Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I see... You have heard it all before .....
Now its my turn to be on the receiving end.
"There is a way that seems right to a man,
But its end is the way of death." Prov 14:12
Sir? You're done. Please... break the habit.You way seems right to you. I get that. I'm just pointing out that neither scripture nor the evidence supports you beliefs.
Nope. You're just ignoring all the evidence.
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.
The first great advance wasn't even done by a scientist who knew about evolution. It was Linnaeus, who first showed that all living things fit nicely into a family tree. Such nested hierarchies only occur in nature where there is common descent. Linnaeus was puzzled when non-living things, such as minerals, wouldn't fit into such a family tree.
The next great advance was Darwin's observation that variation and natural selection account for the directional path of evolution. Fitness tends to increase in a population.
1. More are born than can live. (directly observed)
2. Every organism is slightly different from all the others. (directly observed)
3. Some of these differences affect the likelihood of living long enough to reproduce (directly observed)
4. Favorable differences tend to persist and spread in the population. (directly observed)
5. Changes accumulate, often resulting in new species (directly observed)
Darwin then explained the fuzzy nature of species as being caused by this process, and predicted that there must have been transitional forms between higher taxa as the process produced increasingly different organisms, such as tetrapods from fish, birds and mammals from reptiles and so on.
There wasn't much evidence for his in Darwin's lifetime; when Huxley used anatomical data to predict that birds evolved from dinosaurs, there wasn't any evidence for it. In the years since, the predicted transitionals have become extremely numerous, to the point that there are few gaps left between major groups. These transitional forms were admitted by creationist Kurt Wise to be "strong evidence" for macroevolution.
Even more convincing, we never see a transitional form where evolutionary theory says there shouldn't be one. No mammals with feathers. No insects with bones.
The rediscovery of Mendel's work led to predictions that gene would be sorted out in a family tree similar to that of Linnaeus. And over time, DNA and genetic data have confirmed that prediction. Genes produce the same family tree as Linnaeus prepared, to a high degree of precision. And we know it works, because we can check it with organisms of known descent.
A similar result can be shown from conserved organic molecules. Recently, a small amount of heme was found in the fossil of a T-rex. When checked, it was more closely similar to that of birds than of other reptiles, which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicted.
Evolution goes on every day.
Yep. Documented constantly. Even macroevolution; there's a good number of speciation events in the literature. Even the observed evolution of new enzyme systems and digestive organs.
Let's test your belief. Name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if there's a transitional. If you want, name more than one case. Let's see how that works out.
I agree. For example, evolution is obvious at the micro level; but is untestable at the macro level.
Therefore, macroevolution is not a scientific theory.
Common descent is based purely on speculation.
There is no evidence whatsoever that animals of one family, such as Canidae, or Felidae, evolved from any other family.
There is no evidence of macroevolution, so #5 is not provable.
The fossil record also shows that species showed up fully formed,
and then, stasis.
Now that Gingerich and his whale evolution colleague, Hans Thewissen, have admitted the fudged the data,
the once highly-touted "whale transition" line exists only in the minds of the uninformed, and, of course, in museums and textbooks.
Are you familiar with this?
"Of 100 classes of organisms studied by [Kurt] Wise, the order of first appearance did not fit the predictions of evolution (derived independently of the fossil record, by cladistic analysis of shared and derived characters) in 95% of cases." ["Our point-by-point rebuttal of Plimer’s Book." Creation Ministries International, p,25]
Currently, there are no transitional fossil lines, only speculations.
We have never seen a transitional form, period.
Current genetic research has shown that macroevolution would be virtually impossible.
More closely?
Only at the micro level, which is observable.
I cannot think of any that are "evolutionarily" connected.
I agree. For example, evolution is obvious at the micro level; but is untestable at the macro level. Therefore, macroevolution is not a scientific theory.
Common descent is based purely on speculation. There is no evidence whatsoever that animals of one family, such as Canidae, or Felidae, evolved from any other family.
There is no evidence of macroevolution, so #5 is not provable. Dogs are always dogs, and bacteria are always bacteria. The fossil record also shows that species showed up fully formed, and then, stasis.
Kurt Wise wrote that paper in 1995, in which he was attempting to discourage creationists from concentrating their limited resources in that area:
"At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by [Phil] Gingerich (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon [or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes, and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes. . . At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales." [Kurt P. Wise, "Towards a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms." Creation Ministries International, 1995, p.219]
Now that Gingerich and his whale evolution colleague, Hans Thewissen, have admitted they fudged the data, the once highly-touted "whale transition" line exists only in the minds of the uninformed, and, of course, in museums and textbooks. Evolution Icons Die Hard!
Are you familiar with this?
"Of 100 classes of organisms studied by [Kurt] Wise, the order of first appearance did not fit the predictions of evolution (derived independently of the fossil record, by cladistic analysis of shared and derived characters) in 95% of cases." ["Our point-by-point rebuttal of Plimer’s Book." Creation Ministries International, p,25]
Hear it from Dr. Wise himself, here:
This is Dr. Don Batten on "whale evolution":
But sure to watch the three short videos embedded in the article to hear Gingerich and Thewissen admit they "speculated".
Currently, there are no transitional fossil lines, only speculations.
We have never seen a transitional form, period.
Current genetic research has shown that macroevolution would be virtually impossible.
More closely?
Only at the micro level, which is observable. Never at the macro level.
There is no evidence of macroevolution.
I cannot think of any that are "evolutionarily" connected.
Dan
You are probably wasting your time.
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.
[Macroevolution has ] been directly observed to happen. Can't do better than that. Moreover, even things in the past can be tested. For example, Huxley, based on anatomical data, predicted that birds must have evolved from dinosaurs, and predicted transitionals between dinosaurs and birds. His prediction was tested and confirmed when paleontologists much later, found all sorts of the predicted transitionals. His prediction was also confirmed by data showing that advanced dinosaurs had the avian respiratory system, and that heme from a T-rex fossil was more like that of birds than that of other reptiles.
The first evidence was the discovery by Linnaeus that all living things fit nicely into a family tree. Later on, transitional forms were found, filling in the gaps between taxa, further confirming the prediction. Then genetics showed that DNA phylogenies precisely recreate the same family tree. And that's confirmed by testing organisms of known descent.
Even more impressive, there is never a transitional form where evolutionary theory says that there shouldn't be one.
Even honest creationists familiar with the evidence say that there is evidence for that. Kurt Wise, for example, says that such data is "strong evidence" for macroevolution.
"It is a Very Good Evolutionary Argument
"Of Darwinism’s four stratomorphic intermediate expectations, that of the commonness of inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists.. . "
Wise correctly adds that creationism has no explanation for this evidence, but expresses confidence that eventually a reasonable creationist argument will be found. He's an honest creationist.
See above. Wise has a doctorate in paleontology. While he holds to YE beliefs, he knows what he's talking about. Learn from him.
Confirming Darwin's prediction that a well-adapted species in a relatively constant environment, should evolve very little or not at all.
Show us that [that Gingerich and Thewissen fudged the "whale" data]. It's a common accusation, but a false one.
Turns out, that since Gingrich and Thewissen made their initial discoveries, (which confirmed evolutionary predictions that there would be transitional forms between land animals and whales) a host of other transitional forms have been found. The earliest ones explained why whales have horizontal flukes instead of vertical fins like fish.
The biggest goof during this time was the discovery of Pakicetus. The initial find was a very whale-like skull with no postcranial skeleton. The assumption was that it was a primitive whale. Later, when the rest of it was found, it turns out to have been much more adapted to land and less to water than had been expected. Which was more damaging to creationism than if it had been a primitive swimming whale. It was a whale still quite adapted to land.
Later, finds like Ambulocetus filled in the gaps. Ambulocetus was a whale still capable of moving about on land to a degree, but was highly evolved for life in water. There are many, many other examples. Would you like to learn about them?
How strange. You were perhaps unaware that cladistics does not predict evolutionary sequences? From a fellow creationist:
"Cladograms only demonstrate a nested hierarchy of biological characters; they tell us nothing about what produced the pattern. . . "
Dr. Wise, your fellow creationist, disagrees with you. He says that these lines are "strong evidence" for evolution."
I notice you declined to test your belief on this. Are you ready to try, now? Barbarian observes:
The rediscovery of Mendel's work led to predictions that gene would be sorted out in a family tree similar to that of Linnaeus. And over time, DNA and genetic data have confirmed that prediction. Genes produce the same family tree as Linnaeus prepared, to a high degree of precision. And we know it works, because we can check it with organisms of known descent.
Geneticists disagree with you. In fact, the rediscovery of Mendel's work cleared up a serious problem for evolutionary theory. The issue was how a new trait could persist, if inheritance was in the blood. It would be swamped like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint. When it became clear that inheritance was like sorting beads, not like mixing paint, the issue was resolved, and Darwin's theory was vindicated.
Macroevolution has been directly observed. Even many creationists now admit that speciation is a fact. Even the evolution of a new digestive organ has been observed. I think you've been misled about that."
Barbarian observes: A similar result can be shown from conserved organic molecules. Recently, a small amount of heme was found in the fossil of a T-rex. When checked, it was more closely similar to that of birds than of other reptiles, which is exactly what evolutionary theory predicted.
Yep. Conserved molecules like heme change very little over time. But they do slowly change. So it can show evolutionary descent, since closely related organisms will have more similar heme. Since other evidence shows that dinosaurs and birds are more closely related than dinosaurs and other reptiles, the finding was further confirmation of the fact. Other molecules like cytochrome C show the same pattern. (Barbarian notes that macroevolution has been directly observes)
No, that's wrong. Speciation is well-documented. Would you like some examples?"
Barbarian suggests: Let's test your belief. Name any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if there's a transitional. If you want, name more than one case. Let's see how that works out."
As you know, I said "said to be evolutionarily connected." I don't blame you for dodging the question; rarely will a creationist touch such a question, since there are very few major groups now lacking known transitionals.
But the offer is open. If you'd like to try, let's see if your belief is correct.
You are probably wasting your time. Some are here to genuinely learn and grow. Others, to see how well they can resist it. Its like weight lifting to them. The more they can ignore and defy the stronger they see themselves to be...
He is. Railing against the evidence is a losing battle. I understand the problem. Science changes theories when the facts show them to be inaccurate.
Creationist can only try to change the facts when they show their beliefs to be inaccurate.
Kinda unfair. Some are here to genuinely learn and grow. Creationists often do it, to see how well they can resist it. The more evidence they can ignore and defy the stronger they see themselves to be.
Not every creationist. There are many that are open to learning more about it. But so many of them are locked into their modern, man-made doctrines that they cannot accept any facts that contradict their presuppositions.
The offer remains open. If you don't think there are numerous transitionals (as your fellow creationist Kurt Wise says there are) take the challenge.
It's both a fact & a science theory.
LOL! It is easy to challenge the speculative claims of the evolutionist, since all dogmatic assertions by evolutionists above the microevolution level are based on pure speculation ("Historical Philosophy" for the pretentious), combined with the ever-present "bait-and-switch" misdirections.
Dan
If evolutionists adhered to that method of discovery,
When evolutionists are shown their beliefs to be inaccurate, they still refuse to let go.
Evolutionism Icons Die Hard!
You should practice what you preach.
You are living in the past.
The more creation scientists learn about the fossil record, genetics, and the geological strata, the more they are convinced evolutionism is a tragic myth.
There are no transitional fossils.
All of that is based on unprovable speculation. There are no real transitional fossil lines, only imaginary ones.
Where are your sources?
Evolution.
Sources?
How does that prove evolution?
That is what the theory of a common designer would predict, as well.
Fossils of many birds, as well as bird tracks have been found with the dinosaurs fossils,
and there are no transitional fossils, one way or the other.
So let's try that one: man evolving from an ape (or an Indian Fruit Bat, if you choose).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?