• 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.

Fossil Record Shows Evolution as an Errant Fabricated Mess

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟166,950.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Nice try on who is to supply burden of truth if evolution is fact.

Need I state again to put evolution claims in perspective: there are zero fossil record sucessions (fossils) showing morphological changes of one distintly different lifeform into another distinctly different lifeform.

Genus related creatures = Kinds

There are zero fossils showing step by step morphological changes between distinctly different creatures.
stop lying. It doesn’t reflect well on Christians that fundies lie about easily confirmed facts . The so called gaps in the fossil record are being filled in mainly because unlike Darwin or Cope, and other 19th century naturalists , we know where to look for the intermediates and approximately what age they’d be. Geological layering and dating of the layers is that well understood . And that’s just fossils. We also have genetics and evolutionary development as well as others of the biological sciences. The only fantasies involved are coming from creationists in denial
 
Upvote 0

Turkana

Active Member
Aug 15, 2018
89
128
Mooistad
✟2,751.00
Country
Netherlands
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Private
The OP presents Cetaceans fossils Amublocidae to Remingtonocidae to Protocetidae as one posters proof of evolution by the fossil recored.

Far from such conclusions, these Cetaceans (whale evolution fossil record) are filled with conjecture in how they are linked.

There are zero detailed morphological fossils between the listed Cetacea. A lot of claims and conclusions but - nope - not any inbetween morphological detailed fossils to show and prove the Cetaceans listed are linked.

Xxc
View attachment 238981

View attachment 238982

The above are evolutionary claims. They are a display of connect the dots (fossils). But no cigar (no actual inbetween fossil sequences showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time is presented).

The above illustrations are conjecture-based conclusions. Right before your eyes.

Boy, WHEN are you going to stop lying and deceiving?
I know that in the Babble School you are learned to close your eyes for reality and when YEC of nature, to learn how to lie but wasn't there anybody in your life who taught you to be honest and how to live in reality?

Actually, personally I LIKE creationists to lie through their teeth as you do. Because everyone with a normal, non-rotten state of mind passing by and reading your threads and who still might sit on the fence or who are just neutrally interested, will be exposed to your deceit and as you know: reputation leaves on a galloping horse's back and only returns by foot reluctantly. So I just let creationists like you expose their deceit themselves by own admission. So let's stir up the fire a bit more:

So, first of all, you do know that paleontologist do not consider Pakicetus an "ancestor" of the cetaceans? AT LEAST you do know that, right? Because someone who feels himself entitled to judge about the fossil record at least should have some basic understanding of paleontology, DON'T YOU THINK?

And you think that Cetaceans (whale evolution fossil record) are filled with conjecture in how they are linked.

Really?

You DO KNOW that paleontology is not about reconstructing the factual pedigree of species? AT LEAST you do know that, right? Because someone who feels himself entitled to judge about the fossil record at least should have some basic understanding of paleontology, DON'T YOU THINK?

Also you are producing a lie here.

Paleontologists base their conclusions on painstaking, extremely detailed observations of the fossils. They use hundreds of anatomical attributes where fossil remains of any origin may differ.

[Intermezzo for other readers (I have not the slightest illusion that Heissonear reads links provided by his opponents, how that works in their minds has been explained extremely well by former young earth creationist Glenn Morton): here you have an example of a paleontological study among the tens of thousands other ones showing how paleontology is actually performed and achieved. I choose an old study by Philip Gingerich on cetacean evolution, featuring Pakicetus, the proto-cetacean Heisonear also mentioned.

In this study Gingerich provides extremely detailed observational evidence of the inner ear of Pakicetus, which demonstrates Pakicetus, cladistically spoken, was a cetacean. Because you can tell cetaceans apart from all other animals due to the anatomical feats that are unique for them- you know. the traits that make them "cetacean". Pakicetus possesses such traits that are unique for cetaceans. On the other hand, later, marine cetaceans like Dorudon, Basilosaurus. Ambulucetus and the other ones Heisonear neatly showed in his pic, also clearly possess typical anatomical attributes that are only found in artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates like Pakicetus, which unambiguously also was an artiodactyl). There are, literally, hundreds of detailed, observational studies on (fossil and extant) cetaceans like Gingerich' one spelling out the morphological evidence for that.

Further evidence we have from DNA: of all extant animals living now, the one that resembles cetaceans genetically most is hippopotamus, a land animal, artiodactyl and - surprise! - a semi-aquatic animal.

But let's go back to the cesspool of lies and deceit.]

There is also a lesson to be taught here in decent and honest debating.
When you dispute the position of your opponents, you provide arguments and when necessary observational evidence.

Here we are not in the Babble School or some seance on Sunday with people waving their hands into the air while repeating mantras endlessly.

Here, back on earth and on a debate forum, you are obliged to back up your claims.

So you say that there are zero fossils showing step by step morphological changes between distinctly different creatures? That's weird because I read such studies almost on a daily basis. They count into the tens of thousands.

Let's have such one, SHALL WE? In this post I enumerate the observational evidence for Dorudon being transitional fossils (plural, there are several specimens excavated). It's by far complete but only a very crude summary of all the observational evidence, so should have no problems addressing them with your extensive knowledge of paleontology.

[The Great Dodging has started. What you now will experience is dodging, ducking, evading, red herrings, strawmen and "La, la, la, f@ck you, didn't read that".]

I also noticed how deafening silent you are on my posts and thread about the fossils.
 
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟166,950.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You know he’s going to take that line about pakicetus not being an ancestor out of context . Pakicetidae were closely related to the ancestors of modern whales . This is where Heissonear nonsense comes in. He thinks that we have to point to the specific fossil individual who was the direct ancestors. Without understanding that genetics fills the tiny gap between Artiodactyla and cetaceans and did so years before we found a lot of the whale fossils.
 
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟201,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Boy, WHEN are you going to stop lying and deceiving?
I know that in the Babble School you are learned to close your eyes for reality and when YEC of nature, to learn how to lie but wasn't there anybody in your life who taught you to be honest and how to live in reality?

Actually, personally I LIKE creationists to lie through their teeth as you do. Because everyone with a normal, non-rotten state of mind passing by and reading your threads and who still might sit on the fence or who are just neutrally interested, will be exposed to your deceit and as you know: reputation leaves on a galloping horse's back and only returns by foot reluctantly. So I just let creationists like you expose their deceit themselves by own admission. So let's stir up the fire a bit more:

So, first of all, you do know that paleontologist do not consider Pakicetus an "ancestor" of the cetaceans? AT LEAST you do know that, right? Because someone who feels himself entitled to judge about the fossil record at least should have some basic understanding of paleontology, DON'T YOU THINK?

And you think that Cetaceans (whale evolution fossil record) are filled with conjecture in how they are linked.

Really?

You DO KNOW that paleontology is not about reconstructing the factual pedigree of species? AT LEAST you do know that, right? Because someone who feels himself entitled to judge about the fossil record at least should have some basic understanding of paleontology, DON'T YOU THINK?

Also you are producing a lie here.

Paleontologists base their conclusions on painstaking, extremely detailed observations of the fossils. They use hundreds of anatomical attributes where fossil remains of any origin may differ.

[Intermezzo for other readers (I have not the slightest illusion that Heissonear reads links provided by his opponents, how that works in their minds has been explained extremely well by former young earth creationist Glenn Morton): here you have an example of a paleontological study among the tens of thousands other ones showing how paleontology is actually performed and achieved. I choose an old study by Philip Gingerich on cetacean evolution, featuring Pakicetus, the proto-cetacean Heisonear also mentioned.

In this study Gingerich provides extremely detailed observational evidence of the inner ear of Pakicetus, which demonstrates Pakicetus, cladistically spoken, was a cetacean. Because you can tell cetaceans apart from all other animals due to the anatomical feats that are unique for them- you know. the traits that make them "cetacean". Pakicetus possesses such traits that are unique for cetaceans. On the other hand, later, marine cetaceans like Dorudon, Basilosaurus. Ambulucetus and the other ones Heisonear neatly showed in his pic, also clearly possess typical anatomical attributes that are only found in artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates like Pakicetus, which unambiguously also was an artiodactyl). There are, literally, hundreds of detailed, observational studies on (fossil and extant) cetaceans like Gingerich' one spelling out the morphological evidence for that.

Further evidence we have from DNA: of all extant animals living now, the one that resembles cetaceans genetically most is hippopotamus, a land animal, artiodactyl and - surprise! - a semi-aquatic animal.

But let's go back to the cesspool of lies and deceit.]

There is also a lesson to be taught here in decent and honest debating.
When you dispute the position of your opponents, you provide arguments and when necessary observational evidence.

Here we are not in the Babble School or some seance on Sunday with people waving their hands into the air while repeating mantras endlessly.

Here, back on earth and on a debate forum, you are obliged to back up your claims.

So you say that there are zero fossils showing step by step morphological changes between distinctly different creatures? That's weird because I read such studies almost on a daily basis. They count into the tens of thousands.

Let's have such one, SHALL WE? In this post I enumerate the observational evidence for Dorudon being transitional fossils (plural, there are several specimens excavated). It's by far complete but only a very crude summary of all the observational evidence, so should have no problems addressing them with your extensive knowledge of paleontology.

[The Great Dodging has started. What you now will experience is dodging, ducking, evading, red herrings, strawmen and "La, la, la, f@ck you, didn't read that".]

I also noticed how deafening silent you are on my posts and thread about the fossils.
Yes, I do not understand paleontology, because I do not rely on systems to classify fossils that are based on conjecture. A systematic presentation of macro-assemblages of fossils - without one sequence presented that does not require conjecture.

You take macro-assemblages as proof that they present evolution.

Read your conjecture based post above presenting "insert conjecture-based conclusions here" in numerous places.

Why? It is clear, there are no fossils inbetween the macro-assemblages that show the evolution has taken place.

20180825_201726.jpg


The above illustration of Cetacea are a macro-assemblage of fossils, not an illustration presenting morphological evolution in detail.

And this goes back to my first post requesting the sequences of fossils between lifeforms that shows evolution.

Was that clear?

Where are the fossils between the macro-assemblages presented.

You know, the fossils between Amublocidae to Remingtonocidae to Protoceidae that shows one evolving into the other, without conjecture based claims?

I'm waiting. Not for conjecture pushed and claimed science. For evidence that proves evolution has occurred.
 
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Site Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟201,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You know he’s going to.......... He thinks that we have to point to the specific fossil individual who was .................. Without understanding that genetics fills the tiny gap between Artiodactyla and cetaceans and did so years before we found a lot of the whale fossils.
In your reply "tiny gap" illustrates the conjecture evolutionists stand on.

In this case you state the conjecture is "tiny".

Who says tiny? And who faces up to all the other conjecture, emphased as tiny or minor .........?

So far I find on CF people not facing up the how evolution has hit a brick wall of missing evidence. That evolution is based on conjecture, not fossil record proof.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Let's stick to what the fossil record actually presents verses what evolutionists claim.

This is a thread about such.
Good luck with that!

Without conjectures and unsupported claims they have no morphological evidence..... without those missing links there is no links...
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Yes, I do not understand paleontology, because I do not rely on systems to classify fossils that are based on conjecture. A systematic presentation of macro-assemblages of fossils - without one sequence presented that does not require conjecture.

You take macro-assemblages as proof that they present evolution.

Read your conjecture based post above presenting "insert conjecture-based conclusions here" in numerous places.

Why? It is clear, there are no fossils inbetween the macro-assemblages that show the evolution has taken place.

View attachment 240015

The above illustration of Cetacea are a macro-assemblage of fossils, not an illustration presenting morphological evolution in detail.

And this goes back to my first post requesting the sequences of fossils between lifeforms that shows evolution.

Was that clear?

Where are the fossils between the macro-assemblages presented.

You know, the fossils between Amublocidae to Remingtonocidae to Protoceidae that shows one evolving into the other, without conjecture based claims?

I'm waiting. Not for conjecture pushed and claimed science. For evidence that proves evolution has occurred.
The discoverers of the claimed whale evolution have already admitted the fossils do not show what they present them as showing.





Can’t trust them to talk about facts, they prefer their fantasies....
 
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟166,950.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Quote mining legitimate paleontologists on tempest in a teapot quibbles Is a waste of time . I don’t care what they said because the gaps in the fossil record are filled in by genetics. Talk is cheap evidence is everything . Despite your persistent And somewhat bizarre contrarianism , common descent was demonstrated very well by Darwin and Wallace. You’re 150 years out of date
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟177,504.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Quote mining legitimate paleontologists on tempest in a teapot quibbles Is a waste of time . I don’t care what they said because the gaps in the fossil record are filled in by genetics. Talk is cheap evidence is everything . Despite your persistent And somewhat bizarre contrarianism , common descent was demonstrated very well by Darwin and Wallace. You’re 150 years out of date
No one believes that. Even Darwin was waiting for the millions of half formed intermediaries to be found and allowed for the fact if they were not, it would falsify his theory...

In your minds you simply lying won’t let it be falsified, even when it has....
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You need to show fossil record distinctions above Genus lifeforms.

LOL!

Hysterical!

OK, expert - you need to show flatware distinctions above the level of spoon...

AV has several recent post stating clarifying: Kind = Genus



Cool.

You just sunk your fake ark.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Do you need more study of fossils to open your eyes to facts verses conjecture?
Project much?

Still waiting for you to explain why mammals with flippers have internal skeletal structure nearly indistinguishable from terrestrial mammals.

Oh - you didn't know?? Abeka books don't tell you about that?
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Can’t trust them to talk about facts, they prefer their fantasies....

Like Asian+African = Afro-Asian, and all races are made via hybridization despite you not knowing how the Asian and the African arose in the first place?

Say - please bring up the "genetic strand" again, won't you?

That was a great example of how creationists use keyword searches without understanding what they find in the returns. It was HILARIOUS!
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So what are the actual, observational actual details that make paleontologists decide that whales and other cetaceans like dolphins come from land and evolved from land artiodactyls?

But for that I would lke to take Dorudon rather than Indohyus and Ambulocetus as the video does.

Dorudon was a cetacean that lived in the Eocene. Beyond any doubt it was a marine animal, you can tell this from its streamlined body shape.

First of all, let's examine why paleontologist find that early cetaceans like Dorudon (or Ambulocetus for that matter) are mammals. You can tell from anatomy, DNA, physiology and behavior, like:
  • they breath through lungs, not gills
  • females produce milk to feed their newborns
  • specifically they belong to the placental animals (and not to the marsupials or monotremes)
  • they give live birth
  • the inner ear anatomy (mammalian middle ears contain three tiny bones known as the ossicles: malleus, incus, and stapes and this threefold structure is unique in the animal kingdom, so paleontologist may only find a fossil part of the skull and they can tell it belongs to a mammal)
  • they are warm-blooded
  • they propel through the water by up/down instead like fish left/right movement of the spine (unlike, for instance, reptiles, these still move around the way fish do by a left/right undulation)
  • and some hundreds of other traits that link them to mammals.
Note: the traits above are mostly unique to mammals but there are some individual exceptions, for instance, live birth is also observed in other non-mammal species like some sharks but it is the total picture of hundreds of traits that make the point (and of course especially telling concerning traits are certainly unique for mammals).

But the most telling trait that binds cetaceans to the mammals is their genetic make-up: of all animals living on earth, the one that resembles cetaceans genetically most by DNA comparison, is hippopotamus, an artiodactyl. Not all too surprisingly, hippopotamus is a semi-aquatic land animal.

And here are the details about the anatomical evidence for cetaceans being artiodactyls:
  • the double pulley joints anatomy of the ankle, a trait unique for artiodactyls (mentioned in the video)
  • a hooked knob pointing up towards the leg bones in the astralagus, unique for artiodactyls (also mentioned in the video).
To make the evidence complete, the next step is to prove that Dorudon (after all it's an extinct animal so we only have its fossils to establish this) should be classified as a cetacean:
  • alignment of the upper incisors with the cheek teeth (typical for cetaceans)
  • the nostril is not in the tip of the snout but has travelled halfway its head (the blowhole in whales)
  • the ear region is surrounded by a bony wall (the thickened involucrum mentioned in the video)
  • reduced pelvis and hind limb size (I come back to this!)
  • particular structure of the tympanic bone
  • the anatomy of the teeth...
… and a few other traits that are unique for cetaceans.

But the most telling evidence for cetaceans having evolved from land animals are the pesky hind limbs of Dorudon.

Dorudons and also another later, extinct cetacean, Basilosaur (mentioned in the video), have fully developed hind limbs, attached to a pelvis and, another specimen (both linked examples are of the species Dorudon atrox).

Those hind limbs were still fully developed according to basic amniote anatomy. Amniotes, meaning "membrane surrounding the fetus", are a clade of tetrapod ("four footed") vertebrates comprising the reptiles, birds, and mammals that lay their eggs on land or retain the fertilized egg within the mother, both of which are made possible by the membrane - the anamniotes like fish and amphibians don't have such a membrane and need to lay their eggs in water. Amniotes can lay their eggs on the dry land which enlarges their habitats greatly.

The typical amniote hind leg anatomy is:
  • femur including patella
  • fibula and tibia
  • tarsals and metatarsals
  • digits
  • neatly attached to a pelvis.
But perky those hind limbs were indeed:
  • first of all, they were extremely small for such rather large animal (Dorudon was ~ 5 meters tall and weighted some 2 tons). The size of Dorudon’s hind limbs was about a modern housecat’s ones. I don’t think an animal that long and heavy could have walked with such small hind limbs
  • but, moreover, the pelvis was detached from its spinal cord. You just can’t walk with hind limbs detached from the spinal cord
  • also much of the ankle bones and carpals were fused as well, again making walking impossible.
Now the next, profound question here is: what was a full-blown marine animal doing with fully developed, amniote type of hind limbs which were detached from the spinal cord and too small for such a large animal and whose ankle bones and carpals were fused, making walking entirely impossible. In other words, what was a fully marine animals, that used front flippers and a tail fluke for propelling, doing with hind limbs in the first place but also ones it couldn’t walk with?

Well, it's because those hind limbs are vestiges and point out to the terrestial origine of cetaceans.

It's immediately here important to tell that vestiges are not necessarily functionless. The vestigial pelvises in cetaceans still in some species attach to the male sexual organs. That indicates some function (a kind of anker of the penis). I don't believe it is but let's say it actually does. That still makes the cetacean hind legs and pelvises vestiges:
  • it's still vestigial since the pelvis isn't doing "pelvis things" like providing a joint for leg bones, and anchor points for leg and back muscles
  • the "function" it still may have for sexual reproduction is that it's attached to the penis via a ligament. It actually is useless in females (and I add that in all vertebrates the sexual organs are fixed to the pelvis, so this might as well count as evidence for evolution)
  • the femur often in modern whales isn't attached to anything or the pelvis is even entirely lacking. So how are in these species the males performing?
  • some dolphins have gotten rid of it entirely and have any pelvis or hind leg structure left at all and still manage to reproduce. Which is typical of vestigial structures, they are sometimes completely absent in some individuals, some humans don't have wisdom teeth, for example.
Now why did cetaceans end up in the oceans. We have a good explanation for that: cetaceans evolved in the aftermath of the demise of the non-avian dinosaurs. These were wiped out ~65 millions of years ago mostly due to an asteroide impact (that also caused numerous other groeps of animals to go extinct).

Among those extinct dinosaurs there were species living in the oceans in the same ecological niches cetaceans today dwell. So when those dinosaurs went extinct, they left niches open to be occupied.

Moreover also on land mammals were capturing the open niches left by the extinct dinosaurs. This is called the mammalian radiation because it happened rather fast. This might have caused severe competition for food and habitat among those, especially in estuaria, river deltas or coast line, where a lot of food is found. Apart from finding open niches in the oceans, the early cetaceans also were escaping fierce competition on land by conquering the oceans or even the threat by predators.


Too many science words. If this is not ignored, it will replied to with another assertion about "conjectures" and/or some irrelevant bible verses.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
There are zero fossils showing step by step morphological changes between distinctly different creatures.

There are zero fossils showing step by step morphological changes between a normal parent and their achondroplastic child.

There are zero fossils showing step by step morphological changes between distinctly different descendants of created Kinds.

In your silly desperation to prop up ancient numerologists' tales, you've sunk your ark and you don't even seem to realize it.

There are at least 5 genera in the Elephantidae. Each elephantid genus has/had at least several species/subspecies within it.

A typical elephant eats and drinks enough food and water that a single breeding pair from each genus on the ark would require nearly 1/3 of the entire internal volume of the ark for food and water storage.

Hope that gaping bullet wound in your foot heals soon...
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
that works for religions . Misrepresentation and /or misunderstandings of science causes accidents famines or deaths .

Accidents, famines, and 'deaths' are part of the natural order. We are so vastly overpopulated thanks mainly to science that when we crash it will be horrendous. :eek:
 
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟166,950.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
No one believes that. Even Darwin was waiting for the millions of half formed intermediaries to be found and allowed for the fact if they were not, it would falsify his theory...

In your minds you simply lying won’t let it be falsified, even when it has....
if you had actually read OOS , Darwin wasnt looking for those millions of intermediates because he understood that fossilization was a rare process. A 19th century man with a new science process and only detailed anatomical information understands more than a 21st century creationist who was supposed to learn this in middle school and who also has been spoon-fed information that took real researchers decades to figure out.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟166,950.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Accidents, famines, and 'deaths' are part of the natural order. We are so vastly overpopulated thanks mainly to science that when we crash it will be horrendous. :eek:
science makes birth control possible too. But some fundies want to make it as difficult as possible for a woman to plan her family.

When it’s your family that dies from defective manufacturing because of poor science information, I promise I won’t rub it in, even though it would be due to creationists interfering with a decent science education
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,977
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,242.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
science makes birth control possible too. But some fundies want to make it as difficult as possible for a woman to plan her family.

The Christian west (where the fundies are) aren't the problem. In fact we are soon to be a minority ethnically as our birthrate has plummeted to below replacement levels in many places.

When it’s your family that dies from defective manufacturing because of poor science information, I promise I won’t rub it in, even though it would be due to creationists interfering with a decent science education

Creationists may disagree with the teaching of evolution but they hardly interfere with it. Anyway serious science courses are electives anyway. No one pays good money for a science class then protests what is being taught.
 
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟166,950.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The Christian west (where the fundies are) aren't the problem. In fact we are soon to be a minority ethnically as our birthrate has plummeted to below replacement levels in many places.



Creationists may disagree with the teaching of evolution but they hardly interfere with it. Anyway serious science courses are electives anyway. No one pays good money for a science class then protests what is being taught.
they’re always interfering with the teaching of science . And it’s not just evolution, they interfere with teaching all of these: the Big Bang, the age of the earth, the age of the universe, global warming . On a government level they interfere with funding for research and they refuse to acknowledge science based problems
 
Upvote 0