Evolution's Brick Wall

[Jimmy D]

I guess that creationists will handwave away any evidence for evolution, it’s understandable when they have their world view to protect.

Unfortunately none of this denial helps your case. Even if evolution never occurred it would do little to further the creationist case, what you need is positive evidence.

Can someone explain to me how the fossil record shows evidence of “special creation”

 

[inquiring mind]

Eohippus to the modern horse.

The micro-evolution of a horse (a horse is a horse, of course); not evidence of macro-evolution, one thing evolving into another, like an animal into a human.

 

[inquiring mind]

I guess that creationists will handwave away any evidence for evolution, it’s understandable when they have their world view to protect.

Unfortunately none of this denial helps your case. Even if evolution never occurred it would do little to further the creationist case, what you need is positive evidence.

Can someone explain to me how the fossil record shows evidence of “special creation”

Oh, the fossil record doesn’t explain evolution so let’s kick it back on creationists to defend.

 

[Jimmy D]

The micro-evolution of a horse (a horse is a horse, of course); not evidence of macro-evolution, one thing evolving into another, like an animal into a human.

Eohippus is a modern horse?

 

[Jimmy D]

Oh, the fossil record doesn’t explain evolution so let’s kick it back on creationists to defend.

The fossil record does support evolution, as any palaeontologist will tell you.

You don’t accept that for religious reasons, I get that, I’m asking how it could possibly be “interpreted” to support special creation?

 

[inquiring mind]

Eohippus is a modern horse?

I didn't say that. It's of the horse kind.

 

[Jimmy D]

I didn't say that. It's of the horse kind.

Just to be clear, are you in agreement that modern horses “adapted” from Eohippus?

 

[inquiring mind]

Just to be clear, are you in agreement that modern horses “adapted” from Eohippus?

Only if scientific connect-the-dot charts are correct; and 'no' I'm not sure of that.

 

[inquiring mind]

Just to be clear, are you in agreement that modern horses “adapted” from Eohippus?

I believe things can migrate, adapt and change to a certain extent within their kind, don't you?

 

[Jimmy D]

Only if scientific connect-the-dot charts are correct; and 'no' I'm not sure of that.

Why the need to resort to derogatory language?

The fossil record clearly shows a smooth chronological progression from Eohippus to modern horse.

Have you actually read up on this stuff or are you merely pontificating from a position of ignorance?

You claimed it was representative of micro evolution didn’t you, that they are members of the “horse kind”?

 

[Jimmy D]

I believe things can migrate, adapt and change to a certain extent within their kind, don't you?

I suppose so, although I don’t know what a kind is, maybe you could help me out?

 

[inquiring mind]

I suppose so, although I don’t know what a kind is, maybe you could help me out?

If things can change within their kind, then what does hierarchical relationships and biogeographical evidence have to do with macro-evolution then?

Come on, you know what kind means... man kind, horse kind, etc.

Please don't start with the ignorant stuff... technically we all are.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just to be clear, are you in agreement that modern horses “adapted” from Eohippus?

Sounds good to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

I suppose so, although I don’t know what a kind is, maybe you could help me out?

Genus.

From the online etymology dictionary:

GENUS: (Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin," from suffixed form of PIE root *gene- "give birth, beget," with derivatives referring to procreation and familial and tribal groups.

 

[Heissonear]

The micro-evolution of a horse (a horse is a horse, of course); not evidence of macro-evolution, one thing evolving into another, like an animal into a human.

Many evolutionists show they have been brainwashed.

The evidence they present shows they are not with it; they are full of conjecture; they think spotty evidence (via connecting a distortion of dot patterns) is sufficient.

I think why they remain brainwashed and sternly present duped evidence is because as reasoning - only in the five senses - creatures they view evolution as the only viable choice. So conjecture based views becomes truth to them, and alternatives are fake and fictitious.

A good born by the Holy Spirit and quickening Scriptures in the Bible by the Holy Spirit is the medical prescription they need to join reality and become renewed from Naturalism.

 

[Heissonear]

We can define the current dilemma evolutionists face. And we have a quickening within, the Holy Spirit at work within us, to know faith is a virtue, and presented as a virtue in many places in the Scriptures.

We have an openess that the five sense bar others from having. And true from Above conviction or peace in what we learn as we live.

 

[pitabread]

man kind, horse kind, etc.

What is this based on? How are you defining "kind"?

For example there are seven species of the genus Equus including a few horse and zebra species: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equus_(genus)#Extant_species

Are these all part of the horse kind? Are they all different kinds? How would you tell?

 

[inquiring mind]

What is this based on? How are you defining "kind"?

AV did a good job of this already in post #793. I guess you didn't see it.

Are these all part of the horse kind? Are they all different kinds? How would you tell?

Here was my answer to, "did I think modern horses “adapted” from Eohippus?" in post #787, "Only if scientific connect-the-dot charts are correct; and 'no' I'm not sure of that." Translated: "If they are correct I have no problem with it."

 

[pitabread]

AV did a good job of this already in post #793. I guess you didn't see it.

Oh, I'm familiar with AV's definition of the term. Unfortunately his definition appears strictly based on a thesaurus search and nothing to do with actual biology.

Which is evident in the next part of your post...

Here was my answer to, "did I think modern horses “adapted” from Eohippus?" in post #787, "Only if scientific connect-the-dot charts are correct; and 'no' I'm not sure of that." Translated: "If they are correct I have no problem with it."

So you'd accept evolution well beyond what gets categorized with respect to 'genus' in taxonomy but at the same time subscribe to a definition of "kind" that is equated with genus?

That makes no sense.

 

[pitabread]

Many evolutionists show they have been brainwashed.

I think you're projecting more than a little.

I think why they remain brainwashed and sternly present duped evidence is because as reasoning - only in the five senses - creatures they view evolution as the only viable choice.

Show me an alternative to biological evolution that has real-world application in the bio-sciences. If you can do that then you'll have something worth talking about.

But if all you have is mere denial of modern biology, then I suggest investing in property in Egypt.