Those who believe in universal common ancestry need to find actual scientific arguments instead of just peddling the most popular narratives within the evolutionary community. It's not enough to just assume that you're correct.
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.
Well, it's just that you seemed to be casting aspersions on evolutionists, saying they were "on shaky ground", pushing "exaggerations and lies" when in fact they are on both sides of this issue and are debating it among themselves. Antievolutionists haven't contributed anything to the dialogue.
Those who believe in universal common ancestry need to find actual scientific arguments instead of just peddling the most popular narratives within the evolutionary community. It's not enough to just assume that you're correct.
I think you must have missed the past 150 years of scientific arguments.
Name one fallacy. And properly speaking they are evidence of common ancestry. Proof is a mathematical term usually. Though the case could easily said to have been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt".It's usually the same handful of fallacies being raised again and again as "proof" of common ancestry.
Evolutionists are a lot like the followers of any religion in that they're self-trained not to question or critique core assumptions.
Evolutionists are a lot like the followers of any religion in that they're self-trained not to question or critique core assumptions.
Not really, but your disdain for religious followers is interesting.
Not disdain. We all have cherished belief systems, especially when it comes to origins.
There are no "snap-on parts" either
Religious adherents can cherish whatever they like, but science progresses by questioning what came before, not training scientists "not to question or critique core assumptions." Scientific theories are not retained due to an upwelling of cherishing, but due to the preponderance of evidence.
Incorrect; that possibility has been formally acknowledged, and it hasn't been disregarded. It just is not considered as likely as birds evolving from dinosaurs, due to the fossil record matching up more with that which would result from birds evolving from dinosaurs than the two being a case of convergent evolution.True, but evolutionary narratives tend to be far removed from the realm of science.
This is easy to demonstrate. Again, take the Bird/Theropod hypothesis for example.. At the end of the day this belief rests on pure assumption that the anatomical similarities are not due to convergences, i.e. a bald assertion of homology. Fossils of this supposed Bird/Theropod relationship don't even necessarily have to be found in any kind of sensible stratigraphic order. What is scientific about it? Practically nothing. The story is just more visually palatable to the general public so evolutionists run with it and hope nobody notices.
A great failure of the cars as analogy is seen in the early 80s VW Golf derivatives. The Jetta was a Golf with rear doors and a trunk, the Scirocco was a Golf with a sporty hatchback and the Caddy was the Golf with a pickup bed. Such swapped parts would falsify evolution if seen in nature.
Creationists just don't seem to grasp how nested hierarchies work.
Incorrect; that possibility has been formally acknowledged, and it hasn't been disregarded. It just is not considered as likely as birds evolving from dinosaurs, due to the fossil record matching up more with that which would result from birds evolving from dinosaurs than the two being a case of convergent evolution.
The story is just more visually palatable to the general public so evolutionists run with it and hope nobody notices.
By your logic, the structure of animal fins could be considered "swapped parts"...
So pick-up bed designs across multiple vehicle models could simply be labeled as independent convergences in order sustain the nested hierarchy in the same way.
Evolutionists just don't seem to grasp how much subjective interpretation goes into their own classification schemes.
Sorry, but no. We don't find shark fins on whales or whale fins in manatees. They are homologus structures, not identical swapped parts.
You must not be familiar with the vehicles I mentioned. They don't have similar design. They literally are half of one model with an added on part. Here's a VW Golf.
And Creationists believe that magical words like "assumptions" will poof away the evidence in a cloud of smoke.
They don't.
It's usually the same handful of fallacies being raised again and again as "proof" of common ancestry.
Evolutionists are a lot like the followers of any religion in that they're self-trained not to question or critique core assumptions.
Nope, we always acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, especially in evolutionary pathways. Homology, on the other hand, is recognizing that structures, even ones with different functions, often are structurally similar (especially in bone structure), so the observation itself is literally looking at a bat wing, and recognizing it has digits structured similarly to a human hand.Yes, a majority of evolutionists simply believe that their homology assumptions are correct. You can find just as much 'science' at your local Tarot card reading.
Yes, a majority of evolutionists simply believe that their homology assumptions are correct. You can find just as much 'science' at your local Tarot card reading.
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?