- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,976
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
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.
So unless the police SEE THE CRIME, and even then they have to see the bullet at every single gradation of space from the gun to the victim, then we must assume that the alleged shooter is INNOCENT?
You see, in any science of a forensic nature you have to make the best hypothesis from the data at hand. So when you see:
you can infer quite a bit.
Or when you see this:
You can draw some conclusions.
Common design, common designer.
One of which is basically that: if I wish to go across the street I must first travel halfway across the street. But to get to that point I must first travel halfway to that point, but in order to get to that point I must first travel halfway to that point which would, in the end, result in an infinite number of tasks making it impossible to achieve my goal.
This is how Creationists see evolution. Unless they can be shown the infinite number of points along the line then surely it must not be true.
This is why if a Creationist demands a transition fossil be shown between animal 1 and animal 2 then all you've done is provide the creationist with two more demands they will make for transitional fossils. And so on and so-forth.
But this is what must happen for evolution to proceed. Just the ability to open and close one's hand requires an uncountable number of evolutionary processes. Every cell of muscle, bone, and nerve must evolve to accomodate every minute movement. Even the movements themselves have to evolve from some need to do so. The need to grasp, feel, etc.
Walking across the street requires that each step, if only slightly different from the one before it requires that it evolve according to that need. Science admits that it would require a computer as large as a warehouse to enable robots even a rudimentary menu of hand movements that we use every hour. The example I read was that of randomly 'brushing away a fly', which would require so much computing power as to be unattainable.
The utter impossibility of it is staggeringly obvious.
The only way 'evolution' is remotely possible is to replace it with the theory of 'metamorphosis', where a species goes to sleep and wakes up an entirely different critter.
So, at first the 2000lb glyptodons were being eaten by something, but the 1900lb glyptodons managed to escape. That pattern repeated, from 1900lb to 1800lb. Then from 1800lb to 1700lb. . . .then 300lb to 200lb. . . 100lb to 70lb. Also during that time the head went from 'round' to 'pointed', the spine went from fused to flexible, the armor became hinged, and many more skeletal features changed. Do you know if there are fossils of the progression of the glyptodon going from 2000lbs to 10lbs along with the associated skeletal changes?
It should also follow that before the glyptodon became 2,000lbs, there should too be a progression from a small glyptodon like creatuee (ie before the 2000lb glyptodon evolved). In other words, what was a glyptodon before it became a glyptodon?
I know you're not Google, but I do appreciate the link. I'm still not clear, so hopefully if it's not too much trouble you can just put the answer. The link says that the glyptodon and the panocthus are ancient and looked similar to an armadillo, although they were the size of a car and heavily armored while a modern armadillo is small and lightly armored. Obviously a glyptodon didn't give birth to an armadillo. To me, the implication is that over millions of years the glyptodon got smaller and smaller and retained less and less armor as it evolved into an armadillo? Is that right?
Common design, common designer.
No, it's not.
Glyptodonts are another family of armadillo-like beings that evolved from an Urarmadillo species that was the basal Cingulata.
Cingulata evolved from an UrXenarthan species that was probably shrew like - this is a very ancient placental mammalian lineage - and over time developed into armodillos, anteaters and sloths.
Xenarthra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Of course there are insect eating and armored mammals that share characteristics with armodillos (and for anteaters), but Aardvarks and Pangolins actually share more characteristics with Africotheres and Laurasiatheres respectively.
Ad hoc argument. Rejected for having no explanaory value.
satan can age the matter, moreover it can turn out that the method of dating of (the) fossils is incorrect
Blessings
Common design, common designer.
But this is what must happen for evolution to proceed. Just the ability to open and close one's hand requires an uncountable number of evolutionary processes. Every cell of muscle, bone, and nerve must evolve to accomodate every minute movement. Even the movements themselves have to evolve from some need to do so. The need to grasp, feel, etc.
Science admits that it would require a computer as large as a warehouse to enable robots even a rudimentary menu of hand movements that we use every hour.
The example I read was that of randomly 'brushing away a fly', which would require so much computing power as to be unattainable.
The utter impossibility of it is staggeringly obvious.
The only way 'evolution' is remotely possible is to replace it with the theory of 'metamorphosis', where a species goes to sleep and wakes up an entirely different critter.
Interesting Hypothesis. What Evidence do you have for any instance of Satan Falsely aging matter in this way?
Common design, common designer.
But this is what must happen for evolution to proceed. Just the ability to open and close one's hand requires an uncountable number of evolutionary processes. Every cell of muscle, bone, and nerve must evolve to accomodate every minute movement. Even the movements themselves have to evolve from some need to do so. The need to grasp, feel, etc.
Walking across the street requires that each step, if only slightly different from the one before it requires that it evolve according to that need. Science admits that it would require a computer as large as a warehouse to enable robots even a rudimentary menu of hand movements that we use every hour. The example I read was that of randomly 'brushing away a fly', which would require so much computing power as to be unattainable.
The utter impossibility of it is staggeringly obvious.
The only way 'evolution' is remotely possible is to replace it with the theory of 'metamorphosis', where a species goes to sleep and wakes up an entirely different critter.
I agree that evolution lacks evidence, but metamorphosis lacks even more. We've seen animals change over time, but give me one example of a lifeform completely changing instantly.
I agree that evolution lacks evidence, but metamorphosis lacks even more. We've seen animals change over time, but give me one example of a lifeform completely changing instantly.
Interesting Hypothesis. What Evidence do you have for any instance of Satan Falsely aging matter in this way?
But the beauty of geologic history is we have a LOT of time to work with, we have self-replicating life forms, and we have external filters to weed out maladaptive features.
If he did he got it wrong. ToE has nothing to say about either.Just today (on PBS) Dawkins revealed that two notable things are still a mystery to science; how life began, and , how self-replicating cells work. He went on to say that these two unknowns are the foundation of all evolutionary biology.
the main evidence is the fact how the "darkness" induces unfavorable aging to the: humans, animals, plants, and many materials, you know how the purchased fruits and vegetables decay, how many materials decompose, for example, how the paper becomes yellow and after hundreds of years brown, etc., in the Bible this phenomenon is called "death"
Blessings
No one else is, seeing as cyanobacteria didn't evolve into humansSince cyanobacteria-to-man evolution cannot be daisy-chained, then I'm not interested in cyanobacteria-to-man evolution.
Not particularly well-versed in giraffe phylogeny, but Wikipedia seems to have a decent summary here.So science has no idea what evolved into a glyptodon, what a glyptodon evolved into, or what evolved into an armadillo? Fair enough, at least it was worth exploring since an evolutionist posted a link that implied that a glyptodon evolved into an armadillo.
Are there any modern animals that science knows with certainty what it was before it evolved into what it is? Are there any extinct animals that science knows with certainty what it evolved from before it became the extinct animal? How about a giraffe?
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?