Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,035
- 7,402
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
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.
I know that you were asking for recently published papers that support the claim that tetrapod fossils have been found in rocks dated to being earlier than the Tiktaalik, whereas Lucas's paper tends to refute the claim. Nonetheless, I thought that the paper was an interesting contribution.
-_- we don't worship science; science is a process by which one can learn about the world around them, no more, no less. Also, consensus isn't what makes a theory convincing, but rather the evidence in support of the theory. Large amounts of strong evidence in support of a theory, and little to no evidence against it, will generally lead to a scientific consensus just because more evidence in support of a theory makes it more likely to be accurate.
Where did you get any of that from my statement the Bible warned me false teachers would arise so not even to trust the say so of my leaders but to search diligently?I couldn't care less about changing your mind, honestly, despite my views that your beliefs lack sufficient evidence. I do have a strong aversion to people that spread incorrect information on perspectives within these debates. For example, the persistent claim that supporting evolution demands that your morality be somehow shaped by it. That's a pretty annoying inaccuracy.
Apparently you didn't actually read your own link you provided. No point debating with someone that posts a link and then doesn't even know what it says,Species is below genus.
The credentials show that you actually have learnt anything and that we can actually trust anything you say, which I can't trust anything you say since you're just a random nobody on the internet.
And no creationist has ever pointed out that family or genus is the true designation of species, I do not agree with you at all.
But had not man accelerated the process, they would indeed have taken millions of years to produce just a few breeds and be separated in sequential layers by tens of millions of years.Are you forgetting an important factor Abraxos? The dog fossils wouldn't be found in sequential layers separated by tens of millions of years, whereas the horses are.
There's no evidence anything evolved from anything, except incorrect classifications. It's all even based on an incorrect notion.its doesnt matter. they still "out of order".
what evidence? there is no scientific evidence that a tetrapod can evolve from a fish.
At one time they all accepted the earth was the center of the solar system with the math to prove it. They at one time all accepted the Milky Way was the entire universe. They at one time believed the colecanth was transitional between fish and amphibian, until its DNA was tested and they found it didn't even walk on the ocean floor. People believe a lot of things that aren't true and call it science.But the data is shaping the hypothesis. What you are suggesting scientists do is start WITH the explanation and work backwards.
Also, you haven't actually answered my question as to WHY almost virtually all scientists across the world accept the theory of evolution.
Is it possible that they have been taught the correct explanation? Do you not think that over the course of the tens of thousands of hours of research and observation one of them might have realized something was amiss?
Francis Collins "Whoa, hold on there Craig, a bloke on the internet seems pretty sure we're interpreting our work through an assumption"
Craig Venter "What? Oh man, do I have to give back my Kistler Prize?!"
But don't mind throwing in 20 year old studies on flies and bacteria when the mood strikes them, lol.Ah! 'Stacking the Deck' so that eventually the only articles and studies deemed acceptable will be very recent articles, by those who agree with your position, and only those who are published in Peer Reviewed Journals that hold your position...this is a legitimate article from a scientist who believes in transitional forms in a legitimate peer reviewed journal...to disregard the evidence it reveals would indicate a closed minded bias.
Just look at the evidence, accept it simply for what it is, and adjust your notion to fit the data. Land walking tetrapods existed before Tiltaalik therefore Tik is not the transitional that led to land walking tetrapods.
The last person I spoke with about this was insisting we throw out the evidence (or disregard it) because it is only an impression fossil (imagine that?) but when shown that most of the fossil record we rely on (which is about 1% of the possible creatures that lived) is largely impression fossils the argument was quickly avoided.
Usually people only complain of "OLDNESS" of research when it is older than the 2000s because of the genome but now limiting it to a few years ago..,well thats a new twist.
I am not sure they understand your distinction, but instead are reading into it what they perceive you mean to say instead of what you actually said.the footprints of the land waking tetrapod found in Poland are not a tetrapod found in sediment.
I am not sure they understand your distinction, but instead are reading into it what they perceive you mean to say instead of what you actually said.
Indeed the footprints are not an actual tetrapod found in sediment, but that isn't what they think you are saying.
But if found to pan out shows that indeed they existed long before the claimed intermediary that supposedly led to them existed.
Don't be surprised if they do a pig fossil evolutionary changeup to make it fit the theory instead of change theory to fit the data.
Apparently you didn't actually read your own link you provided. No point debating with someone that posts a link and then doesn't even know what it says,
Well once again you misrepresented what I was indicating. I never claimed "that tetrapods have been found in sediment dated to be earlier than fishapods and tiktaalik" the footprints of the land walking tetrapod found in Poland are not a tetrapod found in sediment.
The picture on top is an imaginary artistic contrivance but the footprints are the real deal https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7277/full/nature08623.html
But I'm right. Species DOES come below Genus.
Just stating the facts Warden.
You do realize this system of classification is entirely the invention of convenience developed by men, right? And that it almost entirely was based on homological assumptions.
Genus = KindSpecies DOES come below Genus.
Genus = Kind
Why not? They tested those Finches DNA found they had always been interbreeding and so were never reproductively isolated and so speciation never happened. The real facts hasn't stopped them from still promoting indoctrinated falsehoods about them being seperate species. Even if they are interbreeding right in front of their faces where they claimed before they never did.
So no, I don't think they can tell when something is amiss. That or just ignore the problems and teach the belief anyways. I prefer to believe that they are just thoroughly indoctrinated and so can't see, instead of deliberately perpetuating a falsehood.
At one time they all accepted the earth was the center of the solar system with the math to prove it. They at one time all accepted the Milky Way was the entire universe. They at one time believed the colecanth was transitional between fish and amphibian, until its DNA was tested and they found it didn't even walk on the ocean floor. People believe a lot of things that aren't true and call it science.
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?