Comparitive delusions

Not true. the past leaves lots of clues that make their way to the present that CAN BE TESTED (By the way, all science is about the past. when you hear or see something you are merely decoding the clues left by events that have already taken place )

Faith,if I am permitted, I would propose such a thread, but before I go into the laborious effort to present the large amount of information that I, even as a layperson, have on hand on the reptile-mammal transition, I would have to ask if you would be willing to take part in the thread and discuss the implications of this transition on creationism and evolutionary theory, respectively?And if it were demonstrated to you that the bones were not "cows", a "hoax",fabricated drawings, and that they are found chronologically from less mammal-like to more mammal like, would that make any difference to you?
.

First you say that nothing can be stated as a fact about the past. Then you state that giants once walked the earth as a fact. You contradict yourself

There is a Proposed New Topic on the subject. The response to your question will certainly influence its promotion.

---

Just caught that, thanks.

As repeatedly pointed out to you by people with expertize in the fields, the ways for crosschecking do exist. But you refuse to believe them and choose to believe an old book instead.

If you can't be absolutely certain about the perpetrator of a crime within the last century, you can't be absolutely certain about a scenario that happened in the ancient past. You can't treat it as if it were a fact. That isn't even normally done with things closer in time that have a lot more evidence for them.

God's revelation is different from the methods of science. There is no contradiction, there are different ways of knowing. And I'm TRYING to keep the focus on the very ancient past, millions of years ago, and off the past that is within historical time. If you'd been reading the thread I'd think you'd have known that and not added just one more irrelevant post to it.

Difference about what? If the evidence looks as good as you say, I could grant that the evidence looks very good by evolutionist standards, but that's about it. No matter how good fossil evidence appears to be, it cannot prove descent anyway. And I got the term "cows" from RR somewhere.

I meant "difference" to mean, would you consider any evidence to support common descent, and I guess your answer is "no". That's cool, but are you willing to participate in the thread and discuss the implications of the fossil evidence on a YEC model vs. the TOE model?It might be interesting to examine the synapsids the same way the Grand Canyon layers are being examined in a current thread, just looking at some of bare facts on the ground and working from there. It would be helpful if there are any professionals that would like to participate, the way Roxrkool is doing- it would help guide us laymen groping about in the dark...This message has been edited by Ratel, 03-24-2006 10:24 PM

In case you haven't noticed, this thread is not about the ancient past. it is about how deluded literalists are. And despite of what you may think, you are not the judge of which posts are pointless and which ones are not

I read through the Grand Canyon thread from time to time and that's probably about all I would do on a technical thread about the subject you are proposing. Partly this is because I wouldn't have anything to contribute scientifically but it's also partly because I've been losing interest in the debate here lately, it's become tedious and unrewarding and I'm worn out with it. Sorry, that's just the way it is right now.

I can certainly judge when a post is irrelevant to the points I've been making. If you are addressing a comment to me it helps if you know what I've said. That's all I meant.

It still can't be treated as FACT and although I've been polite about it, and assumed there are no nefarious motivations involved, the consistent attacks on my simple point provoke me to say that it's FRAUD to do so, I don't care HOW certain you are about it. And in fact with MOST scientific hypotheses nobody would DARE speak of them as fact, but in the case of scenarios that supposedly happened millions of years ago they do, and WHY? Probably because they can't be tested, verified or falsified, that's why.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-24-2006 10:37 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-24-2006 10:38 PM

Okay, as long as you are now aware of the non-hoaxed, non-fabricated nature of the fossils demonstrating morphological intermediates between reptiles and mammals, I don't see any need to pursue this issue further.