Evolution's Brick Wall: Part II

Justatruthseeker · Oct 18, 2018

Heissonear said:
Without fossil evidence showing evolution between creatures, one cannot claim evolution as factual. Some still try.

Oh I know, that’s the missing common ancestor claim where every single split occurred.

Funny how they have the ones that supposedly went before, the ones after, but can’t find any of the ones that split....

That’s the problem when you try to connect two separate creatures, you have to insert missing ancestors to bridge the gap.

But as I said, even assuming best case scenario, why assume separate species when observations show large variation can occur in the same species? Ahh because without assuming against observation you can’t claim speciation.

Kylie · Oct 18, 2018

Justatruthseeker said:
Absolutely!

So lions and tigers are the same species.

Yah huh.

And all those scientists who think otherwise are just wrong, huh?

Oh please, the DNA data showed their genes were thoroughly mixed and the grants recorded several instances of them doing just that which led to the different beak sizes....

Isolated, lol.

American Indians were isolated for close to 10,000 years. I don’t see you trying to claim they are a separate species....

Your reasonings are happenstance.

*sigh*

Reproductive isolation can happen for many reasons. Genetic incompatibility is just one of them.

Kylie · Oct 18, 2018

xianghua said:
so what? its also true for the field of biology. we cant always determine if 2 creatures are the same species or not.

Care to give me an example of this? Not that I'm arguing the point, I just want to see an example.

no. since marsupial mouse has several features that a real mouse doesnt have. this is why i used the words "very similar". or i should use the words "almost identical". i also said that we cant always know it for sure. only in most cases.

And how different does it have to be before we consider it a different species?

AV1611VET · Oct 18, 2018

Kylie said:
So lions and tigers are the same species.

Lions are Panthera leo; tigers are Panthera tigris.

Thus lions are leos and tigers are tigrises.

Same genus (Panthera), different species (leo, tigris).

DogmaHunter · Oct 19, 2018

Heissonear said:
Face up.

Where are the missing fossils.

The fossils are right there on the picture.
What properties do they lack to be called "transitionals"?

This must be about the 100th time that I ask.

Can't hide from "lack of evidence". You need to face the conjecture within accepting evolution.

You want to chose the missing fossils are not needed.

To explain away the missing fossils. Bad scientist.

The fossils are right there on the picture.
Why can't the ones in the middle be considered "transitionals" between the ones on the left and right?

DogmaHunter · Oct 19, 2018

Heissonear said:
Without fossil evidence showing evolution between creatures, one cannot claim evolution as factual. Some still try.

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your brutal dishonesty.
Perhaps also call the fire department. Your pants seem to be on fire...

Kylie · Oct 19, 2018

AV1611VET said:
Lions are Panthera leo; tigers are Panthera tigris.

Thus lions are leos and tigers are tigrises.

Same genus (Panthera), different species (leo, tigris).

Tell me, are these two hedgehog tenrecs of the same kind?

AV1611VET · Oct 19, 2018

Kylie said:
Tell me, are these two hedgehog tenrecs of the same kind?

Give me their genus names and I'll tell you.

You don't even have to give me their species -- just their genus.

Heissonear · Oct 19, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
The fossils are right there on the picture.
What properties do they lack to be called "transitionals"?

The fossils in the illustation are different creatures.

Now how did one evolve from the other (like Rimingtoncetidae from Ambulocetidae of the different creatures listed below)?

Where are these missing fossils between them (i.e. missing fossils between Rimingtoncetidae and Ambulocetidae) as evidence of evolution?

Where are these missing fossils to prove one evolved into the other?

We cannot just place different unearthed creatures in an organized fashion and claim one evolve from the other.

So far we only have godless naturalistic men who organized different fossils into what they think is one evolved from the other. A macro-assemblage of fossils. But the evidence of evolution in not included (fossils showing one really did evolve into the other). We can only except what the macro-assemblage presents by conjecture.

Kylie · Oct 19, 2018

AV1611VET said:
Give me their genus names and I'll tell you.

You don't even have to give me their species -- just their genus.

So you need names given by flawed humans to tell you the truth about God's work?

Wow, isn't God's work supposed to speak for itself? Let it speak to you! Come on!

Kylie · Oct 19, 2018

Heissonear said:
The fossils in the illustation are different creatures.

Now how did one evolve from the other (like Rimingtoncetidae from Ambulocetidae of the different creatures listed below)?

View attachment 243653

Where are these missing fossils between them (i.e. missing fossils between Rimingtoncetidae and Ambulocetidae) as evidence of evolution?

Where are these missing fossils to prove one evolved into the other?

We cannot just place different unearthed creatures in an organized fashion and claim one evolve from the other.

So far we only have godless naturalistic men who organized different fossils into what they think is one evolved from the other. A macro-assemblage of fossils. But the evidence of evolution in not included (fossils showing one really did evolve into the other). We can only except what the macro-assemblage presents by conjecture.

Can't help but notice you didn't answer the question.

What characteristics do transitional fossils require that these organisms lack?

AV1611VET · Oct 19, 2018

Kylie said:
So you need names given by flawed humans to tell you the truth about God's work?

Wow, isn't God's work supposed to speak for itself? Let it speak to you! Come on!

Expecting the Bible to be a science book is like expecting Bill Gate's diary to be a computer manual.

Kylie · Oct 19, 2018

AV1611VET said:
Expecting the Bible to be a science book is like expecting Bill Gate's diary to be a computer manual.

So what? If the world is really supposed to be God's handiwork, and if the truth is revealed through his handiwork as the Bible claims, you shouldn't need information invented by men.

AV1611VET · Oct 20, 2018

Kylie said:
So what? If the world is really supposed to be God's handiwork, and if the truth is revealed through his handiwork as the Bible claims, you shouldn't need information invented by men.

Maybe you should learn the difference between general revelation and special revelation.

SPECIAL REVELATION

Kylie · Oct 20, 2018

AV1611VET said:
Maybe you should learn the difference between general revelation and special revelation.

SPECIAL REVELATION

I suggest you read Romans 1:20.

Of course, you could also pray to God that he reveals the answer to you. Until then, you seem incapable of answering a question about God's kinds unless you hear the designation given to those creatures by MEN! After all, Kind is not a designation created by MAN, is it? Surely you can tell me if the two creatures I showed you are both descended from one creature that was made by God or if each is descended from a different creature? Why bring humanity's flawed opinion into it?

AV1611VET · Oct 20, 2018

Kylie said:
I suggest you read Romans 1:20.

Of course, you could also pray to God that he reveals the answer to you. Until then, you seem incapable of answering a question about God's kinds unless you hear the designation given to those creatures by MEN! After all, Kind is not a designation created by MAN, is it? Surely you can tell me if the two creatures I showed you are both descended from one creature that was made by God or if each is descended from a different creature? Why bring humanity's flawed opinion into it?

Kind = Genus

Heissonear · Oct 20, 2018

DogmaHunter said:
View attachment 243595

View attachment 243597

View attachment 243598

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your brutal dishonesty.
Perhaps also call the fire department. Your pants seem to be on fire...

There are many godless (without God in this world) naturalists (view things from only natural processes) that will not see the error of evolution claims, as you post pictures of supposed evolution truth.

In the photos you cannot see the men's assembly of unearthed fossils. How they are arranged and classified (judged) as macro-evolution.

Yes, godless naturalists do not see outside of natural processes.

For this reason they cannot see alternatives, and the error presented in such photos.

For example in the below, plain to see different creatures but could induce false conclusions.

In addition, now as the below photo shows, take into effect variation within each creature.

Dagma, what creatures you present in photos you perceive as naturally caused process (evolution). You cannot see different creatures, and variations of different creatures.

Additionally, which is where conjecture is very clear, when you do try to show actual demonstrable macro-evolution of land creatures morphing (yielding) creatures who become marine creatures you have only course macro-assemblages. Macro-assemblages with many missing fossils. For the reason they do not exist.

If the fossil record was examined and conclusions made by people who have God in this world and within them through His Spirit, they would conclude as many have testified, the fossil record only shows different creatures and variations of those creatures.

They would present to you [Bthe fossil record evidence of no fossils proving macro-evolution, and only fossils showing micro-evolution (variations of a creature).[/B] Evolution never happened.

But since the godless over promote their fossil record conjecture they feel they are the ones who have thr correct interpretation. But the fossil record shows their socalled evidence is conjecture based.

It is being godless (without God in this world) evolutionists on scanty fossil assemblages errantly promote evolution occurred on Earth. The conclusion is conjecture based.

Jimmy D · Oct 20, 2018

Heissonear said:
There are many godless (without God in this world) naturalists (view things from only natural processes) that will not see the error of evolution claims, as you post pictures of supposed evolution truth.

In the photos you cannot see the men's assembly of unearthed fossils. How they are arranged and classified (judged) as macro-evolution.

Yes, godless naturalists do not see outside of natural processes.

For this reason they cannot see alternatives, and the error presented in such photos.

For example in the below, plain to see different creatures but could induce false conclusions.

View attachment 243688

In addition, now as the below photo shows, take into effect variation within each creature.

View attachment 243689

Dagma, what creatures you present in photos you perceive as naturally caused process (evolution). You cannot see different creatures, and variations of different creatures.

Additionally, which is where conjecture is very clear, when you do try to show actual demonstrable macro-evolution of land creatures morphing (yielding) creatures who become marine creatures you have only course macro-assemblages. Macro-assemblages with many missing fossils. For the reason they do not exist.

If the fossil record was examined and conclusions made by people who have God in this world and within them through His Spirit, they would conclude as many have testified, the fossil record only shows different creatures and variations of those creatures.

They would present to you [Bthe fossil record evidence of no fossils proving macro-evolution, and only fossils showing micro-evolution (variations of a creature).[/B] Evolution never happened.

But since the godless over promote their fossil record conjecture they feel they are the ones who have thr correct interpretation. But the fossil record shows their socalled evidence is conjecture based.

It is being godless (without God in this world) evolutionists on scanty fossil assemblages errantly promote evolution occurred on Earth. The conclusion is conjecture based.

Equating the theory of evolution with atheism.... utter garbage.

Heissonear · Oct 20, 2018

Those who do not know there is a God active in this world, only resort to natural processes as what causes all things they see around them.

The godless cannot see that the fossil record does not support evolution.

The godless have to use errant macro-evolution fossil assemblages to present as proof of evolution.

The godless do not have ability in mind to see each fossil is a different creature. And the different creatures have fossils showing variational types of thst creature, as dog breeds represent.

It is in this case, the godless over promote their organizing of unearthed fossils to try and present once evolved from the other, but without fossils actually showing one creature evolved from the other. Rather each creature stayed the same, within variations of its Kind.

It is errant interpretation and lack of missing fossils the godless base evolution on. They require conjecture to accept the macro-assemblages they present, and the miss interpreted variations within a kind as proof of evolution.

False interpretation of different kinds (as shown could happen in photo below):

And miss interpretation of variations of a creature (as dog breeds show):

Heissonear · Oct 20, 2018

Jimmy D said:
Equating the theory of evolution with atheism.... utter garbage.

Many without God in their world do not walk and yield to God at work in many among us.

Does this apply to those promoting evolution?

When He is at work within, we can see natural processes is not the only way to interpret and see unearthed items by.

The fossil record does not show evolution happened. It shows creation of creatures that only have variations of themselves.

Macro-evolution never happened, as so many godless-people have organized fossil macro-assemblages to show.

This is what I clearly see on CF. Those who promote evolution occurred are without God active in this world, only natural processes. Is this not so?

Evolution's Brick Wall: Part II

Newbie

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Defeater of Illogic

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Defeater of Illogic

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Defeater of Illogic

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

Well-Known Member

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

Geochemist and Stratigrapher

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency