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.
And they both point, independently, to biological evolution. It is the consilience of evidence that lends increased probability.Now you are talking actually two separated fields of study. One is classical paleontology and one is genetics.
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.
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."
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.Why should I give that information to one who is not friendly to me?
Thank-you. Now you have answered my question.I will answer your question as an either-or question.
They are specially created.
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.
Thank-you. Now you have answered my question.
So, if they aren't willing to drink the Kool-Aid, you know they aren't sincere! Got it!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.
There's a cure for that: learn 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.
Nope, I'm not ignoring anything.
No, scratch that... I might be ignoring your strawmen and misrepresentations of data.
The DNA of humans and chimps is almost identical.
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?
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.
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?
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.
What two infraspecific taxa mated to produce the genus Homo?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
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?