Evolution's Brick Wall

[pitabread]

Then they can defend that view.

Okay. Still doesn't change the fact that evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God.

 

[inquiring mind]

Trying to turn this into an atheism vs theism debate is misguided. That has nothing to do with whether common descent is correct.

Misguided for who… if God’s Word is discredited by believing man came about in a natural process without Him, then God is discredited and man reigns supreme with his books ruling in a totally Godless world.

 

[Jimmy D]

Jimmy, yes, the fossil record seems to fit the ‘evolution’ model.

It seems to yes.

It’s the smooth continuity of an analog type signal (AV’s analogy), the gradual changes from one kind to another, which is lacking. Instead, we have an on and off again (digital type signal), even with large gaps, which only add to the doubt and skepticism from a creationist’s point of view.

I apologise, but I missed AV's analogy, he's on ignore.

I understand the point that you are making, but to me, and the vast majority of educated people (outside fundamentalist circles it would seem), the limited fossils we do have are convincing and fit in with exactly with what we would expect to see if evolution were true.

I suppose AV's analogy gives you a good excuse for denial of the evidence though.

Besides, there is abundant empirical evidence from Biology for common descent without the fossil record.

As an evolutionist of course you want to ‘connect the dots’ by saying the signal just stopped at one point in time (only because of lack of found evidence in your mind) and started back up in another, because that is what ‘you’ would expect to see.

I don't know what this means.

I know what happens when you do a "Connect the Dots" picture though, you end up with the picture the "creator" intended you to get... every...single... time. You might get one or two lines out of place but you don't end up with a drawing of a unicorn when it should have been a picture of a wizard. (Well maybe Creationists do as they consistently fail to ignore sequences ).

Creationists have another view that among other important considerations sees this lack of proven continuity, not as zero form of some type variation or micro evolution, but as the lack of evidence regarding a ‘beginning to end’ evolutionary pattern. If evolutionists could prove that pattern (which they won’t), then to ‘them’ that would be proof that there is no God period. So, yes, your view aligns with trying to prove evolution, whether you realize it or not.

For the fifth time.... I DO NOT CLAIM THAT THE FOSSIL RECORD "PROVES" EVOLUTION.

As far as I'm concerned common descent has been demonstrated to be a fact in other fields, whether you accept that or not makes no difference to me.

As you jumped in though, maybe you can answer the question your Creationist buddies have been avoiding every time I've asked....

Try actually addressing what the fossils... they appear to represent a gradual transition from Eohippus to the modern horse.

What is your interpretation of them? How do they fit into the creationist "model"?

 

[Jimmy D]

Misguided for who… if God’s Word is discredited by believing man came about in a natural process without Him, then God is discredited and man reigns supreme with his books ruling in a totally Godless world.

God's word isn't discredited though, only certain religious denominations crazy interpretations of ancient stories.

 

[inquiring mind]

As you jumped in though, maybe you can answer the question your Creationist buddies have been avoiding every time I've asked....

Try actually addressing what the fossils... they appear to represent a gradual transition from Eohippus to the modern horse.

What is your interpretation of them? How do they fit into the creationist "model"?

I didn't really mean to jump in ahead of anyone, but I guess I did. I can't speak intelligently in terms of fossil progression, but in a simply analogy I see the horse example sort of like a ninety pound weakling who changes his life style, what he eats, and increases his muscle mass, etc. and becomes a world champion body-builder... but he's still a man. Micro-evolution is the word I suppose.

 

[pitabread]

Misguided for who… if God’s Word is discredited by believing man came about in a natural process without Him, then God is discredited and man reigns supreme with his books ruling in a totally Godless world.

Like I said, most Christians don't appear to have difficulty reconciling the Bible with what we observe in nature. But if you prefer to believe that God's existence is dependent on common descent being false then that is your prerogative.

 

[inquiring mind]

Like I said, most Christians don't appear to have difficulty reconciling the Bible with what we observe in nature. But if you prefer to believe that God's existence is dependent on common descent being false then that is your prerogative.

God's existence isn't dependent on any conclusion man draws. He will remain and His Word will still be true; it is man's existence that will be in jeopardy if he ever succeeded in thinking he had taken God out of the picture.

 

[Heissonear]

God's existence isn't dependent on any conclusion man draws. He will remain and His Word will still be true; it is man's existence that will be in jeopardy if he ever succeeded in thinking he had taken God out of the picture.

I fully agree.

Up into my twenties I was one of the godless (no God in this world) and pure naturalistic (natural processes explain how things work about us). A position in mind of no God needed.

But in my twenties the light inside came on that the naturalistic view requires conjecture. An eye opening period of time.

Now I fully agree with you that God must not be pushed aside in His Creation. God is central to His Creation.

People who stay unaware of Him and His ways lack reality of our Earth, and what this world is about, including as you well point out, man tries to take over this world and make it only about Naturalism. Like man pushed God aside and man's intellectual view becomes the way things are, godless mans view tries to take over.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Like I said, most Christians don't appear to have difficulty reconciling the Bible with what we observe in nature. But if you prefer to believe that God's existence is dependent on common descent being false then that is your prerogative.

What common descent? Every place they try to imply common descent they have to insert "missing common ancestors".......

The rest are simply incorrect classification of variation within the species....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Microevolution (reproducing after its own kind) is mentioned in Genesis 1.

Macroevolution (reproducing into another kind) is not.

* kind = genus

The bible only seems to mention those things that occured within a 200 mile radius of where the various texts were written.

Personally, I wouldn't simply deny/ignore everything that happens around us that isn't mentioned in that ancient book written by ignorant sheep herders who didn't even realise the earth orbits the sun.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As mentioned in a recent prior post, since you do not provide the fossil evidence requested, you reognized the fossil record lacks detailed evidence to support evolution.

You've been shown such fossils plenty of times and ignored them the same amount of times.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evolution is not a life giving process.

That's true. It explains the origins of biological diversity.

The fossil record comprised of only species is proof.

"only species". What else did you expect? :-S

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Paul, a long list of speculation. All biological and biochemical science applied to evolution will not fly - because the geologic history shows evolution never happened. Not one time.

The 150 years since Darwin's Origin of the Species has been a length of time many fossils have been unearthed and examined. Zilch set of fossils between lifeforms that shows by detail evolution has occurred between them.

This dilemma is hard for evolutionists to face - but they jumped the gun. Claims before factual proof. Now we see the problems many evolutionists are having to acknowledge.

You are out of touch with the reality of fossil discoveries. Numerous intermediate forms - transitional forms - have been discovered since Darwin's work. But just because each and every transitional form actually works as a living species you assert it can't be a transitional form. Never mind the fact that the theory of evolution REQUIRES all the transitional forms work as a living species; you think that disqualifies the theory of evolution. It does not.

 

[Job 33:6]

You are out of touch with the reality of fossil discoveries. Numerous intermediate forms - transitional forms - have been discovered since Darwin's work. But just because each and every transitional form actually works as a living species you assert it can't be a transitional form. Never mind the fact that the theory of evolution REQUIRES all the transitional forms work as a living species; you think that disqualifies the theory of evolution. It does not.

He appears to be out of touch with more than just science. Indeed, he appears to be detached from reality. Lost at sea in his own mind.

 

[sfs]

I can't speak intelligently in terms of fossil progression, but in a simply analogy I see the horse example sort of like a ninety pound weakling who changes his life style, what he eats, and increases his muscle mass, etc. and becomes a world champion body-builder... but he's still a man. Micro-evolution is the word I suppose.

A weakling who changes his lifestyle isn't evolution of any kind -- he's still got the same DNA as he had before. As for the horses, humans and chimpanzees are more similar than modern horses and Eohippus. Why do you consider the latter pair to represent microevolution and not the former?

 

[Heissonear]

What common descent? Every place they try to imply common descent they have to insert "missing common ancestors".......

The rest are simply incorrect classification of variation within the species....

Very concise real world reply.

Like the poster you replied to, many have been it appears brainwashed by conjecture based statements by others and recieved as if true.

The fossil record placed in systematic classifications of life past. The conjecture in such they have yet to discern and pick to pieces.

 

[VirOptimus]

The willfull ignorance in this thread is astounding.

 

[Heissonear]

A weakling who changes his lifestyle isn't evolution of any kind -- he's still got the same DNA as he had before. As for the horses, humans and chimpanzees are more similar than modern horses and Eohippus. Why do you consider the latter pair to represent microevolution and not the former?

What do you post, sfs?

It is clear you present conjecture, in a fabricated classification system mess.

So, you use DNA as proof. That is not going to fly. You show how the fossil record in the sedimentary deposits are not sufficient proof.

Evolution has hit a wall of evidence. And conjecture is scattered everywhere. You presents your fair share of conjecture for classifying fossils in sedimentary deposits.

It is obvious DNA determination has added confusion to the radiation of lifeforms of the past to present. Yes, so wide of a morphological radiation in the past that is hard to swollow men's conjecture of the evolution of life. DNA conjecture resulted.

You presented it.

 

[Heissonear]

You are out of touch with the reality of fossil discoveries. Numerous intermediate forms - transitional forms - have been discovered since Darwin's work. But just because each and every transitional form actually works as a living species you assert it can't be a transitional form. Never mind the fact that the theory of evolution REQUIRES all the transitional forms work as a living species; you think that disqualifies the theory of evolution. It does not.

You do not get it, Paul.

There is not even one detailed sequence between any lifeforms.

Apparrently because of receiving as truth fossils show evolution for many decades you are not open minded to what the fossil record really shows.

It takes a person to be open minded to recognize the information presented by evolutionists as facts does not show evolution has occurred.

If you cannot see the mass of conjecture evolution of lifeforms is built upon than you have lost ability to do so and retain only group-think conclusions that are errant - notseen in the fossil recored.

I see many on CF having trouble seeing their foundation is from conjecture-based claims recieved as factul.

 

[Heissonear]

You've been shown such fossils plenty of times and ignored them the same amount of times.

I was raised and educated as a geologist.

I have firsthand experience in what you say I lack. That us silly of you, but rightful as a debater trying to win.