Evolution's Brick Wall

[Ophiolite]

Science can take a hike.Good.
< snip>I don't have anyone on IGNORE. I did years ago, but my curiosity kept prompting me to read what they wrote.

Science is demonstrably one of the finest ways of satisfying curiosity. It's a shame you've sent it on a long walk.

 

[Heissonear]

Any casual reader who is inclined to believe this deluded nonsense should take the time to make a diligent study of the evidence. If you are so inclined please feel free to contact me by pm and I shall be happy to recommend, based on your educational background, books, articles or other materials that would allow you to make an informed decision.

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.

And now all you have in hand is conjecture about evolution. That is where you and other evolutionists are at.

The projecting conjecture-based facts about evolution is over. You stand and walk by faith about evolution.

 

[Heissonear]

My post was not directed at those who wish to sully their faith with reprehensible, fatuous attempts to distort science in support of their views. It was directed at those with sincere doubts in either direction who wish objective guidance. Please feel free to place me on Ignore. You'll suffer less disturbance that way.

Your reply to AV missed the mark.

As AV presented:

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

Macroevolution (reproducing into another kind) is not.

* kind = genus

You have no objective guidance to give anyone about evolution.

Some are still at the point where they promote evolution as real but know the fossil record evidence is missing, and can only speak about evolution by conjecture.

That is the main point of this thread. What's next after conjecture-based evolution promotion to the masses?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Your reply to AV missed the mark.

As AV presented:


You have no objective guidance to give anyone about evolution.

Some are still at the point where they promote evolution as real but know the fossil record evidence is missing, and can only speak about evolution by conjecture.

That is the main point of this thread. What's next after conjecture-based evolution promotion to the masses?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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...

Or, possibly, he recognizes your ability to utter denials regardless of evidence presented.

Would a new discovery of a transitional fossil change your mind? If not one, how many would it take?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, plants can’t talk. Although I must be honest, when I was a pot head I use to grow weed, I was kind of infatuated with the plant. Now I see it for what it is, just a plant.

It is a gorgeous plant tho....

Btw, in Gen. when God formed Adam from the dust, was God talking to dust?

Before or after the formation???

But ask yourself, what is the difference between the proton's, electron's and neutron's in dust and those that make up you?? Absolutely none could we say????? So why is dust, dust and you, you, when they are both made from the exact same things?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Or, possibly, he recognizes your ability to utter denials regardless of evidence presented.

Would a new discovery of a transitional fossil change your mind? If not one, how many would it take?

But is it really transitional, or just a variation in form "within" the species and merely the same species but a different form of it as we observe in reality?????

I can see how if they had never seen a dog in real life, they might confuse them as separate species having only fragments and then "see" an evolutionary transition into separate species over time. Understandable, but still incorrect....

Can you not see that??? I can't see how you can not fail but to grasp it....

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

But is it really transitional, or just a variation in form "within" the species and merely the same species but a different form of it as we observe in reality?????

View attachment 238107

I can see how if you had never seen a dog in real life, they might confuse them as separate species having only fragments and then "see" an evolutionary transition into separate species over time. Understandable, but still incorrect....

The fossil record as we have it is consistent with evolution of all life from a single ancestral species. Those who insist that it isn't complete enough because they claim evolution isn't true will always say it is insufficient no matter what fossils are located. People like you aren't evaluating the evidence from a neutral, undecided position; you've already decided and therefore you always assert the evidence goes your way, even though it does not.

"After their kind" in Genesis says nothing about barriers between kinds preventing evolution. Mammals are all one kind. Vertebrates are all one kind.

If we ever find another planet where life started independently, we'll say earth life is one kind, planet x life is another kind.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The fossil record as we have it is consistent with evolution of all life from a single ancestral species. Those who insist that it isn't complete enough because they claim evolution isn't true will always say it is insufficient no matter what fossils are located. People like you aren't evaluating the evidence from a neutral, undecided position; you've already decided and therefore you always assert the evidence goes your way, even though it does not.

"After their kind" in Genesis says nothing about barriers between kinds preventing evolution. Mammals are all one kind. Vertebrates are all one kind.

If we ever find another planet where life started independently, we'll say earth life is one kind, planet x life is another kind.

No, you are not evaluating them from a "neutral" position. You assume from the start one species becomes another.

Just as you refused to answer the question. So I will have to repeat:

But is it really transitional, or just a variation in form "within" the species and merely the same species but a different form of it as we observe in reality?????

I can see how if they had never seen a dog in real life, they might confuse them as separate species having only fragments and then "see" an evolutionary transition into separate species over time. Understandable, but still incorrect....

Can you not see that??? I can't see how you can not fail but to grasp it....

If you tell me that you can not see how dogs could not be assumed to be separate species and evolution from one to the other if all you had is fragments of bones, then I would say it is indeed you that are not being objective, because of fear where that line of thought ultimately leads to.....

I am not interested in evolutionary PR, but objective considerations of what we observe, which you are clearly unable to do.....

 

[Heissonear]

Or, possibly, he recognizes your ability to utter denials regardless of evidence presented.

Would a new discovery of a transitional fossil change your mind? If not one, how many would it take?

What you present is too vague and hypothetical - and out of topic.

Evolution is based on conjecture. The fossil record proves it. What are you and others going to do about it.

Now that evolution has hit a brick wall what's next for you?

I see where others are unyielding and unaccepting. It is not me they should wonder about at this time.

 

[Heissonear]

The fossil record as we have it is consistent with evolution of all life from a single ancestral species. Those who insist that it isn't complete enough because they claim evolution isn't true

What you present is false.

Evolution is not mentioned in the Bible as "means to Create life".

How dare you think Christians should view evolution that way.

 

[AV1611VET]

The got the book of Job from Egypt. Mark came later, he was innocently mislead by the men of the church.

Oh, please.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No, you are not evaluating them from a "neutral" position. You assume from the start one species becomes another.

Just as you refused to answer the question. So I will have to repeat:

But is it really transitional, or just a variation in form "within" the species and merely the same species but a different form of it as we observe in reality?????

View attachment 238114

I can see how if they had never seen a dog in real life, they might confuse them as separate species having only fragments and then "see" an evolutionary transition into separate species over time. Understandable, but still incorrect....

Can you not see that??? I can't see how you can not fail but to grasp it....

If you tell me that you can not see how dogs could not be assumed to be separate species and evolution from one to the other if all you had is fragments of bones, then I would say it is indeed you that are not being objective, because of fear where that line of thought ultimately leads to.....

I am not interested in evolutionary PR, but objective considerations of what we observe, which you are clearly unable to do.....

IF evolution theory is correct . . . then there MUST be situations where whether or not the boundary between one species has passed into another will be fuzzy.

The varieties of dogs as you present are indeed different one from another, but that we call them all the same species is a judgement call. Clearly, if we had among dogs only the Great Danes and the Chihuahuas, we would be justified in calling them different species. They could not breed together. Physical size differences would preclude that. Of course, we have intermediate breeds all up and down that bridge the breeding gap.

So it's a little blurry, but not yet blurry enough to call them different species. In another 20,000 years of selective breeding we probably will be able to create a new species of canines, should our Lord tarry.

But you are ignoring what we have been able to do with the species. We are able to construct a nested hierarchy of characteristics that is consistent with life being all of common descent through splitting, splitting, and splitting of species over and over. Take insects with wings, for example. No insect with wings ever has anything but six legs. And we know perfectly well its possible to design a bug life style with eight legs instead of six, they are all over the place. Only those never have wings. And their body segments divide up differently. Why such a perfect separation of these very handy characteristics? Evolution explains it. Creationism doesn't.

Take the streamlined sea creatures with flat tails out there. The cold blooded ones . . . the fishy kind . . . always have their tails going up and down. The warm blooded kind - the whales and dolphins . . . .always have their tails going left and right in shape. Both ways work . . . why are they so absolutely consistent? Evolution has an explanation. Creationism does not.

Feathers - why no mammals with feathers? Why no birds with hair?

ALL OF LIFE is FULL of such nested hierarchies, and the ONLY THING that we know of to generate these nested hierarchies is a FAMILY TREE. The family tree of evolution is constructed using MYRIADS of such nested inheritances.

How come penquins don't have teeth? They could use them, hunting fish as they do . . . but . . . they are birds. Birds lost their teeth a few geological eras back.

Hmmm . . . would a fossil of a bird that still had the reptilian teeth convince you that evolution did preserve an intermediate species? Why not? We all know why not. All evidence will be denied.

Where is your mammalian tail? Oh its still there in vestigial form, your coccyx.

These are the things you have to deny in order to deny evolution. They won't go away.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

The fossil evidence has been provided. You have chosen to ignore it. Keep this up and I shall Report you each time you post your lie.

 

[pitabread]

How dare you think Christians should view evolution that way.

Is it not better to embrace reality than hide from it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is it not better to embrace reality than hide from it?

If you only knew.

 

[Heissonear]

The fossil evidence has been provided. You have chosen to ignore it. Keep this up and I shall Report you each time you post your lie.

Many evolutionists are irrigated at what has transpired with evolution since Darwin - zero fossil record evidence showing detailed morphological changes between one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.

How much more plain can I be and how many times are evolution going turn their head to this reality?

It does not matter if you dislike this fact. As a scientists you are to face observation that have been produced through scientific enquiry.

Evolution is is a dilemma. It has become conjecture based. This will be repeated till evolutionist face up rather than try to ignore or sweep under the rug as non-existent.

I said this, that evolution is based on faith, when I first joined and commented on CF. Many keep blowing this off one way or another. Facing up to it is hard - I know I was once an evolutionists and had to face it was conjecture based. Bless God He used it to open me to find Him

 

[Heissonear]

Is it not better to embrace reality than hide from it?

Evolution is not a life giving process. The fossil record comprised of only species is proof.

 

[Heissonear]

IF evolution theory is correct . . . then there MUST be situations where whether or not the boundary between one species has passed into another will be fuzzy.

The varieties of dogs as you present are indeed different one from another, but that we call them all the same species is a judgement call. Clearly, if we had among dogs only the Great Danes and the Chihuahuas, we would be justified in calling them different species. They could not breed together. Physical size differences would preclude that. Of course, we have intermediate breeds all up and down that bridge the breeding gap.

So it's a little blurry, but not yet blurry enough to call them different species. In another 20,000 years of selective breeding we probably will be able to create a new species of canines, should our Lord tarry.

But you are ignoring what we have been able to do with the species. We are able to construct a nested hierarchy of characteristics that is consistent with life being all of common descent through splitting, splitting, and splitting of species over and over. Take insects with wings, for example. No insect with wings ever has anything but six legs. And we know perfectly well its possible to design a bug life style with eight legs instead of six, they are all over the place. Only those never have wings. And their body segments divide up differently. Why such a perfect separation of these very handy characteristics? Evolution explains it. Creationism doesn't.

Take the streamlined sea creatures with flat tails out there. The cold blooded ones . . . the fishy kind . . . always have their tails going up and down. The warm blooded kind - the whales and dolphins . . . .always have their tails going left and right in shape. Both ways work . . . why are they so absolutely consistent? Evolution has an explanation. Creationism does not.

Feathers - why no mammals with feathers? Why no birds with hair?

ALL OF LIFE is FULL of such nested hierarchies, and the ONLY THING that we know of to generate these nested hierarchies is a FAMILY TREE. The family tree of evolution is constructed using MYRIADS of such nested inheritances.

How come penquins don't have teeth? They could use them, hunting fish as they do . . . but . . . they are birds. Birds lost their teeth a few geological eras back.

Hmmm . . . would a fossil of a bird that still had the reptilian teeth convince you that evolution did preserve an intermediate species? Why not? We all know why not. All evidence will be denied.

Where is your mammalian tail? Oh its still there in vestigial form, your coccyx.

These are the things you have to deny in order to deny evolution. They won't go away.

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.

 

[SkyWriting]

Some scientists say (don’t ask me to quote anything, it’s there, look for yourself ) that our family tree is more like a huge bush, with so many branches that lead to dead ends (not enough transition fossils found to seal the deal -- a brick wall) that it may be impossible to ever fill the gap and find a verifiable route from ape to the modern man.

I have often times found myself thinking “man, there appears to be a lot of evidence there, presented by knowledgeable people”... but it never pans out.

How long will it take for academia's and evolutionists to admit that Creation is the likely option if no such route is found, 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, never?

It looks more like a forest than a bush.