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 here's an article showing that they had been discussing it prior. http://www.equinestudies.org/evolution_horse_2008/elsevier_horse_evolution_2008_pdf1.pdf (see 5th paragraph down)
I've read similar many times. Proposed horse chains presented are not examples of a finely graduated chain between two major forms.
Are you of the opinion professional geologists have been doing their jobs wrong for the last 200 years?
Where did you get your information from if you don’t mind me asking, it sounds rather outlandish?
Reallly? Hyracotherium fossils have been found right next to equus fossils/bones? Do you have a source for that?
What "time" are you talking about? T.H. Huxley was born in 1825 and died in 1895. Simpson wasn't even born until 1902 and didn't get his PhD until the 1920s. That's a three decade difference just between Huxley's death and Simpson becoming a paleontologist.
What a fascinating claim, not for the least of reasons that Marsh has been dead for 118 years.
And you BELIEVE that is the truth and a fact, don't you?
Yet you reject one species giving rise to another...I'm sure that there is a word for that mental state, but I don't know what it is.
And looking at what you believe... that a highly specified universe sprang from nothing, that highly specified life sprang from raining on a rock for several million years, that single celled life became multi celled life, which grew lungs and legs and entirely new nervous systems and took to land, and eventually built town homes.
Just which fact sounds outlandish to you exactly? Seriously we can look at it together and see if these are really what geologists have observed. Here's the thing that people don't understand. We are all looking at the same exact evidence. There's not some sort of anti-flood evidence that one group looks at and then some sort of pro-flood evidence that another group looks at. It's all the exact same evidence. What is different is the way one group interprets what they are seeing. The question isn't "are geologists doing their jobs wrong?" It is instead, "are there interpretations of what they see the most logical?" It's like a Russian cosmonaut being so sure his country was the first to land on the moon, that when he stumbles across the USA flag, claiming it is just an abnormal geological anomaly that took millions of years to form. Personal bias can very strongly effect your interpretation. If you are certain that evolution is true then you know you need a whole lot of time to exist. Then that will of course bias your interpretations of strata layers, ice cores, fossils, etc...
Barnhart, W.R. A Critical Evaluation of the Phylogeny of the Horse, ICR, 1987Reallly? Hyracotherium fossils have been found right next to equus fossils/bones? Do you have a source for that?
If you are certain that evolution is true then you know you need a whole lot of time to exist. Then that will of course bias your interpretations of strata layers, ice cores, fossils, etc...
You are demonstrating the difference between a pseudoscience like creationism and actual science. You keep trying to "prove" your so called "facts" by using information for which you can cite no non-religious, biblical source. The practitioners of actual science try to disprove (invalidate) theories by gathering more knowledge.It left lots of fossils. You just call them cro magnon and other’s, drew hair all over them in the past so they looked apelike to support your beliefs. Even if they now depict them as looking like modern humans.
Well that's your opinion. I don't see it as dishonest at all on a forum like this. You are free to believe as you like but it's not plagarism in this context.
How would you explain that chain?
No problem, let's try one at a time.
Brad says....
Ground surface prints which have been fossilized, are common in all of the strata layers. Features like ripple patterns, animal tracks and rain drop impressions. Under usual conditions these features are quickly destroyed by normal erosion and life. In order for these types of impressions to be preserved, the next sediment layer must be laid down very fast, and the next layer, and the next, and so forth.
.....................................
This is not evidence of a global flood, in fact, trace fossil are more likely to be eroded by moving water. I'm not saying they rule out a global flood by the way, but their formation can be explained without the need to invoke one. Besides even if some trace fossils were formed during flooding it's still not evidence for a global flood, floods are fairly common.
My opinion on evolution has no bearing on the age of the Earth which is confirmed by multiple, independent lines of evidence.
(Please spare me a lengthy response about how in 1823 someone got the age of the Earth wrong.)
How do you call the dramatic differences between the bone structure of Eohippus and Oligohippus (the next step in the so called chain) a finely graduated chain? Where are the stages showing the development of those new bone structures? They just suddenly appear in one step. What does the term "finely graduated" mean to you exactly? Again why do most honest paleontologists admit that no such finely graduated chains exist?
And your background such that you were able to determine that Barnhart was correct in his assessment?
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?