Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Transitional Fossil Features
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Justatruthseeker" data-source="post: 68229221" data-attributes="member: 332164"><p>No you don't. You have smooth common ordered differences back to H. Erectus, then the imaginary gap game and missing transitions come into the game. It's already been shown you got half of what you thought wrong and had your entire claimed lineage thrown into disarray. The problem is evolutionist's never want to consider the evidence that goes against their theory.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution" target="_blank">http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution</a></p><p></p><p>Excuse me, but you got that wrong too. Models based upon individual, isolated species predicts exactly what we see. The gradual variation between breeds of the same species. You know, when an Asian mates with an African and produces an Afro-Asian. Or when a Husky mates with a Mastiff and produces a Chinook. All within their individual isolated species. This is all you have ever observed, until we play the incorrectly misidentify things in the fossil record as separate species instead of breeds and begin the imaginary missing transitional game. I require no imaginary missing fossils. I just simply have to apply what we observe - breed mating with breed producing new breeds.</p><p></p><p>I need not pretend these are separate species, and claim non-existent transitional forms:</p><p></p><p><img src="http://www.unlikelymoose.com/blog/2004blogimages/horned-dinosaurs.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>But just accept those dinosaur are just different breeds of the same species per observations and common sense.</p><p></p><p><img src="http://animalonline.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/dog-breeds-photos-and-info-hd-dog-breeds---dogs-puppies-and-cats--32-dogs-types---theanimals-awesome.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>They are no more separate species than dog breeds are separate species or cat breeds are separate species. There is no need at all to pretend otherwise - and direct empirical evidence that backs up breed mating with breed producing new breeds within the species.</p><p></p><p>Evolutionists have nothing but a few bones of creatures never once observed in life - in which they classify them incorrectly based upon non-empirical pre-concieved beliefs, while ignoring how we know life propagates in the here and now. And then refuse to apply what we observe to the fossil record, or birds that clearly interbreed and produce fertile offspring and so are of one species. No difference between those finches or dogs or cats - except they classified them incorrectly based upon pre-concieved beliefs before they ever bothered to study them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Justatruthseeker, post: 68229221, member: 332164"] No you don't. You have smooth common ordered differences back to H. Erectus, then the imaginary gap game and missing transitions come into the game. It's already been shown you got half of what you thought wrong and had your entire claimed lineage thrown into disarray. The problem is evolutionist's never want to consider the evidence that goes against their theory. [URL]http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution[/URL] Excuse me, but you got that wrong too. Models based upon individual, isolated species predicts exactly what we see. The gradual variation between breeds of the same species. You know, when an Asian mates with an African and produces an Afro-Asian. Or when a Husky mates with a Mastiff and produces a Chinook. All within their individual isolated species. This is all you have ever observed, until we play the incorrectly misidentify things in the fossil record as separate species instead of breeds and begin the imaginary missing transitional game. I require no imaginary missing fossils. I just simply have to apply what we observe - breed mating with breed producing new breeds. I need not pretend these are separate species, and claim non-existent transitional forms: [IMG]http://www.unlikelymoose.com/blog/2004blogimages/horned-dinosaurs.gif[/IMG] But just accept those dinosaur are just different breeds of the same species per observations and common sense. [IMG]http://animalonline.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/dog-breeds-photos-and-info-hd-dog-breeds---dogs-puppies-and-cats--32-dogs-types---theanimals-awesome.jpg[/IMG] They are no more separate species than dog breeds are separate species or cat breeds are separate species. There is no need at all to pretend otherwise - and direct empirical evidence that backs up breed mating with breed producing new breeds within the species. Evolutionists have nothing but a few bones of creatures never once observed in life - in which they classify them incorrectly based upon non-empirical pre-concieved beliefs, while ignoring how we know life propagates in the here and now. And then refuse to apply what we observe to the fossil record, or birds that clearly interbreed and produce fertile offspring and so are of one species. No difference between those finches or dogs or cats - except they classified them incorrectly based upon pre-concieved beliefs before they ever bothered to study them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Transitional Fossil Features
Top
Bottom