{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/8/2015 2:01:26 AM
1
Sorry, I left out some info. I had to comb through the passages because of the length. It has now been readjusted. Now I would like you to infer from what was stated in the passage again.
I'm sorry that I couldn't answer you sooner. I had to go to my dad's to help take down his Christmas lights.
English
-
Edited by Britton: 5/8/2015 2:12:44 AMEvolutionary scientists wouldn't be predicting things for the moon landing. Those people are called astrophysicists. So your point is because the lunar surface didn't line up with predictions by astrophysicists, that evolutionary evidence based on observation of fossils, DNA and genetics, etc by different scientists in different fields of study is somehow discredited? The whole point of your excerpt is that it attempts to discredit evolution based on an incorrect prediction by scientists in a separate field of study. Evolution isn't a prediction. Its a conclusion based on observation and experimentation.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/9/2015 5:55:10 AMYou asked how did Cosmic Dust interfere with the belief in evolution. Don't get touchy. Besides, the fossil record has issues with its evidence, and DNA is still DNA. No other system of transcribing biological information at a molecular level has evolved into existence. So thinking that even DNA is evidence of ancestral relations is flawed. This still proves whether a human is a human or an ape is ape. The number of chromosome count is irrelevant when it comes down to deciding which is which since it's so obviously apparent. A human can fake being a monkey, but a monkey can't at all successfully duplicate such a technique. All of what I was showing you previously was to demonstrate often the evolutionary flaw in prediction.
-
Edited by Britton: 5/8/2015 2:35:16 AMBut evolution isn't a prediction, its a conclusion on the observed evidence. And the prediction you quoted, has nothing to do with evolution. The fossil record will never be complete, as fossils do not form for every animal in every environmental condition. It takes somewhat specific circumstances for fossilization. So gaps are anticipated. As for DNA, I don't think you understand how it works.
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/9/2015 6:10:12 AM[quote]...but evolution isn't a prediction...[/quote]Agreed. It's a fallacy since it's speculated areas possess no evidence.[quote]...its a conclusion on the observed evidence.[/quote]NEWSFLASH: You can't observe evolution. A rock is still a rock, and an amoeba is still an amoeba. I like to see those two to make something more out of nothing.[quote]...and the prediction you quoted, has nothing to do with evolution.[/quote]Replier fails to see how this is a fail for and by evolutionists. If you observe Armstrong when he forced the flag into the ground of the moon, he had a little bit of trouble since the scientists at the time stated that the surface was to be soft enough for the flag pole to penetrate. [spoiler]*fail*[/spoiler][quote]The fossil record will never be complete since fossils do not form for every animal in every environmental condition.[/quote]Sure, I'll agree with that excuse. After millions to billions of life existing on our planet, a little less than a thousand can be found for not even one species. How observant sir? How observant?[quote]It takes somewhat specific circumstances for fossilization. So gaps are anticipated.[/quote]How many chances does an organism get to be fossilized after an almost infinite amount of time to be part of some type of sedimentary? Hypothetically speaking.[quote]As for DNA, I don't [b]think[/b] you understand how it works.[/quote]As for that statement, you made no good observation and haven't backed your reasoning with evidence. Thank you for being quite cooperative.
