Originally Posted by Russell2
Hi CTD

= Imagination.
Sure they have to fill in the colour with their imagination. They know what shape it’s skeleton was,{snip}
And that's it.

Quote
the size and shape of it’s eye’s and teeth (if any) how big the muscles were and where they attached, the size and location of the ligaments which gives a full shape with very little room for error but the skin doesn’t fossilize generally and when it does it’s colour will be lost so we do have to use imagination to fill in it’s colour.
Inference isn't the same thing as knowledge. Especially when assuming evolutionism is part of formulating the inferences. Inference is imagination, even when properly formulated, and history shows how subjectively these inferences are often drawn.

Quote
Are you suggesting National Geographic lacks the resources to provide a pic of the skeleton?
I have no idea? Didn’t they include one?
Didn't you read what I said and investigate before going to press?

Quote
Whining about the fact that a book contains a trifling amount of mistakes is pretty lame.
Trifling? You’ll have to show me where it had anything but mistakes?
No I won't. We have 3 instances of mistakes in the book. There has apparently been no chance to correct the mistakes, so we don't know if they'll be fixed or not. If there is a refusal to correct these mistakes, you may point this out and I'll pay attention. Until then, this is just absurd. Very, very, few books are published without any errors at all.
Quote
I looked at the online one and couldn’t find any of it that was factual though I’m sure there was some in there somewhere.
Oh? And I can be confident of your assessment because?

Quote
Oh really? Say whatever you like to justify your faith. RAZD put forth a requirement and it's been met. He surely doesn't need any help from you to weasel out.
Fact is bats use the same bones for their wings as we use for our hands and horses use for their front feet. Homology is a very long established science.

When things are similar, and they suit the evostory, they're called "homologous". When they don't suit the story, they're called "convergent evolution". When this happens I call it intellectual dishonesty.
No Homology is far more rigorous than that. Look it up, it’s really worth understanding the science you wish to mock before you do so.
Do you really expect me to argue over subjective terms? Saying this is "like" that, while I say it isn't?

The fact that subjective elements appear in every falsification criteria indicates they're only a propaganda tool. Sciencewise, they have no merit.

Quote
And you waste your time. RAZD already said the DNA-based fantasy must match the fossil-based fantasy. They don't match.
But that is, yet again, where you are wrong. Morphology studies give us a tree of relationships between the various organisms and, guess what, so does DNA and even more importantly they give virtually identical trees. Both methods independently show the same relationships between organisms.
Not whales.

Quote
I wonder how that could have happened.
I wonder why whales don't count. (Not really. We all know.) But I do wonder why you think you can convince anyone whales don't count. (Well, not really again. You have demonstrated how stupid you think people are.)

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson