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.
Are mammals reptiles?
A Big Bang with no known cause sounds like magic to me, as does the idea that everything in the universe was supposedly compressed into a tiny "thing" called a singularly or whatever the current popular notion is. Then we have (or do we?) so-called Dark Matter/Dark Energy, which no-one has ever detected but must exist because the Big Bang idea would be in even bigger trouble than it already is if it didn't. Then of course, we also have the supposed "magic" of lifeless chemicals organising themselves (apparently against the natural tendencies of the chemicals to do what they would naturally do) into self-reproducing life forms which then somehow managed to add massive amounts of new information by a process known to be almost 100% destructive until it became the complex world we see around us today, while all the time, leaving no undisputed trace of this in the fossil record. What is so amazing is that scientists involved in the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) project would have proclaimed with a loud fanfare if they had picked up any signal with a hint of intelligence behind it and yet other scientists will look through a microscope and when they see all the astonishing complexity of life, they will try to claim that no intelligence was required to produce it. No, I'm sorry but that takes a lot more faith to believe than the alternative, that God, who is eternal, created everything by means of His awesome power and intelligence.The only thing scientists have established before they do anything is this, there are no such things as magic, demons, gods, ghosts or angels,
beyond that I should image their minds are open to anything.
The only thing scientists love as much as discovering something is proving another scientist wrong.
It serves more purpose rather than just having the sole purpose the larynx.
What evidence does common ancestry explain better than common design?
They fall into a nested hierarchy because they were created in the way they were.
There are life forms that have similar elements that are not ancestral...your hierarchy fails.
Single floor buildings --two floor buildings---three floor buildings.
Life is classified by what we have labeled them. WE have certain attributes that we ascribe to a group of living forms such as mammals. Are reptiles the same group that we call mammals?
My point is that the classification systems we use are in regard to life forms already created. Life's history is what we base this on and this is the way God created. Please provide the evidence that mammals evolved from reptiles.
That is your opinion.
A Big Bang with no known cause sounds like magic to me,
as does the idea that everything in the universe was supposedly compressed into a tiny "thing" called a singularly or whatever the current popular notion is.
Then we have (or do we?) so-called Dark Matter/Dark Energy, which no-one has ever detected but must exist because the Big Bang idea would be in even bigger trouble than it already is if it didn't.
Then of course, we also have the supposed "magic" of lifeless chemicals organising themselves (apparently against the natural tendencies of the chemicals to do what they would naturally do) into self-reproducing life forms which then somehow managed to add massive amounts of new information by a process known to be almost 100% destructive until it became the complex world we see around us today, while all the time, leaving no undisputed trace of this in the fossil record.
What is so amazing is that scientists involved in the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) project would have proclaimed with a loud fanfare if they had picked up any signal with a hint of intelligence behind it and yet other scientists will look through a microscope and when they see all the astonishing complexity of life, they will try to claim that no intelligence was required to produce it. No, I'm sorry but that takes a lot more faith to believe than the alternative, that God, who is eternal, created everything by means of His awesome power and intelligence.
With the mammal-like reptile transitional fossils, the two groups are blended. Why don't we see the same thing with birds and mammals?
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/...tures/non-dino-reptiles/mammal-like-reptiles/
Reptiles and mammals are not "blended" anywhere but the imagination.
Only the ignorant fill in the gaps in our knowledge with magic. "I don't know" is not magic. It never has been.
Dark matter detected here:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/dark_matter_proven.html
Detection of dark energy here:
http://supernova.lbl.gov/PDFs/PhysicsTodayArticle.pdf
Dark energy is no different than the detection of gravity. We "observe" gravity by the effect it has on bodies of mass. For dark energy, we observe it by observing how it accelerates the expansion of the universe.
You're right. "I don't know, but nature did it somehow and someday we'll find out how", is about a good explanation as magic, though.
Wrong, those are invented objects used to rescue the big-bang model.
Mammal-like reptiles.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/...tures/non-dino-reptiles/mammal-like-reptiles/
Again, you are ignoring the facts.
I see, so you consider artistic renderings to be "facts".
Can you provide the facts?Mammal-like reptiles.
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/...tures/non-dino-reptiles/mammal-like-reptiles/
Again, you are ignoring the facts.
Baloney. Those are no more fixes than gravity is a fix to moving in a straight line. They are detected in exactly the same way that gravity is detected.
Not really. Whatever gravity is, its effect is always measurable and impossible to avoid.
However, if the big-bang model of expansion of the universe is incorrect, then the effect of "dark energy" was nothing but a figment of your imagination.
The BB model is correct.
The relationship between distance and redshift is very, very real. The CMB is very real. The expansion is directly observed in the redshift data, as is the acceleration of the expansion.
I'm sure you believe it is.
Oh okay.. there is a "very real relationship". There's another one of those ambiguous phrases that could mean just about anything.
And isn't it funny that actual credentialed astronomers and physicists claim that there are problems with the big-bang and redshift observations?
"...Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry..."
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
http://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy/cosmologystatement.html
The evidence demonstrates that it is.
And again with the small minority that is swamped by the large majority. There will always be a minority that tries to pick apart the science. We encourage it. That doesn't make the evidence go away.
Certainly not.
Anyways, you just compared 'dark energy' to gravity, so needless to say your opinion of the evidence should be taken with a grain of salt.
Sorry, that excuse doesn't work if the minority of experts in the field are simply pointing out a specific observation.
Why? We detect gravity by the effect it has on massive bodies. We do the same with dark energy.
"A" specific observation? Don't you mean ignoring the bulk of the observations?
I think you also believe that reptile-mammal evolution must be true because we observe the effect of artists rendering cartoons of it.
Yes, astronomers and physicists make a specific observation of redshift that directly refutes your characterization of it harmonizing with the big-bang model.
And then you claim the big-bang model is correct because of redshift.
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?