@sundown89:
“Right here you go, if there is anything you want more explanation on ask. I watched until about 24 minutes, will probably watch further for the fallout.”
I'd already asked you to demonstrate you knew any of the points Kent was making, as a demonstration that you know and understand Kent. The request was made basically because you're implying that Kent doesn't know what he's talking about whenever he's debating the topic of biological evolution so he jumps back to his arguments without adapting and/or Kent isn't understanding AJ's arguments or not able to understand them.
But, you both failed to do any of that and are again introducing a topic that isn't being discussed (e.g. information demonstrated as fraud still trickling into textbooks on the topic of biological evolution and then indoctrinating young minds into a belief that so type of information represent facts supporting biological evolution even though that information is demonstrated as questionable in practice; from there, we come away with coconut heads who believe that science opposes Christianity when it really doesn't).
And this very lead off by you just demonstrated that you indeed wasn't aware of any of the topics and information being discussed by Kent. Honestly, until you can make those adjustments and grow, what you have to say that's off topic from their debate, is irrelevant and you need to go back and do as asked and suggested, as you need to know even what research and topics are supporting us Young Earth Creationists. And even you haven't made that bit of effort to know what Kent is discussing, you're still putting out the impression that there's somehow validity to your claims about Kent (e.g. basically, the discussion has shifted to that topic but needs to shift back to the topic of whats being debated by Kent and AJ not something that's off topic).
“So, it looks as if they are discussing embryology which isn’t my favourite subject in biology, mostly centred around the embryo pictures of Ernst Haeckel.”
Sure, and the issue was that you claimed that AJ was discussing something and Kent had to evolve from his point; you needed to provide specific examples from their debate as a demonstration that you knew the points that Kent was trying to make, first, that AJ debunked Kent's arguments but Kent was being too stubborn to abandon points that were going to be untenable for him. One of Kent's points was that the images by Ernst presented by AJ had been debunked, where my ICR video than added more specificity as to why that material has been debunked but is still somehow still trickling into textbooks as scientific proof of biological evolution or topics supported in paleontology?
“For a while, it was believed in evolutionary theory that, at least in vertebrates, that the embryo tracked its evolutionary path, in the case of mammals, from fish through an amphibian state then through what used to be called reptiles into what will eventually be birthed. ”
Kent's points are about why that information, as 19th century science, got rendered antiquated by new technology whereas information and predictions from the Bible still remains because of new technology, in checking or going back to our prior series of iterations. That information is also what Ernst wanted everyone to believe; this doesn't demonstrate that you know what Kent's points were or precisely what this debate was about, in steering things back on topic.
“Many creationists usually state something along the lines of the following.”
Here, you're supposed to be demonstrating for me that you know what Kent is discussing, specifically, not what you suspect creationists are discussing, a clear demonstrating that you're still clueless about what they're trying to explain for the public despite sifting through their information, as you claim.
“And those creationists would be correct just not in the way they are think”
Kent's point is a good point to make in response here: just as the Bible says, all evidence, scientific and otherwise, has only seen kinds reproducing after their kinds yet you're still jostling as if the Bible has become antiquated in what it says. Until you've demonstrated that you understand Kent, that's the topic of discussion, at the moment; basically, you'd have to show me that kinds haven't always produced after their kinds, as predicted by the Bible in Genesis Chapter 1 thus rendering that prediction, antiquated, somehow.
“If a duck created a non-duck that would actually debunk evolutionary theory as we know it.”
Here, you're not demonstrating that biological evolution is true to me, you're only demonstrating that you prefer whatever speculation there is, as long as it seems to be demonstrating for someone inclined to believe that you're correct that the Bible is wrong; you're demonstrating the wisdom indicative of Proverbs 18; this happened before in iterations between you and I in that discussion about T. Rex and the birds; by the way, Kent made a point very similar to the point I made to you about that back then in this debate.
“As with the duck example, when, say a deer is developing in its mother’s womb, it is always a deer due to the law of monophyly (which I can explain if you want), despite some of the clearly non deer and even non amniote features it may temporarily develop.”
The topic of debate is how does that render the Genesis Chapter 1 prediction antiquated? That's just a term invented thousands of years after the fact and after science and technology had confirmed and validated this Biblical prediction (e.g. kinds will reproduce after their kinds), is one of Kent's points, which you need to be discussing more than anything else here.
“For example, reptiles, birds and mammals all have gill arches in early development, but they are essentially vestigial and not used for respiration, instead eventually forming the pharyngeal arch which becomes structures such as the jaw, thyroid, larynx and the three bones in the ear (stapes, malleus and incus)”
What you need to be discussing is: how is what Kent said on this topic wrong and absurd, as you appear to be implying? You're just going wherever the wind blows but you'd be most advised to train yourself to start being objective, as that's more important than your subjective preference, especially on an issue of having to be absolutely sure about, as you prepare to fact the afterlife, since you prefer to be in rejection of the Gospel, as its an extension of a belief in God; you're parting away from the largest block of humanity who are Christianity and then away from basically all of humanity, as we all believe in the supernatural but you don't want to know as we do; and making yourself look really bad in the process by the way.
“The main thing Haeckel is known for is the embryo drawings published in Anthropogenie. The drawings were accurate, but Haeckel was pushed for time by his publishers, and some had to be drawn from memory.”
Ok, but what did Kent have to say on that, is the actual topic of discussion? Ernst's ideas have already been rendered antiquated, as the debate has demonstrated.
Here's an article on the topic from within the scholarly Christian community:
JOURNAL OF CREATION 33(1) 2019 || PAPERS
Ariana Grande Claims Eight Of The 10 Biggest Songs On Spotify
'10-foot-tall people' discovered by archaeologists in Nevada cave
Log in to comment