Intelligent Design

[Linuxgal]

I am asking you to show me organisms that are going through the
evolution you proposed. Or is it yet another assumption?

Individual organisms never go through evolution. Species of them do.

 

[justlookinla]

Individual organisms never go through evolution. Species of them do.

Individual finches of "Darwin's finches" didn't go through evolution?

 

[Smidlee]

Not really. One couldn't simply dismiss it as an anomaly.

They tried they best to dismiss the soft tissue found in dinosaurs so don't underestimate evolutionist ability to explain away contradicting evidence.

 

[JayFern]

They tried they best to dismiss the soft tissue found in dinosaurs so don't underestimate evolutionist ability to explain away contradicting evidence.

This is the problem facing everyone today, creationists will believe everything they are told to believe, if they are told to believe there was soft tissue on a fossil guess what? they believe it.
Dinosaurs have been dead for about 65 million years so try and think about it for yourselves, is it likely there is soft tissue on any fossils? what do you think?

They told you evidence for the things told about in the bible are everywhere, lies, there is no evidence apart from a few place names, they told you the ark had been found [how many times have they lied to you about that?] they lied about that, they will keep lying to you as long as you keep believing them.

 

[Smidlee]

This is the problem facing everyone today, creationists will believe everything they are told to believe, if they are told to believe there was soft tissue on a fossil guess what? they believe it.
Dinosaurs have been dead for about 65 million years so try and think about it for yourselves, is it likely there is soft tissue on any fossils? what do you think?

They told you evidence for the things told about in the bible are everywhere, lies, there is no evidence apart from a few place names, they told you the ark had been found [how many times have they lied to you about that?] they lied about that, they will keep lying to you as long as you keep believing them.

If I believed everything I was told I believed dinosaurs have been dead for 65 millions years.

 

[JayFern]

If I believed everything I was told I believed dinosaurs have been dead for 65 millions years.

And therein lies your problem, you believe things that can not be shown to be true but don't believe things that can,
you are the only one who is standing in the way of you finding out the truth.
I really do understand why you must be seen to be a creationist, if you weren't you could lose everything.

 

[justlookinla]

Individual organisms never go through evolution. Species of them do.

Individual finches of "Darwin's finches" didn't go through evolution?

Bump.

 

[Linuxgal]

They tried they best to dismiss the soft tissue found in dinosaurs so don't underestimate evolutionist ability to explain away contradicting evidence.

What does finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones do for ya?

 

[justlookinla]

What does finding soft tissue in dinosaur bones do for ya?

About the same thing as finches becoming finches?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, things are increasingly getting muddled up and going downhill.

Yeah... gaining immunities, learning to metabolise entirely new food sources, etc.... all downhill ha?

You don't have to point out the obvious but it has nothing to do with
one species miraculously morphing into another. Quite the opposite.

Except off course, that that is the exact process by which speciation occurs.

Off course, one doesn't know that if one keeps their heads burried in holes with no sunlight.

 

[DogmaHunter]

By looking at their fossils.
Oldest Horseshoe Crab Fossil Found, 445 Million Years Old -- ScienceDaily

A 445 million year old fossil of horseshoe crab is an evolutionary god.

This is like finding a rabbit in a Precambrian rock which many evolutionist have claimed would falsify evolution.

Living fossils don't even put a dent in evolution theory or the fact of common ancestry.

This is completely different from finding a rabbit in the precambrian. Do you know why? I guess you don't.

A rabbit is a creature from a lineage that didn't exist at that time. Like all mammals.

The rabbit thing is not about finding "a creature" that lives today in ancient rock. The rabbit thing is about find a creature in a layer dating to a time in which it couldn't have existed yet.

Mammals in precambrian rocks would be a very real problem.
This? Not so much.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yet, the lack of finding other precambrian rabbits would not negate the existence of precambrian rabbits.

But they would be required to confirm the existence of such rabbits.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If one guy finds a rabbit in a precam layer there's not really a problem until his finding is repeated by other researchers. After all, maybe it's a one-shot anomaly. This is how we figured out cold fusion was a joke.

No... We figured out cold fusion is a joke because the people who claimed to be doing it were sketchy and refused to show evidence of their work in any direct fashion. Also logic, given how unlikely such a reaction is to be viable in any reasonable context.

Any findings of items such as Precambrian rabbits have thus far been shown to be hoaxes, various fakes. None have been found that withstand basic tests.

 

[Split Rock]

If I believed everything I was told I believed dinosaurs have been dead for 65 millions years.

Its a good thing you know the TRUTH....that Adam and his family rode on dinosaurs like the Creation Museum shows us! http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Creation_museum_triceratops_saddle.jpg

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[Smidlee]

Living fossils don't even put a dent in evolution theory or the fact of common ancestry.

This is completely different from finding a rabbit in the precambrian. Do you know why? I guess you don't.

A rabbit is a creature from a lineage that didn't exist at that time. Like all mammals.

Where is your evidence that mammals were around? Not all mammals have their boobs sticking out like Dolly Parton.

The difference is horseshoe crab is a marine creature which are the majority of the fossils while rabbits are not. Evolutionist know this is the very reason that pick something that not a marine creature nor insects nor worms. For example; A Starfish found in Precambrian.

The rabbit thing is not about finding "a creature" that lives today in ancient rock. The rabbit thing is about find a creature in a layer dating to a time in which it couldn't have existed yet.

Mammals in precambrian rocks would be a very real problem.
This? Not so much.

The real problem for evolutionist is there are hardly anything in Precambrian rocks. The "rabbit" trick is a decoy trying to draw the attention away from the fact the fossil record falsify evolution. The major body plans appeared in Cambrian rock.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Where is your evidence that mammals were around? Not all mammals have their boobs sticking out like Dolly Parton.

Go out and inform yourself. Don't try to make me do your homework.

The difference is horseshoe crab is a marine creature which are the majority of the fossils while rabbits are not. Evolutionist know this is the very reason that pick something that not a marine creature nor insects nor worms. For example; A Starfish found in Precambrian.

The rabbit is just a symbolic example that has turned into some kind of meme. Off course, the same goes for all other creatures being found in layers dating to a period where those creatures couldn't possibly have existed.

Mammals couldn't have existed in the precambrian. Finding any mammal in precambrian rock would be problematic.

But off course, we never find mammal fossils in precambrian rock. Like... ever. Why is that?

The real problem for evolutionist is there are hardly anything in Precambrian rocks.

That's not a problem. In fact, it's expected.

The "rabbit" trick is a decoy trying to draw the attention away from the fact the fossil record falsify evolution.

Lol what the....
So, apparantly, giving a you a straight up example of what kind of fossil would falsify evolution is a plot to draw away attention of fossils that falsify evolution?


Do you think about these statements before you write them down?

The major body plans appeared in Cambrian rock.

Where are the rabbits? Or monkeys? Or tigers? Dogs? Wolves? Chimps? Bears? Cats? Lions? Hyena's? Hippo's? Giraffes? Anything?

 

[EternalDragon]

Go out and inform yourself. Don't try to make me do your homework.



The rabbit is just a symbolic example that has turned into some kind of meme. Off course, the same goes for all other creatures being found in layers dating to a period where those creatures couldn't possibly have existed.

Mammals couldn't have existed in the precambrian. Finding any mammal in precambrian rock would be problematic.

But off course, we never find mammal fossils in precambrian rock. Like... ever. Why is that?



That's not a problem. In fact, it's expected.



Lol what the....
So, apparantly, giving a you a straight up example of what kind of fossil would falsify evolution is a plot to draw away attention of fossils that falsify evolution?


Do you think about these statements before you write them down?




Where are the rabbits? Or monkeys? Or tigers? Dogs? Wolves? Chimps? Bears? Cats? Lions? Hyena's? Hippo's? Giraffes? Anything?

The Cambrian is a buried ocean environment. Why would those animals
be found there?

 

[DerelictJunction]

The Cambrian is a buried ocean environment. Why would those animals
be found there?

What about modern fish, or whales, seals, and porpoises (oh look! they're mammals!), or crustaceans?

 

[EternalDragon]

What about modern fish, or whales, seals, and porpoises (oh look! they're mammals!), or crustaceans?

Again, why would those animals live in the deep ocean depths? They
aren't found there today even.