You do seem to come to your own conclusions, and ignore the ones that scientists actually put forth.
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Common ancestor between chimps and humans
- Thread starter UCDavis
- Start date
You do seem to come to your own conclusions, and ignore the ones that scientists actually put forth.
it might not be meaningless, but it certainly isn't all nice and laid out like you think it is.
the following upload was written by an evolutionist and the interviewee was niles eldridge.
you can't easily subscribe to the "creationist" or "clouding the issue" arguments.
Upvote
0
Are you saying that Stephen Jay Gould doesn't know what he is talking about?
"Some discoveries in science are exiting because they revise or reverse previous expectations, others because they affirm with elegance something well suspected, but previously undocumented. Our four-case story, culminating in Ambulocetus, falls into the second category. This sequential discovery of picture-perfect intermediacy in the evolution of whales stands as a triumph in the history of paleontology. I cannot imagine a better tale for popular presentation of science, or a more satisfying, and intellectually based, political victory over lingering creationist opposition. As such, I present the story in this series of essays with both delight and relish."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Hooking Leviathan by Its Past"
http://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/knowing/gould_leviathan.html
"The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larger body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?"--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
I'm suggesting the fossil record doesn't offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process of all life we observe today proceeding from an alleged single life form of long ago.
Once again, there is no evidence (based on the scientific method) for the HOW, the process, which produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form of long ago. The Darwinist evolutionary view (one of several views of evolution....it's not a monolithic term) has absolutely nothing but a series of guesses and suppositions for the HOW, the process.
Upvote
0
JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
Predictions are apart of the scientific method. Accurate predictions have been made when looking for fossils. There is no other way to say this but you are wrong.
You keep using the same argument ad-nauseam but haven't demonstrated you know what you're talking about. Give it a rest.
Upvote
0
You must work on your reading comprehension. I told you that I did NOT make the map and that there were thousands of them around. I see that you find it more important to divert the issue of WHY creatures, which YOU and other Evolutionists, CLAIM became "fully human" but waited 190k years before they planted a single crop. They were really just like any other dumb animal.
Jon:>>You're making empty claims with no evidence. I already explained to you why your map is not evidence. You don't seem to comprehend though. That site does not even agree with you!
Can you understand that it's just a MAP or would you rather bicker over who drew the Map? The Charade is up and you have been exposed as someone who doesn't answer questions while constantly hurling your own. Answer one of mine and I will answer one of your's. Amen?
BTW. God also REFUTES you silly notion that there was just ONE Creation since Jesus created and the Trinity created. Your problem is that you are "willingly ignorant" of the difference between creatures made from the ground and creatures who evolved from the water. It's just another flagrant FLAW in the False ToE. Amen?
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
And you keep failing to offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process. That's because there's no evidence available.
You may use the word "predictions", the better term is guesses and suppositions.
Upvote
0
JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
Because learning is a process. Why didn't we know what caused disease for so long? Why didn't we know the earth wasn't flat for so long? Why didn't we know the earth goes around the sun for so long? Why didn't we have a cure for polio for so long? It's called learning! You don't seem to grasp this elementary concept.
Yes. Do you understand that it's just a map? Do you understand that the only thing it's telling you is about the earliest agriculture. Do you realize you're asserting your own claims about what you think it means without providing evidence for these claims?
I don't make any claims that there was a creation. I don't make any claims for how the first life even began because I don't know. I don't pretend to know like you do.
But you seem to be contradicting your own bible by claiming there was more than one creation. I thought you only followed what scripture told you. Seems to me you're making up your own story off the top of your head.
Nothing you talk about makes even the slightest bit of sense.
The cool thing about the theory of evolution is that it's a fact. It doesn't care what you believe. It's a fact. It's not even a debate, especially when you don't understand anything about it.
Upvote
0
in the light of epigenetics and HGT, i question the validity of this statement.
furthermore, how can one make consistent, accurate predictions, when the assumptions they are based on are wrong?
a review of the links in post 200 clearly shows some of the assumptions of the modern synthesis (evolution) are simply wrong.
also note, these are clearly labeled as assumptions.
do you realize the difference between assumption and fact?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
What does that even mean? It's not an alligator. What do you think the Tiktaalik fossil explains?
Upvote
0
how is this any kind of "prediction"?
this specimen was found on one of the northern islands of canada, and i would suspect it is a species of seal or walrus.
i don't consider this as a prediction because we can expect to find such animals at these latitudes.
this is a little like saying "i predict we can find humans living in cities".
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
And chalk up another fail for how, the process, whereby it was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago.
When are you going to admit that this is a insurmountable issue within Darwinist evolution?
Upvote
0
JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
Except that it's not. Here, do some reading. You might learn something
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060501_tiktaalikI asked you the question though. I know what it explains. What do YOU think it explains.
Evolution by natural selection over the course of hundreds of millions of years. The evidence of this can be seen in the fossil record, embryology, comparative anatomy and DNA.
When are you going to admit you don't know what evolution is and how it works? Honest question, do you want me to send you my copy of "The Greatest Show on Earth"? It even have pictures if that helps you. I personally enjoy pictures to help me comprehend things when I am learning.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
