@kellyjay saidI don't think I'm 'hung-up' on time, but I think it's relevant when discussing evolution. Not all fossils are the same age, as I imagine would be the case if they were produced consequent to the biblical flood.
You do seem hung up on time as if something that was recorded in the distant past even if true is no longer relevant that simply due to the passage of time.
Do you believe in true, truth?
Absolutes?
I don't think it's possible to deny the possibility of absolute truth - would it not be an absolute truth to say that there are no absolute truths?
@avalanchethecat saidMillions of fossils?
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm just not resorting to magical thinking to explain things. I might counter that it's rather more convenient for you to have the all the answers to everything in the one book - saves you a lot of annoying reading eh? Of course there's still the creationist websites to wade through...
Also, do you not find it inconvenient having to ignore all the millions of fossils?
Surely you’re not claiming millions of transitional fossils exist? Because if you aren’t - and you certainly shouldn’t be - why bring up the figure “millions” at all?
Sounds very disingenuous.
And sure, God has all the answers so it makes sense that the Word of God has all the answers to the most important questions of life.
@avalanchethecat saidYou have to ignore a lot of evidence to believe a supernatural realm does not exist.
I don't use the word to be insulting, I use it to as a catch-all term encompassing the use of supernatural powers.
And isn’t it “magical” that life would come from non-life, that order would come from chaos (absent an intelligent force acting to make that happen,) and that consciousness came from physical matter?
Why aren’t you questioning these “magical” occurrences?
@avalanchethecat
How do you know that any particular fossil found was the parent of another organism?
@sonship saidI don't think that's really relavent. There is an assumption - fair I think - that every fossil found is representative of a breeding species.
@avalanchethecat
How do you know that any particular fossil found was the parent of another organism?
@sonship saidI think that it's certainly possible that Australopithecus Afarensis may be an ancestral form. It's also perfectly possible that it isn't. The evidence suggests that in the case of human evolution, and thus probably with other species, there's not so much an 'evolutionary tree' as an 'evolutionary bush'. Lucy may be a sideshoot of that bush.
@avalanchethecat
I don't think that's really relavent. There is an assumption - fair I think - that every fossil found is representative of a breeding species.
Do you think the bones found which were designated as "Lucy" was of a species from which you are a descendent of some individual of that species ?
@Kevin-Eleven
I believe that you love trying to guilt trip Christians almost as much as you love the imaginary planet you like better than the Earth.
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 29080
@sonship saidCase closed.
@Kevin-Eleven
I believe that you love trying to guilt trip Christians almost as much as you love the imaginary planet you like better than the Earth.
1 edit
I think that it's certainly possible that Australopithecus Afarensis may be an ancestral form. It's also perfectly possible that it isn't. The evidence suggests that in the case of human evolution, and thus probably with other species, there's not so much an 'evolutionary tree' as an 'evolutionary bush'. Lucy may be a sideshoot of that bush.
Many people come to a fossil eager to see are relationship of descent because they have been so indoctrinated to assume that is what is being seen.
In the case of the bones collected an designated "Lucy" or the more impressive description "Australopithecus Afarensis" artists use their imaginations to give the public portraits to encourage these assumptions.
National Geographic magazine hired four artists to come up with what the being from which the seven bones found in Kenya would have looked like. They were asked to make up what the female figure "Lucy" should have looked like. They came up with vastly different interpretations of being the fossils came from.
One made the seven bones composed what looked like a modern African American woman; another made her look something like a werewolf from a 50s horror movie; another showed a female with a heavy gorilla like brow; and another like someone with a missing forehead and beak-like jaws.
Reconstruction of fossil evidence can be wild feeding the public with concepts to match their indoctrination. It is not unlike artistic representation of angels winged women for Sunday School books. They can be religious like artistic license.
You only have seven bones. No wonder so vastly different reconstructions were imagined. Someone remarked that this was like finding thirteen random pages from War and Peace and trying to reconstruct the entire plot of the novel from that.
Did you ever pause to consider how much of your belief in this kind of macro evolution is because of the artistic presentations of imaginative artists encouraging your assumptions?
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 29080
@sonship saidYeah, pretty sure you love to argue more than you love Christ.
@avalanchethecat
[quote] I think that it's certainly possible that Australopithecus Afarensis may be an ancestral form. It's also perfectly possible that it isn't. The evidence suggests that in the case of human evolution, and thus probably with other species, there's not so much an 'evolutionary tree' as an 'evolutionary bush'. Lucy may be a sideshoot of that bush. [/quo ...[text shortened]... lution is because of the artistic presentations of imaginative artists encouraging your assumptions?
@avalanchethecat saidSo are living creatures; what is assumed by some fossils were turned into something else over time through evolution, that too is an assumption.
I don't think that's really relavent. There is an assumption - fair I think - that every fossil found is representative of a breeding species.
3 edits
Yeah, pretty sure you love to argue more than you love Christ.
Show us how to really love Jesus Christ our Lord then. I am wide open to your more healthy example.
Show us your more proper and more genuine love for the Lord Jesus.
I'll be watching carefully. I am always opened to a better example to emulate.
1 edit
@avalanchethecat saidYes, those who profess that there are no absolute truths, do so proclaiming an absolute truth. Truth is funny like that the more we try to deny it, we show we know it’s true. 😀
I don't think I'm 'hung-up' on time, but I think it's relevant when discussing evolution. Not all fossils are the same age, as I imagine would be the case if they were produced consequent to the biblical flood.
I don't think it's possible to deny the possibility of absolute truth - would it not be an absolute truth to say that there are no absolute truths?