Evolution's Brick Wall

[doubtingmerle]

So you advocate the nonexistence of nonexistace, thats scraping the bottom of the barrel I'd say.

So you deny the nonexistence of the nonexistence of transitional fossils?

I dispute your denial of the nonexistence of the nonexistence of transitional fossils.

Transitional fossils exist.

 

[inquiring mind]

I'm aware of no one saying that. Do you have a citation?

Here we go with more citations. I've provided a reference already, but apparently you don't want to watch it (they put their titles and universities they work for on the screen and everything), but you've got to pay attention and (clue) watch the end.

 

[Job 33:6]

So you advocate the nonexistence of nonexistace, thats scraping the bottom of the barrel I'd say.




Your at least consistant, you want a citation for something people are not saying.



Or maybe its an inference.



No just a presupposed giant leap in adaptive evolution, marked by a complete a sense of transitional leading up to the emergence of the genus Homo. Nothing leading up to the chimpanzee clad whatsoever, and that a sense covers 5 million years at least.



What you never show an interest in is the actual evidence. All these years and Ive never seen you deal with the actual fossils. But your more then happy to pontificate in circles around them.



With no such thing as paleontology or genetics the doctrine of creation was assumed untrue with little regard for evidence. It continues to go before evidence which is how Darwinian presuppositional reason does this to this day.

[QuoteI]t's a silly question because you're using "Creation" in a scientific context which doesn't make any sense and "evolutionists" aren't a thing.

No, we are not talking about evolutionists, this is about Darwinian presuppositional logic being fallacious, a priori, atheistic materialism. We can at least agree that's not a real thing.[/QUOTE]

Sahelanthropus is from 2-3 million years before homo aferensis. If you were looking for a transitional prior to the homo genus.

 

[inquiring mind]

Surely everyone realizes that if there was an undeniable, definite ape-to-man transitional line (a definitely defined route, no connect the dots, no conjecture) that included fossil and genetic verification, it would be clearly detailed and presented with scientists and academia celebrating the consensus, and promoting the revelation in Ten Commandments style everywhere... and there’d be no (or very few) credible scientific disputes. I just don't see that specific situation, and that alone tells me there are still many scientists who don’t believe it’s an iron-clad evolutionary case.

 

[mark kennedy]

So you deny the nonexistence of the nonexistence of transitional fossils?

I dispute your denial of the nonexistence of the nonexistence of transitional fossils.

Transitional fossils exist.

Of course transitional fossils exist the parathropass are obviously a transitional. You never bothered doing the background reading so you have no idea they represent the million years leading up to the emergence of the hominid line. No precursorsers and chimpanzee ancestors passed of as ours is disingenuous at best.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, we are not talking about evolutionists, this is about Darwinian presuppositional logic being fallacious, a priori, atheistic materialism. We can at least agree that's not a real thing.

Sahelanthropus is from 2-3 million years before homo aferensis. If you were looking for a transitional prior to the homo genus.[/QUOTE]
Feel free to elaborate

 

[inquiring mind]

Our problem is not with evolurion itself, its the catagorical rejection of God as the creator at the point of origin.

You make the most important point Mark (I would say no problem with some form of evolution in God's process). When I say I believe in Creation, it seems many of the Evolutionists assume right away that I’m a YEC, do not believe in any evolutionary processes, and totally against science. In turn, it seems to me that evolutionists are rejecting God, mainly because many never mention Him when talking about evolution. And to me, if you’re not mentioning Him, you most likely don’t include Him in the picture. Kind of broad brushes here I guess.

Personally, I believe God created all He said He did according to the Bible, in six steps (each a point of origin), before resting on the seventh. So, I believe man was created separately from animals like the Bible says. Beyond that, how exactly He did things, when He did it, the circumstances He did it under, the length of His time frames (days, years)... is beyond my comprehension. There’s certainly nothing wrong with everyone contemplating all this stuff or advancing all science for the benefit of man, but to think there are no limits to our understanding, or somehow think that the Bible will be proved wrong, well, I think God may get a good chuckle out of that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Surely everyone realizes that if there was an undeniable, definite ape-to-man transitional line (a definitely defined route, no connect the dots, no conjecture) that included fossil and genetic verification, it would be clearly detailed and presented with scientists and academia celebrating the consensus, and promoting the revelation in Ten Commandments style everywhere... and there’d be no (or very few) credible scientific disputes. I just don't see that specific situation, and that alone tells me there are still many scientists who don’t believe it’s an iron-clad evolutionary case.

If yu cn re ths u shold uderstd y u dnt nee to fi evry fosl to cnfrm evolutn.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Personally, I believe God created all He said He did according to the Bible, in six steps (each a point of origin), before resting on the seventh. So, I believe man was created separately from animals like the Bible says. Beyond that, how exactly He did things, when He did it, the circumstances He did it under, the length of His time frames (days, years)... is beyond my comprehension

is it possible those 6 steps took billions of years, and the way he did it was to evolve everything from the first living cell?

 

[inquiring mind]

If yu cn re ths u shold uderstd y u dnt nee to fi evry fosl to cnfrm evolutn.

Well, that may be true, but you should also accept that | | doesn’t prove it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Well, that may be true, but you should also accept that | | doesn’t prove it.

But a whole string of transitional fossils is strong evidence, yes?

 

[sfs]

Surely everyone realizes that if there was an undeniable, definite ape-to-man transitional line (a definitely defined route, no connect the dots, no conjecture) that included fossil and genetic verification, it would be clearly detailed and presented with scientists and academia celebrating the consensus, and promoting the revelation in Ten Commandments style everywhere... and there’d be no (or very few) credible scientific disputes. I just don't see that specific situation, and that alone tells me there are still many scientists who don’t believe it’s an iron-clad evolutionary case.

You're confusing two very different things. The transitional line you're talking about would be nice to have, but it would require an impossibly large number of fossils and access to DNA that can't still exist. On the other hand, the "iron-clad evolutionary case" was made and won well, over a century ago. It's been a settled scientific conclusion that humans are related to other primates since then. The arrival of detailed genetic data has add a vast amount of new supporting evidence, but it really wasn't needed. (The fact that creationists continue to misunderstand, ignore, and lie about all the evidence we already have suggests to me that the complete transitional line would make not a bit of difference to them, but that's conjecture.)

 

[AV1611VET]

If yu cn re ths u shold uderstd y u dnt nee to fi evry fosl to cnfrm evolutn.

If you can read this [Bible], you should understand we don't need any fossils period.

 

[mark kennedy]

You make the most important point Mark (I would say no problem with some form of evolution in God's process). When I say I believe in Creation, it seems many of the Evolutionists assume right away that I’m a YEC, do not believe in any evolutionary processes, and totally against science. In turn, it seems to me that evolutionists are rejecting God, mainly because many never mention Him when talking about evolution. And to me, if you’re not mentioning Him, you most likely don’t include Him in the picture. Kind of broad brushes here I guess.

Personally, I believe God created all He said He did according to the Bible, in six steps (each a point of origin), before resting on the seventh. So, I believe man was created separately from animals like the Bible says. Beyond that, how exactly He did things, when He did it, the circumstances He did it under, the length of His time frames (days, years)... is beyond my comprehension. There’s certainly nothing wrong with everyone contemplating all this stuff or advancing all science for the benefit of man, but to think there are no limits to our understanding, or somehow think that the Bible will be proved wrong, well, I think God may get a good chuckle out of that.

Just bear in mind evolution starts after life is created, it's a living theory. I personally find it fascinating. Did you know grizzly bears and polar bears can still interbreed? Read a very interesting paper on arctic cod that had a brand new gene (de novo) that keeps them from freezing. God provided for evolution but the transition from animal cells to plant cells for instance is pure mythology. Instead of the term evolution I prefer universal common descent, because evolution happens just not on the scale of Darwinian evolution.

 

[mark kennedy]

You're confusing two very different things. The transitional line you're talking about would be nice to have, but it would require an impossibly large number of fossils and access to DNA that can't still exist. On the other hand, the "iron-clad evolutionary case" was made and won well, over a century ago. It's been a settled scientific conclusion that humans are related to other primates since then. The arrival of detailed genetic data has add a vast amount of new supporting evidence, but it really wasn't needed. (The fact that creationists continue to misunderstand, ignore, and lie about all the evidence we already have suggests to me that the complete transitional line would make not a bit of difference to them, but that's conjecture.)

I spent a great deal of time on hominid fossils and it's a shameless fabrication. There are no transitional between primates and man. The hominid line appears abruptly 2 mya without precursors and no molecular mecanism for the triple expansion of the human brain from that of apes. Chimpanzee ancestors are passed off as our own and the stone age ape man myth is more an invention of National Geographic artists then anything solid in the fossil record.

 

[Job 33:6]

Sahelanthropus is from 2-3 million years before homo aferensis. If you were looking for a transitional prior to the homo genus.

Feel free to elaborate[/QUOTE]

Sahelanthropus is of a pre homo genus, but is considered a common ancestor or man and chimp.

It sounded like you were interested in a " transitional leading up to the emergence of the genus Homo"

 

[Job 33:6]

Surely everyone realizes that if there was an undeniable, definite ape-to-man transitional line (a definitely defined route, no connect the dots, no conjecture) that included fossil and genetic verification, it would be clearly detailed and presented with scientists and academia celebrating the consensus, and promoting the revelation in Ten Commandments style everywhere... and there’d be no (or very few) credible scientific disputes. I just don't see that specific situation, and that alone tells me there are still many scientists who don’t believe it’s an iron-clad evolutionary case.

Well this is why 99% of scientists accept evolution.

There will of course always be paleontology related disputes though, because fossils are always being uncovered, and the gradation in the transition is so fine, that ape and man become indistinguishable at a certain point. Thus is the nature of discovery, new discoveries will always fine tune a theory.

But ultimately, even though I might argue with another geologist about fossils, at the end of the day we are on the same page regarding the theory of evolution.

Indeed, If common descent and evolution hadn't occurred, then there would be no fossil succession for us to debate about to begin with.

Unless someone else here has a better explanation. And please don't try telling me that a global flood made it lol.

 

[Heissonear]

You just keep regurgiposting the same garbage over and over. And you expect people to believe that you are this educated super science guy? Hilarious.

I have continued to lay down how evolution lacks historic proof- yet like your comment - zero fossil record evidence showing evolution actually happened on Earth.

It has been put up the evidence- but all I get is silence.

You and every paleontology text have zero physical evidence proving one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time in the fossil record.

How can this be except evolution never happened once.

This is very hard for those with academic knowledge-base in Earth Science to face. Very hard.

I faced up. How about you?

Has your walk in pure conjecture gone far enough? Or are you fixed by conjecture in bias towards evolution?

It is time for those promoting evolution to face up before people of the world that evolution of life on Earth is faith and conjecture based, with zero strata-based proof.

 

[Heissonear]

Surely everyone realizes that if there was an undeniable, definite ape-to-man transitional line (a definitely defined route, no connect the dots, no conjecture) that included fossil and genetic verification, it would be clearly detailed and presented with scientists and academia celebrating the consensus, and promoting the revelation in Ten Commandments style everywhere... and there’d be no (or very few) credible scientific disputes. I just don't see that specific situation, and that alone tells me there are still many scientists who don’t believe it’s an iron-clad evolutionary case.

Again, you have presented the point evolutionism is at - major required use of conjecture - connect the dots - missing fossils showing creatures morphologically changed into another creature.

This missing evidence is hard for prior-promoters of evolution to face - those with prior Earth Science knowledge-base.

But face up they must. They promote evolution by conjecture - with zero strata-based proof.

This thread has showed how hard it is for evolution-promoters to face up and admit. Very hard for them to admit.

 

[sfs]

I spent a great deal of time on hominid fossils and it's a shameless fabrication.

You published these results where?