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 if it will made only from wood you will not call it a watch?What you showed a picture of IS a watch, since it shows obviously manufactured parts: leather, plastic, metal, radium.
What you are suggesting would not be a watch. It would be LIKE a watch, but it wouldn't BE a watch.
Yes, and if there was any evidence that specifically indicated a designer or that the designer actually exists, then it would be sensible to consider that hypothesis? Do you have any?
What's happened is that evolution has put in a 'fix', but the theoretical capability of a better eye design is ... better.
That the human eye compensates for design flaws does not stop those flaws being flaws in the first place. The complexities of the human eye – from the blind spot and macula to focused and peripheral vision | ZEISS United Kingdom
No, a "spinning motor" is not evidence of design. Only a spinning motor which shows evidence of manufacture is evidence of design.Do you agree that a spinning motor is evidence for design or not?
so if it will made only from wood you will not call it a watch?
Well made an assumption that he was showing a series of skulls that were supposed to show a transition from ancient man to modern man.Take a closer look at the series of skulls you declared as "human".
Well made an assumption that he was showing a series of skulls that were supposed to show a transition from ancient man to modern man.
If there were monkey skulls in there then I'm afraid he failed to show transition from monkey to man if that was his point. There are no transitional fossils.
Well made an assumption that he was showing a series of skulls that were supposed to show a transition from ancient man to modern man.
If there were monkey skulls in there then I'm afraid he failed to show transition from monkey to man if that was his point.
There are no transitional fossils.
Are you referring to evolution in general or to human evolution? You are going to have to be more specific than just "one creature into something else." Take, for example, the series from eohippus to the modern horse, which is reasonably complete. Does that constitute transition from "one kind of creature into somthing else?"
Actually in this case it's not, because he made a claim the fossils were evidence of transition. They are are not they are just fossils. He was claiming they showed evolutionary transition.An argument from ignorance is no argument at all. It just shows your own ignorance.
Who are you talking about?Actually in this case it's not, because he made a claim the fossils were evidence of transition. They are are not they are just fossils. He was claiming they showed evolutionary transition.
Actually in this case it's not, because he made a claim the fossils were evidence of transition. They are are not they are just fossils. He was claiming they showed evolutionary transition.
There is a difference between ignorance and misundertanding. If you can't see that then I can't help you.
By the way, were there monkey skulls in that?
Which ones were claimed to be monkey and which were claimed to be human? All that the picture shows is a bunch of skulls with a letter beside them. It doesn't show transition at all.
Hmm... Youre right about assumptions. I did assume. But that's kinda like the pot calling the kettle black since that's what evolution is, which is nothing but a bunch of assumptions.Well you know what they say about assumptions. It just made an ass out of you and umption.
What do you mean "if"? One of those skulls was a chimp skull (and pretty obvious at that). The fact you didn't do anything more than glance at the image before declaring all those skulls as "human" invalidates anything you say about their origin.
It also doesn't address the issue that other creationists are also completely divided about their respective origins with little to no consensus.
Transitional fossils are by definition fossils that have intermediary characteristics between multiple taxa. These fossils exist and are real, physical objects. By claiming "are no transitional fossils", you are denying the physical existence of those fossils.
What evidence? A picture with a bunch of skulls is not evidence of anything.Actually, in this case and in all of the cases where you claim there are no transitional fossils, you are very much mistaken. You are fully guilty of ignoring the evidence presented to you.
Hmm... Youre right about assumptions. I did assume. But that's kinda like the pot calling the kettle black since that's what evolution is, which is nothing but a bunch of assumptions.
So please take that picture of the skulls and show the transition step by step please and provide evidence of the steps. I bet you find plenty of assumptions in that.
What evidence? A picture with a bunch of skulls is not evidence of anything.
Well I obviously don't think a chimp skull is human. In fact the skulls you showed don't have any listed identifiers at all. But go ahead with your reasoning if you wish. But you know for a fact that since I am a creationist I don't believe a chimp is a human and don't have the the same ancestor. So go ahead and misrepresent a misunderstanding all you want if it make you feel better.Oh, I know better than to try to engage you on this, since all you'll do is respond with blanket denialism. It's a waste of time to engage on you on this. You've already made up your mind and that's perfectly fine.
I just wanted to point out that you think a chimp skull is a human. Which is what you inadvertently claimed without even realizing it, and consequently invalidates the claims you made about that series of skulls.
Clearly? It's a picture. It doesn't show anything of the sort. Please take each skull and show evidence of it's transition into the next skull and so on.The photo clearly shows skulls transitioning, changing, from early basal form humanoids to modern day humans.
Again, just because you choose to ignore what the photos show does not mean that the evidence goes away.
Well I obviously don't think a chimp skull is human.
In fact the skulls you showed don't have any listed identifiers at all. But go ahead with your reasoning if you wish. But you know for a fact that since I am a creationist I don't believe a chimp is a human and don't have the the same ancestor. So go ahead and misrepresent a misunderstanding all you want if it make you feel better.
Clearly? It's a picture. It doesn't show anything of the sort. Please take each skull and show evidence of it's transition into the next skull and so on.
he cant since its only a skull. actually some skulls are very similar to each other but arent related at all:Clearly? It's a picture. It doesn't show anything of the sort. Please take each skull and show evidence of it's transition into the next skull and so on.
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?