Fossil Challenge for Evolutionists

[Kenny'sID]

Apparently you haven't read all my posts.
So I won't reply to this ridiculous claim.

No, I do well to keep up as it is, and often don't read the full thread, but I can imagine.

"Ridiculous" is one of my favorite terms when debating evolution.

 

[bhsmte]

Highly amusing thread!

 

[GodsGrace101]

Thanks, I recommend at least looking at the first link, it's quite brief and easy to follow, the second is more detailed.

In response to some of your comments.

There is no real difference between macro and micro evolution apart from the timescales involved. They are both merely an accumulation of tiny gradual changes.

Looking at whale evolution for example....

There are no drastic "jumps" from one species to another, just many cases of what you might describe as micro evolution adding up over millions of years to quite a significant difference.

I read the first link. Yes, it was easy...
The 29 reasons link is more involved but I will read it, but after dinner. It has a lot of links within it...we'll see.
I don't have much of a problem with your whale graph...it seems to remain a "whale" even though it does change substantially. The legs, for example. Guess they weren't needed after some time...If you don't use it...you lose it.

I'm hoping that non-creationist scientists will be willing to work on ANY theory to come to the truth...whatever it may be.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Meyer isn't a biochemist either.

If you really want an authority on origin of life research, I would suggest looking into the work of Jack Szostak and the work performed by his lab: Szostak Lab: Home

Thanks ... Got it.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Depends on what you mean by "beginning of the universe." The Big Bang describes the beginning of space and time through the expansion of the universe from the singularity. But technically, the singularity was our universe in a different form.



How do you know? Have you ever seen something start, where there was nothing before? How do you know there wasn't always something? How do you know that the question of, for example, the singularity "starting" even makes sense, as it marks a point in time, and time did not exist with the singularity.



No. They don't. They don't even agree that there was a "before" the big bang. Time started with the big bang. There was no "before."

What happened, or existed, the split second before the BB?

We can get just so far back and cannot get beyond that.

THIS is all I'm saying.

I'm also saying science has changed its mind on whether or not anything existed BEFORE the BB.
This can only mean that science is not CERTAIN of what it teaches. All my life through schooling I was taught that the universe always existed....Now kids are taught the opposite.

Anyway, what made the BB?
I read that all that energy should have caused an everything to just implode...why didn't it?

And as to the green highlighted above:
I know nothing.
I'm only repeating what scientists have been teaching throughout my life.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Question: Do you accept that speciation can happen?

Also, do you accept that the Earth is billions of years old and organisms have been around for millions?

I don't believe speciation can happen on its own.
I do believe in micro evolution...evolution within a species.

I don't know about billions, but the earth is definitely tens of millions of years old,,,maybe even billions. I don't have an opinion...

And yes, organisms have been proven to have been around for millions of years.

 

[GodsGrace101]

No, I do well to keep up as it is, and often don't read the full thread, but I can imagine.

"Ridiculous" is one of my favorite terms when debating evolution.

You said something about science not being able to prove anything.

This is just not true.

I just don't believe evolution has been proven.

 

[lasthero]

I don't believe speciation can happen on its own.
I do believe in micro evolution...evolution within a species.

I don't know about billions, but the earth is definitely tens of millions of years old,,,maybe even billions. I don't have an opinion...

And yes, organisms have been proven to have been around for millions of years.

Interesting.

In light of your accepting that but not accepting speciation, are you saying that all the species we see today were around millions of years ago?

 

[GodsGrace101]

Interesting.

In light of your accepting that but not accepting speciation, are you saying that all the species we see today were around millions of years ago?

Not in the same form.
Horses looked different.
Fish looked different.
There were differences.

We don't know what caused the different species of anything on the earth. Were daisies always around?
Did they evolve or did they just appear one day?

We find information in DNA cells and don't really know how that information got there.

I don't know too much,,,in fact, nothing.
I just can't accept that a cell turned into a fish and at some point that fish walked on the earth and turned into an animal and that animal turned into a human.

 

[tas8831]

I went on to explain my point in detail, again.

Reiterating the same wrong thing, I know.

It's telling that you chose not to respond.

Almost as telling as seeing the things you choose not to respond to. Or the things you keep reiterating because you have totally convinced yourself that your layman's take - premised solely on propping up your geocentric YEC myths - is 100% correct.

I see cells! Cell Theory is correct!

 

[Kenny'sID]

If you want to disprove evolution you will need to present a naturalistic theory that does not include the transmutation of species but still explains the fact of biology as well as the present theory of evolution does.

See, that's part of the problem, if you, by that statement are saying evolution is a fact, as far as I'm concerned it's never been proven, so not much point in trying to disprove it. And that's what I'm trying to get now, the proof, then we can move on to disproving.

Creationists are not saying that the present theory of evolution is unproven and therefore it may eventually be superseded by another naturalistic scientific theory, which is true; they are saying that the scientific theory of evolution is unproven and therefore we should adopt the religious doctrine of the creation of the universe in six days, which is false.

Again, I need to understand what you mean by theory? Evolutionists love to change the meaning of terms when it works for them, and used to be, theory was just a theory, an idea, so what is your definition of theory? I'll assume for the moment that you are saying "theory" means a proven fact because of your use of the term "unproven".

That said, this Christian does not say that. I and others say it's unproven, period.

Would you please prove it? And please don't play games such as I mentioned before, by calling evolution a proven fact without making it clear you are only talking about a few tiny cases of viruses and such, it's deceptive and confuses the issue. To be clear, we are talking about "the whole mystery bug/whatever (Whatever, because you all refuse to talk about that part) to man" evolution.

 

[lasthero]

Not in the same form.
Horses looked different.
Fish looked different.
There were differences.

But there were always horses and fish in SOME FORM? Is that what you're saying?

We don't know what caused the different species of anything on the earth. Were daisies always around?

By you're thinking, they'd have to be, correct? Unless you're saying that God created new things after the beginning?

Did they evolve or did they just appear one day?

''
How would they 'just appear one day'?

We find information in DNA cells and don't really know how that information got there.

Like chickens having the DNA for teeth, for one thing...

I don't know too much,,,in fact, nothing.
I just can't accept that a cell turned into a fish and at some point that fish walked on the earth and turned into an animal and that animal turned into a human.

Well, first off, fish ARE animals. So are humans, for that matter.

At any rate, no one's saying that a cell turned into a fish. It's a bit more complicated than that.

 

[tas8831]

Uh, Tiktaalik was discovered in "Late Devonian" rock layers, where fishapods, or "primitive" tetrapods have always been found. That's the point. What's so hard for you to understand about this?

Uh... citations please.
But it is so cool how you want 'predictions' from theory alone regarding fossils, and when you get one you dismiss it because other fossils had been found in contemporary strata.

Your 'challenge' is laughably disingenuous. But hey - got to prop up Yahweh any way possible, right bro?

By the way - totally hilarious how you think Berthault's 'experiments' support the Hebrew flood myth. THAT is some super science!

 

[tas8831]

What makes YOU an authority?
Here's an authority....

What is he an authority on? He has no publication record relevant to any of the things he rants about, he just writes books for layfolk like you and goes on clown shows like Shapiro's.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If you want detail, take a course. Im not responsible for your education.

You ignoring physical reality wont make it go away.

This constantly repeating the same nonsensical cop out is an obvious dodge because you cannot prove evolution, a classic to blame those that ask for the proof you are unable to provide. However you might want to make things a bit more interesting by changing over over to the "science proves nothing" lane for awhile, it serves the same purpose, and though I do like the "I'm not responsible for your education" ploy as well, it's getting a bit moldy at the moment.

 

[tas8831]

Is the origin of life only concerned with biology? (or V V)
What about chemistry?
Does it take chemicals to begin life?

Why do you limit it to biology? It seems to me that there are other sciences also involved in life creation.

Meyer is not a chemist, either.

 

[tas8831]

FYI, but Stephen Meyer isn't an authority in biology.

If you want to evaluate if someone is an authority (i.e. an expert) in a particular field, you need to look at their credentials, their employment track record and for scientists in particular their research areas and publication record.

In the case of Meyer he has neither a background in biology nor has ever worked as or published as a professional biologist. Mostly he writes pop-sci Intelligent Design books which have historically have been picked apart by actual biologists due to the numerous errors they contain.

2 Christian colleges (philosophy) and the Discovery Institute. Great employment history...

 

[Kenny'sID]

You said something about science not being able to prove anything.

This is just not true.

I just don't believe evolution has been proven.

I think you misunderstood, I said that ridiculous argument was coming up, and yes it's beyond not true, it's laughable. That is exactly what science does, prove things, and they only discredit themselves terribly when they try to claim that as a reason they can't prove evolution. I personally would be embarrassed to try to pull that on people.

I don't believe evolution has been proven either. They manage to make some believe it because they use ridiculous nonsense like we are talking about now, but when it comes down to actually proving it, we get nothing but excuses.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That's never been how science has worked.

Saying it, proves nothing, or are you now going to tell us what the PITA claims cannot be proven, it's an acceptable rule, so we just have to take your word for it?

 

[GodsGrace101]

But there were always horses and fish in SOME FORM? Is that what you're saying?

By you're thinking, they'd have to be, correct? Unless you're saying that God created new things after the beginning?

''
How would they 'just appear one day'?

Like chickens having the DNA for teeth, for one thing...

Well, first off, fish ARE animals. So are humans, for that matter.

At any rate, no one's saying that a cell turned into a fish. It's a bit more complicated than that.

Well, I guess your questions took us down to the bottom line.

I either have to believe that one cell turned into everything eventually, OR I have to believe that a creator made each and every type of animal/plant.

OK. I have to go with the second because it makes more sense to me.

It does seem to me that a watch requires a watch-maker and all we see around us also requires a maker.