Warden_of_the_Storm
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,196
- 7,477
- 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.
Thus it should be painfully obvious that academia needs to change its definition of fowl -- isn't it?
No, there is no hope. Absolutely none whatsoever.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1342937X16303112
"The fossil is supposed as an aquatic precursor of dry land lycophytes." Supposed is a word used when someone isn't really sure.
If there are any lurkers who take AV seriously they are also beyond help.Also, I know it's pointless to present anything to AV, but it still needs to be done just so there is the hope that something does get through to him, and if it doesn't then it at least shows the lurkers that he is challenged on his views and that his views are decidedly wrong.
No, if you're going to nitpick the Bible says "oph." Hebrew word for "bird."Let's be frank here, the Bible does not call a bat a "bird."
It calls it a "fowl."
You think Merriam-Webster is "academia?" I think we've located another problem in your beliefs.Academia teaches, however, that all fowl are birds.
Merriam-Webster does. If you refuse to use words as they are used by others, you'll continue to have problems.Does academia recognize the eagle as a fowl?
As I showed you, it's not an error. You should stop thinking of it that way. As you should have learned, the word is a functional classification in the Bible. "Animals that fly." It's not a taxonomic term. And your failure to understand this is why you keep thinking of it as an error.Thus Bible haters claim that Leviticus is in error.
"Kind"is a religious term.
From the Bible, birds and bats are listed as the same kind.
"Kind" is a religious term, a functional classification, not a taxonomic level.
Your revision of the term makes sense only if you think that birds and bats comprise one genus.
Again, the internal contradictions in your beliefs undercut your argument.
No, if you're going to nitpick the Bible says "oph." Hebrew word for "bird."
The Bible was first written in Hebrew. Thought you knew. "Oph" is the word used for "fowl" in scripture. Or is that another of the verses YECs reject because it doesn't fit their revisions?What Bible specifically?
I suspect you're now conflating "concordance" with "Bible".
Utterly ridiculous."The fossil is supposed as an aquatic precursor of dry land lycophytes." Supposed is a word used when someone isn't really sure.
"Due to the compression and high degree of coalification, no anatomical data are available to prove unambiguously the affinity to vascular plants but medial strands in microphylls indicate thicker tissue of a single midrib unknown in algae." That word unambiguously shows there is doubt in the analysis.
I’d still rely on their collective word on these things over not relying on them.
I'm sure you'll all have alot to complain about from what Sabine has said but I just want the audience to know about our "trustworthy" scientists too (for the record). Not all they write is 100% accurate.
I'm sure you'll all have alot to complain about from what Sabine has said but I just want the audience to know about our "trustworthy" scientists too (for the record). Not all they write is 100% accurate.
The key point is that science is generating knowledge about the universe around us at an unprecedented rate. Which is the purpose. Do you sell a car, if it hardly ever needs repairs?I'm sure you'll all have alot to complain about from what Sabine has said but I just want the audience to know about our "trustworthy" scientists too (for the record). Not all they write is 100% accurate.
I have no issues with the Sabine’s video as it is an illustration of human behaviour rather than any science. She claims of being unfairly treated in her field of physics, has an axe to grind and uses YouTube videos to vent her spleen.
I'm sure you'll all have alot to complain about from what Sabine has said but I just want the audience to know about our "trustworthy" scientists too (for the record). Not all they write is 100% accurate.
Like all you guys say to me - prove it. I know there are some flaws with AI but from what other scientists who question the theory of evolution say is wrong with the theory, the AI seems to have hit most of them. So, I'm going to take the AI's word for it on these flaws (that they are still flaws).Your list has same major falsehoods. I'm guessing you weren't aware of them. AI can be useful, but if it comes to something you don't understand very well, be very cautious.
One of the most common YEC superstitions is that evolution is about the origin of life. Even Darwin just supposed that God created the first living things. If God had magically poofed living things into existence rather than as He says in Genesis, evolution would still work exactly the way we see it working now.
We're always learning new things about the way evolution works. None of that is a surprise to biologists.
AI failed you. Even honest YECs like Dr. Kurt Wise admit that the transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds and therapsids and mammals are very good evidence for evolution.
View attachment 368506
View attachment 368507
This is why you should always be very careful about letting AI think for you. It's not really intelligent; it just nicely simulates some kinds of mental processes.
Sorry, I took the first video that look decent. I'll check for another.Good grief, man. Post a link to a video if you want anyone to see it. No one in their right mind is going to click a random search link from someone else with embedded trackers.
Could you rattle off a few of them and who observed them?Perhaps you don't know what "macroevolution" is. We have directly observed instances of macroevolution.
Macroevolution
Definition
noun, plural: macroevolutions
Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of a species, over geologic time resulting in the divergence of taxonomic groups.
Supplement
Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene. It is an area of study concerned with variation in frequencies of alleles that are shared between species and with speciation events, and also includes extinction. It is contrasted with microevolution, which is mainly concerned with the small-scale patterns of evolution within a species or population.
Macroevolution Definition and Examples - Biology Online Dictionary
Macroevolution in the largest biology dictionary online. Free learning resources for students covering all major areas of biology.www.biologyonline.com
Could you rattle off a few of them and who observed them?
NahI’d still rely on their collective word on these things over not relying on them.
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?