Evolutionists, how do you explain this?

originally posted by: firefromabove
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I'm not sure how people drawing extinct animals disproves evolution

That's not what I said

How can a single jawbone be the basis for an understanding of what the creature may have looked like

Evolutionists just magically know everything, don't they.

Eat a piece of food. Pay attention to what each type of tooth does. Compare with other creatures that have jaws with teeth. Now take measurements of tooth/jaw size of current creatures and compare to body size/bone density/number of other factors. Create a statistical model, which will show correlations that can be used to interpret data to get an idea regarding lifestyle/physiology. Some fossils only exist in specific families, particularly the wishbone in birds. Perhaps find traces of pigmentation which leaves permanent markers in the fossil record giving an idea at coloring. Compare to modern species to see if there is any similarities, etc. Seriously, take a basic science class.

a reply to: firefromabove

What do you do for a living firefromBove?

a reply to: Cypress

So they're just interpolating things.

They have no actual evidence.

a reply to: firefromabove

Which models are you refering to when you say the paleontologists take a partial jawbone and create the rest from their imagination? Do you know there are entire fossil skeletons found? Like 100,000's?

originally posted by: Tinystarlight
What is more amazing is this. When a caterpillar metamorphizes into a butterfly it turns into a completely liquid state inside its cocoon, and yet on coming out, the butterfly retains the memory of the caterpillar.

Ahem...

I'm curious, how many caterpillar/butterfly entities did you include in your study, and what behavioral tests and questions were used to ascertain proof of this?

Rotflmao!

a reply to: firefromabove

no they are using the scientific method and understanding of other fields of science to determine the factors of the jaw

like the bone density , how much muscle the bones had , this then gives rise to the muscle mass and overall shape of the head etc

you know they arent just scratching their heads and guessing , they use other sciences together in unison to find answers
they dont just find a bone then go I think It looked like this then get some artist to draw it or make a model

they base it on already pre established facts about animals that share a common ancestry and then make observations and apply that understanding to the new bones
until they find enough evidence from other bones of the same species until they have one complete skeleton then they change and refine their previous theory until it gets more concrete
any new evidence which challenges their theory then puts them back to the drawing board to see how this new piece of the puzzle fits!

It's a lot of hard work , built on the backs of people who studied and worked hard before , and its constantly improving
day by day , year by year until the image is complete and they can say yes this is exactly how this animal lived


You know thats why i never get the whole religion vs science thing , in science they are constantly changing and molding new ideas and new evidence and even where it goes against the well established theories
If religion is willing to accept creationism , then why not update their understanding of religion
if catholicism is welcome to the idea of aliens and even heliocentrism then why dont they update their understanding of god?

if science is derived from god , then why did god give us the ability to question his divinity, if he didnt want us to find the answers and he wanted us to be his servants an worship no other why give us the ability to question? , seems a bit like a flaw in his grand design , meaning he is also fallible meaning , he wanted us to improve upon his idea , if of course god exists in form !

As others have said, it's not just guesswork. There's firm scientific method behind it.

originally posted by: Painterz
As others have said, it's not just guesswork. There's firm scientific method behind it.

Yeah, a firm scientific method based on a false premise

I bet astrologers also claim their methods are firm when explaining their "science"

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: Painterz
As others have said, it's not just guesswork. There's firm scientific method behind it.

Yeah, a firm scientific method based on a false premise

I bet astrologers also claim their methods are firm when explaining their "science"

What do you do for a living? What is your college degree in?

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: Painterz
As others have said, it's not just guesswork. There's firm scientific method behind it.

Yeah, a firm scientific method based on a false premise

I bet astrologers also claim their methods are firm when explaining their "science"

if you honestly want to understand a field of study, you will necessarily need to attend the proper courses taught by competent teachers. It takes years of study to become a biologist, much more for a paleontologist. I don't knock you for not understanding, but it is up to you to search for knowledge. Posting here looking for a better understanding is one thing, but you know you are going to get snarky answers. Do you really want to understand evolution?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The sudden explosion of species disproves evolution theory as they push it. All fossilized species suddenly appear in the strata fully formed. There should be an equal discovery of an explosion of missing links for all species, but none are found.

There were exponentially more species from the time period of the ancient strata than there are on the world today. Evolution is a failed system by evidence, it should be replacing and outpacing extinctions or it should have not peaked millions of years ago when the earth was less stable, more solar impacts, volcanic activity, earthquakes etc to impact extinction rates. The number of species peaks at the same time as these extinction events meaning the environment was too unstable to support evolution alone generating the massive amounts of species seen in the strata.

No, they don't appear in the strata fully formed. I note that you failed to provide a single cite to back up your comments. I guess that the fact that there's a fossil record annoys you a great deal - enough so that you distort what we know from it.

They are fully defined species, lol not fully formed.

originally posted by: Tinystarlight
a reply to: SaturnFX

Oh yea.

I had a demon in my room. It was at the threshold of my doorway. And its face was as tall and wide as the door was. And it was looking at me.

So you think doors are demons.

man, it's a door. Open it. Like you need to do your mind.

a reply to: firefromabove

what false premise ?

that animals existed long before humans and are found buried under layers of sediment in river beds, sea beds and rock
and the bones of those animals are found all over the planet ?

or is that a hoax ?

people were digging up animal bones and catergorising them long before the theory of evolution was established
and the science of taxonomy was began at least 100 years before darwin even publish the origin of species

when origin of species came out it lead to new ways of catergorising the animal kingdom based on evolutionary relationships, which was then advanced further with the genetic mapping of animal species
and it continues today not based on a false premise , but based on a continually evolving scientific method(s) across different scientific fields of study

originally posted by: firefromabove
How is it that evolutionist "scientists" look at a single jawbone or a thigh bone of some extinct animal and then somehow just "know" what the rest of the animal looked like?

Most images we have of extinct animals are artist renderings, based on one jawbone or thighbone!

Anybody can see that evolutionists operate not on evidence but on imagination and assumptions. If you feel otherwise please explain.

In general, a jawbone or hip bone from an unknown can be compared to known examples. I believe it's called "comparative analysis."

explanation

Does it mean that the first analysis is always correct? Not so. And the methods for determining phyla and species are getting more advanced with DNA analysis.

a reply to: sapien82

and well at least scientists who disagree are happy to work together instead of killing each other over # they disagree on
and can work together on a global scale to solve the mysteries of the universe instead of claiming to have the only answer

a reply to: firefromabove

I'm sure you have already been blasted , but that isn't how it works lol..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Edgy!

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: firefromabove

originally posted by: Painterz
As others have said, it's not just guesswork. There's firm scientific method behind it.

Yeah, a firm scientific method based on a false premise

I bet astrologers also claim their methods are firm when explaining their "science"

What do you do for a living? What is your college degree in?

I have the same college degree as Darwin

Next question

yet another catchy thread wherein someone tries to make the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis look stupid and ends up proving that they dont have the educational background in geology, biology, paleontology, anthropology, chemistry, etc to adequately criticize evolution. who saw that coming?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
yet another catchy thread wherein someone tries to make the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis look stupid and ends up proving that they dont have the educational background in geology, biology, paleontology, anthropology, chemistry, etc to adequately criticize evolution. who saw that coming?

*tips fedora

Le science will save us from le magical sky fairy