Evolution's Brick Wall

[DogmaHunter]

Why do you not show any sequence of fossils between lifeforms that shows by detailed evolution from one lifeform into another lifeform over time in the fossil record to show evolution happened?

You have been shown exactly that many times.

Your dishonesty is showing. Again.

Step in line to the post requests - and show the major obvious evidence that should exist to prove evolution by clear observation.

Is this clear? Fossil evidence between any two lifeforms that shows by detailed evolution occurred.

Why do you not supply the obvious for proving evolution? Is it because the fossils between lifeforms do not exist? Is that the reason?

Is it because the missing fossils show evolution never occurred?

See above.

Are you saying that the fossils do not exist and godless Earth scientists are playing connect the dots by use of conjecture in place of scientific evidence?

A few examples of such fossils are shown above.
You have been shown these examples many many times.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope.

I disagree.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But the problem with evolution (not the theistic one) is that it pretends to be enough to grow life without the need for the creator.

Evolution doesn't address the creation (origins) of life.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I disagree.

I think I know better then you what *I* meant.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think I know better then you what *I* meant.

It appears that, in academia, convert-or-die and love-thy-neighbor are synonymous (or nearly synonymous).

Do you disagree?

If so, why do you embrace fight-or-flight?

 

[DogmaHunter]

It appears that, in academia, convert-or-die and love-thy-neighbor are synonymous (or nearly synonymous).

Do you disagree?

If so, why do you embrace flight-or-flight?

You are not making any sense at all.
None of this is relevant to the point I was making.

I'm not comparing gods. I'm comparing the supposed "evidence" for various gods.
What each god is like in terms of personality, rules, blabla, is irrelevant to wether or not that god exists. If a God indeed exists, I don't think he necessarily needs to comply to how we think a god should be.

Which is why it is an irrelevant point to be made in context of determining which theist has the correct religion - if there even is a correct religion.

How correct a religion is, is concluded from the evidence. Not from wheter or not you "like" it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not comparing gods. I'm comparing the supposed "evidence" for various gods.

You want evidence for Allah?

Here you go:

Does it bother you that he gave testimony for what Jesus Christ did for him and not Allah?

For that matter, does it bother you that I reject Allah as a fallen angel?

But it's okay for you to reject Allah as non-existent, isn't it?

Academia is filth.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You want evidence for Allah?

Here you go:

Does it bother you that he gave testimony for what Jesus Christ did for him and not Allah?

For that matter, does it bother you that I reject Allah as a fallen angel?

But it's okay for you to reject Allah as non-existent, isn't it?

Academia is filth.

You seem to have some trouble with keeping focused.

That, or you really don't like where I'm going so feel the need to derail the point as quickly as possible.

 

[Skreeper]

You want evidence for Allah?

Here you go:

Does it bother you that he gave testimony for what Jesus Christ did for him and not Allah?

For that matter, does it bother you that I reject Allah as a fallen angel?

But it's okay for you to reject Allah as non-existent, isn't it?

Academia is filth.

Is this one of your episodes?

I think you need to take a deep breath and lay down for a bit.

 

[inquiring mind]

Is this one of your episodes?

I think you need to take a deep breath and lay down for a bit.

And wake up to what your country is experiencing... no thanks.

 

[Job 33:6]

@inquiring mind

Did you happen to read my posts about marsupials and elephants?

Posts 527-530

 

[inquiring mind]

@inquiring mind

Did you happen to read my posts about marsupials and elephants?

Posts 527-530

Not sure, but will look now.

 

[Skreeper]

And wake up to what your country is experiencing... no thanks.

I know, right?! The current heat wave is almost unbearable!

 

[pitabread]

You want evidence for Allah?

Because nobody has ever done anything violent in the name of Christianity, amirite?

(Besides, it's incredibly naive to think that violence is ever done solely in the name of religion. Most of the time there are numerous factors at work.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Because nobody has ever done anything violent in the name of Christianity, amirite?

When they do, it's either in spite of Christianity, or by way of a necessary evil.

As opposed to CONVERT OR DIE, which would be done with respect to Islam.

So when an academian wants Allah, a fallen death angel, to have equal air time with Jesus Christ, the God of love, I say academia has a real problem.

 

[pitabread]

When they do, it's either in spite of Christianity, or by way of a necessary evil.

As opposed to CONVERT OR DIE, which would be done with respect to Islam.

Sounds like naive generalization of other religions and weak sauce rationalization for your own.

 

[inquiring mind]

@inquiring mind

Did you happen to read my posts about marsupials and elephants?

Posts 527-530

All research and progression alignments seem biased to me, that’s why I rely on God’s Word (Romans 1:18-23). Evolutionists keep pointing to changes, like in ammonite sutures, as though that seals the deal as far as common descent goes. But, did they really change into something ‘else’ altogether... No. At the end of the day they are still ammonites (or were) albeit with variations. People probably find and sell more ammonites than any other fossil, but despite the variety, and yes, with complex micro-evolution changes, they still call them ammonites. It’s just the brick wall again as far as macro-evolution goes.

Where is the ‘matter of fact’ (no conjecture or connect-the-dots) “that this particular species made the big change, this is the manner it was done in, and these are the transition fossils that prove it?” Hey, that’s a big order, but evolutionists are the ones who have to have the scientific proof and verify everything, and they’ve just not been able to put the spotlight on it. Yes, some combination of fossil and genetic geographical distribution appears apparent and certainly fits the evolution model, but it doesn’t prove the theory of evolution correct either.

 

[pitabread]

But, did they really change into something ‘else’ altogether...

But what is something "else"?

People probably find and sell more ammonites than any other fossil, but despite the variety, and yes, with complex micro-evolution changes, they still call them ammonites.

Taxonomy is just arbitrary human classification. Forget about what people call things. What you should be looking at is the biological changes themselves and what those actually mean.

In the case of what is considered 'macroevolution', it is just evolution between breeding populations (e.g. diversification of one breeding population into two or more). Beyond that, everything is just the same evolutionary process compounded on top of what came before it.

This is why I keep saying that creationists accept the process, just not the output.

As an addition, I also notice that there is a view where the acceptable level of evolutionary change seems to rise the further one gets from familiar biological forms. For example,you accept the diversity among Ammonites being evolutionary in nature, but reject the same for primates (e.g. humans). This is not an inherently consistent position with respect to biology.

Yes, some combination of fossil and genetic geographical distribution appears apparent and certainly fits the evolution model, but it doesn’t prove the theory of evolution correct either.

The theory of evolution is the only model to explain the diversity of life on Earth that is testable and based on the evidence.

This is also why I find it odd when creationists discuss things like genetics for example, they often invoke the evolution model to explain observations.

 

[Ophiolite]

Fall in line to what is requsted to be presented.

Show the detailed morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.

This includes a sequence of your favorite ammonite - show someting that evolved from ammonites - show us all how an ammonite started to morphologically change into another lifeform. You know, what evolution says has happened to all creatures we see on earth.

Why do you not show any sequence of fossils between lifeforms that shows by detailed evolution from one lifeform into another lifeform over time in the fossil record to show evolution happened?

Step in line to the post requests - and show the major obvious evidence that should exist to prove evolution by clear observation.

Is this clear? Fossil evidence between any two lifeforms that shows by detailed evolution occurred.

Why do you not supply the obvious for proving evolution? Is it because the fossils between lifeforms do not exist? Is that the reason?

Is it because the missing fossils show evolution never occurred?

Are you saying that the fossils do not exist and godless Earth scientists are playing connect the dots by use of conjecture in place of scientific evidence?

As noted in replies to you multiple times an example (indeed several examples) of the morphological sequence you seek is to be found in ammonites. You continue to ignore this, apparently labouring under the childish view that all ammonites are basically the same kind. As I have pointed out repeatedly all primates are, on that basis, the same kind also.

I don't know your motivation for ignoring this. I don't know your motivation for denying it. I don't know your motivation for making the silly claims you do. Fortunately I don't care why one particular anonymous person on the internet chooses ignorance over knowledge.

I've said Goodbye once. I have nothing further to say in regard to this particular error of yours. I reserve the right to re-engage if I spot further egreious errors on your part.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you feel the very large font makes the material more convincing? In my experience it is often associated with charlatans. (Just an attempt at a helpful hint. )

Does that include verysincere's posts, when he was here screaming his head off like some prepubescent evolutionist?

After I started calling him on it, he suddenly had to leave.