So you believe God made some organisms the same except when He didn't. Can't help you with that.
I ALSO DON’T HAVE A SABER TOOTH TIGER AT MY LOCAL ZOO BECAUSE SOME ANIMALS GO EXTINCT. A RODHOCETUS IS CLAIMED BY EVOLUTIONISTS TO BE AN EARLY ANCESTOR OF THE WHALE. I BELIEVE IT WAS MAMMAL THAT WENT EXTINCT. SAME EVIDENCE(A FOSSIL) DIFFERENT CONCLUSION.
You ducked my point. You claim these animals still exist. They don't. I give you credit for your answer on Rodhocetus though. I would have said extinct mammal too. But I would have added that it has characteristics of whales and of Pakicetus, in other words, a transition between species.
DOES IT SHOW THEM TRANSITIONING FROM ONE SPECIES TO ANOTHER? NO. THERE ARE ALOT OF DIFFERENCES IN SPECIES THAT ARE ALIVE AND LIVING TOGETHER ON EARTH TODAY. TAKE SHARKS FOR EXAMPLE. THERE ARE SOME VERY DISTINCT DIFFERENCES BUT THEY ARE ALL STILL SHARKS.
See above.
IF DATING METHODS ARE SO RELIABLE WHY HAVE ROCKS THAT HAVE FORMED DURING RECENT VOLCANIC ACTIVITY BEEN DATED AT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS TO MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD.
They haven't. Again we have different facts. Incorrect use of a test means the result is incorrect. Only a creationists would find value in such a flawed exercise.
WHY DON’T YOU EXPLAIN WHY THIS MATTERS WHEN DISCUSSING HOW ONE SPECIES OF ANIMAL EVOLVES INTO ANOTHER. I AM NOT ARGUING AGAINST NATURAL SELECTION, IT IS AN OBSERVABLE PROCESS.
I knew you meant "micro-evolution". You're ducking behind "kinds", as in "they're still birds". I'll ask again, what "kind" is Rodhocetus?
THINK AGAIN. THE LADY BELOW ISOLATED THE TISSUE AND IT WAS TRANSPARENT, PLIABLE AND EVEN HAD CELLS STILL PRESENT.
No. If you look at her published articles, her claim is that it seems like tissue and cells. And she found what looks like organic molecules. Unfortunately she destroyed her samples in acid to get her results, so it will take some time to confirm what she's found because paleontologists don't like destroying their eveidence. Especially when only a few examples of some species have been found. I personally hope her results are confirmed. But for a creationist to jump on a preliminary result while ignoring millions of repetitive, consistent results of tests performed over several decades is certainly dishonest. From another article,
Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
So you believe God made some organisms the same except when He didn’t. Can’t help you with that.
WHAT IS SO WEIRD ABOUT THAT. MAMMALS SHARE CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS, REPTILES SHARE CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS, FISH SHARE CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS ETC. THERE IS ORDER TO IT AND WE CAN CLASSIFY ANIMALS BASED ON THESE CHARACTERISTICS. ORDER DOESN’T COME FROM CHAOS AND BLIND CHANCE. GOD CREATED ALL THE ANIMALS AND HE GAVE EACH TYPE SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS.
You ducked my point. You claim these animals still exist.
I NEVER CLAIMED THAT THOSE ANIMALS STILL EXIST. SOME ANIMALS THAT EXIST TODAY ARE VIRTUALLY UNCHANGED FROM THEIR FOSSILIZED ANCESTORS IE LIVING FOSSILS. THE ONES THAT DON’T EXIST TODAY WENT EXTINCT.
They don’t. I give you credit for your answer on Rodhocetus though. I would have said extinct mammal too. But I would have added that it has characteristics of whales and of Pakicetus, in other words, a transition between species.
THAT IS A CONJECTURE. JUST BECAUSE IT HAS CHARACTERISTICS OF WHALES DOESN’T MEAN IT WAS A TRANSITION. IT COULD HAVE BEEN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MAMMAL OR A TYPE OF WHALE WITH UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS THAT WENT EXTINCT. FOR EXAMPLE IF WE ONLY SAW HAMMERHEAD SHARKS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD, WE COULD ASSUME THAT THIS WAS AN EARLY ANCESTOR TO THE MODERN SHARK OR THAT IT WAS A KIND OF SHARK THAT JUST HAPPENED TO GO EXTINCT. BOTH ARE JUST CONJECTURE.
They haven’t. Again we have different facts. Incorrect use of a test means the result is incorrect. Only a creationists would find value in such a flawed exercise.
SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT DATING CAN HAVE INCORRECT OR FLAWED CONCLUSIONS? ;) EVEN DISCOUNTING THIS, RADIOMETRIC DATING STILL HAS UNIFORMITARIAN ASSUMPTIONS. ASSUMPTION BASED ON WORLDVIEW.
WHY DON’T YOU EXPLAIN WHY THIS MATTERS WHEN DISCUSSING HOW ONE SPECIES OF ANIMAL EVOLVES INTO ANOTHER. I AM NOT ARGUING AGAINST NATURAL SELECTION, IT IS AN OBSERVABLE PROCESS.
I knew you meant “micro-evolution”. You’re ducking behind “kinds”, as in “they’re still birds”. I’ll ask again, what “kind” is Rodhocetus? MAYBE IT WAS ITS OWN KIND OR MAYBE IT WAS A DISTINCT TYPE OF WHALE. I DON’T KNOW AND NEITHER DO YOU.
No. If you look at her published articles, her claim is that it seems like tissue and cells. And she found what looks like organic molecules. Unfortunately she destroyed her samples in acid to get her results, so it will take some time to confirm what she’s found because paleontologists don’t like destroying their eveidence. Especially when only a few examples of some species have been found. I personally hope her results are confirmed. But for a creationist to jump on a preliminary result while ignoring millions of repetitive, consistent results of tests performed over several decades is certainly dishonest. I DIDN’T JUMP ON ANYTHING, I SOURCED AN ARTICLE THAT BY THE WAY WAS NOT FROM A CREATIONIST PERSPECTIVE. THE ARTICLE SAID SOFT TISSUE HAD BEEN FOUND. I ONLY QUOTED THE SOURCE. I DIDN’T CHANGE OR INTERPRET HER WORK OR WORDS IN ANY WAY. HOW IS THAT BEING DISHONEST?
From another article,Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists
NOONE HIJACKED HER RESEARCH, WE ONLY COMMENTED ON IT OR PRESENTED OUR INTERPRETATION OF IT. SHE PRESENTED HER INTERPRETATION.
I AM ENJOYING OUR EXCHANGE IMMENSELY!