What you aren't being told about astronomy

[Gracchus]

Now you are talking actually two separated fields of study. One is classical paleontology and one is genetics.

And they both point, independently, to biological evolution. It is the consilience of evidence that lends increased probability.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I think this is a good attitude. Please tell me what is wrong with it. I will keep doing this until i find it is not appropriate.

Except it's just a bluff.

 

[Gracchus]

You have been asked repeatedly for evidence against evolution and the best you can come up with is: "I could tell you, but I won't, because I don't like your attitude."

I think this is a good attitude. Please tell me what is wrong with it. I will keep doing this until i find it is not appropriate.

It results in something that is indistinguishable from the response of a very foolish liar, who doesn't realize that everyone is aware of his deception, which makes it a strategy that is counterproductive to any defense of your position. If you actually confronted those who doubt you with your evidence, fewer folks would dismiss you as a very foolish liar. Of course, it is your heifer.

 

[juvenissun]

The problem with that attitude is that having information, but refusing to share it is indistinguishable from lying about having the information in the first place.

This is especially true if evidence counter to the alleged information has been presented.

Why should I give that information to one who is not friendly to me?

 

[Astrophile]

I don't know about ancient animals. But we can use human/ape skeleton as an example. When compare a chimp skeleton with a human skeleton, they looks similar. Without knowing better, I can suggest that chimp evolved into human. But we know a chimp is very different from a human. This example shows that skeletal morphology could be very wrong if used as an evidence of evolution.

We are not able to work out a clear process for human evolution, which we have a lot of skeletal samples. If so, how could we even consider the study of dinosaur evolution to be a solid one?

Further more, we do not know the mechanism of skeletal transformation (HOW exactly it changed). Morphology can be used as one evidence, but it is far from enough.

This doesn't answer my questions. Were the animals that we find as fossils descended from a long lineage of similar animals, or were they specially created?

 

[juvenissun]

It results in something that is indistinguishable from the response of a very foolish liar, who doesn't realize that everyone is aware of his deception, which makes it a strategy that is counterproductive to any defense of your position. If you actually confronted those who doubt you with your evidence, fewer folks would dismiss you as a very foolish liar. Of course, it is your heifer.

I am not try to defend anything and I do not intent to learn anything from that person. I have the information and like to share it. But not share it to people who does not want to listen. By the way, this is my professional attitude. How much can a student learn depends on how much he wants to learn. Not depends on how much information I have.

 

[juvenissun]

This doesn't answer my questions. Were the animals that we find as fossils descended from a long lineage of similar animals, or were they specially created?

I will answer your question as an either-or question.
They are specially created.

 

[Shemjaza]

Why should I give that information to one who is not friendly to me?

Certainly you shouldn't feel like you have an obligation. However, you should remember that we are not describing a private dialogue between you and some rude inquisitor, you are in a public space and to some extent representing your viewpoint.

Picture the two of you talking in an amphitheater and you announce that you posses some intriguing or amazing information... then clam up when asked to support your claim. It looks bad to the rest of the community.

 

[Astrophile]

I will answer your question as an either-or question.
They are specially created.

Thank-you. Now you have answered my question.

 

[juvenissun]

Certainly you shouldn't feel like you have an obligation. However, you should remember that we are not describing a private dialogue between you and some rude inquisitor, you are in a public space and to some extent representing your viewpoint.

Picture the two of you talking in an amphitheater and you announce that you posses some intriguing or amazing information... then clam up when asked to support your claim. It looks bad to the rest of the community.

I do expect other interested people would wedge in. In that case, I will disclose the same information I refrained to that person. I don't really mind a rude attitude. But I can tell if the person is sincere or not.

 

[juvenissun]

Thank-you. Now you have answered my question.

Surprisingly simple.

 

[Gracchus]

I do expect other interested people would wedge in. In that case, I will disclose the same information I refrained to that person. I don't really mind a rude attitude. But I can tell if the person is sincere or not.

So, if they aren't willing to drink the Kool-Aid, you know they aren't sincere! Got it!

Still, you leave a poor impression on those who don't have your enhanced perceptual abilities. They are likely to mis-interpret your justifiable reticence as an extremely feeble attempt at deliberate deception.

 

[AV1611VET]

Still, you leave a poor impression on those who don't have your enhanced perceptual abilities. They are likely to mis-interpret your justifiable reticence as an extremely feeble attempt at deliberate deception.

There's a cure for that: learn it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nope, I'm not ignoring anything.

No, scratch that... I might be ignoring your strawmen and misrepresentations of data.

Nope, you are ignoring miles while postulating inches as the cause.

Ignoring that when Husky mates with Husky you get Husky. When Mastiff mates with Mastiff you get Mastiff. And when Husky mates with Mastiff you get a Chinook.

Ignoring the huge variation right in front of your eyes for fantasy. But it's ok, I understand. I understand that if you accepted observations of the real world instead of Fairie Dust you would have to abandon that Fairie Dust, and you are not willing to give up your religion of evolution for the truth.

The only one misrepresenting the data is you. Pretending that the large variations you observe right in front of your eyes mean nothing in the scheme of things - because it doesn't fit your Fairie Dust beliefs.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The DNA of humans and chimps is almost identical.

So is the mouse - but I don't see you claiming it is our direct ancestor.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2352-just-2-5-of-dna-turns-mice-into-men/

So how does that work on your evolutionary tree?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Did these skeletons belong to animals that had been born from other animals of the same species and that had grandparents, great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, and so on indefinitely far back in time? Alternatively, were these skeletons, or the living animals that possessed them, specially created?

They sure did have ancestors - and the changes in morphology had nothing to do with evolution, but is the natural change we see when two infraspecific taxa mate.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...about-astronomy.7926692/page-23#post-69123594

Neither the Husky nor the Mastiff evolves into the Chinook, The Husky remains a Husky, the Mastiff remains a Mastiff. New variation appears when they mate (Chinook). But why is it all evolutionists want to ignore this variation we observe with our own eyes and postulate something never once observed?

Be honest with yourself. If you had never seen a dog before and found fossils of the Husky and mastiff - and then later in the strata found the Chinook - you would claim either the Husky or the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. You would be wrong, but you would claim it anyways and say you were right - just as you claim it for creatures in the fossil record that you have never seen in life. Creatures that mated with other infraspecific taxa of their species just as the Husky and Mastiff mated to produce the Chinook. Please stop ignoring the observational data when it comes to classifying the fossil record.

 

[juvenissun]

So, if they aren't willing to drink the Kool-Aid, you know they aren't sincere! Got it!

Still, you leave a poor impression on those who don't have your enhanced perceptual abilities. They are likely to mis-interpret your justifiable reticence as an extremely feeble attempt at deliberate deception.

Thank you. That may be true.
Well, a "better" (?) way is simply keep silent or say "you are right" and walk away.
If fact, I always do this to my students who do not wish to learn. No offending. Just smile and keep my mouth shut. That works.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I've debunked this particular post (which you continually copy-paste) quite a few times, including personally asking Tom Horner whether your interpretation of his work is fair (it isn't). But what the heck, let's take a look at just one nonsensical claim held therein.



When did Centrosaurus live? When did Triceratops live? Were they ever co-extant?

You've debunked nothing.

When did Mastiff live? When did Husky live? neither of them were around at the same time except because of US. We have changed what would naturally take hundreds if not millions of years. If the Mastiff went extinct today because of natural causes without man interfering - you would see the exact same thing as in the fossil record.

Of course he says that - that's his only answer to incorrect classification of fossils while claiming incorrect classification of fossils at the same time, lol. All he looked at was babies and adults - no one has bothered to look at different infraspecific taxa mating to produce variation because it doesn't fit their religious beliefs in evolution and so will be ignored.

Yet you see that right in front of your eyes with every animal in existence - and then refuse to apply it to the fossil record.

Whether it is Husky and Mastiff producing the Chinook or a Grizzly and Polar bear producing the Prizzly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly–polar_bear_hybrid

You continually ignore those huge leaps in variation for something you have never observed.



http://dinosaurs.findthedata.com/compare/109-278/Centrosaurus-vs-Triceratops

And the number of times you have had to rename species should give you a clue.

http://iknowdino.com/tag/triceratops/

"In the 1900s a lot of Triceratops fossils were found, though the skulls varied a lot. As a result, a lot of Triceratops species were named. But in 1986 paleontologists Ostrom and Wellnhofer wrote that only the type species, Triceratops horridus, was real (variation in skulls were a mix of individual variation and fossils being distorted over time)"

"16 Triceratops species proposed since Triceratops was discovered, but only 2 are widely considered valid."

And both the Centrosaurus and the Triceratops are from the late Cretaceous. Both are found in Canada in the same area.

http://planetdinosaur.com/Centrosaurus.aspx

http://planetdinosaur.com/Triceratops.aspx

And since all dating is + or minus 20 million years, you have no proof they never overlapped.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ignoring that when Husky mates with Husky you get Husky. When Mastiff mates with Mastiff you get Mastiff. And when Husky mates with Mastiff you get a Chinook.

None of which violates any evolutionary mechanism. So one can only wonder what you are getting at.

Ignoring the huge variation right in front of your eyes for fantasy. But it's ok, I understand. I understand that if you accepted observations of the real world instead of Fairie Dust you would have to abandon that Fairie Dust, and you are not willing to give up your religion of evolution for the truth.

See? These are the kinds of strawmen I ignore.

The only one misrepresenting the data is you.

What data am I misrepresenting?

Pretending that the large variations you observe right in front of your eyes mean nothing in the scheme of things - because it doesn't fit your Fairie Dust beliefs.

Again, different dog breeds do not violate any evolutionary mechanism.

 

[Astrophile]

They sure did have ancestors - and the changes in morphology had nothing to do with evolution, but is the natural change we see when two infraspecific taxa mate.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...about-astronomy.7926692/page-23#post-69123594

What two infraspecific taxa mated to produce the genus Homo?