- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,281
- 8,501
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Last I spoke to him he was considering a change of priorities.
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.
BTW, whatever happened to the Alfred E. Neuman guy? He was a hoot to read!
No it was not, horse evolution was found to be more complicated than previously thought. Rather than a simple stright lineage leading directly to the modern horse Equus, it is a brancing pattern leading in multiple directions over time. Think of a tree or bush rather than a ladder.
This website focuses on the lineage leading to Equus:
Horse Evolution Over 55 Million Years
However, there are other lineages as well, where browsing horses continued to evolve and co-exist with ones evolving toward grazing like the modern horse. This website discusses all of these in some detail: Horse Evolution Here is a companion piece from the same author http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jksadegh/A%20Good%20Atheist%20Secularist%20Skeptical%20Book%20Collection/Horse%20Evolution%20-%20Kathleen%20Hunt%20-%20secure.pdf
Here's another from the American Museum of Natural History: The Horse | American Museum of Natural History
The "Creation Ministry" and "Creation sciecne" sources you have been using are LYING to you. Most creationists here don't care that they are being lied to about the science and the physical evidence, since none of it matters to them. It is all just "talking points" and a means to try and win "the debate." Perhaps as an ordained minister, you do care if you are lied to, since lying is a sin. Don't take my word for it, investigate yourself. Look at science websites and sources, not just creationist ones. Look critically at what you are being told. This is a good website to begin: Understanding Evolution
Last I spoke to him he was considering a change of priorities.
Are you saying that Ken Ham is not an idiot?
I know Ken Ham is 'not' an idiot, he is taking creationists to the cleaners every day, some might argue that creationists are easy so you don't need to be smart to do that, I think he ranks with the other 'not' idiots like Hovind, Comfort and rest of the creationist con men, all of them racking the money in, the best in American entrepreneurs.
They should all write books entitled 'How to make millions by lying to the gullible' or 'Hit them hard, low and often'.
That reminds me of a boxer who said he didn't like fighting George Foreman because every time George hit him he broke something.
He hit me so many times I thought I was surrounded.
No it was not, horse evolution was found to be more complicated than previously thought. Rather than a simple stright lineage leading directly to the modern horse Equus, it is a brancing pattern leading in multiple directions over time. Think of a tree or rather than a ladder.
This website focuses on the lineage leading
However, there are other lineages as well, where browsing horses continued to evolve and co-exist with ones evolving toward grazing like the modern horse. This website discusses all of these in some detail: Here is a companion piece from the same author
Here's another from the American Museum of Natural History:
The "Creation Ministry" and "Creation sciecne" sources you have been using are LYING to you. Most creationists here don't care that they are being lied to about the science and the physical evidence, since none of it matters to them. It is all just "talking points" and a means to try and win "the debate." Perhaps as an ordained minister, you do care if you are lied to, since lying is a sin. Don't take my word for it, investigate yourself. Look at science websites and sources, not just creationist ones. Look critically at what you are being told. This is a good website to begin:
I've been to several websites very similar to these, and I'm going to attempt to circumvent protocol, and post a link you may find enlightening if you use an open mind.www(dot)trueorigin(dot)org/isakrbtl(dot)asp its a fairly long piece, but very informative. Please by all means investigate it for yourself. It in fact discusses Ms. Hunt's piece.
I can't tell you where your misinformation (and misunderstanding) came from but you appear to be among the many who think that a coelacanth is a single species. It is an ENTIRE ORDER of creatures. (To simplify that statement for those unfamiliar with introductory biology terminology, think of a taxonomic ORDER as a group of related FAMIILIES, which in turn, each group a set of related genera, each genus of which consists of various species. That's an over-simplification but it helps illustrate how large and varied an ORDER can be.)
The "missing link" in the Wikipedia article takes one to a footnote which links to a website of unclear origins. In any case "missing link" is not a scientific term per se, though it is often hyped by journalists. And the discovery of a living coelacanth in the 1930's was in itself irrelevant to the coelacanth's evolutionary significance. (And only those ignorant of evolution think it was some kind of "strike" against evolution. Sound like anyone we know?)
The coelacanth has often been called a "living fossil" but that simply means that the first species of that taxonomic order to be discovered was a fossil find. Not until nearly a century ago was a living species of that order found in the Indian Ocean. Those who are ignorant of the fact that a coelacanth is an entire order and not just a species often pretend that coelacanths haven't changed in millions of years of evolution. They failed again.
No it was not, horse evolution was found to be more complicated than previously thought. Rather than a simple stright lineage leading directly to the modern horse Equus, it is a brancing pattern leading in multiple directions over time. Think of a tree or rather than a ladder.
This website focuses on the lineage leading
However, there are other lineages as well, where browsing horses continued to evolve and co-exist with ones evolving toward grazing like the modern horse. This website discusses all of these in some detail: Here is a companion piece from the same author
Here's another from the American Museum of Natural History:
The "Creation Ministry" and "Creation sciecne" sources you have been using are LYING to you. Most creationists here don't care that they are being lied to about the science and the physical evidence, since none of it matters to them. It is all just "talking points" and a means to try and win "the debate." Perhaps as an ordained minister, you do care if you are lied to, since lying is a sin. Don't take my word for it, investigate yourself. Look at science websites and sources, not just creationist ones. Look critically at what you are being told. This is a good website to begin:
I've been to several websites very similar to these, and I'm going to attempt to circumvent protocol, and post a link you may find enlightening if you use an open mind.www(dot)trueorigin(dot)org/isakrbtl(dot)asp its a fairly long piece, but very informative. Please by all means investigate it for yourself. It in fact discusses Ms. Hunt's piece.
Offering any scenario as a fact only to change the 'facts' is sufficient evidence to suggest that evolutionary researchers, in actual fact, have no clue.
The point you are missing Split Rock is that evolutionists cannot present one lot of 'evidences' for the evolution of horses and shove that in creationists faces and ridicule them as if they were stupid for not accepting it in the first place; and then shove another line up of 'evidences' for the evolution of horses that any creationist would be stupid to not accept and assert that creationists are the ones with the problem here.
This is what evolutionists 'undeniable evidences' for evolution amounts to...Flavour of the month passed off as convincing evidence for evolution until it is again falsified.
Offering any scenario as a fact only to change the 'facts' is sufficient evidence to suggest that evolutionary researchers, in actual fact, have no clue.
And that one quote sums up ust why no-one can have a discusson with you.Evolutionary researchers are just as much liars as you accuse creationist scientists of being.
The point you are missing Split Rock is that evolutionists cannot present one lot of 'evidences' for the evolution of horses and shove that in creationists faces and ridicule them as if they were stupid for not accepting it in the first place; and then shove another line up of 'evidences' for the evolution of horses that any creationist would be stupid to not accept and assert that creationists are the ones with the problem here.
* sigh *I believe the entire point is that evolution as a whole is unproved in its most basic concepts. Most evolutionists refuse to discuss the origin of life (never mind the origin of everything else) and instead assume the origin of life. From this basic mistake alone, the rest of evolution crumbles.
There are only two known species of coelacanths: one that lives near the Comoros Islands off the east coast of Africa, and one found in the waters off Sulawesi, Indonesia.
* sigh *
It is called evolution because it examines how life evolves - not how it starts.
This is like saying that the theory of gravity fails because it doesn't give us the origin of the universe and so tell us where gravity came from.
One word: asanine.
They are extinct. If you think you can breed extinct animals go for it.
Fossil skeletons of transitional genera supported by the expected straigraphy is obviously not enough for you.. Even After You ASKED for it.
1. No it wasn't carnivorous. It was a browsing herbivore.
2. We don't have horses today with molars adapted for browsing instead of grazing, and four toes instead of one.
3. We are talking about the evolution of animals through multiple genera (AS YOU ASKED FOR), not different breeds of the same species. So NO it is not a "hoax."
Are you going to admit these are transitionals, just as you asked for, or are you going to continue shifting the goals and equivocating?
Yet, it's referred to as theory. Sorry cdesignproponentists, game over.I believe the entire point is that evolution as a whole is unproved in its most basic concepts. Most evolutionists refuse to discuss the origin of life (never mind the origin of everything else) and instead assume the origin of life. From this basic mistake alone, the rest of evolution crumbles.
Hardly. If everything "evolved" what did it evolve from? Everything has to have a beginning. As I stated before this is an area that evolutionists fear to tread. This is where it becomes obvious that evolution relies more on assumption and faith than the evolutionist wishes to acknowledge. What did we all evolve from? Evolutionists say a "macro-molecule" but have to assume it happened because there is no evidence of this. I would then ask what did the macro molecule evolve from? To which an evolutionist says the primordial soup, though again they are assuming facts not in evidence. Then I'll ask what did the "soup" evolve from? To which the evolutionist would say, from the ancient oceans formed by millions of years of rain on the molten earth, again assuming something rather than proving anything. This of course also ignores the existence of radio polonium halos. halos(dot)com. You see you cannot just assume life happened. It's not science then. Then it moves into a religion, and one ove noticed takes a lot more faith and fervor to defend than creation.
So, I show you more than two animals and that is a failure???then you have evolution failure. Showing two animals is not what I asked for. I asked for evolution between two animals.
What???? You said before they were all Horse-like.... now there are not? Makeup your mind!nope, not multiple genera because it's not a horse like animal.
Grass is very hard to digest because it contains silica. So I guess when a giraffe eats leaves it makes it "carnivorous???"low-crowned teeth proves it was carnivorous. You even said yourself that it could not process grass.
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?