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.
Then perhaps you can find an example of anyone doing what is implied and 'prediciting' a specific order of fossils.I don see that he is asking for anyone to educate him and also see validity in his question. It only finds assumed confirmation based on time. And if the time is proven wrong then the order can be wrong too.
No, it is when one thinks they are correct when they are not.Ignorance is when one is too dumb to even ask a question.
Really?Asking a question shows a person is not ignorant.
So what in the OP is premised on intelligence?Asking an intelligent question shows a person does more thinking than most....
Because it has been accepted as is, however, there is new evidence that they may have grossly miscalculated so that some estimates based on carbon may have erred by thousands of years.
Wow, cool evidence-free and unwarranted extrapolation-filled story!Given the exponential rates of decay the further you go back the potential for old earth, young creation is even more plausible than single evolution. Once again, evolution assumes time and decay are constant and without error as they are essential to the mechanism of biological advances..., IF they are correct. New information is beginning to knock the ideas which are still very young theories.
So, you've got nothing but wishful thinking and bliss.As I said, people will believe what they want to believe. I cannot fully express how much I enjoy not having to waste another moment wondering. I know God and enjoy knowing that I am eternal through the sacrifice made by Jesus, His only begotten son. It stopped being a question of belief and became a matter of fact a few years ago. I pray it happens to you as well.
If a thing "is consistent with" what you expected according to your theory, then you should have, in principle, been able to predict it beforehand.
In other words, you cannot claim "we expected that" without also claiming that you could have predicted it to some degree of specificity beforehand. The two go hand in hand. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise.
In any case, your point is only semantic and avoiding the substance of the OP. I await your thoughts on the subject.
I apologize for having hijacked the OP's original intent. Have a blessed day.Wait, are you actually suggesting fossils were planted by Satan?
Have a blessed day.So, you've got nothing but wishful thinking and bliss.
Bye.
Have a blessed day.So, you've got nothing but wishful thinking and bliss.
Bye.
Did you know that modern Coelacanths are so different from the ancient fossils that they aren't even classified as the same genus?I'll keep my bliss and raise you two .Coelacanths
I'm not the one pretending to have all the answers while admitting that I can't provide any evidence!Don't trip over your ego on the way out the door.
That reminds me. There was this site with a list of quotes from creationists claiming that evolution was on its deathbed from the past two centuries. Anyone have the link to it?How did God create a fully formed man from dust? What process was used?
WHEN did this dust go from being dust to being a fully formed adult human male?
Cool myth, bro!
No, but I think I've seen it. They are nothing if not predictable.That reminds me. There was this site with a list of quotes from creationists claiming that evolution was on its deathbed from the past two centuries. Anyone have the link to it?
Here is a better thing to remember - nobody ever claimed to be able to predict a specific order of fossils.
"Predictions" about fossils are now, when made, premised on a combined knowledge of the current fossil record
and how evolution works.
Actually evolutionists the world over claim that very thing, that the fossil record is in a specifically "evolutionary order", that if the order of fossils in the rock record were significantly different, then it would falsify evolution. I bet I could find thousands of posts from evolutionists on this very board essentially claiming that very thing.
But now you've admitted that Evolution theory makes no such predictions. I bet that's news to many evos on these boards.
Exactly, we know where to expect certain types of fossils, simply because of where we've found those same types of fossils.
You just admitted Evolution theory doesn't predict the specific order of fossils, and now you backpedal and say it does? Which is it? Don't equivocate.
That is not the same thing as "predicts" a specific order of fossils."Actually evolutionists the world over claim that very thing, that the fossil record is in a specifically "evolutionary order", that if the order of fossils in the rock record were significantly different, then it would falsify evolution.Here is a better thing to remember - nobody ever claimed to be able to predict a specific order of fossils.
So precious - you're not even trying to hide your bait and switch.I bet I could find thousands of posts from evolutionists on this very board essentially claiming that very thing.
So, those who make certain claims aren't responsible for backing them up? Meaning also, an evolutionist can make any claim, and if they were asked to prove it, it's perfecly acceptable for the evolutionists to simply tell them they aren't responsible for their education?
Oh, really? And what a detailed explanation as to why it's ignorant.I guess it's just easier to expect someone to believe you without you educating them/telling them why they should. Guess what...they won't
Of course it's yours/their responsibility to explain why what they claim to be a fact is a fact, or in short..."for their education". That is if they expect anyone to take them seriously.
Jim says: "I just UPS'd a man to mars and am the first to ever do so!" Joe replies: "I didn't think that was possible, can you please show us how?" Jim responds, "I'm not responsible for your education".
The "predictions" you talk about are based on knowledge of the fossil record, for example the discovery of Tiktaalik.
A clear cut example is Shubin's prediction about the timeframe within which we should expect to find a fish-tetrapod transition.
In fact, although some may not have fully abandoned the idea of evolution they are questioning the validity of the data. If two labs half way around the world can received samples of the same base material and yet arrive at entirely different time periods (and they were certified) then something is wrong, somewhere. And one place is the method of determining how time is gauged. In this case the OP is asking a valid question when it comes to applying science. If the process were absolute and true, then it would be valid without having to know the outcome. At least it makes a lot of sense to me.
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?