The fossil record shows there never was evolution.

[Jose Fly]

Darwinists love rehashing arguments so they can know what nonsense they can bring to bear.

Genuineoriginal said he doesn't agree with your definition, so I asked him to provide his own. Try and keep up.

 

[Stripe]

Has this article been submitted for peer review by other in the field? I'd like to know.

Of course you would.

I know that within my small herd, one of my horses, the Arabian, has one less vertebrae than the others. He is still a horse.

Ah. Playing the willfully ignorant — dumb on purpose — card.

Nobody, except creationists, have ever made this claim: Both are horses, and the larger has not evolved from the smaller, nor the smaller from the larger.

Oh. So you didn't provide an example of evolution?

Why do you guys continue to cite sources that even 6days agrees operates under an anti-scientific framework?

To give you something to wail about. We know you'll discuss anything rather than face the evidence.

Because they're a wide-ranging taxa.

Except when you can line up a trait that shows a step-by-step progression from one state to another. Then you will trumpet evolution while ignoring all the things that do not adhere to the supposed pattern.

Um....got news fer ya....evolution is a fact.

Nope. It's just a theory.

Therefore......?

This whole thinking gig is a bit much for you, isn't it?

Or, strongly suggesting that the people at AiG have no clue how evolution works. Why they think the parent species must go extinct once the new species arises is a mystery. I guess they're either totally ignorant, or just plain lying. Your pick.

Nope. The horse sequence is presented in order to imply hereditary progression. When we find two of the creatures together, it defies the assertion of progression.

Proof please. Bone bed with dino and human bones? Cow bones with dino bones. Dino bones and cow bones in the same strata.

Have you got anything? Anything at all to support your assertion?

Of course. The world over, there are billions of dead things buried in sediment that was laid down in water. That's what we would expect in the fossil record assuming the creationist model.

"Proof" enough to validate serious consideration of the idea. But only for scientists.

 

[Stripe]

Genuineoriginal said he doesn't agree with your definition, so I asked him to provide his own. Try and keep up.

Not surprisingly, despite saying "your definition," you have made up a sloppy version of it.

It pays to be very careful when dealing with definitions. We know why you want to sow confusion.

 

[Jose Fly]

To give you something to wail about.

Or laugh at. :chuckle:

Except when you can line up a trait that shows a step-by-step progression from one state to another. Then you will trumpet evolution while ignoring all the things that do not adhere to the supposed pattern.

You do realize that the two concepts are compatible, right?

Nope. It's just a theory.

And black is white and up is down. In the real world however, evolution is a fact simply because we see it happen, all the time.

Nope. The horse sequence is presented in order to imply hereditary progression.

Here, educate yourself...

When we find two of the creatures together, it defies the assertion of progression.

Your ignorance is noted.

 

[Jose Fly]

It pays to be very careful when dealing with definitions.

Thus it makes sense to ask GO for his definition.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Of course you would.

I would.

Ah. Playing the willfully ignorant — dumb on purpose — card.

Actually, your link mentioned that there was a question regarding the number of ribs. I was merely pointing out that in the modern horse there are still differences between breeds regarding the number of vertebrate. The only one being dumb on purpose seems to be you.

Oh. So you didn't provide an example of evolution?

Again, I was responding to your link that attempted to infer that the large modern horse evolved from the small modern horse of vice versa. It is a fallacy used by creationists that can't argue the actual facts of what has been observed in the fossil record.

Of course. The world over, there are billions of dead things buried in sediment that was laid down in water. That's what we would expect in the fossil record assuming the creationist model.

But the observed fossil record does not match your creationist model. Where does that leave you r model?

"Proof" enough to validate serious consideration of the idea. But only for scientists.

Scientists have looked at your model and found that it does not accurately model the observed data. Why should they accept a model that is wrong?

 

[Stripe]

You do realize that the two concepts are compatible, right?

You do realize that using one as evidence because it suits your agenda and ignoring the other because it doesn't is not in the least bit convincing, right?

Evolution is a fact.

Nope. It's just a theory. While you want to keep pretending that Darwinism is science, it must be a theory. That you want it to be a fact shows your religious devotion to evolutionism.

http://www2.humboldt.edu/natmus/lifeThroughTime/Cenoz_Horses/Horsetree.jpg

Nice cartoon.

Your ignorance is noted.

Thus it makes sense to ask GO for his definition.

Nope. It makes sense to present the definition that was actually given rather than inventing your own sloppy version.

We know why you want to sow confusion; it gives you more chances to avoid a rational discussion over the evidence.

 

[Stripe]

Your link mentioned that there was a question regarding the number of ribs. I was merely pointing out that in the modern horse there are still differences between breeds regarding the number of vertebrate.

Your observation exposes the fact that you have no idea what the objection is.

Again, I was responding to your link that attempted to infer that the large modern horse evolved from the small modern horse of vice versa. It is a fallacy used by creationists that can't argue the actual facts of what has been observed in the fossil record.

First, the link doesn't promote evolution.
Second, the objection is that the "evidence" of lining up fossils can be done with living creatures, exposing the fact that your lineup is not evidence of descent with modification.

The observed fossil record matches the creationist model.

Scientists have looked at your model and found that it does not accurately model the observed data. Why should they accept a model that is wrong?

 

[Jose Fly]

You do realize that using one as evidence because it suits your agenda and ignoring the other because it doesn't is not in the least bit convincing, right?

Then you need to show where that has happened.

Nope. It's just a theory.

And in other news, the moon is made of cheese for no other reason than that I say so!!

Nice cartoon.

LOL! You claimed horse evolution is depicted as a "hereditary progression", but when shown horse evolution being depicted as a branching bush, you try and wave it away as a "cartoon".

Your intellectual dishonesty is noted.

Nope. It makes sense to present the definition that was actually given rather than inventing your own sloppy version.

If it's your definition, then it's your responsibility, not mine.

In the meantime, let's see how GO defines "kind". Or are you doing everything you can to keep other creationists from speaking for themselves?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Your observation exposes the fact that you have no idea what the objection is.

Why would you think that? Your link is saying that because of the varying number of ribs all of the fossils cannot be related to the modern horse yet even the modern horse has differences in their skeletons. If modern horses have this variation, why wouldn't we expect to see it in its predecessors?

First, the link doesn't promote evolution.
Second, the objection is that the "evidence" of lining up fossils can be done with living creatures, exposing the fact that your lineup is not evidence of descent with modification.

By all means, please line up some living creatures to show us how the modern kind of horses came to be. I eagerly await your picture.

The observed fossil record matches the creationist model.

Does the creationist model predict the fact that dino bones are never found in the same strata or same bone beds with the bones of modern animals? If not, how can it be considered a valid model?

 

[genuineoriginal]

To the Creationists here:

What would you expect the fossil record to look like, based on your literal reading of Genesis?

_____
“If Noah’s flood were true you would expect to find millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, and what do we actually see in the fossil record? Millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth!” Ken Ham​

 

[Stripe]

Then you need to show where that has happened.

Darwinists hate reading.

You claimed horse evolution is depicted as a "hereditary progression"

It was. Try Cabinetmaker's post. :thumb:

when shown

That phrase implies compelling evidence. Cartoons aren't evidence, unless you're already sold out to evolutionism.

Your intellectual dishonesty is noted.

If it's your presentation of my definition, then it's your responsibility to present it accurately.

Why would you think that?

Because you have not responded to the challenge or even acknowledged its existence.

Your link is saying that because of the varying number of ribs all of the fossils cannot be related to the modern horse.

Nope. Try again.

By all means, please line up some living creatures to show us how the modern kind of horses came to be.

You've already been provided with an image of extant horses. That you would think we want to line them up to show a progression of inheritance exposes your religious commitment to Darwin and anti-science bent.

Does the creationist model predict the fact that dino bones are never found in the same strata or same bone beds with the bones of modern animals?

Begging the question is a logical fallacy. You need to learn to conduct a rational discussion.

 

[genuineoriginal]

This post is meaningless. There are far to many undefined and vague terms to be useful.

That seems to be the problem with evolutionary terminology as well.

Please define "A new kind of animal"

To Europeans, a kangaroo was a new kind of animal, since it was a kind of animal they had never encountered before.

What would be a new kind of animal to you?

Please quantify "sufficient change in the DNA"

_____
sufficient
having or providing as much as is needed​

Please quantify if the change must occur in one step of if it can occur in multiple steps over time.

Why would you think that would matter?

Genetic monsters, by definition, are not part of the evolutionary process. They are considered unsuccessful off spring because they do not mate and, thus, cannot transfer their genes into the gen pool.

That is exactly what will happen when there is change in DNA sufficient to change one kind of animal into another kind and is why evolution is a failed theory.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Why would you expect it to separated into layers with dinos at the bottom, modern animals at the top and no mixing of them?

Guess what happens when an evolutionist scientist finds a fossil of a modern animal in the layers with the dinosaurs.

 

[genuineoriginal]

So your answer is "No, I didn't read any of it before I dismissed it all".

My answer is that you mindlessly posted a google search instead of anything with substance.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Has this article been submitted for peer review by EVOLUTIONISTS WHO WILL REJECT IT WITHOUT CARING WHETHER IT IS TRUE OR NOT? I'd like to know.

FTFY, and you are welcome

I know that within my small herd, one of my horses, the Arabian, has one less vertebrae than the others. He is still a horse.

You seem to know what kind of animal is a horse.
:thumb:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Genuineoriginal said he doesn't agree with your definition, so I asked him to provide his own. Try and keep up.

What definition would that be?

 

[Jose Fly]

Darwinists hate reading.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Jose Fly]

My answer is that you mindlessly posted a google search instead of anything with substance.

Would you be interested in material showing how fruit fly studies have provided key insights into the process of speciation? Be honest, because I don't want to bother if you're not actually going to read any of it.

 

[Jose Fly]

What definition would that be?

This is Stripe's definition of "kind": All the organisms that are descended from a universal ancestor population.

Do you agree?