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. It's what dishonest creationists do.
And I bet that the rest of the data was removed from existance last thursday?
You still don't and never will if most animals and man could not even fossilize in that former different nature.Scientists didn’t have that info say 30 years ago because we didn’t have the fossils
And yet, you can't even propose a physiological model that would result in humans that are unable to fossilize. Why claim what you cannot defend?You still don't and never will if most animals and man could not even fossilize in that former different nature.
Wrong. Neanderthals are recent man. Post flood man. Present nature man. DNA similar to ours is expected. You have no DNA from the time of Adam, and the first 1600 years.
H neaderthalensis is a different species they aren’t Homo sapiens. Their bodies were different and so was their growth rates( they became fully adult at 15) They were closely related enough so that the either species formed viable fertile hybrids. Recent Human ancestry is more of a ring species than most people realize.
Well then, riddle me this..God planted a garden. On day six man ate from that very garden from trees.
I am not sure how many mornings you think there are in six days? The bible lists one every day.
So plants from day three had no sun for millions of years?
Nice.
Well then, riddle me this..God planted a garden. On day six man ate from that very garden from trees.
Wrong. Neanderthals are recent man. Post flood man. Present nature man. DNA similar to ours is expected. You have no DNA from the time of Adam, and the first 1600 years.
You still don't and never will if most animals and man could not even fossilize in that former different nature.
In the from dust to dust idea, the former nature was such as that man (and most animals) would return to dust too fast to leave remains.And yet, you can't even propose a physiological model that would result in humans that are unable to fossilize. Why claim what you cannot defend?
No it isn't.The sun existed on Day three. It is about 3 millions years older than the earth.
Says you. Like you would know?Wrong. Utter creationist nonsense.
Neanderthals were extinct long before modern man and before the flood.
Riddle me this. God brought all the animals and creatures before Adam on day six and he named them. How he Did he managed do this in 24 hours?
Nope. Not at all. Besides, Adam was smart and fast, unlike devolved man of today.The total events of the sixth day of creation require time beyond 24 hours.
we are talking about phylogeny here.Trucks and cars are mechanical devices, not living biological entities.
Meaning that it is invalid to compare the two, when trying to make a point about biological processes.
You are not even comparing apples with oranges. It's rather organic apples with plastic oranges.
ok. but we agree that a bicylce is more similar to another bicylce than to a car. right? and the same is true for airplane and a car. right?That's not objective at all.
How trucks and cars are categorized tends to be based on a limited subset of physical characteristics (curb weight, etc), plus a certain degree of subjectivity.
Your argument was that if we took an independent look at the characteristics that made up these vehicles and ran a tree based on them, they should sort themselves into trucks and cars. Yet based on the trees I ran, there was no statistical convergence between them.
I think if you were to cherry-pick a limited set of criteria with the intention of achieving the sorting you are looking for, sure you could probably do that. But at which point all you've done is force the categorization of vehicles in the first place, which defeats the entire purpose of this exercise.
-_- no, Neanderthals not only lived at the same time as our species, but thanks to being able to sequence the Neanderthal genome, we know that some crossbreeding occurred between our species and Neanderthals.Wrong. Utter creationist nonsense.
Neanderthals were extinct long before modern man and before the flood.
Show me a completely different pattern in nature everywhere and then we'll talk.
You need to check your math. The sun is estimated to be about 4.603 billion years old, and the Earth is estimated to be about 4.543 billion years old. The difference between those numbers is 60 million, not 3 million.The sun existed on Day three. It is about 3 millions years older than the earth.
Describe the physiology necessary to accomplish that, and yet have dinosaurs still fossilize.In the from dust to dust idea, the former nature was such as that man (and most animals) would return to dust too fast to leave remains.
-_- the long lifespans in the bible have no evidence supporting that they ever occurred.There are several known features of the former world nature that stand out in stark contrast to today. The long lifespans for example.
You do need a model if you are even trying to make a hypothesis for this. How can you stand to spout concepts you can't even fathom the function of and expect other people to treat you seriously?We need not know what caused man to live longer. I do not need a model, which basically means looking at the present nature and trying to use that to explain things.
When all evidence contradicts your position, it hardly makes it a valid position to hold just by virtue of the fact that the nature of science demands that no theory can 100% be certain to be true. I could have a duck in my arms, a degree in Ornithology, and even genetically sequence the duck and have the genes match known duck sequences, and still couldn't consider myself 100% certain that the organism I was holding was a duck. -_- that doesn't make it reasonable to conclude that holding any other position is logical in the slightest.Not even sure why I should feel a need to speculate. The only thing that matters is science doesn't know.
That's kinda how testable hypotheses are developed. You observe a phenomenon and then propose a possible, testable mechanism of how it works based on the information you have. Hypotheses aren't shots in the dark, though.However since you seem to think guessing is some sort or requirement, I guess anyone could do that.
-_- why would said decomposers be able to efficiently digest a human and not a dinosaur? What physiological differences could make the dinosaur more resistant to rot? Why is it that every single modern organism you think lived alongside dinosaurs had the same rotting problem?Perhaps one big reason could have been that in that fast reproducing world of yesterday, many types of bacteria, and mold, and insects, and small animals and etc etc would have then specialized in certain kinds of animal disposal. Even today, we see the snotworm specialize in certain whale remains, if I recall.
Name a biological chemical that would cause bodies to rot so fast that not even a tar pit could maintain them and mud couldn't retain an imprint. Because in case you haven't noticed, not all fossils need the organism to refrain from rotting. Heck, footprint fossils don't even need the organism to be dead, so how do you explain the lack of human footprints in the same layers as dinosaur footprints (all claimed examples of such are confirmed fakes)?Possibly add to that chemical reactions that would have occurred at death. We do not even know what sort of genetics man had at the time. We do not know if there could have been something in our bodies that no longer exists? We do not know what would be the exact reactions chemically in that former nature...etc.
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?