Evolution's Brick Wall

[Heissonear]

The bible only seems to mention those things that occured within a 200 mile radius of where the various texts were written.

Personally, I wouldn't simply deny/ignore everything that happens around us that isn't mentioned in that ancient book written by ignorant sheep herders who didn't even realise the earth orbits the sun.

As in your other posts, you equate all religions as man generated. And claims of Bible authenticity a joke because of many writtings beyond the original authors.

Has He who is on High have control of who turns to Him? Turns to Him His way? In a humble, pure in motives, heart to know if He is real and His Bible is real.

You present the opposite in how to find Him.

Through geology and Naturalism I was once close to your position. But what I listed above was applied. He reigns above us all, and has a way to find Him that one must walk and talk. His way to find Him. I was a godless (without God in this world) geologist and naturalist that He worked in to become open to His way to Him.

 

[inquiring mind]

A weakling who changes his lifestyle isn't evolution of any kind -- he's still got the same DNA as he had before. As for the horses, humans and chimpanzees are more similar than modern horses and Eohippus. Why do you consider the latter pair to represent microevolution and not the former?

That's a good question. I guess because the latter have been indisputably linked, and the former have not.

 

[Job 33:6]

That's a good question. I guess because the latter have been indisputably linked, and the former have not.

What is it about horses and eohippus (the former) that you feel is linked in ways that humans and chimpanzees (the latter) are not?

 

[sfs]

What is it about horses and eohippus (the former) that you feel is linked in ways that humans and chimpanzees (the latter) are not?

That was going to be my question. Especially since we have DNA from both chimpanzees and humans to compare, something we don't have for the horses.

 

[inquiring mind]

What is it about horses and eohippus (the former) that you feel is linked in ways that humans and chimpanzees (the latter) are not?

Actually, I was just taking you guys at your word that it was. You're not saying that a chimpanzee and human link is based on the same amount of verifiable evidence, are you?

 

[Job 33:6]

Actually, I was just taking you guys at your word that it was. You're not saying that a chimpanzee and human link is based on the same amount of verifiable evidence, are you?

Hm, it appears that you can't answer the question.

Thank goodness that scientists are in charge of science, and not dishonest young earthers.

 

[inquiring mind]

Hm, it appears that you can't answer the question.

Thank goodness that scientists are in charge of science, and not dishonest young earthers.

It appears you are the one avoiding questions.

 

[Job 33:6]

It appears you are the one avoiding questions.

Hold on, so you were asked a question. You didnt respond. Lets try again,

What is it about horses and eohippus (the former) that you feel is linked in ways that humans and chimpanzees (the latter) are not?

Or are you withdrawing your statement (post #862) because you now realize that it doesn't make sense?

If you are aware that your response (post #862) didn't make any sense (which it didnt), then we can just defer back to sfs's original post (post number 855) which has yet to be sufficiently responded to.

---------------------

So we have two options. Answer my question, or try responding to sfs again.

 

[inquiring mind]

Hold on, so you were asked a question. You didnt respond. Lets try again,
What is it about horses and eohippus (the former) that you feel is linked in ways that humans and chimpanzees (the latter) are not?

My answer again: "Actually, I was just taking you guys at your word that it was." Eohippus linked to a modern horse that is.

Then I said: "You're not saying that a chimpanzee and human link is based on the same amount of verifiable evidence, are you?"

Now, you've still not answered my question, and its you that's not making sense.

I hope you understand this time as its getting repetitive.

 

[Heissonear]

Hm, it appears that you can't answer the question.

Thank goodness that scientists are in charge of science, and not dishonest young earthers.

Another Elite position where you talk down.

You ridicule those without scientific training.

One of the reasons you are on CF.

Now to the OP topic, before your eyes, in your day, evolution has hit a brick wall, and conjecture is scattered about.

Yes, fossils do not prove evolution. The fossils show evolution never happened.

Some still try to state macro-assemblages as proof. And such macro-assemblages as transitional fossils.

Some need help in what Paleontology is to prove, not systematically support by conjecture-based science.

 

[Heissonear]

My answer again: "Actually, I was just taking you guys at your word that it was." Eohippus linked to a modern horse that is.

Then I said: "You're not saying that a chimpanzee and human link is based on the same amount of verifiable evidence, are you?"

Now, you've still not answered my question, and its you that's not making sense.

I hope you understand this time as its getting repetitive.

They prode by questions until it is you who need to defend as next post.

CF is full of unhappy debaters, trying to catch others at fault in what they have said.

But one thing that jittered them is your OP. It was then them who had to defend to proof wrong, which to date they have tried but failed.

 

[pitabread]

You ridicule those without scientific training.

When you have non-professionals claiming to know more than an entire profession, yes, those people tend to get ridiculed. They've set themselves up for it.

 

[Heissonear]

Hold on, so you were asked a question. You didnt respond. Lets try again,

What is it about horses and eohippus (the former) that you feel is linked in ways that humans and chimpanzees (the latter) are not?

Or are you withdrawing your statement (post #862) because you now realize that it doesn't make sense?

If you are aware that your response (post #862) didn't make any sense (which it didnt), then we can just defer back to sfs's original post (post number 855) which has yet to be sufficiently responded to.

---------------------

So we have two options. Answer my question, or try responding to sfs again.

Putting one one the defense, as per posting tactics. What about the OP. Where is the error?

 

[Heissonear]

When you have non-professionals claiming to know more than an entire profession, yes, those people tend to get ridiculed. They've set themselves up for it.

You qualify you ungodly posts.

 

[pitabread]

You qualify you ungodly posts.

Okay. And?

 

[Job 33:6]

My answer again: "Actually, I was just taking you guys at your word that it was." Eohippus linked to a modern horse that is.

Then I said: "You're not saying that a chimpanzee and human link is based on the same amount of verifiable evidence, are you?"

Now, you've still not answered my question, and its you that's not making sense.

I hope you understand this time as its getting repetitive.

So you're retracting your earlier statement. That's all you had to say. I'm glad you realize the error in your own words.

Now to answer your question, I never said anything about evidence for either horse or human lineage. So your question is misdirected.

If you look back at my prior post, I simply asked you to explain your own words, and you failed to do so. And with that, I'll be moving on.

 

[Job 33:6]

Putting one one the defense, as per posting tactics. What about the OP. Where is the error?

Inquiring mind said that the latter (horses and eohippus) are indisputably linked, while the former (humans and chimpanzees) were not or less so.

I simply asked him to explain how it was that horses and eohippus were better linked than humans and chimpanzees.

Thats all.

And he could not respond. Indeed he just made some bizarre statement about taking my word for it. But I hadn't said anything about any relationships, i just asked him a question.

It shows that he speaks without actually knowing what hes talking about. He argues without justification for his words, blindly.


This isnt posting "tactics", its just an observation.

 

[Job 33:6]

"You're not saying that a chimpanzee and human link is based on the same amount of verifiable evidence, are you?"

I never said anything about evidence for either lineage nor did I make a statement about which were more or less verifiable.

But I do agree, that if you were to support a link, whether it be through fossil transitions or genetics, between horses and eohippus, I would also assume that one would accept a chimp and human relatedness, as they are less different from one another and are also linked by fossils and genetics.

You seemed to suggest earlier that horses and eohippus are " indisputably linked".

So I simply asked, what is it about horses and eohippus and their link, that makes you feel that they're indisputably linked, but not humans and chimpanzees?

And if youre simply going to take peoples word for it, without actually knowing what we are talking about, then you can just take my word for it, in that horses and eohippus, as well as humans and chimps are both indisputably linked.

 

[Heissonear]

That was going to be my question. Especially since we have DNA from both chimpanzees and humans to compare, something we don't have for the horses.

Another post stating DNA evidence with a a foundation of conjecture.

Evolutionist get use to conjecture-based claims. And defending them, as if true.

The biological sciences applied to the past is not going to fly, with zero fossil record proof.

Saying such and such happened without fossil record proof is merely presentation of more conjecture about evolution.

Notice the way of positioning decents of dramatically different creatures. And this biological science is used instead of the fossil record. This shows the fossil record did not supply the firm evidence of proof the above conjecture states.

Evolution has hit a brick wall of evidence.

 

[inquiring mind]

Inquiring mind said that the latter (horses and eohippus) are indisputably linked, while the former (humans and chimpanzees) were not or less so.

I simply asked him to explain how it was that horses and eohippus were better linked than humans and chimpanzees.

Thats all.

And he could not respond. Indeed he just made some bizarre statement about taking my word for it. But I hadn't said anything about any relationships, i just asked him a question.

It shows that he speaks without actually knowing what hes talking about. He argues without justification for his words, blindly.

This isnt posting "tactics", its just an observation.

I don't think you even know what you're talking about.