My Theory

[JohnR7]

Dude, the reason why your theory doesn't work, is that the horsey fossils found are found in different strata, meaning that each one is older than the next the further you go down.

Which is why the theory does not work. If you arrange the fossils according to their age, they do not follow the predicted pattern.

 

[Infinity]

http://www.southplainscollege.edu/behavior_sciences/images/farside_2.jpg

 

[Arikay]

Evidence?


Oh I like the comments about making a living off it it, I hope you mean creationism. Hovind appears to make over half a million a year in profits by selling creationism, and others make a nice profit too.

Modern day horses fossils where found with the same ones you just noted

 

[Infinity]

Which is why the theory does not work. If you arrange the fossils according to their age, they do not follow the predicted pattern.

2 tim
13
For Adam was first formed, then Eve

Do you belive this John?

 

[Infinity]

http://phylo.gen.lu.se/Staff/AxelJanke/Images/FarSide_Playtypus.jpg

 

[michabo]

Infinity,

If god created all species six thousand years ago and then wiped them out in the flood, evolution would still happen. It's inevitable, it cannot be stopped. Even Hovind, the nuttiest of the nuts, accepts evolution. Indeed, some form of magical, hyper-evolution is integral to his delusions.

However, there are important observations which we could make which would prove or falsify the young earth theory and the flood theory. We've made them, and they've falsified these theories. So if you are trying to say that the world would be as we observe it today if there really was a flood, then you are mistaken.

If that's not your point, I'm afraid I've missed it. Can you stop this round-about argument and cut to the point?

 

[michabo]

http://phylo.gen.lu.se/Staff/AxelJanke/Images/FarSide_Playtypus.jpg

What's the purpose of these? Do you understand that these are comics and aren't actual representations of how science works?

 

[michabo]

Which is why the theory does not work. If you arrange the fossils according to their age, they do not follow the predicted pattern.

If true, that would be disturbing. Do you have any sources for this claim?

 

[Infinity]

I think the earth is 4.2-6 billion years old or so. Anyways, the clink in my armor is the carbon dating of the horse legs. That is something that will take some studying on my part. i just dont thing there are any of the so-called missing links in anything. Unless you take John Kerry to mind

 

[Vance]

I really think it should be a requirement that anyone who posts *about* evolution should be required to actually know what evolution teaches.

First of all, the fossils of prehistoric animals are NOT like the ones we have to day. They are of different species. Any expert in the field could tell you which was the bone of an ancient small horse and that of a modern horse, even when the bones are the same size.

The bottom line is that all the prehistoric fossils, with a few exceptions (those few species which have survived from that time to this), are of species of animals which no longer exist and can easily be distinguished from a modern descendent species.

The hominid line is a good example. There are many, many fossils of hominids that have a combination of ape and human features, just as we would expect from a species which was in between an ape-like ancestor and modern homo sapiens, but which does not match any species living today.

 

[michabo]

Anyways, the clink in my armor is the carbon dating of the horse legs. That is something that will take some studying on my part.

It's "chink" in your armour. A chink is a small gap or slit, so a chink in your armour is the place where someone can slide a knife, sword or arrow despite your otherwise formidable defenses. A "clink" in your armour makes little sense.

*Grammar Man flies away*

I'm afraid I still don't know what your argument is so it's hard to tell what other chinks there may be.

 

[Asimov]

It's "chink" in your armour. A chink is a small gap or slit, so a chink in your armour is the place where someone can slide a knife, sword or arrow despite your otherwise formidable defenses. A "clink" in your armour makes little sense.

*Grammar Man flies away*

I'm afraid I still don't know what your argument is so it's hard to tell what other chinks there may be.

THANK YOU GRAMMAR MAN!!!

 

[Infinity]

Doh!!

 

[Logic]

Doh!!

That pretty much sums up your theory

(not an insult or flame )

 

[JohnR7]

If true, that would be disturbing. Do you have any sources for this claim?

Evolutionists do not seem to care that their theory on the evolution of horses was falsified. They just came up with a new theory.
Evolution is no longer like a tree, it is now like a bush.

1. First, horse evolution didn't proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar Equus is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived. (See Gould's essay "Life's Little Joke" in Bully for Brontosaurus for more on this topic.)
2. Second, horse evolution was not smooth and gradual. Different traits evolved at different rates, didn't always evolve together, and occasionally reversed "direction". Also, horse species did not always come into being by gradual transformation ("anagenesis") of their ancestors; instead, sometimes new species "split off" from ancestors ("cladogenesis") and then co-existed with those ancestors for some time. Some species arose gradually, others suddenly.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

 

[Asimov]

Evolutionists do not seem to care that their theory on the evolution of horses was falsified. They just came up with a new theory.
Evolution is no longer like a tree, it is now like a bush.
[/list]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

Yes...hence the self-correcting method of Science. If it doesn't work, find out what does!

Unlike Creationism: Attack what works, to make it look like we're doin something.

 

[JohnR7]

Yes...hence the self-correcting method of Science. If it doesn't work, find out what does!

Unlike Creationism: Attack what works, to make it look like we're doin something.

I would not consider a bush with one surviving twig something that is working, I would consider that to be contrary to nature. I should go out back with my clippers and trim a bush to look like the "bush" of evolution, so you can see just how unnatural your theory really is.

 

[Mistermystery]

Evolutionists do not seem to care that their theory on the evolution of horses was falsified. They just came up with a new theory.
Evolution is no longer like a tree, it is now like a bush.
[/list]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

The theory of evolution has not been falsified so far John. The only real issue we see is that by the discovery of more horse fossils, we had to adapt our theory into what you call "a bush", so if you think that looking at the creation of God (if that's what you believe in), and discovering more about said creation is wrong, then sue us. It's at least better then the creationist principle: keep propelling lies. WE've been over this before John, haven't you learned a single thing?

 

[Mistermystery]

....making a living out of it

Have you talked to Mr. Hovind lately?

Modern day horses fossils where found with the same ones you just noted

Do you have any sources for this statement?

http://www.southplainscollege.edu/behavior_sciences/images/farside_2.jpg

Yeah thought so. You don't.

Anyways, the clink in my armor is the carbon dating of the horse legs. That is something that will take some studying on my part. i just dont thing there are any of the so-called missing links in anything.

Why don't you use a truckweigher to way post packages? Why don't you use a toothbrush to clean your floor? Why don't you use a small volvo to move an elephant?

Why? Because of the same reason you don't use carbon dating on horse bones that are X-million years old. There are diffrent tools for diffrent purposes. Example: there is range where you can use carbon dating on (going back an odd 50.000 years at most), and only on organic material. Why? because C14- has a halflife of only 6000 years old. You want to data something old? use pot-argon or something with an old half life.

You've never looked carbon dating up in an enceclopedia before, now have you?

 

[JohnR7]

discovering more about said creation is wrong, then sue us.

Oh, we appreciate all the work that evolutionists put into gathering all of those fossils and other data from the natural world. We just do not pay all that much attention to their opinions about what they find.

Their hard work will not be in vain, someday it will all be used in a way that will bring honor and glory to God. There is just this little matter of the apostasy that we need to get though and deal with first.

WE've been over this before John, haven't you learned a single thing?

Try not to get caught in the GAP between what I am learning and what I am demonstrating to you that I am learning. As I said before, right after high school I was tested out at 80% comprehension and 40% expression. So there maybe a difference between what I have learned and what I am able to demonstrate to others about what I have learned.

Do you think that evolutionists have cornered the market on the saying that we are to: "admit to nothing and deny everything"? Sometimes that game gets played on both sides of the fence.