Human Evolution

[anyathesword]

Doesn't matter. Scientists don't use those artist renderings to classify organisms. That's purely for the public's benefit.

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The public sees these drawings, not realizing in fact that it is made up and not supported completely by the fossil bones!!!

So what do they believe?

 

[anyathesword]

Does it bother you that Christian scientists are putting very little work into this? Not to mention the fact that what work there is done on defining kinds is completely autonomous. There is no collaboration at all. That's why we get different, contradictory definitions of kinds.

Sure it's hard. But frankly, I don't want to hear about how "hard" it is. Scientists are doing it with species. The research into taxonomy is incredibly extensive. Mind-bogglingly extensive, as a matter of fact.

I'm sure it is, but like I mentioned previoulsy, creationists are discriminated against and refused many oppurtinities for scientific research.

It does bother me yes, but why not give them a chance, why not work together? Because it's not possible, sadly, evolutionists just don't want to hear them.

 

[Nithavela]

Okay, awesome. Now what about the frog head and the tail?

And also, what do you think of the creationists site explanation? That this creature split up into frogs and salamanders in 4500 years.

And please don't play the victim card.

 

[46AND2]

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The public sees these drawings, not realizing in fact that it is made up and not supported completely by the fossil bones!!!

So what do they believe?

If they are properly educated, then they realize that they are artist renderings.

Do you believe Jesus looked exactly like he is depicted in modern artistry?

 

[anyathesword]

This fossil is not missing a lot, Anya. Really. One can tell a lot from it's spine and feet. Also, even if we are not able to paint a picture with certainty, we still see a creature with a frog head and a tail!

Now, could we please discuss what is there, instead of what is missing? You haven't adressed any of that, yet, and only concentrated on the things that are missing.

Ok, the head. Qon't frogs and salamanders have similar heads? I looked quickly to see each skeleton and the skulls are similar. You think so?

 

[46AND2]

I'm sure it is, but like I mentioned previoulsy, creationists are discriminated against and refused many oppurtinities for scientific research.

It does bother me yes, but why not give them a chance, why not work together? Because it's not possible, sadly, evolutionists just don't want to hear them.

I'm not talking about getting it published. I'm talking about collaborating WITH EACH OTHER to classify a "kind" taxonomy.

Conspiracy theories about peer review bias is a lame cop out. Do the research, come up with a consensus, then present that to science. And make it a BIG deal. Get the press involved, whatever you have to do to get a fair shake.

Really not that hard to figure out.

 

[anyathesword]

I'm not talking about getting it published. I'm talking about collaborating WITH EACH OTHER to classify a "kind" taxonomy.

Conspiracy theories about peer review bias is a lame cop out. Do the research, come up with a consensus, then present that to science. And make it a BIG deal. Get the press involved, whatever you have to do to get a fair shake.

Really not that hard to figure out.

And that hasn't happened? Are you sure? For me I don't know..

 

[anyathesword]

If they are properly educated, then they realize that they are artist renderings.

Do you believe Jesus looked exactly like he is depicted in modern artistry?

No I don't.

Not many especially children are not properly educated when they start Learning about evolution. And not all people are educated anyway...

 

[46AND2]

And that hasn't happened? Are you sure? For me I don't know..

If it had happened, you would know how to define kind.

 

[anyathesword]

Okay, awesome. Now what about the frog head and the tail?

And also, what do you think of the creationists site explanation? That this creature split up into frogs and salamanders in 4500 years.

And please don't play the victim card.

I DON'T KNOW!! I haven't done the research yet!!!! After I do the research, I'll let you know.

But to go back to the fossil. Do you understand what is said about the missing bones and the difficulty to interpret the locomotion of the amphibian and to assume that it is a transitional fossil?

 

[46AND2]

No I don't.

Not many especially children are not properly educated when they start Learning about evolution. And not all people are educated anyway...

But, not many people are properly educated about what Christ looked like, either, right?

 

[anyathesword]

If it had happened, you would know how to define kind.

The problem is, we weren't (the scientists) on the ark to know exaclty what 'kind' of animals were on there.

Do scientists know how to define all animals and put them in proper groups?

 

[anyathesword]

But, not many people are properly educated about what Christ looked like, either, right?

Probably not. (Many people don't even care who Jesus is)

 

[46AND2]

The problem is, we weren't (the scientists) on the ark to know exaclty what 'kind' of animals were on there.

And this is a PERFECT example of why creation science fails. You assume you can't know anything if you weren't there in history.

Do scientists know how to define all animals and put them in proper groups?

All animals? No. A large percentage of them, yes.

 

[anyathesword]

I'm not talking about getting it published. I'm talking about collaborating WITH EACH OTHER to classify a "kind" taxonomy.

Conspiracy theories about peer review bias is a lame cop out. Do the research, come up with a consensus, then present that to science. And make it a BIG deal. Get the press involved, whatever you have to do to get a fair shake.

Really not that hard to figure out.

Oh, I don't think it's possible if Evolutionists think that all animals came from each other and Creationists think they came from the ark and speciated within their kinds. That's already a problem in itself.

 

[46AND2]

Probably not. (Many people don't even care who Jesus is)

Many CHRISTIANS are not properly educated about what Jesus probably looked like. The simple fact that the modern art is probably wrong about what he looked like is testament to that.

So before you start pointing fingers about textbook drawings of evolution, you might want to consider your own circumstance.

 

[46AND2]

Oh, I don't think it's possible if Evolutionists think that all animals came from each other and Creationists think they came from the ark and speciated within their kinds. That's already a problem in itself.

Might as well not even try then, right?

 

[anyathesword]

Might as well not even try then, right?

If I was a scientist I certianly would! For the others who actually are..there seems to be a huge conflict and discrimination??

I still have no response to the missing parts to the fossil...

 

[biggles53]

Anya, you seem to have overlooked my question....

You didn't answer one word of my question....

I asked if you could admit that you might be wrong in your view...?

Is it at all possible that you might have it all wrong....?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Do scientists know how to define all animals and put them in proper groups?

Errr... there's a whole field dedicated to exactly that.
It's called taxonomy. Maybe you should look into that one of these days.