Evolution's Brick Wall

[Heissonear]

Are you implying that those “cartoons” aren’t representative of actual fossils?

It is the details, that such cartoons leave out. Have you ever developed a presentation to an audiance of hundreds of scientists before? And listen to hundreds of scientists at conferences use such cartoon illustrations? I do not think you have the base knowledge of what cartoons you are looking at. Only the thought pattern presented.

Now back to the OP topic.

Evolution has jit a brick wall of evidence that shows it is conjecture based.

 

[Jimmy D]

It is the details, that such cartoons leave out. Have you ever developed a presentation to an audiance of hundreds of scientists before? And listen to hundreds of scientists at conferences use such cartoon illustrations? I do not think you have the base knowledge of what cartoons you are looking at. Only the thought pattern presented.

Now back to the OP topic.

Evolution has jit a brick wall of evidence that shows it is conjecture based.

It was merely posted for illustrative purposes, would you prefer photos of the fossils or maybe you’d prefer Komatiite to take you to a museum to examine the actual fossils.

Better yet you could try actually addressing what the fossils represent... a gradual transition from Eohippus to the modern horse.

What is your interpretation of them?

 

[Heissonear]

It was merely posted for illustrative purposes, would you prefer photos of the fossils or maybe you’d prefer Komatiite to take you to a museum to examine the actual fossils.

Better yet you could try actually addressing what the fossils represent... a gradual transition from Eohippus to the modern horse.

What is your interpretation of them?

Why do you still misunderstand the fossils that are missing inbetween different creatures to prove evolution?

Post after post is chat but no fossils as requested.

Below is another cartoon illustration someone prepared for audience for specific items to communicate. But where are the fossils to prove the illustration; the morphological details of one creature listed and linked to another as having been produced from? Where are the missing fossils by scientific enquiry?

They do not exist. Pick any two different creatures and try to find the fossils inbetween them - that shows by details the mutation-based morphological changes?

You cannot do it. With over a century of scientists finding and comparing fossils zero fossil record evidence showing evolution actually happened. Nothing inbetween the creatures listed in the below cartoon.

So many people have been sold on such cartoons and its base of conjecture- missing evidence to prove any two different lifeforms evolved one into the other - the inbetween fossils are missing.

Evolution is based on conjecture. Time to face up.

As a cartoon, notice the linking of bats to rodents to primates.

Look at the horse giving rise to elephants and aquatic mammals. Where are these inbetween fossils showing such mutation based morphological changes overvtime?

Through scientific enquiry they are missing - none have been found.

Time to face up to this junk science - conjecture-based science.

 

[Jimmy D]

They do not exist. Pick any two different creatures and try to find the fossils inbetween them - that shows by details the mutation-based morphological changes?

Eohippus to the modern horse.

What is your interpretation of their fossils?

 

[Jimmy D]

Look at the horse giving rise to elephants and aquatic mammals. Where are these inbetween fossils showing such mutation based morphological changes overvtime?

Lol, is that what you think that that diagram is attempting to illustrate?

 

[AV1611VET]

Two or three simple questions and the creationist “argument” falls apart like a Chinese Rolex and all that’s left are vacuous catchphrases.

LOL @ "Chinese Rolex".

 

[AV1611VET]

The question is how to define "kind" in terms of real biology and nobody here appears to have any idea.

"Genus" isn't real biology?

 

[Heissonear]

Eohippus to the modern horse.

What is your interpretation of their fossils?

Look at the two end morphologies, and starting there show me the fossils with detailed morphology that produced a clearly distinct different creature.

So far you are hyping horse gene variability. Where conjecture is what gives any possible differences. Questionable difference since the horse has variability.

But what produced the horse and the inbetween fossils would be proof of evolution.

And fossils from a horse to X, like a rhino or buffalo, would be clear morphological proof.

You and other evolutionists do not want to face up to what the fossil record shows - evolution is missing evidence, and because the evidence between every to distinctly different creatures is missing evolution is based on conjecture.

This and other threads shows to stern resistance to face what the fossil record shows.

 

[inquiring mind]

I'm asking you to define "kind". So far you appear to subscribe to three different definitions.

But, under one heading.

The whole point is that if I gave you a bunch of different organisms, how would you group them in "kinds"? And forget about familiar animals like horses.

Oh, I guess you did get my non-academic real world example.

What about more esoteric life forms like sea squirts or tube worms or slime molds?
If you had to group them how would you do it? What is the criteria you would use?

Fishing lures, fish bait, fishing tackle maybe?

Lighten up a little. Come on, you have to admit that last one was a little funny. You don't have to play forty questions with me to try to determine my level of knowledge in biology. You're the expert... just make your statements, and some of us will respond.

 

[Heissonear]

So many evolutionists have yet to truely face up to how evolution has hit a brick wall of scientific evidence - and only conjecture is seen surrounding them.

So many have become use to the conjecture that they use it to try and show evolution happened.

Evolution in our lifetime has become a faith - scientific enquiry has proved evolution never happened.

Conjecture-based acceptance of evolution is placing one's faith that evolution happened.

When I met such a dilemma I became open to other possible ways life on Earth came about. Openess and sensitivity are what God is looking for, someone open and using their freewill to investigate Him. Power from on High came - baptism of the Holy Spirit- which I had no prior knowledgeable or clue existed - but found His Spirit open me to be in His Presence. And the Bible part by part started glowing, as parts were being written within me by Him, even to heed Him from the heart - changed from the inside out. Not from the outside in.

 

[pitabread]

You're the expert... just make your statements, and some of us will respond.

Okay, then I'll make this simple: there is no biological definition of "kind" as described in Genesis. Further there is no demonstrable biological barrier preventing evolution beyond a certain point.

The end.

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, then I'll make this simple: there is no biological definition of "kind" as described in Genesis. Further there is no demonstrable biological barrier preventing evolution beyond a certain point.

Wrong on both counts.

 

[pitabread]

Wrong on both counts.

Talk's cheap. Demonstrate it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Talk's cheap. Demonstrate it.

Sure ... you said there was no biological definition.

Here's your biological definition of kind:

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Thus you're wrong on the first count.

Then you said there is no demonstrable biological barrier preventing evolution beyond a certain point.

What do you call a mule?

Thus you're wrong on the second count.

 

[pitabread]

Sure ... you said there was no biological definition.

Bible quotes aren't a biological definition. Try again.

Then you said there is no demonstrable biological barrier preventing evolution beyond a certain point.

What do you call a mule?

I don't think you understand how evolution works.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bible quotes aren't a biological definition. Try again.

I don't think you understand how evolution works.

Suit yourself, pitabread.

It looks to me like you're trying hard not to understand that "kind" equals "genus."

And succeeding.

 

[pitabread]

It looks to me like you're trying hard not to understand that "kind" equals "genus."

I don't think you know what any of this means. Hence you keep reaching for dictionary definitions then contradict yourself when trying to discuss biology.

 

[Colter]

Sure ... you said there was no biological definition.

Here's your biological definition of kind:

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Thus you're wrong on the first count.

Then you said there is no demonstrable biological barrier preventing evolution beyond a certain point.

What do you call a mule?

Thus you're wrong on the second count.

The creators of Genesis didn’t know that spores evolved into seeds or that there were ages upon ages of variations of life demonstrated by fossil evidence. In that age of ignorance they didn’t even know there were fossils.

 

[AV1611VET]

You will simply cover your eyes and shout, "I don't see any intermediate fossils" every time we show you one?

Was Hesperopithecus haroldcookii considered an intermediate fossil?

 

[Jimmy D]

Look at the two end morphologies, and starting there show me the fossils with detailed morphology that produced a clearly distinct different creature.

Sure, Eohippus is at one end, the modern horse at the other. (These are by no means all the fossils we have in the chronological progression).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

So far you are hyping horse gene variability. Where conjecture is what gives any possible differences. Questionable difference since the horse has variability.

Eh? Are you suggesting that they're the same "kind". These sentences don't make a lot of sense.

But what produced the horse and the inbetween fossils would be proof of evolution.

It might just be me but I don't know what these sentences mean.

Although, I'm not putting forward these fossils as "proof" of anything apart from that your ignorant statement that no such sequences exist. (I wouldn't use the word "proof" when you're addressing those 100's of scientists at your scientific conferences by the way)

And fossils from a horse to X, like a rhino or buffalo, would be clear morphological proof.

Eohippus to modern horse, have you looked at the fossils, they are very different beasts. Again, I'm not putting forward these fossils as "proof" of anything apart from that your statement that no such sequences exist.

You and other evolutionists do not want to face up to what the fossil record shows - evolution is missing evidence, and because the evidence between every to distinctly different creatures is missing evolution is based on conjecture.

I'm not an evolutionist.

Paleontologists say that the fossil record of the development of the modern horse represents a finely graduated sequence. When I look at the fossils that they point to I can accept that they are correct in their assertions.

On the other hand we have you, a layman with a strong emotional motivation to reject any evidence that might conflict with your religious views, claiming that they don't exist.

Do you really expect any objective person to take your vague pronouncements on the fossil record seriously?

This and other threads shows to stern resistance to face what the fossil record shows.

You got that right.


Now, I've attempted to respond to your post in a polite manner, could you please answer my question?


What is your interpretation of their (Eohippus to Modern Horse) fossils? How does that fit in with "special creation"?