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.
-_- there is no difference between the chemistry of a footprint made by different animals. All footprints made in the same mud should be able to fossilize relatively equally, and the differences in depth of the footprints clearly don't matter because their are plenty of fossilized dinosaur footprints that are from animals roughly the same weight as humans around. Face it, you are done.How would we know reactions in a different nature?
Yeah, I wasn't replying to you there, obviously. Someone else claimed that Neanderthals died out before the flood, so why not respond to them?If the flood was around the KT layer, then neanderthals are long long long after the flood.
Uh no, it is not simply dividing into four groups. First they are divided into 17 groups. Then the complex nesting arrangement of the taxa is shown. Finally, diagrams like this are consistently shown to have high statistical significance.
There are a million billion possible unrooted trees with 17 groups. In spite of so many possibilities, multiple factors confirm this is the correct one.
Science shows that the number of convergences are small compared to the data that fit perfectly.
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?
this isnt what we see here:
Back to this? I already answered this in detail. Seeagain: all those points fit with this image too (8 groups):
so where is the difference?
realy? how small? give me a number.
You were told this over and over. You just ignore it.
I'm not sure why, but I always click on this thread to see what Xianghua and Dad are saying. Maybe it doesn't accomplish much to be here, but I do keep myself entertained and I have learned a lot from being here. Perhaps some others have learned from what we said also.And yet we continue to respond in vain...
Hopefully the lurkers get something out of this, because xianghua sure doesn't.
No. No. There is no horse family that we know about because the fossils you have are so totally unrepresentative of life on earth in the past. Yes, a lot of evolving did happen from the kinds, but science is in no position yo know what is what!Ah, now you change to saying that the nested pattern is indeed because of evolution. Yes, I agree, the nested pattern we see in cats is because cats evolved. The nested pattern in the horse tree is because the horse family evolved. On that we agree.
Why not? Because you have no clue what a family really is. Your so called families are based on maybe 5% of life on earth that could fossilize!But the nested pattern in nature goes far beyond the family level. You accept evolution at approximately the level of the family. If what we saw in nature was distinct family-kinds, with no obvious nesting of the families, then your view might have merit. But that is not what we see. Even if we take families as the taxa, and seek to find how the families interrelate, we find a nested hierarchy leading up to these families. So if a nested pattern within a family is evidence for evolution, why is not a nested pattern leading up to families also evidence for evolution?
Wrong. You CANNOT turn to fossils since they would NOT exist if most life on earth could NOT fossilize in that different former nature.You are correct that fossils within a family are evidence for evolution within a family, and not necessarily for what led up to the families. For that we need to turn to the fossils that led up to the families. And there again we find many transitional fossils, such as the whole tree of mammal like reptiles that led to all of the mammal families. If transitional horses are evidence of horse evolution, why are not transitional mammals evidence of mammal evolution?
Here is the thing...to be godly as I see it we need to start with creation.And for the record, when I refer to evolution, I have not been insisting that it has to be "Gosless". The evidence is for evolution, regardless of whether "Gos" was involved.
Ridiculous. How a footprint looks does not tell us that they would all have the same composition in the former nature. Not in any way. You are done.-_- there is no difference between the chemistry of a footprint made by different animals. All footprints made in the same mud should be able to fossilize relatively equally, and the differences in depth of the footprints clearly don't matter because their are plenty of fossilized dinosaur footprints that are from animals roughly the same weight as humans around. Face it, you are done.
To whom it may concern...they were post flood.Yeah, I wasn't replying to you there, obviously. Someone else claimed that Neanderthals died out before the flood, so why not respond to them?
Well, you said that Noah took a pair of each family into the ark, and they evolved into other members of the family after the flood. You also said all fossils above the KT boundary are after the flood. So if we find fossils above the KT boundary that clearly look like they are in the horse family, wouldn't it be safe to assume they were probably in the horse family?No. No. There is no horse family that we know about because the fossils you have are so totally unrepresentative of life on earth in the past. Yes, a lot of evolving did happen from the kinds, but science is in no position yo know what is what!
And if science is not in a position to know what is what, doesn't that imply there is a lot of gray area between families? If families were created distinct, why aren't the divisions between them easy to tell?Why not? Because you have no clue what a family really is. Your so called families are based on maybe 5% of life on earth that could fossilize!
Ha, so your assumption is wrong. For many thousands of fossils exist from that "former nature".Wrong. You CANNOT turn to fossils since they would NOT exist if most life on earth could NOT fossilize in that different former nature.
Here is the thing...to be godly as I see it we need to start with creation.
HOW?! It's the same freaking mud in my example! It's a glorified dent in mud that gets fossilized, so please do explain how the shape of the human foot, in any way, could influence fossilization so much as to make it impossible within the brief moment of making the imprint. Flipping jellyfish, which are 95 percent water, have managed to be fossilized in this manner, and yet you think humans left something behind in their footprints that makes the mud go "oh no, can't hold this shape"?Ridiculous. How a footprint looks does not tell us that they would all have the same composition in the former nature. Not in any way. You are done.
Easily. What if only 2 of each basic kind existed in the garden? The multiply thingie would maybe be after they migrated outward from Eden! Now, any tough questions? This is too easy.
.
Nope. Not at all. Besides, Adam was smart and fast, unlike devolved man of today.
wait. you already admit:I've already demonstrated that cars and trucks don't sort themselves like that. Why continue to argue something that has already been shown to be false?
Back to this? I already answered this in detail. See
Multiple studies for life show conclusively that they are significant. These studies have been peer reviewed and accepted. Do you dispute them? Then go through the calculations and show where they went wrong. It is not my job to do your homework for you
Quite right. We need to start with the belief that God created the universeHere is the thing...to be godly as I see it we need to start with creation.
The information is there. The first link is 10 paragraphs that describes in detail what is wrong with your chart. You ignore it and pretend nobody responded. You are wrong. I responded in detail.you just repeating yourself. you already said:
"it is not simply dividing into four groups".
so i showed that it is and you just give my those comments again.
No, I do not just send you to talk.origins. I point out that it is based on multiple studies with links to the primary literature.so you have no real answer to how many convergent cases we need to falsify this suppoose "hierarchy" and you just send me again to talkorigin. fine. i think we have done here.
"If I walked into a parking lot containing a bunch of bicycles and a bunch of cars, I could sort them into two groups."
so you can divide vehicles into groups. and then you can do the same for in group vehicles too and get a phylogenetic tree. in any case you will get a tree.
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?