You're arguing silly and obscure semantics that have no practical meaning, not concepts or understanding. Its a waste of time and unproductive.
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.
Proof is not a scientific concept. Nothing we regard as scientific fact can be "proven", so your premise is flawed.
That is what makes the Bible different. The Bible can be confirmed by Science to be a fact.
Yes there are translation problems and there are problems with the interpretation of the Bible. So not everyone understand the purity of the message we are able to receive from the Bible.
Here is a link showing 10 court cases dealing with this issue.
http://ncse.com/taking-action/ten-major-court-cases-evolution-creationism
That is why I thanked him for that post.And creationism lost every single time. 0-10. Not a good track record, eh?
This one?
How about the leg bones of a whale? How about the plantaris muscle in humans? How about chicken teeth? Ostrich wings? The eyes of blind, cave-dwelling animals? Snake pelvises?What there should be in the fossil record is a lot of creatures with useless features, appendages. What I have seen so far is creatures that are all fully developed, they have only positive, worth while features, useful for the creature.
Evolution is supposedly random, random mutations creating new species.
What there should be in the fossil record is a lot of creatures with useless features, appendages.
Mutations are random. Natural selection is not random.
You shouldn't move the goal posts. Plenty of fossil evidence has been shown to you but you don't seem to comprehend it. Ask questions if you have any. The word I think you are looking for is vestigial and it doesn't mean 'useless'
There are whales that have hip bones
The way you said this was a bit confusing, it made me think you meant that there was a whale that had a hip bone but NO legs. But in reality the whale you are referring to is not a whale in the modern sense it, but a water borne creature that had hind legs.
Note the quote from the researches who found the whale:
The Vogtle Whale appears to have also had well-developed hind legs, though fossils from neither the legs nor tail were found. The pelvis (hip) bones were recovered and they show well developed ball sockets where the legs would have attached in life. This led researchers to question whether Georgiacetus swam with its hind legs and if it possessed a fluke. - http://www.georgiasfossils.com/10-a-whale-for-georgia.html
How about the leg bones of a whale? How about the plantaris muscle in humans? How about chicken teeth? Ostrich wings? The eyes of blind, cave-dwelling animals? Snake pelvises?
You do realize that that whale represents a necessary step in the evolution of whales don't you? Structures do not disappear in one lifetime. The ancestor of whales was a land mammal. As the various descendants spent more and more time in the sea the legs would have been used less and less as load bearing members. They would atrophy, as vestigial organs tend to do. Of course being vestigial does not mean that all use is lost. The remaining parts of the old legs still have a use, just as your appendix does. They merely no longer have the original use. Some people think that if a vestigial organ does something that means that it is not vestigial. Again, that is not the case, it only means that the organ had a different purpose originally.The way you said this was a bit confusing, it made me think you meant that there was a whale that had a hip bone but NO legs. But in reality the whale you are referring to is not a whale in the modern sense it, but a water borne creature that had hind legs.
Note the quote from the researches who found the whale:
The Vogtle Whale appears to have also had well-developed hind legs, though fossils from neither the legs nor tail were found. The pelvis (hip) bones were recovered and they show well developed ball sockets where the legs would have attached in life. This led researchers to question whether Georgiacetus swam with its hind legs and if it possessed a fluke. - http://www.georgiasfossils.com/10-a-whale-for-georgia.html
Note the quote from the researches who found the whale:
The Vogtle Whale appears to have also had well-developed hind legs, though fossils from neither the legs nor tail were found. The pelvis (hip) bones were recovered and they show well developed ball sockets where the legs would have attached in life. This led researchers to question whether Georgiacetus swam with its hind legs and if it possessed a fluke. - http://www.georgiasfossils.com/10-a-whale-for-georgia.html
Surely a truly random process could not develop bursts of amazing useful function.
All of the things you have mentioned can be the result of downward, or change in existing organisms (well formed features loosing function). What I am talking about is the creation of new random features. And I am talking about randomness, evolution if by random mutation would litter the fossil record with bizarre features, every creatures either has a purpose for its feature, or had a purpose. There are no truly purposeless features.
Leg bones in a whale (was a leg, developed but now lost purpose (according to evolution)).
Chicken teeth (would still have a purpose to hold food)
Ostrich wings (still look quite good, maybe a feature, but you could if you like say it is a feature on the way out)
Blind eyes (again a loss, not a gain)
Snake Pelvises (another loss)
How is it that every feature that is show in animals had a purpose? Surely a truly random process could not develop bursts of amazing useful function.
It's a fundamental element of the scientific method. There's no point discussing things scientifically if you don't want to use the scientific method.You're arguing silly and obscure semantics that have no practical meaning, not concepts or understanding. Its a waste of time and unproductive.
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?