Macroevolution:

[lesliedellow]

again: it cant be evidence for evolution at all. we can find car first, then a fighter jet and then a
space shuttle by their geological order. but it doesnt prove any evolution.

Oh please, please, please, go back to school.

 

[dmmesdale]

Oh please, please, please, go back to school.

It is not his problem the Neo Darwinists cannot make a convincing case for common descent based on an intelligently arranged order of fossil bones. They can be arranged in any manner the intelligent source deems necessary to validate their pre existing assumptions. It would all be equally valid, and critics should not appeal to intelligent design when their materialistic philosophy does not allow intelligence in the first place. If the deck of cards comes out of the box arranged, then it does not mean natural processes can be the only cause because the intervention of intelligence is considered unscientific by materialistic philosophers appealing to science which is a search for truth, not a validation for materialistic assumptions.

You don't even know what the common ancestor looked like nor do you know what it was. It is an unidentified mythical creature. It is an evidence free faith belief in a host of theoretical creatures.

 

[lesliedellow]

It is not his problem the Neo Darwinists cannot make a convincing case for common descent based on an intelligently arranged order of fossil bones. The can be arranged in any manner the intelligent source deems necessary to validate their pre existing assumptions. It would all be equally valid, and critics should not appeal to intelligent design when their materialistic philosophy does not allow intelligence in the first place. If the deck of cards comes out of the box arranged, then it does not mean natural processes can be the only cause because the intervention of intelligence is considered unscientific by materialistic philosophers appealing to science which is a search for truth, not a validation for materialistic assumptions.

You don't even know what the common ancestor looked like nor do you know what it was. It is an unidentified mythical creature. It is an evidence free faith belief in a host of theoretical creatures.

What creationists fail to realise is that, if all the fossil evidence disappeared tomorrow, it would still be possible to construct a family tree of species on the basis of modern genetics. We are no longer living in 1859.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not his problem the Neo Darwinists cannot make a convincing case for common descent based on an intelligently arranged order of fossil bones. The can be arranged in any manner the intelligent source deems necessary to validate their pre existing assumptions. It would all be equally valid, and critics should not appeal to intelligent design when their materialistic philosophy does not allow intelligence in the first place. If the deck of cards comes out of the box arranged, then it does not mean natural processes can be the only cause because the intervention of intelligence is considered unscientific by materialistic philosophers appealing to science which is a search for truth, not a validation for materialistic assumptions.

You don't even know what the common ancestor looked like nor do you know what it was. It is an unidentified mythical creature. It is an evidence free faith belief in a host of theoretical creatures.

Why do you keep making such blatantly obviously false claims? Fossils could proved a HUGE problem for the theory of evolution, but yet they never do. And as lesliedellow pointed out fossils are now surpassed by other forms of evidence, all of which support the theory of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't even know what the common ancestor looked like nor do you know what it was. It is an unidentified mythical creature.

I'm so tempted to say the god of science is a modernized rendition of ...

Leviticus 18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

... since science made a way to get abortion legalized, and now doctors use saline solution to burn children out of the womb.

BUT

Molech was an Ammonite god, but the Bible refers the world as a type of Egypt.

So it must be some Egyptian god.

Probably Thoth.

In any event, I believe Satan's muses are behind the arts & sciences of today: configuring the world's mindset toward acceptance of the Antichrist when he shows up.

 

[AV1611VET]

And as lesliedellow pointed out fossils are now surpassed by other forms of evidence, all of which support the theory of evolution.

Only on paper.

 

[lesliedellow]

Only on paper.

Your birth certificate is only on paper. Therefore you were never born and you don't exist.

 

[Astrophile]

A single fossil can indeed not be evidence for evolution. What is evidence for evolution is the pattern we see in the fossil record. The fact that we will never see a zebra fossil in the same layer of a dinosaur fossil. Even if both could have lived in the same area; they didn't live in the same period. More over, we see "stranger" animals in older layers, and the more recent the sedimentary layer, the more familiar the fossilized animal looks.

again: it cant be evidence for evolution at all. we can find car first, then a fighter jet and then a space shuttle by their geological order. but it doesn't prove any evolution.

Your analogy is not valid. Zebras are descended, by the ordinary process of reproduction, from animals that lived at the same time as the dinosaurs, and in each generation the animals inherited their DNA, with small modifications, from their parents. This process of descent with modification of hereditary material is essential to evolution and is unique to living things.

Cars, fighter jets and space shuttles, on the other hand, are not alive, they did not come into existence by a reproductive process, and they do not have any DNA or other genetic code inherited from their parents or passed on to their children. Thus the fact that cars, etc. do not evolve has no bearing on the fact that living things do evolve.

 

[USincognito]

Cars, fighter jets and space shuttles, on the other hand, are not alive, they did not come into existence by a reproductive process, and they do not have any DNA or other genetic code inherited from their parents or passed on to their children.

Why are they seemingly unable (or unwilling) to comprehend that?

 

[xianghua]

Your analogy is not valid. Zebras are descended, by the ordinary process of reproduction, from animals that lived at the same time as the dinosaurs, and in each generation the animals inherited their DNA, with small modifications, from their parents. This process of descent with modification of hereditary material is essential to evolution and is unique to living things.

Cars, fighter jets and space shuttles, on the other hand, are not alive, they did not come into existence by a reproductive process, and they do not have any DNA or other genetic code inherited from their parents or passed on to their children. Thus the fact that cars, etc. do not evolve has no bearing on the fact that living things do evolve.

so if those vehicles were able to reproduce you will claim that they evolved from each other? i think that even in this case the best explanation is that they were made by a designer.

 

[xianghua]

Only on paper.

not even on paper...

 

[bhsmte]

Why are they seemingly unable (or unwilling) to comprehend that?

Because it is too painful.

 

[Jimmy D]

Did you previously agree to a discussion if we both would agree to answer all questions that we may be asked? Yes.

Did you honor your word and answered all questions that I asked you? No.

End of discussion.

I've just read through the last 10 pages of this thread to see which of your questions I failed to answer and couldn't find any.

However what I did do was show you a clear sequence of fossils that clearly showed speciation. I've also asked the same question several times with no real response.

Please retract your insulting remarks about my honesty or show the post I failed to answer. While you're at it how about responding to my question (with verifiable evidence of course), as you promised.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so if those vehicles were able to reproduce you will claim that they evolved from each other? i think that even in this case the best explanation is that they were made by a designer.

When you make a self reproducing vehicle, then you can talk to us. Until you do you only have a failed argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

not even on paper...

Wrong again.

Seriously you seem to think that you like science. Why don't you learn how it is actually done? You might enjoy it.

 

[Astrophile]

so if those vehicles were able to reproduce you will claim that they evolved from each other? i think that even in this case the best explanation is that they were made by a designer.

But they do not reproduce themselves; they have neither reproductive systems nor hereditary material, therefore they cannot evolve. That is the whole point; that is why your analogy fails.

You would have a better case if you could show that zebras, for example, were made in factories and that their reproductive systems were there for ornament rather than being functional. More seriously, you need to have some criteria for design in living things, which are capable of evolving, that do not depend on comparison with non-living things.

 

[Jimmy D]

What is not a surprise is the word of an evolutionist cannot be trusted, they agree to answer all questions they may be asked in a discussion when they have no intention of honoring their word.

My contention from the beginning is that evolutionist cannot provide physical evidence of one species evolving into an entirely different species and you acknowledged that to be true. Therefore, with that fact and in addition to your word cannot be trusted, what is the point of any "discussion"?

Tevans, please respond to my post above. I have remained civil on this thread and don't appreciate my honesty being questioned.

 

[lesliedellow]

Tevans, please respond to my post above. I have remained civil on this thread and don't appreciate my honesty being questioned.

Sometimes I have to struggle hard not to give the kind of response which would get me banned.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sometimes I have to struggle hard not to give the kind of response which would get me banned.

Oh, my!

That would be one doosey of a response!

Banned? not suspended first?

Go directly to JAIL, do not pass GO?

I think you get suspended two or three times first -- then banned.

Unless you post something REALLY unchristian.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When did organisms first start making genetic copies of themselves?

The oldest traces of biological life date to about 3.8-ish billion years ago.