Evolution's Brick Wall

[AV1611VET]

Religion also has pride.

We're not a religion.

We are an espousal relationship with Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

 

[AV1611VET]

Whatever label you want to apply to the manifestation of your self delusion, you suffer from pride blindness.

I'd rather suffer from that than anti-Semitism and science-generated ignorance of total reality.

If only you were as skeptical of the self serving claims of those who tried to kill your Christ as you are of facts.

I'd be a scientist then, wouldn't I?

And as a scientist, I would deny the information disseminated in your Urantia Book too, wouldn't I?

(Or maybe not -- seeing as what drummer scientists march to.)

It's like my pastor said last night:

You won't see scientists go after the Mormons, the Hindu, the Buddhists, or the Spiritualists. Why not? Because they have one single fixation: Destroy the Christian Bible to the exclusion of any other writing on the face of the Earth.

 

[pitabread]

We're not a religion.

You are.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are.

Which word don't you understand, private? chaste or virgin? or maybe espousal?

In today's shacked-up society, I can understand your dilemma.

 

[Heissonear]

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



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



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)



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.



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?



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"?

Reread the prior.

You do not know for certain the endpoints of a horse.

But pick two creatures very distinct. Like what morphologically changed into a horse.

Clarity. Furnish clarity. Proof.

Show how a horse changed into an elephant.

Or a rat into a cat.

You do not understand how to explain the distinctly different creatures and the morphologically detailed fossil evidence between them to prove evolution occurred.

Do you realize that.

We have diversity of lifeforms but you are avoiding how they came about.

Lets see these fossils that prove evolution occurred.

Do you realize this request?

 

[Heissonear]

That's right; and phony people think the Jews' writings were written by other people.No, on both counts.

Peter wrote to Christians; Paul wrote to Gentiles; James wrote to Jews; all were written to everyone.

James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

James, Jesus' half brother, once thought Jesus was "beside Himself."

Later though, James wrote an epistle detailing how one can spot a true believer in Christ a mile away.

Wanna know what changed James' mind?

Spoiler

The Resurrection

Really like this post!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

Agreed, they incorrectly classified them. Wolf on one end, poodle on the other..... Similar yet different in form, deffinately related.

I already agree they incorrectly classified at minimum 60% of the fossil record. You are just confirming it.

 

[Heissonear]

Scholars had known long before the UB that the OT was rewritten by a number of authors and that it contains many errors. That's not new to the Urantia revelation.


The secular history books mentioned by the OT books vanished from history! Only their new version remains.


You are an anti-science, anti-evolution Troll of CF, take your own advise.

The Urantia is from Celestials. It is cult talk. Not of the historic cultures in Earth's history.

Get back to the OP topic. The brick wall of scientific evidence showing zero fossil record evidence evolution has occurred.

 

[doubtingmerle]

But pick two creatures very distinct. Like what morphologically changed into a horse.

Ok. Eohippus or a near cousin of Eohippus evolved into a horse. And we have a long string of intermediates.

 

[Jimmy D]

Agreed, they incorrectly classified them. Wolf on one end, poodle on the other..... Similar yet different in form, deffinately related.

I already agree they incorrectly classified at minimum 60% of the fossil record. You are just confirming it.

Agreeing with yourself seems to be the sum total of your learning.

As usual, it’s just hot air and in no way addresses the fact that the fossil record shows exactly what we would expect to see if common descent was the case.

You might think that giving organisms certain names somehow has any bearing on that but no one else does.

Why is that?

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has undergone a thorough scrubbing due to two rule violations.

1. Off Topic Concerning General Apologetics: This is not a forum where Christians are asked to defend their faith against objections and criticism from non-believers. Non-Christian members who would like to challenge Christian theology, beliefs and practices, should start a thread in the Christian Apologetics forum.

2. Flaming and Goading
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
● Do not personally attack (insult, belittle, mock, ridicule) other members or groups of members on CF. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.

Please don't make us do another cleanup.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Jimmy D]

Reread the prior.

I did. It offered no substantial content, only hand waving.

You do not know for certain the endpoints of a horse.

The endpoints of a horse are it's head and it's butt, like most animals.

But pick two creatures very distinct.

Eohippus and Equus ferus.

Like what morphologically changed into a horse.

Eohippus (or a close relative).

Clarity. Furnish clarity. Proof.

How many times, I'm not suggesting it's "proof" of anything apart from the inanity of your denials of subtly changing morphological sequences in the fossil record.

Show how a horse changed into an elephant.

An idiotic request as we both know that that never happened.

Or a rat into a cat.

An idiotic request as we both know that that never happened.

Do you really want a serious discussion because it just sounds like you are trolling with this childish nonsense?

You do not understand how to explain the distinctly different creatures and the morphologically detailed fossil evidence between them to prove evolution occurred.

Why do you just repeat yourself as if I never wrote anything.

I'm going to say this for the last time, if you bring it up again I will have to assume that you are just trolling.

I am not suggesting anything in the fossil record is "proof" of evolution. Only that it shows exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is a fact and nothing to contradict that.

Can you grasp what that means? Is it too subtle for you. I am not attempting to "prove" evolution to you..

We have diversity of lifeforms but you are avoiding how they came about.

No I'm not, I am suggesting, along with the world's biologists, paleontolgists etc that biological evolution is a fact and that the fossil record contains evidence that is consistent with that fact.

I have provided evidence of that with the Eohippus example.

All you do is continue to cry "Nuh-huh!"

Lets see these fossils that prove evolution occurred.

For Pete's sake, how many times do I need to say it.

They do not "prove" evolution. Only a fool would suggest they do. Proof equates to 100% certainty which is impossible, for all I know a magical pixie created every single fossil and placed them in the ground with small morphological changes in chronological order that just looked like evolution.

However, what we do see of an incomplete is consistent with the Theory of Evolution.... WITHOUT EXCEPTION. Fortunately we have incredibly robust evidence for evolution in many other fields so we don't need to rely of the fossil record alone. And all those fields produce a consistent picture... common descent.

I feel I have now adequately explained my view on the fossil record, so....

I will ask for a third or fourth time...

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"?

 

[inquiring mind]

I did. It offered no substantial content, only hand waving.



The endpoints of a horse are it's head and it's butt, like most animals.



Eohippus and Equus ferus.



Eohippus (or a close relative).



How many times, I'm not suggesting it's "proof" of anything apart from the inanity of your denials of subtly changing morphological sequences in the fossil record.



An idiotic request as we both know that that never happened.



An idiotic request as we both know that that never happened.

Do you really want a serious discussion because it just sounds like you are trolling with this childish nonsense?



Why do you just repeat yourself as if I never wrote anything.

I'm going to say this for the last time, if you bring it up again I will have to assume that you are just trolling.

I am not suggesting anything in the fossil record is "proof" of evolution. Only that it shows exactly what we would expect to see if evolution is a fact and nothing to contradict that.

Can you grasp what that means? Is it too subtle for you. I am not attempting to "prove" evolution to you..



No I'm not, I am suggesting, along with the world's biologists, paleontolgists etc that biological evolution is a fact and that the fossil record contains evidence that is consistent with that fact.

I have provided evidence of that with the Eohippus example.

All you do is continue to cry "Nuh-huh!"



For Pete's sake, how many times do I need to say it.

They do not "prove" evolution. Only a fool would suggest they do. Proof equates to 100% certainty which is impossible, for all I know a magical pixie created every single fossil and placed them in the ground with small morphological changes in chronological order that just looked like evolution.

However, what we do see of an incomplete is consistent with the Theory of Evolution.... WITHOUT EXCEPTION. Fortunately we have incredibly robust evidence for evolution in many other fields so we don't need to rely of the fossil record alone. And all those fields produce a consistent picture... common descent.

I feel I have now adequately explained my view on the fossil record, so....

I will ask for a third or fourth time...

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

 

[pitabread]

If evolutionists could prove that pattern (which they won’t), then to ‘them’ that would be proof that there is no God period.

This makes no sense. Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God. Why do creationists keep making this basic mistake?

 

[Colter]

This makes no sense. Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God. Why do creationists keep making this basic mistake?

The life that evolves has everything to do with God. The fossil record only disproves the YEC story invented by the Israelites, one of many creation stories in religions.

 

[Colter]

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

On the other hand we haven’t found ANYTHING that correlated with the Genesis story of creation that one would “expect to find.”

 

[inquiring mind]

This makes no sense. Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God. Why do creationists keep making this basic mistake?

Are you saying that trying to prove ‘beginning to end’ evolution, with common descent, including man, has nothing to do with God and His Word? Who are you trying to fool?

 

[inquiring mind]

On the other hand we haven’t found ANYTHING that correlated with the Genesis story of creation that one would “expect to find.”

True, if expecting to find it in a science book.

 

[pitabread]

Are you saying that trying to prove ‘beginning to end’ evolution, with common descent, including man, has nothing to do with God and His Word? Who are you trying to fool?

The majority of Christians accept evolution including common descent.

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

 

[inquiring mind]

The majority of Christians accept evolution including common descent.

Then they can defend that view.