FrenchyBearpaw
Take time for granite.
Well, he did think Hovind had a good point, so take that for what you will.
Upvote
0
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.
If something is missing, and never found, how can one show that an unfounded fossil had offspring?
I don't know why you would love such an asinine point.
(then again, I have an idea)
Of course not.
If it was, then evolution would be too hard to demonstrate.
After all, if you can't daisy-chain, do the next best thing -- connect the dots.
Right?
I love the point Mr. Hovind made concerning this:
You can't show that any of those missing links had offspring.
Then let me make this as perfectly clear as I can.Of course fossilized species never existed as individuals. They existed as members of a species and it really does not matter if Lucy never had any offspring. We can be extremely sure that here relatives did.
Here is a hint for debating against evolution. If you ever find yourself agreeing with Hovind the odds are almost insurmountable that you are wrong.
Then let me make this as perfectly clear as I can.
Either daisy-chain atoms-to-adam macroevolution -- and not just on paper -- or macroevolution can take a hike.
Then let me make this as perfectly clear as I can.
Either daisy-chain atoms-to-adam macroevolution -- and not just on paper -- or macroevolution can take a hike.
In my opinion, Lucy, along with all these other Homo [whatevers], was a human being, struck down by a bone-altering disease, a la Deuteronomy 28.
Then let me make this as perfectly clear as I can.
Either daisy-chain atoms-to-adam macroevolution -- and not just on paper -- or macroevolution can take a hike.
I was referring to the fact that you referred to inmate Hovind as "Mr.", not "Dr."
Too bad then.Can't. We have enough evidence to suspect a murder took place, but not enough to nail the culprit. Sorry.
That's fine with me -- I'm no better than you guys.So can your opinion. (take a hike, that is)
There's no such thing as "atoms-to-adam" macroevolution except in the minds of creationists. The Theory of Evolution says nothing about atoms. You confuse it with abiogenesis. (Genesis 2:7)
Also, you confuse evolution and common descent with genealogy. So it doesn't matter if Lucy had children. That's a silly issue.
Three possible reasons:What about all of the other fossils of the same species? (Lucy was simply a convenient nickname for the FIRST remnants of that species to be found.) Are you saying that all of Lucy's "sisters" had a bone-altering disease as well?
Why do creationists so often claim that various homonid fossils had bone diseases or arthritis? (Kirk Cameron uses that same excuse quite often.)
I can't daisy chain my ancestors beyond somewhere in the 18th century. I guess that going by AV's logic, that means my great great great great grandfather was created ex nihilo.
Three possible reasons:
1. All those struck with this particular disease congregated; like a leper community.
2. God struck whole populations down at times.
3. Both.
Good -- then we're on the same page here.There's no such thing as "atoms-to-adam" macroevolution except in the minds of creationists.
Didn't Mr. Galilei complete two of his most famous works while under house arrest?If someone wants to get a few laughs while wasting as many minutes, you should read the Kent Hovind "newsletter from prison" where he says that he's having a great time in prison: "It gives me lots of time for earning additional doctorates!"
Considering that Hovind has yet to earn a college bachelor's degree, those many Ph.D.'s are incredible achievements. [Sarcasm alert.]
Then let me make this as perfectly clear as I can.
Either daisy-chain atoms-to-adam macroevolution -- and not just on paper -- or macroevolution can take a hike.
You macroevolved from your great great great great grandfather, did you?I can't daisy chain my ancestors beyond somewhere in the 18th century. I guess that going by AV's logic, that means my great great great great grandfather was created ex nihilo.
Good -- then we're on the same page here.
Now we see the real reason you started this thread, don't we?And perhaps he was created with "appearance of age"!
Maybe he got caught in the backwash and the flood took him to Neptune, from where he awaited rescue by the Challenger voyage.
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?