praisejahupeople
Junior Member
His point regarding scales into feathers.Pretty impossible.Cant be demonstrated, never been observed
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.
Well praisej, i see very little that he posts that would make it into the 'true" side of the ledger.
IF he cared to bring up one pint, and present it in a reasonable way, that could be discussed. A shotgun spray of nonsense and lololol and hahaha isnt worth writing in the first place let alone responding to it. As i learned.
I know that creationism is little more than denialism but could you give a DETAILED response instead of just vaguely stating an opposing position which was known before you posted?
Yeah, that's basically dad's tactic as well.Crazy like a fox perhaps. Nobody wants to take on a "debate" with that kind of stuff, not for long. Then, he can declare victory. Hollow victory for the wrong side but, hey, take what you an get if you dont have anything.
I am yet to see a reply from a Creationist that stays focused on the science, and gives a respectful and reasoned response, or without resorting to ridicule of their opponent.
In the approximately 300 years since the scientific revolution what advances has either religion or science made in our understanding of the universe, and our ability to make use (for better or worse) of nature for our benefit?
Why do Creationists rubbish scientists? This really puzzles me.
Can I have a respectful and rational answer? If not, please don't reply.
Some creationists ARE scientists. Rational enough?
Would you like to tell us why it's wrong? you obviously know a lot about the subject to be able to just dismiss it off hand, I for one would like to be enlightened, please try and simplify it as much as you can.
Crazy like a fox perhaps. Nobody wants to take on a "debate" with that kind of stuff, not for long. Then, he can declare victory. Hollow victory for the wrong side but, hey, take what you an get if you dont have anything.
Anger and frustration. That is almost funny, in its unintentional way. You never get anything right, do you, TA?
His point regarding scales into feathers.Pretty impossible.Cant be demonstrated, never been observed
1. Feathers and scales are embryologically derived from the same tissue.14 huh? According to who?Evo's? hahahahaahahahaaahaaha Every fossil is transitional...hahahahahahaahahahahaha..You guys have cried wolf to many times.
Explain to me the probability of scales turning into feathers. hahahahahaahahahaha Oh yah one person in here doesn't like probabilities. How about IMPOSSIBILITIES. You want to live in your fairy tale land, have at er. You are not gonna drag me in with your assumptions, speculations and biased indocrinated foolishness.
We did have an interchange of dna with chimps. Whoopee do. If it wasn't this state, that may mean something like catching a cold, or something more vile. All the evidence suggests is that there was a mix. So? Radio isotopes are merely something that work a certain way here i.e. decay. They can't really be checked in any meaningful way with the strata. All one has to do is ask how the strata is dated!!! Same with fossils, or drift. They argee with nothing but themselves, and even that requires hammering millions of imaginary years into place as needed. Get serious.The strongest ideas in science are those with Multiple Independent Lines of Evidence (MILOE). The more lines of evidence an idea has, the stronger it is scientifically. Here are a few examples:
Our genome has approximately 20,000 genes which can be independently sequenced, each of these genes codes for a protein which can be independently sequenced, and each of these proteins is composed of amino acid sequences. So when they give the same degree of relatedness with chimpanzees that is as close to proof as you can get in science. We have sequenced both the human and chimpanzee genomes. That’s tens of thousands of independent lines of evidence that converge on the same conclusion.
There are about a dozen radioisotopes used for dating and in the case of Uranium-Lead decay the lead isotope has a different decay rate so this actually gives us two independent methods to test the same sample. The age given by radiometric methods can be checked against stratigraphy, the retroactive plate tectonics, and the assortment of fossils in the layer. So that’s three additional independent methods ALL of which converge on the same result.
Keep in mind this is the convergence of MILOE on the same conclusion. You may try to reject one or many of these but the true power of this evidence is in the fact that they ALL AGREE.
Do you know how tiktaalik was found? Paleontologists knew almost exactly what they were looking for. they knew what age it had to be to fill in the gap and they knew geographically where other fossils in the transition had been found. So they knew where to look and they found precisely what they were looking for. Incipient stages of limbs, a shoulder girdle, and a rib cage. Earlier fish in the transition had none of these, yet they were fairly well developed in early tetrapods on the other side of the transition.All this hype about tiktaalik being a premium fossil for a transitional. Apparently its in really, really rough shape and the fins wont support its weight. Thats the truth of it. Look back at ALL the post evo's have said about it and see if you find this ANYWHERE. Not once, not even close, it was hailed as perfect, without doubt a transitional. I was right , right from the start. And as it says in Ecclesiates "There is nothing new under the sun". I have said I have heard it all from evo's and nothing has changed and I am right there too. Just assuptions, speculations, biased indoctrinated head in the ToE box dogma. Twist, distory ,omit data, add data thats not there. ANYTHING to make it fit in the ToE box. I know I am right here, no doubt. Go look up anything said about tiktaalik and see if any one who holds it as a premium fossil states its in really poor shape. Of poor quality. Ironic how quick evo's are to say creo's are guilty of this.
Here is a question. Is the supposedly 370 million year old fossil "tiktaalik" in good enough condition to come to a scientific conclusion that it is in fact a transitional form? If you answer yes, then you lie. If you answer no then it should be thrown out and NEVER used again as an example.
Just go to http://www.christianforums.com/t7294827/ and hear all the evos praise their god.
Crazy like a fox I am, at least I am not crying wolf like evo's have done countless times. I understand your anger and frustration because I wont accept your fables. Are you stuck on that scales to feather thingies? No assuptions how this happens? No speculations? Because without a DOUBT you have no empirical evidence for this, no eyewitnesses or scientific proof you therefore have to assume and have faith and find a fossil an suppose then stick it in your tree. Get out of the ToE box now. Thats it, pull your head out.
98% is more than a simple mix. You only disagree with the dating methodologies because they all assume that they have been constant for hundreds of millions of years. But if they werent constant then why is it when we roll back the plate tectonics to the point that agrees with the radioisotope measurement we are suddenly able to connect geographic fossil ranges which are now separated by thousands of miles? Are they non-constant at the same rate? The ASSORTMENT of fossils is very strong because fossil species occur within a consistent chronology, i.e. if you see T-rexes and triceratopses and every other species found is consistently a late cretaceous species then you know that the fossil bed is late cretaceous and thus the radioisotope dating should be consistent with that, and in such cases it ALWAYS is. Lastly we can use the stratigraphy to also give us an age. if we are in between middle cretaceous and early paleocene then we know our layer is late cretaceous and the date should reflect that, and in such cases it ALWAYS does.We did have an interchange of dna with chimps. Whoopee do. If it wasn't this state, that may mean something like catching a cold, or something more vile. All the evidence suggests is that there was a mix. So? Radio isotopes are merely something that work a certain way here i.e. decay. They can't really be checked in any meaningful way with the strata. All one has to do is ask how the strata is dated!!! Same with fossils, or drift. They argee with nothing but themselves, and even that requires hammering millions of imaginary years into place as needed. Get serious.
How do you think you do that, precisely? The short answer is that you apply the hand waving, and belief system across the board! I kid you not. If they were looked at honestly, and on their own 2 feet, they would be whacked like little moles popping up. You simply think that having enough moles pop up confuses the issue enough to allow the same state past hand waving to have credibility. No. Not to the informed.98% is more than a simple mix. You only disagree with the dating methodologies because they all assume that they have been constant for hundreds of millions of years. But if they werent constant then why is it when we roll back the plate tectonics to the point that agrees with the radioisotope measurement we are suddenly able to connect geographic fossil ranges which are now separated by thousands of miles?
Are they non-constant at the same rate?
Meaningless, in a world where rapid evolution occurs, as well as rapid sedimentation and stratification. Not to mention fossilization. The issue is what is the basis for cooking up a date in the strata alone, or in the fossils alone, or in decay alone? That basis is a same state. And nothing else. Which means...no basis.The ASSORTMENT of fossils is very strong because fossil species occur within a consistent chronology, i.e. if you see T-rexes and triceratopses and every other species found is consistently a late cretaceous species then you know that the fossil bed is late cretaceous and thus the radioisotope dating should be consistent with that, and in such cases it ALWAYS is.
Great. Show us how!!!!!!? Give an example of that puppy on it's own! Something dated by stratigraphy.Lastly we can use the stratigraphy to also give us an age. if we are in between middle cretaceous and early paleocene then we know our layer is late cretaceous and the date should reflect that, and in such cases it ALWAYS does.
We shall see, you were given a chance to strut your stuff. Use it wisely.They all agree, they are all distinct methodologies. Stratigraphy and assortment of fossils dont necessarily require a constant rate like others but they do require consistent paleontologic and geologic chronologies.
How does a person EVER expect to see MILoE from the perspective of creationism if their head is in the ToE box and that is ALL they can see.
They not only cannot get out of the box , they wont. Here is an example. "All hail tiktaalik".
Every time you here a ToE believer speak of this all you hear is the biased, indoctinated head in the ToE box explanations. Just check out ANY site that evo's speak of it. It is like a god to them.
They post a 370 million year old stamp on it because of where it was found and where its suppose to fit in their fairy tale like tree.
370 million years old, that in itself is ridiculous. But if your head is in the ToE box you accept it without question. Just like EVERY other so called transitional fossil , tiktaalik is no different. It is NOT empirical proof other than a complete creature like ALL others.
Here are a few things on tiktaalik that you will NEVER hear a evo with their head in the box say about it.
As I was skimming through the list of transitional fossils, I found that the Tiktaalik (a fossil fish) was listed as an intermediate form. This particular specimen, lately, has become a very popular example of an intermediate from sea to land because of its fins. The problem with this claim, it turns out, is that the its fins are not connected to the main skeleton and therefore could not have supported its weight on land. Although Darwinists hypothesize that they could have been used to prop itself up on a water bed, they had similar hopes for the Caelocanth which turned out to be totally wrong.
It doesnt help that it has been admitted, even by those that believe its a transitional form, that the quality of the specimen was poor.Correct me if Im wrong, but if the specimens quality is poor, then isnt it presumptuous to claim it is an intermediate form?
It only takes these two statements to verify what I have been saying all along, Biased and indocrinated to accpet it for what they assume it is and ignore data that might say otherwise. Already placed in the fairy tale tree.
It seems anything goes with evo's, anything to make it fit in that ToE box. So really now, sak yourselfs WHY? WHY? should we believe ANYTHING you pull out of your ToE box and try and feed it to us. The fossil is in rough shape yet you can boast of such great claims as if matter of fact. Get your heads out of the box. Put some real empirical evidence on the table. I (we) have heard ALL your assumptions, speculations and probablies. and dont buy it.
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?