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.
Already explained repeatedly. Different physiology. Different mobility. Different behavior/intelligence. In general, we don't expect mammals to react the same way as dinosaurs. They are fundamentally different types of animals.
If you cannot falsify something with observation, then:
What fossil evidence, if found, would falsify creationism?
Creationism can not be falsified does not mean creationism is not scientific.
Dinosaurs and mammals aren't nearly as different as you're implying. For starters, they're both warm-blooded, which allows dinosaurs to be quite active. Many of them were quite small agile creatures, and many mammals are rather slow.
Yes, what is the mobility difference between say an elephant and a stegosaurus? How about between an ostrich and a velociraptor? Between an archelon and a sea turtle? Between a geococcyx and a compsognathus?Based on what? Are you kidding me? I actually have to explain the mobility differences between mammals and reptiles to you?
And the evidence doesn't support either hypothesis so why would they be pursued any further?I already explained two alternate hypotheses that Evolutionists were prepared to pursue. 1) Birds could have evolved from a proto-mammal instead of dinosaurs. 2) Mammals could have evolved from amphibians instead of reptiles.
You keep ignoring that there are quite a number of things the theory of evolution CANNOT accommodate. A cow in the Devonian period for one. Completely different DNA in the nested hierarchies that we see is another.And any of these animals could have been said to evolve earlier if that is what the fossil record had begun to reveal in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Evolution would have accommodated nearly anything and constructed the modern theory around that data. It doesn't predict when reptiles or mammals are going to evolve, and phylogeny does not identify actual ancestors. Just accommodates with storytelling.
Then hypothesize, juve...That was kind of the point of his question.
Yea, guess what happens to the carcasses? They are scavenged by animals, bacteria, and decomposed by the elements.
"Three days after it started, the macabre procession of caribou carcasses swirling past the outcropping began to diminish."
Only catastrophic burials can rationally explain the massive fossil graveyards we find all over the Earth. The global flood model is an excellent explanation for this, whether you like it or not.
God can exist without evolution being wrong. I don't view the validity of the bible as the validity of god. I view it as primarily allegorical, not literal. And even if it was, it was written by humans, not god. Just imagine an ancient human, who thinks disease is caused by breathing in the night air or by demons, even attempting to understand a process as complicated as evolution, which wouldn't be well suited for what the bible is ultimately intended for anyway: to enforce and teach basic ideas of what is right and what is wrong. People say that the bible is the word of god, and people who wrote it said it was so, but I don't trust that judgment to humans, because there is no evidence to suggest that the bible has any relationship with god or any other such being. It's prophecies are as impressive as a person writing a novel stating that the main character is destined to die later in the book, and that self same author writing it down, just as they predicted. Any predictions made for the actual future are so generalized that of course they would happen, a lot. There will be war: there are wars all the time, they never specified dates or events within those wars that prove such a statement to be a legitimate prophecy. In fact, according to revelations, 1/4th of the human population dying was one of the signs of the apocalypse, yet in the mid to late 1300s, 2/3rds to 1/2 of the population of the world died. The apocalypse did not happen. So, as an atheist, I do not reject the possibility of a god, but I don't view the bible as gods word any more than I would "Green Eggs and Ham" by Dr. Seuss.
No, that is scientific. Religious idea does not need any hypothesis. It is not possible to assume a falsification and still be creationism. It is against the definition.
Use the idea of falsification to refute creationism is plain stupid.
According to the Bible, everything was created during creation week, from bacteria to humans, some 6,000 years ago. Some here want to squeeze the entire fossil record into this timeline (of 6,000 years). My question is simple then, why don't we find fossil cows in Devonian strata?
Because they had not evolved yet.
To elaborate further, why is are there different communities of organisms in every strata and none of them correspond to what was created on creation week, except the most recent ones? Why are there dozens of layers below the more recent ones with many groups that are missing?
No, that is scientific. Religious idea does not need any hypothesis. It is not possible to assume a falsification and still be creationism. It is against the definition.
Use the idea of falsification to refute creationism is plain stupid.
If you view the bible like this, why did you state a few days ago that the story of the flood contributed to your atheism???????
Already explained repeatedly. Different physiology. Different mobility. Different behavior/intelligence. In general, we don't expect mammals to react the same way as dinosaurs. They are fundamentally different types of animals.
Please explain how an anklyosaurus, a large, heavy, land-dwelling, herbivorous dinosaur is fundamentally different mobility wise and behavior wise than say, a rhinoceros, a large, heavy, land-dwelling, herbivorous mammal.Already explained repeatedly. Different physiology. Different mobility. Different behavior/intelligence. In general, we don't expect mammals to react the same way as dinosaurs. They are fundamentally different types of animals.
Creationism can not be falsified does not mean creationism is not scientific.
Everything of creationism is scientific, except the falsification part, which is religious.
Ah, so sloths, slow lorises, koalas etc. etc. are all faster than all dinosaurs? I think not. And those rodents. They outpaced speedsters like Dromiceiomimus, did they? It's almost as if your explanation makes no sense.
And still you have no explanation for how not one single angiosperm, the most diverse and common type of plant, appears at the bottom of the rock record with the earliest plants. Not exactly a minor flaw with your deeply flawed model. Don't worry, I'll be happy to keep reminding you of this until you produce an explanation.
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?