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.
That is correct.I think this sentence from your link sums it up perfectly:
"Hence, "Precambrian rabbits" would prove that there were one or more serious errors somewhere in this package, and the next task would be to identify those errors."
From a thread of mine I started a few years back:All those features changed over time but that is unacceptable because 6000 years is not enough time for the changes.
Behold the terrible lizard!
The fossil record.Says who?
Not long at all and it happens frequently.How long does it take to breed another form of bird?
What do you see as the problemEven toothless birds do have genes for teeth but that they are not expressed—are “turned off”—in modern birds.
I don't know what a "kind" is, do you?Just a variation in a kind.
Kind = GenusI don't know what a "kind" is, do you?
Genus:
1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin"
Birds are distantly related to reptiles through Archosaurs their common ancestor but Dinos and reptiles went their separate ways about 150 million years ago.From a thread of mine I started a few years back:
Oh yeah the fossil record ...where the modern birds appear alongside dinosaurs? The ones they supposedly evolved from?The fossil record.
Not long at all and it happens frequently.
What do you see as the problem
I don't know what a "kind" is, do you?
Defining "Kinds" -- Do Creationists Apply a Double Standard?
How do you tell them apart?Kind = Genus
From the Online Etymology Dictionary:
From your link:
If that's why they had to develop another concept, I submit that's a pretty weak reason for doing so.Creationists long ago gave up on their original idea of fixity of species. One reason is because simple calculation can show that Noah's Ark could not possibly have held pairs from each of some two to five million species (there would be less than one-half cubic foot per pair), nor could Noah and his family have possibly taken care of them all. A second reason is that the evidence for adaptive change and species formation is overwhelming. Therefore, they had to develop another concept.
How do you tell what apart?How do you tell them apart?
I have given up trying to explain the basics of evolution to you so I'll just say the fossil record is evidence that dinosaurs changed slowly over time.Oh yeah the fossil record ...where the modern birds appear alongside dinosaurs? The ones they supposedly evolved from?
Seems like evolution believers pick and choose which "evidence" to use to support their claims.
Wouldn't an omni god just use DNA. It would solve the problem of space and clean up. Perhaps the Lunar Ark will be the next Noah's ArkFrom your link:If that's why they had to develop another concept, I submit that's a pretty weak reason for doing so.
I can explain nicely how all those animals fit on the Ark.
I already outlined why your beliefs prevent you from accepting the evidence. 6000 years is not enough time for the so many changes to take place.I'm sure they did, but they didn't become birds.
So pigeons find an isolated island and take up residence there.The fossil record.
Not long at all and it happens frequently.
What do you see as the problem
I don't know what a "kind" is, do you?
Defining "Kinds" -- Do Creationists Apply a Double Standard?
Your "Double Standard" link can take a hike.Wouldn't an omni god just use DNA. It would solve the problem of space and clean up. Perhaps the Lunar Ark will be the next Noah's Ark
"We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."I already outlined why your beliefs prevent you from accepting the evidence. 6000 years is not enough time for the so many changes to take place.
This premise is faulty, and leads to all kinds of faulty arguments and assumptions.Since nobody knows what a "kind' is,
Well I might be a little rusty, but I've gutted and cleaned a lot of birds. And they don't have reptilian organs. So you have to not only add wings you have to get an animal with one type of lungs to become one with a totally different type of lung.But then it's hard to acknowledge something you don't know,
and no creationist here shows signs of even having taken
high school biology.
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?