partinobodycular
Well-Known Member
- Jun 8, 2021
- 2,626
- 1,047
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
How true. My dog could read pee. Me, I never quite developed the knack.
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.
They can. Either you are not listening or...
You had a very odd way of expressing that. It sounded like some sort of "reset" with every "layer", the most recent being the "bible age". Sounds like some other mythologies or religions rather than Jewish/Christian, hence my confusion. From a scientific point of view the age the bible talks about (~900 BCE -- 100 CE) is rather tiny and irrelevant and covers only a small portion of the planet. I'm sure it is useful for ancient near-eastern history/archeology, but not so much anywhere else.I'm not talking about coating stuff. That's not the point. I'm talking about change. That lots and lots of change could have happened before the age the bible IS talking about. I use the painting example for one reason: we can find evidence of the time before that. It can't be ignored.
It is an example of blinkered and dogmatic thinking -- something worth challenging.I have to admit I find it almost comical that YEC's accept science and the change to beliefs it brought about regarding the sun, planets, galaxies, etc. But they refuse to acknowledge geological evidence of an old planet. In a way, I compare them to flat earthers, at least on this subject. And that doesn't mean I think they are stupid. Nor does she:
What you are dealing with is psychologicalSince you are so knowledgeable on the matter, what is my agenda?
Yes. "want to believe"; self deception, selfTwo things. First, people lie all the time. Second, the event to which you refer was something people were looking for at the time and really wanted to believe.
What about when my wife's kid sister was about 5 and had been put to bed in their house in Chicago. The rest of the family was in the kitchen talking, as some families will do. A little while later the sister casually walked into the kitchen and said, "I want to say goodbye to grandpa. I didn't get to say goodbye." They asked her what she meant. She said "grandpa came into my bedroom and said goodbye, but I didn't get to say goodbye." They explained to her that grandpa was at his home in California. But she was so insistent that they called him. His brother answered the phone and said he was about to call to let them know he had just passed away.
Make of it what you will. We all do.
What age is that? How do you "know "?The age the bible is talking about.
Started it. It's for beginners.Ah, I never read the actual book and had forgotten their names.
All good.Ah, I never read the actual book and had forgotten their names.
Its a very entertaining book for outdoor adventurers. So too, is his 'The Beckoning Silence'.Started it. It's for beginners.
The most recent common ancestor of all mammals was probably a synapsid (a 'mammal-like reptile') that lived during the Triassic period, between 250 million and 200 million years ago.It seems inaccurate because of how divergent speciation is, I guess.
My question in this thread to Estrid has been: Where did the bonobos come from? Where did those ancestors come from? Where did those ancestors come from, etc. until we reach the point where we get to an animal that is the primordial ancestor of all mammals.
But apparently I'm in the wrong for saying this, even though all I'm doing is tracing evolution back to its logical conclusion.
Some very interesting very mammal likeThe most recent common ancestor of all mammals was probably a synapsid (a 'mammal-like reptile') that lived during the Triassic period, between 250 million and 200 million years ago.
The living great apes evolved from apes (e.g. Proconsul, Dryopithecus) that lived during the Miocene epoch (5.5 to 25 million years ago). The Miocene apes evolved from Oligocene primates that were neither apes nor monkeys. The first primates evolved from earlier mammals that lived during the Cretaceous period.Where did their parents come from?
Your first error is confusing living things with manufactured objects such as watches. (Why Rolex watches, rather than, for example, cuckoo clocks?*) Manufactured objects, such as watches and clocks, do not reproduce themselves and do not have a genetic code, therefore they cannot evolve. Living things reproduce themselves and have genetic codes that are subject to mutation, therefore they are bound to evolve. All living things were produced by a reproductive process from another living thing of the same kind, not through design and creation by a different type of being.But we're arguing nonsense. None of us were there. It's all merely various hypotheses. Arguing that something as complex as a single cell is a product of evolution is as impractical as finding a billion year old Rolex watch and declaring it happened through evolution, even though it is far simpler. And that is because we know who designed and created watches, and how they are made. The assumption is that the watch was designed and created.
*Did God create cuckoos? Were there cuckoos in the Garden of Eden?
If it gets disproved, it probably won't happen in this section.What sort of facts could disprove it?
Does anyone have any?
True.If it gets disproved, it probably won't happen in this section.
Some very interesting very mammal like
creatures in the Permian.
Diarthrognathus had an exactly transitional
jaw articulation. As the name suggests!
That sounds like an unwarranted conclusion derived from a flawed premise.The last statement is speculative.
"both configurations are preserved, and both the quadrate and articular bones are reduced. (Therefore, because of this, we assume,) These bones evolved to become two of the middle-ear bones in mammals"
Sounds like a non sequitur fallacy, which in college they told us never to include in any of our essays.
That sounds like an unwarranted conclusion derived from a flawed premise.
I note that the source of the quote is Britanica. Britanica provides summaries of knowledge on various topics. Its articles focus on the topic and mention ancillary information only in passing. An alternative, and I think the correct interpretation of the quote would read like this:
"both configurations are preserved, and both the quadrate and articular bones are reduced. (Extensive research of mammalian fossils, that is beyond the scope of this article, has revealed that . . ) These bones evolved to become two of the middle-ear bones in mammals"
What is this obsession creos have with " fully formed"?It's cute! I want one.
View attachment 344162
From what I looked at the jaw is fully formed. It may appear transitional, but where are transitions?
"In true mammals, one jaw joint is formed by the squared bone of the skull and the dentary bone of the lower jaw. In other tetrapods, the location of this joint is determined by the intersection of the quadrate bone above and the articular bone below. In Diarthrognathus, both configurations are preserved, and both the quadrate and articular bones are reduced. These bones evolved to become two of the middle-ear bones in mammals." - Britanica
The last statement is speculative.
"both configurations are preserved, and both the quadrate and articular bones are reduced. (Therefore, because of this, we assume,) These bones evolved to become two of the middle-ear bones in mammals"
Sounds like a non sequitur fallacy, which in college they told us never to include in any of our essays.
Nobody observed Mt kilimanjaro forming. So no reason to think it's a volcano. Right?Even if so, and I don't doubt that it is, still empirical science has to be based on observable fact, and we would have to ask Adam, or Noah in such a case, since the poor little critters are now extinct.
No one has OBSERVED the theorized transition of bones "evolving" to become middle ear bones. The statement says "These bones evolved to become" as if it an established OBSERVED fact, which it is not.
The Diarthrognathus reminds me somewhat of Ferrets, and I love Ferrets
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?