Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Sir Humphrey on August 12, 2009, 10:03:10 AM
-
If people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? ???
AHHAH! I bet you can't answer this one, evolutionists! :P
-
If people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? ???
AHHAH! I bet you can't answer this one, evolutionists! :P
If 2 people started throwing feces at each other would that count as monkey behavior?
-
Another hard one for the evolutionists:
If evolution is true, why can't you produce proof of a dog evolving into a cat, or a monkey evolving into a whale?
-
Evolution is kinda like an understanding of the number line...
You could put forward the theory/theorem that all natural numbers are alternately odd, and even; excepting zero.
Those who understand basic mathematics/science and can comprehend the number line understand the theory in an ituitive manner that is at once both obvious and apparent. They agree: alternate odd and even natural numbers ad infinitum.
Those with very poor comprehension skills (or a stubborn disinclination to thought) disagree. So they continue to spout their inane propaganda arguments:
"How do you know every second number is even? Have you divided every single second number by two?"
"I have a five thousand year old book which claims the existence of three consective odd numbers! How do you explain such a claim in an irrefutble and infallible holy book?"
"My religious book claims numbers only became odd and even six thosand years ago when god divided them thusly."
"What about exceedingly large numbers, your theory breaks down for really big numbers... and you can't prove it doesn't."
Sir Humphrey,
Your questions imply you fall into the second camp... they are what scientists deem: "Not even wrong".
Evolution is a mathematical fact. To deny it is to deny reality itself.
The Luke
-
when you say monkey you like most ppl who dont understand evolution undoubtedly invision a modern day monkey...
The problem is that we didnt evolve from monkeys as they are today we share a common ancestor not to far back.
we are actually more like cousins rather then sons or daughters if that helps you understand it better.
let me ask you this, why is it that no fossils of modern day humans are found further back then 200k yrs or so? we have plenty of life before that and seeing as a you believe that we were created in the form we are today this wouldnt be the case would it?
-
Another hard one for the evolutionists:
If evolution is true, why can't you produce proof of a dog evolving into a cat, or a monkey evolving into a whale?
We have "faith" that it happens ;D
-
Here's another one for the Darwin-worshipers:
How does Darwinism explain the origin of life? 11 pages on and the other thread still doesn't contain an explanation. How can you prove the world is millions and millions of years old when the Bible is clear? Why do you refuse to believe the evidence for the worldwide flood presented by scientists like Dr. Hovind and Dr. Snelling among others?
-
this guy is hilarious^^^
-
Why do Darwinists and evilutionists keep asking questions and asking for "evidence" when the Bible is clear and presents all the facts? Is God's Word not evidence enough for them? ???
-
Why do Darwinists and evilutionists keep asking questions and asking for "evidence" when the Bible is clear and presents all the facts? Is God's Word not evidence enough for them? ???
So your evidence is a book?and you think there facts?you think a guy lived in the belly of a fish?Or another guy made a boat big enough to hold all the animals in the world?God's word haha...it's just another book and all books are mans word...
-
Here's another one for the Darwin-worshipers:
How does Darwinism explain the origin of life? 11 pages on and the other thread still doesn't contain an explanation. How can you prove the world is millions and millions of years old when the Bible is clear? Why do you refuse to believe the evidence for the worldwide flood presented by scientists like Dr. Hovind and Dr. Snelling among others?
LOL perhaps you should actually study evolution before you make a hasty judgement on it...
darwin never postulated about the origin of life in his theory of natural selection, evolution has nothing to do with how life began. This is why you can believe in God but also evolution AS CHARLES DARWIN DID WHILE BEING MEMBER OF THE CLERGY IN HIS CHURCH AND DEVELOPING THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION
I dont know if youre a troll and just doing this for kick or serious but if youre serious you need to do some research b/c you look ignorant as all get out.
As Ive been good enough to answer both of your questions please answer mine...
let me ask you this, why is it that no fossils of modern day humans are found further back then 200k yrs or so? we have plenty of life before that and seeing as a you believe that we were created in the form we are today this wouldnt be the case would it?
-
Here's another one for the Darwin-worshipers:
How does Darwinism explain the origin of life? 11 pages on and the other thread still doesn't contain an explanation. How can you prove the world is millions and millions of years old when the Bible is clear? Why do you refuse to believe the evidence for the worldwide flood presented by scientists like Dr. Hovind and Dr. Snelling among others?
its called radiometric dating techniques again do some research...
Even if the world was say 6000 yrs old the if they were alive at the same time the dating would show it as the same technique is used for both specimens. Even if the dating technique got the overall years wrong it the two specimens would have the same date if the lived at the same time. There is no way around it modern humans werent around when dinosaurs etc. were. how do you explain this?
-
bizump for an answer...
-
bizump for an answer...
he's obviously just trolling.
-
You could put forward the theory/theorem that all natural numbers are alternately odd, and even; excepting zero.
Those who understand basic mathematics/science and can comprehend the number line understand the theory in an ituitive manner that is at once both obvious and apparent. They agree: alternate odd and even natural numbers ad infinitum.
Those with very poor comprehension skills (or a stubborn disinclination to thought) disagree. So they continue to spout their inane propaganda arguments:
...I'm quoting from my original post in this thread, because I feel it is an important point:
No one would argue that somewhere further up the numberline there exists three consecutive odd numbers (or three consecutive even numbers) becase we all understand the basic alternate odd/even number pattern.
Those arguing against evolution simply don't understand it.
Why they can't accept the viewpoint of scientists who affirm it a mathematical enevitability, is beyond me.
Why they can't accept that smarter people than them actually do understand it, is beyond me.
In every other aspect of their lives they accept science; no one insists that God created their ipod, yet they dont understand the inner workings of their ipod either.
Is this the real split? Is this a comprehensive ability split? The thinking versus the unthinking?
Maybe we should be asking ourselves; where are the critics of evolution who actually understand the evolutionary process?
The Luke
-
If people evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? ???
why cant religious people grasp a concept as simple as "branching" ..and Monkeys didn't start it all...thats NOT what evolutionists say...
qwe all came from single celled organisms ;) <microbes>
http://www.biorlz.info/pictures/evo.jpg
-
The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:
1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.
2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.
3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and animals.
Can these critiera be met?
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:
1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.
2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.
3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and animals.
Can these critiera be met?
...yes, well at least to the standard that a Nobel Prize; million dollar cash prize and worldwide fame are up for grabs and all the very smartest people in the world have been looking to falsify these precepts for a hundred years to no success.
But I suppose if some ancient book of superstitions cast doubt on the millions of pages of painstakingly researched and verified evidence....
The Luke
-
The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:
1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.
2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.
3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and animals.
Can these critiera be met?
GC/DEA_AGENT
No they can't. There is no evidence that mutation are beneficial for creating new species. Did you ever see a duck mutate into a crocoduck?
And how does natural selection create new species? It can't. There is no evidence that lions eating gazelles one generation after another turns the gazelles into hyenas.
As for the fossil record, it doesn't document change in plants or animals. Fossils are just animals who died in the Flood. Why can't evilutionists read the Bible and see for themselves?
-
No they can't. There is no evidence that mutation are beneficial for creating new species. Did you ever see a duck mutate into a crocoduck?
And how does natural selection create new species? It can't. There is no evidence that lions eating gazelles one generation after another turns the gazelles into hyenas.
As for the fossil record, it doesn't document change in plants or animals. Fossils are just animals who died in the Flood. Why can't evilutionists read the Bible and see for themselves?
Yes, this is what I have researched to be true, however, Luke and the "Nobel Winners" seem to have "hidden" evidence to the contrary. I would like to see it. I'm very open minded when it comes to this subject, as you can imagine. ;D
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
Yes, this is what I have researched to be true, however, Luke and the "Nobel Winners" seem to have "hidden" evidence to the contrary. I would like to see it. I'm very open minded when it comes to this subject, as you can imagine. ;D
GC/DEA_AGENT
...maybe read a second book.
The Luke
-
...maybe read a second book.
The Luke
Luke, friend, why so hard on the old man? Hey, would you be so kind to point me to the book/source that can answer those 3 questions? I would greatly appreciate it. Peace!
This would be a start for me to consider the allegations of evolution. At the moment, I'm going to stick to the Bible's teaching. Although, there are many a great minds whom also agree with intellgent design.
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
Luke, friend, why so hard on the old man? Hey, would you be so kind to point me to the book/source that can answer those 3 questions? I would greatly appreciate it. Peace!
GC/DEA_AGENT
do you want him to read it to you to?
google is your friend....
-
Another hard one for the evolutionists:
If evolution is true, why can't you produce proof of a dog evolving into a cat, or a monkey evolving into a whale?
Ah, there is no such, that's why! :)
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
Luke, friend, why so hard on the old man? Hey, would you be so kind to point me to the book/source that can answer those 3 questions? I would greatly appreciate it. Peace!
This would be a start for me to consider the allegations of evolution. At the moment, I'm going to stick to the Bible's teaching. Although, there are many a great minds whom also agree with intellgent design.
GC/DEA_AGENT
...the allegations of evolution?
...seeing as so-called "Intelligent Design" is merely an evolutionary adaption of "Literal Creationism"; it seems you already accept, understand and implement evolution.
After all, you guys sent "Literal Creationism" out into the world, but it got beat down... beat down bad... so you let it have babies, all slightly different but keeping what worked: "Intelligent Design"; "Metaphorical Creationism"; "Symbolic Creationism"; "Allegorical Creationism" etc etc etc
Only "Intelligent Design" could put up a fight, so you guys jumped on it.
That's evolution in practice.
All sarcasm aside... if you are really interested in understanding evolution there are several steps you can take:
1- Read a second book... reading is good, why stop with the Bible?
2- Take an IQ test... if it's less than 90 go back to the Bible and read no further.
3- Take a critical thinking class
4- Get a highschool education
5- Take some introductory general science courses
6- Take an introductory biology course
7- Read an introductory biology textbook
8- Read up on the Theory of Evolution
9- Read "On the Origins of Species (By Means of Natural Selection)" by Charles Darwin
10- Make up your own mind
The Luke
-
do you want him to read it to you to?
google is your friend....
Come on friend, ease up, it's just a discussion. Here is what I've came up with tho in ref. to the first question.
Mutations cannot produce new species! Why? Many details of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell. Researchers have discovered that mutations -or random changes -in the genetic code can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. In 1946, Hermann J. Muller, Nobel Prize winner (I think Luke will respect this one, hopefully) and founder of the study of mutation genetics, claimed - "Not only is this accumulation of many rare, mainly tiny changes the chief means of artificial animal and plant improvement, but it is, even more, the way in which natural evolution has occurred, under the guidance of natural selection."
Indeed, the teaching of macroevolution is built upon the claim that mutations can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals. Is there any way to test this bold claim? Well, consider what some 100 years of study in the field of genetic research has revealed.
In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced the idea that if natural selection could produce new species of plants from random mutations, then artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do so more efficiently. "Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular," said Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig (scientist in Germany)! Why the euphoria? Lonnig, who has spent some 28 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said - "These researchers thought the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals."
Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs, using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? "In spite of an enormous financial expenditure, the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation, widely proved to be a failure." - (Researcher Peter von Sengbusch). Also, Lonnig said - “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants exhibited ‘negative selection values,’ that is, they died or were weaker than wild varieties.”
Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lonnig concluded - “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”
Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place? Also, "The Luke", keep in mind one of these researchers is a Nobel Prize Winner, even they can be wrong!
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
I'm beginning to think this guy just doesn't know he doesn't know...
Your BLOCK OF CUT AND PASTE is full of errors:
Mutations cannot produce new species! Why? Many details of a plant or an animal are determined by the instructions contained in its genetic code, the blueprints that are wrapped up in the nucleus of each cell. Researchers have discovered that mutations -or random changes -in the genetic code can produce alterations in the descendants of plants and animals. In 1946, Hermann J. Muller, Nobel Prize winner (I think Luke will respect this one, hopefully) and founder of the study of mutation genetics, claimed - "Not only is this accumulation of many rare, mainly tiny changes the chief means of artificial animal and plant improvement, but it is, even more, the way in which natural evolution has occurred, under the guidance of natural selection."
...the bolded part is a non-sequitur which completely disagrees with the rest of the paragraph (which is correct and logical).
Indeed, the teaching of macroevolution is built upon the claim that mutations can produce not only new species but also entirely new families of plants and animals. Is there any way to test this bold claim? Well, consider what some 100 years of study in the field of genetic research has revealed.
...there hasn't been a 100 years of genetic research; Crick and Watson only elucidated gene structure in 1953? This author is seemingly unable to differentiate between selective breeding; animal husbandry and genetic manipulation.
He has also conflated single mutations (which produce mutants) with long term evolutionary trends (caused by compounded mutations) which can and do eventually give rise to new species.
In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced the idea that if natural selection could produce new species of plants from random mutations, then artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do so more efficiently. "Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular," said Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig (scientist in Germany)! Why the euphoria? Lonnig, who has spent some 28 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said - "These researchers thought the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals."
...eh, they have?
Dogs were bred from wolves, domestic cows from Aurochs (monster buffalo); domestic pigs from boars... even modern humans from ape-men (via neoteny), and that's just selective breeding.
Since then genetic engineering has produced several new strains of both plant and animal (although none so different they could be considered altogether new species, not yet).
This article refers to scientists hopes of producing totally new species by means of single random induced mutations, which turned out to be inefficient... not impossible. The author of the article doesn't fully understand the process and is somewhat misrepresenting it. That's all.
Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs, using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? "In spite of an enormous financial expenditure, the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation, widely proved to be a failure." - (Researcher Peter von Sengbusch). Also, Lonnig said - “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants exhibited ‘negative selection values,’ that is, they died or were weaker than wild varieties.”
...all that research showed was that species creation by selection from random induced mutations doesn't work if you induce the mutations with powerful x-ray/gamma-ray irradiation. They just didn't know how damaging x-rays were to DNA, that's all.
I think we all realised "The Hulk" tv show wasn't good science though, right?
Even so, the data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lonnig concluded - “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.”
...in the short term: for x-ray induced mutations.
Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place? Also, "The Luke", keep in mind one of these researchers is a Nobel Prize Winner, even they can be wrong!
...again, given a few million years it does.
Again dude, misquoting some scientific research and expecting others to share your poor comprehension of what is actually being reported is no proper from of argument.
I'd hazard a guess that the blatant intellectual dishonesty (and miscomprehension) displayed in that article are PROOF POSITIVE that it comes from a Christian apologist pro-creation "think tank" or website?
Am I right? Dare to post your source?
Please get to work on the to-do list I wrote for you:
1- Read a second book... reading is good, why stop with the Bible?
2- Take an IQ test... if it's less than 90 go back to the Bible and read no further.
3- Take a critical thinking class
4- Get a highschool education
5- Take some introductory general science courses
6- Take an introductory biology course
7- Read an introductory biology textbook
8- Read up on the Theory of Evolution
9- Read "On the Origins of Species (By Means of Natural Selection)" by Charles Darwin
10- Make up your own mind
The Luke
-
GOV'T random mutation is only one aspect of natural selection there are many other working factors involved that could lead to a new species.
one of the problems I think you have Gov't is that you view the term species as this all powerful unpassable barrier. Its not its simply a word with a definition made by man we could further define it and in effect create more species. All to often ppl get caught up in the idea of animals not being able to become new species but if the animals can change even a little bit the proof is there b/c like I said "species" means nothing in the natural world it simply means something to me or you.
-
GOV'T random mutation is only one aspect of natural selection there are many other working factors involved that could lead to a new species.
Yes, this is right. I only touched on this aspect.
one of the problems I think you have Gov't is that you view the term species as this all powerful unpassable barrier. Its not its simply a word with a definition made by man we could further define it and in effect create more species. All to often ppl get caught up in the idea of animals not being able to become new species but if the animals can change even a little bit the proof is there b/c like I said "species" means nothing in the natural world it simply means something to me or you.
Sorry for the confusion!. What I mean when I say "species", is ' kinds'. I realize that scientist and the like do indeed use those interchangeably. To clarify, there is no fossil evidence of let say a bird evolving into a cat There should be if evolution is good. I could go on with other examples, however, you should get the point.
Here are some statements from a few well known scientists that agree with this notion.
Mathematician William A. Dembski - “Intelligent design, observable in the features of the natural world . . . can be adequately explained only by recourse to intelligent causes.”
Molecular biochemist Michael Behe - “You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it.”
Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland - “The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth.”
Donald E. Chittick, physical chemist - “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”
GC/DEA_AGENT
-
Yes, this is right. I only touched on this aspect.
Sorry for the confusion!. What I mean when I say "species", is ' kinds'. I realize that scientist and the like do indeed use those interchangeably. To clarify, there is no fossil evidence of let say a bird evolving into a cat There should be if evolution is good. I could go on with other examples, however, you should get the point.
Here are some statements from a few well known scientists that agree with this notion.
Mathematician William A. Dembski - “Intelligent design, observable in the features of the natural world . . . can be adequately explained only by recourse to intelligent causes.”
Molecular biochemist Michael Behe - “You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it.”
Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland - “The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth.”
Donald E. Chittick, physical chemist - “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”
GC/DEA_AGENT
Actually a lot of this can be explained by chaos theory - evolution is not a continuous process but can stop and start depending on environmental factors. If you are looking for a long gradual evolution from one kind of species to another you probably won't find it.
-
Sorry for the confusion!. What I mean when I say "species", is ' kinds'. I realize that scientist and the like do indeed use those interchangeably. To clarify, there is no fossil evidence of let say a bird evolving into a cat There should be if evolution is good. I could go on with other examples, however, you should get the point.
...retard.
Thats like claiming there should be something intermediate between a jogger and a bicyclist... some one-legged, one-wheeled dude with handlebars for a head.
Don't you fools comprehend the idea of branching?
Don't you understand your own family tree?
Well, maybe not. Judging by their readin comprhension, most Creationists seemingly have a family tree twisted into a wreath by inbreeding.
The Luke
-
Yes, this is right. I only touched on this aspect.
Sorry for the confusion!. What I mean when I say "species", is ' kinds'. I realize that scientist and the like do indeed use those interchangeably. To clarify, there is no fossil evidence of let say a bird evolving into a cat There should be if evolution is good. I could go on with other examples, however, you should get the point.
Here are some statements from a few well known scientists that agree with this notion.
Mathematician William A. Dembski - “Intelligent design, observable in the features of the natural world . . . can be adequately explained only by recourse to intelligent causes.”
Molecular biochemist Michael Behe - “You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it.”
Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland - “The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional. The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth.”
Donald E. Chittick, physical chemist - “A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude that animals reproduced after their kind as Genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now, as in Darwin’s day, is in agreement with the Genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants continue to reproduce after their kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology (study of fossils) and Darwinism is so strong that some scientists are beginning to believe that the in-between forms will never be found.”
GC/DEA_AGENT
what the fuck are these guys talking about? the evidence is in direct contrast to the genesis account. These guys are biased beyond belief, creationists that wouldnt even defend their theory in court. Behe is a laughing stock and his irreducible complex theory has been debunked so much.
you have no comprehension of evolution, you have not read one peer reviewed article. The fossil record can only show fully formed organisms, because only fully formed organisms can survive and live.
why would something like a bird evolve into a human?
-
Don't you fools comprehend the idea of branching?
The evidence is in direct contrast to the genesis account. These guys are biased beyond belief, creationists that wouldnt even defend their theory in court. Behe is a laughing stock and his irreducible complex theory has been debunked so much.
you have no comprehension of evolution, you have not read one peer reviewed article. The fossil record can only show fully formed organisms, because only fully formed organisms can survive and live.
You two know better. If evolution were a fact, the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless , "The Luke", of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the “punctuated equilibrium” theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking fossils.
Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.
In this regard even the British journal New Scientist says of the theory - “It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” As Darwin himself stated - “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, must be truly enormous.”
On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is factual, then the fossil record would NOT show one type of life turning into another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that each different type of living thing would reproduce only “according to its kind.” (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came into being by an act of creation, there would be no partial, unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be complete and highly complex, as living things are today.
In addition, if living things were created, they would be expected to appear suddenly in the fossil record, unconnected to anything before them. And if this was found to be true, what then? Well, even Darwin himself frankly admitted - “If numerous species . . . have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution.”
CG/DEA_AGENT
-
GovernmentControlled,
You are obviously frighteningly ignorant of what has actually been found in the fossil record.
Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs.
...the beginings of new bodily structures have been found in the fossil record: thousands of examples. In fact, there is no good evidence of new bodily structures arising spontaneously.
...there are thousands of fossil lineages with developing arms.
...there are thousands of fossil lineages with developing legs.
...there are thousands of fossil lineages with developing wings.
...there are thousands of fossil lineages with developing eyes.
...there are thousands of fossil lineages with developing bones and organs.
The method by which fish fins have evolved into amphibian legs with feet and toes is well illustrated and documented:
-fish fins developed
-some fins elongated to traverse water weeds
-some elongated fins developed into articulated flims (fin-limbs)
-flims developed protruberances for grip (in weeds)
-protruberances developed into digits
-digits proliferated (for traction) when fish dragged themselves across land (swamp to swamp)
-the number of digits was reduced for efficiency (from 13 down to 5)
-five digited flims were used more and more for land travel
-five digited flims developed iternal articulations (knees: ankles)
-digited proto flim-legs became proper rudimentary legs
-legs developed articulated digits
-that's a leg
-legs developed into arms
There are detailed fossil lineages detailing the transition from gills to lungs (even spiracles), lineages that don't even have any missing links (like the human lineage used to).
There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks.
...you're just a troll fishing for posts right? No one is that deliberately ignorant.
Archaeopteryx.
Google that shit.
The Luke