Fish finger fossils show the beginnings of hands

[Kenny'sID]

It's not all about you and your chosen religion.

Actually, it is, some just aren't aware of it yet.

Patients.

As to evolution...haven't we discussed that several times already, and no one at all could prove it exists? Or is the OP intended as a breakthrough?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Actually, it is, some just aren't aware of it yet.

Patients.

As to evolution...haven't we discussed that several times already, and no one at all could prove it exists? Or is the OP intended as a breakthrough?

*patience

 

[Speedwell]

Actually, it is, some just aren't aware of it yet.

Patients.

As to evolution...haven't we discussed that several times already, and no one at all could prove it exists? Or is the OP intended as a breakthrough?

No, just a snapshot of one small part of evolutionary development. The OP was not intended to be "proof" of anything, just interesting and informative.

 

[Kenny'sID]

*patience

Well, at least there was no argument with the basics of the actual subject matter of my post...I'll take it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The OP was not intended to be "proof" of anything, just interesting and informative

I certianly hope not.

 

[essentialsaltes]

As to evolution...haven't we discussed that several times already, and no one at all could prove it exists?

That was successfully demonstrated to the scientific community in the 19th century.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, at least there was no argument with the basics of the actual subject matter of my post...I'll take it.

That it's not all about you and your religion? What's the point? You seem to think that anything we say is an attack on you and your religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"The main scientific objection to evolution is not about the whether change occurs through time, and neither is it about the size of the change (so use of the terms 'micro-' and 'macro-evolution' should be discouraged). It isn't even about whether natural selection happens. The key issue is the type of change required - to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content. The three billion DNA 'letters' stored in each human nucleus convey a great deal more information than the half a million DNA 'letters' of the simplest self-reproducing organism... all the alleged 'proofs of evolution in action' to date do not show functional new information added to the genes. Rather, they involve sorting and/or loss of information." - Jonathon Sarfati

[/QUOTE]
LOL! You are not even trying. That man may have a PhD in chemistry, but he has to deny almost all of science. He is of all things a Young Earth Creationist. There is no real difference between YEC's and Flat Earthers, they are all extreme science deniers.

 

[Jimmy D]

"The main scientific objection to evolution is not about the whether change occurs through time, and neither is it about the size of the change (so use of the terms 'micro-' and 'macro-evolution' should be discouraged). It isn't even about whether natural selection happens. The key issue is the type of change required - to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content. The three billion DNA 'letters' stored in each human nucleus convey a great deal more information than the half a million DNA 'letters' of the simplest self-reproducing organism... all the alleged 'proofs of evolution in action' to date do not show functional new information added to the genes. Rather, they involve sorting and/or loss of information." - Jonathon Sarfati

[/QUOTE]

Kinda proves SZ’s point. No testing, no data, just an unsubstantiated claim.

 

[Speedwell]

LOL! You are not even trying. That man may have a PhD in chemistry, but he has to deny almost all of science. He is of all things a Young Earth Creationist. There is no real difference between YEC's and Flat Earthers, they are all extreme science deniers.

Safarti is a particularly slimy case. Because of his educational background he knows better. His misrepresentations of Information Theory are sly and insidious.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That was successfully demonstrated to the scientific community in the 19th century.

But that is just talk. All the "Scientific community"? 5% of it? The Scientific Community that believed it? And I'd dare say it's not all about the Scientific Community"...especially since I've had an in depth look at how they draw conclusions. So you see there is so much there that you didn't say. Best way to back your claim is to show us in detail how evolution is a fact. Can you do that please?

That it's not all about you and your religion? What's the point? You seem to think that anything we say is an attack on you and your religion.

You really didn't get the point? It was that...it IS about my/our religion. Not sure how your "attack" comment even fits here, I didn't think the The OP was attacking anyone, only that he was ignorant of the fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, it is, some just aren't aware of it yet.

Patients.

As to evolution...haven't we discussed that several times already, and no one at all could prove it exists? Or is the OP intended as a breakthrough?

Quite the opposite. There is no doubt in the scientific community about the fact that life is the product of evolution. There are only a handful of science denying loons (and yes, there are even some science deniers in the sciences, there comments often break irony meters everywhere).

 

[Speedwell]

You really didn't get the point? It was that...it IS about my/our religion. Not sure how your "attack" comment even fits here, I didn't think the The OP was attacking anyone, only that he was ignorant of the fact.

Certainly not "our" religion. You have made the point on several occasions that you don't consider me a fellow Christian because I don't share your view of Genesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Kinda proves SZ’s point. No testing, no data, just an unsubstantiated claim.[/QUOTE]
There is a reason that I try to get creationists to learn the basics and rarely supply them with evidence. I have yet to meet a creationist that even understands the concept of evidence. As a result supplying them with evidence is a pointless exercise since they cannot understand it and all that they will do is to deny it.

Are there any creationists out there that have any guts at all? Would anyone care to try to learn what is and what is not evidence? If you don't even understand the concept of evidence you cannot supply any for your beliefs.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Certainly not "our" religion.

I gathered that....Without walking you through the details of word usage, suffice to say, coming from me, "ours" doesn't mean those that don't believe that. Hint: "our" belief.

You have made the point on several occasions that you don't consider me a fellow Christian because I don't share your view of Genesis.

Show me where I made the point? And while we're at it, we can clear that up... what is your "Other Religion"

 

[essentialsaltes]

But that is just talk.

No, it's history of science. In the first half of the 19th century, there was growing awareness that evolution was a fact, and the gathering pieces of evidence required an explanation. Darwin (among others) provided an explanation for the fact of evolution in the middle of the century. Within a short time, his view convinced the relevant experts and biology has accepted evolution as a fundamental theory ever since -- indeed, it has only grown stronger and more explanatory over time.

Best way to back your claim is to show us in detail how evolution is a fact. Can you do that please?

Sure, different geological strata laid down at different times contain different groups of fossil animals and plants. Living things have changed over time. That's evolution.

 

[pitabread]

As to evolution...haven't we discussed that several times already, and no one at all could prove it exists? Or is the OP intended as a breakthrough?

We're all well familiar with your shtick by now Kenny.

 

[Speedwell]

I gathered that....Without walking you through the details of word usage, suffice to say, coming from me, "ours" doesn't mean those that don't believe that. Hint: "our" belief.



Show me where I made the point? And while we're at it, we can clear that up... what is your "Other Religion"

I'm an Anglican.

But tell me this: do you believe that Henry Morris was right when he said "The purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God"?

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, it's history of science. In the first half of the 19th century, there was growing awareness that evolution was a fact, and the gathering pieces of evidence required an explanation. Darwin (among others) provided an explanation for the fact of evolution in the middle of the century. Within a short time, his view convinced the relevant experts and biology has accepted evolution as a fundamental theory ever since -- indeed, it has only grown stronger and more explanatory over time.

Still talk.

Sure, different geological strata laid down at different times contain different groups of fossil animals and plants. Living things have changed over time. That's evolution.

Again, talk. You forgot to add proof the living things had changed over time. See, when you leave such things out...well that doesn't help your cause at all, and it even hurts it, IMO.

We're all well familiar with your shtick by now Kenny.

And I, yours, as in comments such as that instead of something relevant like showing us form start to date, how evolution is a fact.

But tell me this: do you believe that Henry Morris was right when he said "The purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God"?

I would have to answer, no, that is not a conscious purpose. But at the same time, I see nothing in the bible that remotely even suggests evolution so to teach it certainly suggests one does not believe God created us as were are, something the bible certainly DOES suggest. So in turn, to teach that means one deos not believe bible to be true....You decide if someone who doesn't believe the bible to be true, is Christian or not.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You forgot to add proof the living things had changed over time.

No, I didn't. The things that lived at one time looked like this, and the things that lived at a different time looked like that. Living things changed over time.