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.
I don't personally agree with the geological time scale.Do you agree that there is a general progression in the characteristics of horses over the geological time? Particularly in regard to the leg?
With the minor exception that they're not complete horses at all. They're 'horse-ish'. And they're exactly what we'd expect.Ya know, 15 million years is a long time. Horses that are dated 15 million years apart say very little about transition, especially when each horse looks like a complete horse.
So, that's exactly what we'd expectOne can interpret this as different species of horse existing in different geological times. So what?
Indeed... different species and different genera of "horse" living during different geological times (some actually lived at the same times, though probably none in the diagram). So, what is the explanation for this? Why are all (not most, all) of the older horses browsers rather than grass-grazers? Where did the tall, fast-running grazing horses come from?Ya know, 15 million years is a long time. Horses that are dated 15 million years apart say very little about transition, especially when each horse looks like a complete horse. One can interpret this as different species of horse existing in different geological times. So what?
So it shows a transition in numbers of toes as well as length of the leg, over time. We call this "evolution."I don't personally agree with the geological time scale.
But for the sake of argument, yes. And again I ask, so what?
Legs that are 15 million years apart says very little about transition.
Different species of legs existing in different geological times 15 million years apart. So What?
Wow! Somebody revived a thread I made THREE YEARS AGO! How did they even find it?
You're welcome --Wow! Somebody revived a thread I made THREE YEARS AGO! How did they even find it?
Anyone know what microevolution and macroevolution is?Micro natural changes within the same species,macro completely different species from another{such as monkey into human},No such thing has ever been proven,in fact just the opposite.Harold C.Urey{a nobel prize scientist}said that evolution in the scientific communityis a kind of religious belief rather than a logical analysis of scientific facts.In fact all the scientists Darwin tried to feed his lies to laughed in his face.Read :A Biological Challenge to Evolution.They dont put the truth in our childrens text books.
Anyone know what microevolution and macroevolution is?
Micro natural changes within the same species,macro completely different species from another{such as monkey into human},No such thing has ever been proven,in fact just the opposite.Harold C.Urey{a nobel prize scientist}said that evolution in the scientific communityis a kind of religious belief rather than a logical analysis of scientific facts.
In fact all the scientists Darwin tried to feed his lies to laughed in his face.
Read :A Biological Challenge to Evolution.They dont put the truth in our childrens text books.
Then why are we sometimes referred to as 'glorified apes'?Also, monkey's never turned into humans, we merely evolved from the same ancestors.
(Psssst... monkeys aren't apes.)
And so the theory goes. Reality doesn't.Macroevolution is just the sum of alot of microevolution, that's all.
Big changes in the minds of evolutionists, but not in the world of reality. It has never been observed. Only inferred. In other words, assumed.Lots of small changes over the course of time, equals big a big change. Simple.
Scientists apply no skepticism and no standards to evolution whereas an impossibly strict standard is applied to all evidence that contradicts evolution.You do seem to apply one standard to science and another to the bible. Why?
Big changes in the minds of evolutionists, but not in the world of reality. It has never been observed. Only inferred. In other words, assumed.
Anyone know what microevolution and macroevolution is?Micro natural changes within the same species,macro completely different species from another{such as monkey into human},No such thing has ever been proven,in fact just the opposite.Harold C.Urey{a nobel prize scientist}said that evolution in the scientific communityis a kind of religious belief rather than a logical analysis of scientific facts.In fact all the scientists Darwin tried to feed his lies to laughed in his face.Read :A Biological Challenge to Evolution.They dont put the truth in our childrens text books.
Scientists apply no skepticism and no standards to evolution whereas an impossibly strict standard is applied to all evidence that contradicts evolution.
AV, you don't seem to apply any critical standards to the bible at all. How do you account for this?
We share common ancestor as has been pointed out.Anyone know what microevolution and macroevolution is?Micro natural changes within the same species,macro completely different species from another{such as monkey into human}
Not exactly do you know what quote mining is? Urey was talking about origin of life research not evolution.,No such thing has ever been proven,in fact just the opposite.Harold C.Urey{a nobel prize scientist}said that evolution in the scientific communityis a kind of religious belief rather than a logical analysis of scientific facts.
Some scientists did not accept evolution many did as Split Rock has pointed out. Interesting another scientist of the time Alfred Russel Wallace proposed a very similar theory by the time Darwin published origin of species. Thomas Huxley was such an ardent defender of evolution that he became known as Darwin's Bulldog. On the other hand Agassiz and some others never accepted evolution through natural selection. Still your statement is false. I see you are new here. If you keep posting you can expect statements to be fact checked. You might want to fact check claims yourself before repeating them from some creationist publication or website.In fact all the scientists Darwin tried to feed his lies to laughed in his face.Read :A Biological Challenge to Evolution.They dont put the truth in our childrens text books.
"Horse-ish"?With the minor exception that they're not complete horses at all. They're 'horse-ish'. And they're exactly what we'd expect.
"Horse-ish"?
If evolution is still an ongoing process then this horse-ish transition is still ongoing and what we call a horse is really still a horse-ish.
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?