddled as being something it is not.Ishmael Borg said:How did this new theory invalidate evolution?
No you didn't. You misused a quote from the nation museum link you posted in that thread. The link contained no wrong information, except it said that this idea was held up by scientists until recently. Because there were more fossils found 100 years ago we could conclude that this was not true. You have not invalidated the theory of evolution John, stop telling porkies.JohnR7 said:The new theory invalidate the old theory. Yet I have had people on this very board argue the old theory that horses evolved from small to large. That is why more and more I am just dealing with the area of evolutionary theory that evolutionists themselves have falsified.
I have some bushes out back that were getting kind of hard to trim. So over the winter I cut them back to about 3 feet high and 1.5 fee wide. The kept right on growing and they doubled in size in just a few month.Tomk80 said:John didn't understand that whether one talks of a "bush" or a "tree", the same thing is meant, a branching pattern.
John, abstract thinking is hard for you, isn't it? Every branch represents a new species. We place all species at the end of the branches because if we find a new species, we can never be sure whether it is a "knot" or a "dead end".JohnR7 said:I have some bushes out back that were getting kind of hard to trim. So over the winter I cut them back to about 3 feet high and 1.5 fee wide. The kept right on growing and they doubled in size in just a few month.
My question is: If evolution is like a bush then why do we have extinctions. Why can't the "bush" just produce some new branches or new species?
That's easy, it's a maptile. Or is it a remmal?Jimmy The Hand said:Can you tell me if this was the skull of a mammal or a reptile?
I did not invalidate anything. Science invalided an old theory and replaced it with a new theory. That is why we have darwinism, classic neo darwinism, and now we are into a third generation of neo darwinism. Each time the theory is falsifed and replaced with a new theory.Mistermystery said:You have not invalidated the theory of evolution John, stop telling porkies.
What do you want it to do? Turn into a kangaroo? When you take (some) of one species and geographically isolate them, that species is now divided, and differences between the original rabbits and the now-Australian rabbits will accumulate. Pretty soon, you'll be able to tell the two groups apart even if you put two of them together again. Do you understand that?JohnR7 said:They why can't you take a species out of one biodiverse ecology and put it into another. According to evolutionary theory the species should change and become a part of the new system. But that is not what happens. Look at the wild rabbit population in australia that is out of control.
Better that then a falsified gap/creationism-hybrid.JohnR7 said:I did not invalidate anything. Science invalided an old theory and replaced it with a new theory. That is why we have darwinism, classic neo darwinism, and now we are into a third generation of neo darwinism. Each time the theory is falsifed and replaced with a new theory.
It is a sure thing that new information is going to come along to invalidate old evolutionary theorys. They will need to develop new theorys that support the new information. There are three things in life that are pretty much a sure thing, death, taxes and that the existing evolutionary theory is going to be falsifed.
At least you would have some evidence to back up your theorys rather than having to rely on a bunch of outdated speculation.What do you want it to do? Turn into a kangaroo?
I understand open and closed gene pools,Aron-Ra said:Do you understand that?
There have been enough examples of speciation posted on this board. If you want to take them on, and show why these are not new species, go right ahead and show it in those threads. I have not seen you repond to them before.JohnR7 said:So, when was the last time a new species was produced? Of course evolution is not really a bush, because they can not find any bush anywhere.
It seems to be a bunch of branches growing out of nowhere.
By whom, you and your pastor? Good luck!JohnR7 said:There really is not much of a gap theory to falsify, it is still being developed.
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?