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 assume the pic @Jimmy D failed at was an attempt at pretending he's smart without actually providing an actual argument.
Yes. And one side uses logic, reason, and scientific principles when interpreting the evidence. The other side spins it so it comports with their religious beliefs.I think the misconception here is that we are both looking at the same evidence. The only difference is the interpretation of the evidence.
No, you really didn't.Fixed it for you.
No, it wasn't.Genesis was created by Semitic men,
You want to show me these other 15 specimens of the tikaalik?
Outside of the doctrine of inspiration unbiased minds can see the errors, edits and common sense inconsistencies of Genesis. Observation of the facts within the fossil record, apart from the transitional fossil debate, discredits the Israelites story of their origins. The “gentile dogs” have quite a long history of their own.No, it wasn't.
I don't see what the evolutionary predictive powers demonstration is here.
It is making the claim that if the theory of evolution were true, then there must have been a "transitional form" linking men coming from fish (well, whoop-dee-doo. Stating the obvious).
However, the claim here is that this tiktaalik was that link, yet it it was pretty much debunked years ago as another hoax.
They found bones and not even a complete set, just the skull and a heavily fragmented half of its body.
Evolutionists imagined the tiktaalik to having "fin feet". The reconstruction of the tikaalik was mostly out of preconceived speculations.
The reason why most "smart" evolutionists stay away from the tikaalik, is because they found fossilised tracks of a tetrapod creature millions of years older than the tikaalik. Why are these evolutionary "predictive powers" so commonly wrong?
Sure, go ahead. But this time, use your own knowledge on the subject rather than just parroting what others say.
That's ..... strange. The post is quite clear.
Up until Tiktaalik's find, no such creature was known to exist. Not extant, not in the fossil record.
And then, based purely on evolution theory and evolutionary history, scientists predicted not only what features such a creature would have, but also where it would be found.
How could they ever be able to do that succesfully, if evolution is false???
Considering that they indeed have found exactly the fossil they expected to find, how is that not fossil evidence FOR evolution?
Yes, stating the obvious. What is also obvious, is that if evolution is false, then such fossils shouldn't exist. But they do exist. Not only do they exist, they are found by prediction. In the exact place, the exact depth, the exact rock and with the exact features that the prediction stated it would be. And there it was.
How do you explain that, if evolution is false?
You think tiktaalik is a hoax?
Which was enough to confirm it had all the features predicted it should have. You also seem unaware that more then one specimen has been found since then...
Also, didn't you just say it was a hoax?
Sounds like you are confused. Or heavily in denial.
No.
You seem to be thinking that it is claimed that the first fossil Tiktaalik was literally the first animal on land (as in, that specific individual). This is off course nonsense. It belonged to a species that already existed at the time that individual died and turned into a fossil. By that time, such fish/tetrapod creatures roamed the earth already.
But all this is besides the point anyway.
You seem to not be getting the important bit here...............
Which is that scientists predicted the finding of a specific fossil, with specific features, in a specific location... that was never found before - not in the fossil record, not in extant life.
And when they went to that spot and started digging, they found it.
In the right place. At the right depth. In the right rock. With the right features.
If evolution is false, then how come it can be used to predict the exact location and feature set of previously unknown fossils (or life forms, for that matter)????
@KomatiiteBIF is actually a scientist who studies these things for a living. Why would I, as a layman, bring my own examples in my own words while there are other people here who are a lot more knowledgeable on this stuff and far less likely to making mistakes due to ignorance?
I'll stick to the Tiktaalik example, which - in all honesty - you haven't actually addressed at all.
You called it a "hoax" and spouted some off topic objections.
Meanwhile, you are ignoring the elephant in the room... That this fossil was found by prediction based on evolution theory.
I dont think people quite understand how improbable such a discovery would be, if evolution were not true.
It would be like taking a dart board, the size of planet earth, and blindly throwing a dart at it, and coming up with a fossil that you predicted would be there.
The researchers literally took a helicopter to the abyssal canadian tundra, and went to shallow marine rock of prehistoric meandering streams of the mid devonian, and found precisely what one would expect to be there, if evolution were true.
And if it were all false, it should be so easy for deniers to find something like, an ordovician tiktaalik, or a silurian or cambrian tiktaalik. It it were all false, it should be easy for deniers to find paleozoic mammals or birds, or early devonian reptiles or reptiles in any rock superpositionally prior to that.
I think the initial issue here is that a lot of deniers just dont understand geology. And so they read about this stuff and they just have no idea what it means.
Tiktaalik also has published descriptions on gill ridges by at least a couple researchers.
"The elongate and robust ceratobranchials in Tiktaalik extend into the gill chamber and bear a deep, longitudinal vascular sulcus along their ventral surfaces that is indicative of well-developed gills29."
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04639#ref29
So, it really does have both fish and tetrapod features. It has its flat head, much like a salamander or a crocodile, with the eyes on top for seeing above water. Spiracles indicating that it could breathe air, gills for breathing underwater (which some modern day amphibians can breath in both air and water), robust ribs and a robust pectoral girdle, its neck is unfused so it could turn its head. These are things that fish dont have except for the gills.
But it also has fins, scales and gills. These are fish features. Its lower jaw is morphologically fish-like.
Are you a paleontologist? A scientist?Provide an example of why fossils are evidence for the theory of evolution, and I'll show you why I disregard it on grounds it's not built on testable models.
I don't see what the evolutionary predictive powers demonstration is here.
...this tiktaalik was that link, yet it it was pretty much debunked years ago as another hoax.
Not as convenient as the fact that creationists are unable to produce any physical evidence for their claims at all, and then hide behind 'faith.'
Apparently neither do you.
Scientists interpret the evidence.
Creationists just ignore the evidence.
Creationists ignore all that and just wave their bibles instead.
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?