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.
Again if I have it was not on purpose.
but then again I don't think you would have post numbers or anything?
So we can analyze it?
obviosly not complete but that the ALL major phyla showed up from no where, and have not gone away since.
its' a problem because of this:
Dr. Paul Chien is chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco. He has extensively explored the mysteries of the marvelous Cambrian fossils in Chengjiang, China. Moreover, Chien possesses the largest collection of Chinese Cambrian fossils in North America. In an interview with Real Issue he remarked, “A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now. Stephen J. Gould, [a Harvard University evolutionary biologist], has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. The theory of evolution implies that things get more and more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. But the whole thing turns out to be reversed. We have more diverse groups in the very beginning, and in fact more and more of them die off over time, and we have less and less now.”- from genesispark.com
Darwin's Dilemma - YouTube
But look who I used that reasoning with.....
When in Rome, learn to speak Italian.
Besides, I am one Christian talking to another about an area of theology. I use quite different arguments concerning science.
video get interesting about 17 minutes into it when it speaks of darwins doubts over the cambrian explosion:
"IN the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty...."
origin of species, Darwin
read context here:
X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Absence of Intermediate Varieties at the Present Day. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics
again he doubts:
" To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. "
origin of species, darwin
X. On the Imperfection of the Geological Record. On the Sudden Appearance of Groups of Allied Species in the Lowest Known Fossiliferous Strata. Darwin, Charles Robert. 1909-14. Origin of Species. The Harvard Classics
Have you no shame sir....!?
I can't believe you're still persisting with this dishonesty in such a bald-faced manner....
1. In the succeeding pages, Darwin goes on to explain the reasons for the seeming lack of fossilised evidence....!
2.In the intervening 160 years since Darwin's discoveries, we have uncovered many more transitional fossils than were evident in his time...
3. At the time he wrote, Darwin had no knowledge of the work being done by people like Mendel, demonstrating the role of heredity in the evolutionary process. Had he been so aware, he would probably have been less concerned about the commonality of fossil evidence.....
Now, by all means, run off again and complain to 'teacher' about the mean ol' atheist..........!
WARNING!
QUOTE MINING WORKS IN PROGRESS
Should you come across a mined quote then disregard it!
Failure to do so may cause undue stress and a sense of loss of bearing.
This is a public service notice.
quote mines don't exist, eccept in the mind of the evolutionist. Do you hear a Judge in a court room say , violation of quote mining" no because quoting out of context, or misquoting is the norm. Again quote mining doesn't exist..
here is an example of the folly of quote mining theories.
I was talking about oranges for 10 minutes, but one minute I was
talking about bananas.
If you quote the banana part, then you have quote mined because it was
not in context of the oranges.
and I can debate you all day quoting the orange portion.
But who is to say HE just didn't change opinions or doubt his orange
opinion in the few minutes he debated bananas?
See, quote mining doesn't exist.
It's all a lie of evolutionists.
quote mining doesn't exist as I have just proven.
Misquotes exist. Quoting out of context exist. But not quote mining.
it was made up by evolutionists to debate creationists.
I see you completely ignored my post which directed you to an example of a quote mine that you did.... after you asked for the relevant post number so you could address it.
So, are you going to address it, or not?
again quote mines don't exist, and I won't address them.
now, if it was a misquote then prove it.
if it was a quote out of context (then again you would need to post examples)
even then, quotes out of context by nature will reject the idea that someone has changed topics.
He could have changed topics from gradualism to the other side.
but is this what was done in those one to two sentences?
again you would have to prove that assertion.
I have never seen a Christian mine a quote for the purpose of lying or deceiving, this is one you need to get over.
in your opinion, why did darwin doubt?
as far as I can tell he thought that there were more fossils to be found. It just happened that 50 years later another one would do the same thing, and also come to the same conclusion. I forgot the guys name. But how can there be STILL no fossil transitions to the early cambrian phyla?
I await your response.
You posted a quote.... the response to your post included the full transcript of the piece you quoted.
The full transcript did not back the argument you were attempting to make, in fact it directly refutes what you had to say. Therefore, trying to use that quote to justify your position was wrong.
As I said earlier, if that was unintentional, the honest thing to do would be to admit you made a mistake and withdraw your argument. However, you are not even willing to admit you made a mistake when provided with the plain evidence (i.e. the full transcript).
That is not honest behaviour, and it's a demonstration that you are not trustworthy when it comes to providing credible information or evidence.
How would you know you chose not to live in it? reality is obviously not for you hence the bizarre beliefs.get over it, it's a tough world out there.
How would you know you chose not to live in it? reality is obviously not for you hence the bizarre beliefs.
"i...don't have any real arguments."
-gradyll
How would you know you chose not to live in it? reality is obviously not for you hence the bizarre beliefs.
Do you live in reality or a religious "these are the things I want to be true" world?nice attitude.
Do you live in reality or a religious "these are the things I want to be true" world?
Do you live in reality or a religious "these are the things I want to be true" world?
Therein lies your problem, dream on.?
lol
makes no sense.
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?