Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
No problem. I understand that it is hard to know where any one stands on this forum without our icons.
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.
No problem. I understand that it is hard to know where any one stands on this forum without our icons.Then once certainly has my sincere apology - but that was the next logical response from the evolutionary camp - to suddenly disclaim who they previously regarded as an expert, because he calls their entire theory into question - more than it already has been shown to be, while still relying on the data this now non-expert has given them in the past, because when he agreed with them he was of course an expert.
So if Once really just wanted to know who he was you have my sincere apology Once.
No problem. I understand that it is hard to know where any one stands on this forum without our icons.
They're still here.Yes, we certainly need our stance icons back.
They're still here.
It's : oldthumbsup : (without the spaces).Where did you get that old thumbsup smiley? I miss those.
It's : oldthumbsup : (without the spaces).
I'll see if I can hunt up the others for you.
Jack Horner says:
"Nope, this is just a dinosaur problem. Most animals don't change as significantly during growth. Most vertebrates and other reptiles grow like Alligators and change little."
No, it's just you and various other creationists blowing a small discovery way, way out of proportion. There is no major scientific upset here. Horner found some very interesting discrepancies in the fossil record of dinosaurs. This does not have any major impact on anything else, however.
If you click on the smiling face right there on your format bar (or whatever it's called), you get another bar with all the types of smilies available to us.It's : oldthumbsup : (without the spaces).
I'll see if I can hunt up the others for you.
It's : oldthumbsup : (without the spaces).
I'll see if I can hunt up the others for you.
Good deal!Hey, it worked! Thanks.
Creationists claim that there is a magical "DNA barrier" but they can never show evidence of it existing.Evolutionists point to changes within the species and call that "microevolution," and then proceed to tell us that such sub-species changes prove that there theorized changes across species (which they term "macroevolution") must also be occurring. But random gene shuffling within the species only produces new varieties and breeds. The DNA code barrier is not penetrated. Transformations across the species barrier never occur. New varieties and new breeds is not evolution; it is only variation within the already existing species.
If you click on the smiling face right there on your format bar (or whatever it's called), you get another bar with all the types of smilies available to us.
Click on the OLD SCHOOL SMILIES, and you'll see them in there.
Note: You have to be in REPLY mode.
You're very welcome!Got it! Thanks.
Creationists claim that there is a magical "DNA barrier" but they can never show evidence of it existing.
And micro and macro are all properly called evolution.
But he is one of their main paleontologists and evolutionary supporters. So you can be sure if the data didn't confirm that 2 of every 3 were incorrect classifications, he wouldn't be saying it. And cut down the need for 12 major ones to just 7. Good number that as he says - to which I agree.
Evolutionists point to changes within the species and call that "microevolution," and then proceed to tell us that such sub-species changes prove that there theorized changes across species (which they term "macroevolution") must also be occurring. But random gene shuffling within the species only produces new varieties and breeds. The DNA code barrier is not penetrated. Transformations across the species barrier never occur. New varieties and new breeds is not evolution; it is only variation within the already existing species.
One wonders how Mr. Horner has concluded that this is "just a dinosaur problem". After all, Evolutionists didn't think the problem even existed in dinosaurs before someone bothered to look.
For example, how does Mr. Horner know what extinct synapsid body-plans look like during different stages of growth? Any ideas? Could you ask him?
Okay, just for arguments sake, (even though logic says otherwise) lets say the problem is only constrained to dinosaurs. Even if that's the case, it still represents a major upset in biological classification. Dinosaurs are a huge group of animals. (Not to mention it transgresses into sacrosanct territory concerning dino-bird evolution models.)
So even with just dinosaurs, my original point stands and I believe evolutionists know it would be a public-relations nightmare to admit it publicly. Again, instead of getting excited about a major scientific upset in their way of understanding, (like we're always told scientists are so eager to do) they are quietly sweeping the problem under the rug lest it disturb the applecart.
I'm amazed that Horner could be so flippant about it but I bet its because he knows the wrath that will come down on him if he disturbs that hornet's nest. Either way, kudos to him for shedding some light on the problem.
Creationists claim that there is a magical "DNA barrier" but they can never show evidence of it existing.
And micro and macro are all properly called evolution. Most creationists don't understand gravity. The test that they cite for gravity is extremely similar to the test for "microevolution".
I'm still puzzling over the first life form. What did it eat? What gave it the ability to "organize it's molecules" in order to reproduce itself? It seems that what should be the simplest link in the chain of evolutionary events is the least understood. How is it that science knows with absolute certainty that life appeared 3.6 billion years ago, but knows little else about it. Science insists that evolution only deals with existing organisms, not the origin of life, but the original organisms had to possess the tools and materials to evolve. How does science explain the complexity of an organism that spontaneously appears?
Have you spent any time researching this? I mean, you may be puzzling, but I don't think you've been googling. I mean, we don't have a solid answer yet, but there are solid hypotheses that help explain these things. Spend some time looking into information (from sources other than Answers in Genesis), it might help. I keep hearing things like this stated as questions... Well, try looking for the answers.
I'm still puzzling over the first life form. What did it eat? What gave it the ability to "organize it's molecules" in order to reproduce itself? It seems that what should be the simplest link in the chain of evolutionary events is the least understood. How is it that science knows with absolute certainty that life appeared 3.6 billion years ago, but knows little else about it. Science insists that evolution only deals with existing organisms, not the origin of life, but the original organisms had to possess the tools and materials to evolve. How does science explain the complexity of a 'simple' organism that spontaneously appears, upon which their theory depends?
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?