Looking for all the missing links

[Metal Minister]

Yes, most things have a beginning, and there are very dedicated and smart people working on abiogenesis on every continent. We don't know yet, but we will (hopefully in my lifetime ). There's nothing wrong with saying we don't know yet- and cdesignproponentsists don't either. When we do figure it out, it will have not been through prayers or holy scriptures.

Religions have been around for six thousand years, modern science for roughly four hundred years, give us a chance, we're just getting going.

If science is quote "just getting going" on evolution, then why is it taught as gospel truth in our schools? Why is it sacrilegious to disagree with it in the scientific community? Why is anyone who questions it automatically an idiot or unintelligent when by your own admission its not even a founded proven fact yet? Why can't two scientists objectively look at evidence and come to different conclusions without being run out of his profession? If, by your own admission evolution is not yet even a complete theory, then why is it still considered as established science? The point is, that evolution is as much a religion as Christianity, but evolutionists refuse to admit it.
1) The Big Bang: no direct proof it ever happened, all assumption taking it from science to religion.
2) the earth was a hot molten mass. Radio Polonium Halos disprove this.
3) the primordial soup. Again, assumption with no evidence.
4) macro-molecules assumption, no proof.
5) macro-evolution supposition masquerading as fact.
Evolution as if stands is a house of cards. Pull one and the whole thing collapses, yet we're supposed to blindly follow its proponents who admit themselves its impossible.
“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.” [Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News,vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
“Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself—and that is what the second law is all about.” [Isaac Asimov, Smithsonian Institute Journal,June 1970, p. 6]

So I ask then, if it is still not "finished" as even a theory, then why is it being pushed as the answer to the origin of everything? Why is it being taught if it is constantly being falsified? If its such a grand answer to all, then why not wait till its ready and show the world? I'll tell you why: "Sir Julian Huxley, one of the world's leading evolutionists, head of UNESCO, descendant of Thomas Huxley -- Darwin's bulldog -- said on a talk show, 'I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.' (Henry M. Morris, The Troubled Waters of Evolution, Creation-Life Publishers, 1974, p. 58)." People, in their arrogance and pride do not like the idea of someone who may be able to judge them.

 

[createdtoworship]

So, I show you more than two animals and that is a failure???


What???? You said before they were all Horse-like.... now there are not? Makeup your mind!


Grass is very hard to digest because it contains silica. So I guess when a giraffe eats leaves it makes it "carnivorous???"

You are a crack-up. Can I have some of what you are smoking?

look up low crowned teeth, then get back to me.

 

[Split Rock]

I've been to several websites very similar to these, and I'm going to attempt to circumvent protocol, and post a link you may find enlightening if you use an open mind.www(dot)trueorigin(dot)org/isakrbtl(dot)asp its a fairly long piece, but very informative. Please by all means investigate it for yourself. It in fact discusses Ms. Hunt's piece.

OK, here's the website: - Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -

Here's the part about horse evolution:

The “Transitional Fossil” FAQ
The above-mentioned FAQ, written by Kathleen Hunt, is in fact titled “Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ” (and does not even attempt to address the less conveniently “explained” absence of transitional specimens among invertebrates, or between invertebrates and vertebrates). It is comprised of hundreds of references to various species and genera, citing various organisms as related and/or ancestral, based on the work of several evolutionist paleontological authorities.

Invertebrates are soft-bodied and rarely leave fossils behind, but let's not follow this guy's lead and digress...

To the willing disciple of evolutionary doctrine, Hunt’s publication may seem overwhelmingly persuasive and encouraging. But an objective, critical look at the contents reveals that Hunt really does little more than perpetuate the myth of fossil transitions plainly denied by the evolutionist authorities quoted above. She seeks to accomplish this with a combination of many assertively-made statements and (wherever possible) references to specific physiological similarities between certain species or genera, as suggested over the years by various phylogenic theorists.

Nothing is denied or refuted by a quote mine. See my thread on creationists and quote mines for more details (http://www.christianforums.com/t7658348/) . She accomplishes what she does by discussing the fossil record in some detail. This includes pointing out a number of different mechanisms of speciation, including both abrupt (geologically) and gradual.

What is missing from Hunt’s document is any honest acknowledgment that among the phylogenies she describes, few—if any—are universally accepted among paleontological authorities, and many remain tentative and subject to change, if not hotly disputed among authorities with differing viewpoints.

Few authorities deny these fossil species are horse transitionals. There may be disputes concerning whether or not speciman A is a differnt species than B or if a certain species was ancestral to another, or just closely related to the ancestor. This is to be expected with an incomplete record. Of course these remain tentative and subject to change.. everything is science is held as tentative and subject to change. That is how we learn.

The reader is encouraged to remember that, given the abundant variety of vertebrate organisms in both the present and the fossil worlds, coercing a selection of them into a passable phylogenic arrangement to suit evolutionary preconceptions is no difficult task. Given enough time and material, and a willingness to “overlook” any “unsuitable” facts, the desired scenario could easily be constructed, using similarities wherever they help, and ignoring them wherever they don’t.

Mostly goobly-goook. Where are the unnamed "unsuitable facts" alluted to? The fossils and the stratigraphy are all taken into account with what is known concerning evolutionary mechanisms.

Color me unimpressed.

 

[Split Rock]

look up low crowned teeth, then get back to me.

You look it up ... and while you're at it look up "canine teeth."

 

[Split Rock]

I believe the entire point is that evolution as a whole is unproved in its most basic concepts. Most evolutionists refuse to discuss the origin of life (never mind the origin of everything else) and instead assume the origin of life. From this basic mistake alone, the rest of evolution crumbles.

The theory of evolution explains the diversity and distribution of life on earth. That's it. It makes no attempt to do anything else. Perhaps because you see it as an alternative to creationism, which deals with more, you expect evolution to do the same. But, the theory of evolution is a scientifc theory, and must therefore be rather specific, unlike creationism.

Now, let me give you a thought question no other creationist here has tried to answer. If God created life on earth and then let it evolve, how would the Theory of Evolution change?

 

[createdtoworship]

You look it up ... and while you're at it look up "canine teeth."

not all carnivores have canine teeth for one.....

secondly, herbivores can have small upper canine teeth.


so I suggest you look it up, and then get back to me.

 

[Metal Minister]

Invertebrates are soft-bodied and rarely leave fossils behind, but let's not follow this guy's lead and digress...
And yet they sometimes do. There are fossil jellyfish in fact. There are MILLIONS of fossil clams. Never any intermediate stages, just clams.

Nothing is denied or refuted by a quote mine. See my thread on creationists and quote mines for more details. She accomplishes what she does by discussing the fossil record in some detail. This includes pointing out a number of different mechanisms of speciation, including both abrupt (geologically) and gradual.
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it… Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin's authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils… It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. (correspondence w. Sunderland) And please don't tell me youre a believer in punctuated equilibrium! That basically a bird hatched from a reptile egg? That literally states "there's no proof so that's the proof that it happened".

Few authorities deny these fossil species are horse transitionals. There may be disputes concerning whether or not speciman A is a differnt species than B or if a certain species was ancestral to another, or just closely related to the ancestor. This is to be expected with an incomplete record. Of course these remain tentative and subject to change.. everything is science is held as tentative and subject to change. That is how we learn.
So I'll ask as I did to another poster: if you admit nothing is concrete, then why is it taught in schools as gospel truth? Why is no one allowed to question the almighty evolution? And at least one of the "ancient horses" is a hyrax that is a carnivore, and can be found in strata "younger" than strata the modern horse is found in.

Mostly goobly-goook. Where are the unnamed "unsuitable facts" alluted to? The fossils and the stratigraphy are all taken into account with what is known concerning evolutionary mechanisms.

Color me unimpressed.
To start how about Radio Polonium Halos? They prove the earth could never have been a hot molten mass. How about the fact that scales on a reptil and feathers on a bird come from completely different places in their chromosome, and share no physical traits beyond the fact that they're made up of keratin.
How about the second law of thermodynamics? They're in the article if you're willing to see them.

 

[Metal Minister]

The theory of evolution explains the diversity and distribution of life on earth. That's it. It makes no attempt to do anything else. Perhaps because you see it as an alternative to creationism, which deals with more, you expect evolution to do the same. But, the theory of evolution is a scientifc theory, and must therefore be rather specific, unlike creationism.

Now, let me give you a thought question no other creationist here has tried to answer. If God created life on earth and then let it evolve, how would the Theory of Evolution change?

God didn't use evolution for one. He's quite explicit in how he created life. So the question is moot. Second, again you are skipping past all the steps to get life here. Evolution does not simply encompass life already here, without assuming life was already here! That would be like looking at a lot full of cars and assuming that because the SUV's are parked before the trucks they must've come first, and ignores how they got there. But lets try this instead. If evolution is a fact, then why do we not see any living evidence today? Why aren't there still chimps giving birth to babies with strikingly human features? Why aren't there horses giving birth to offspring with some striking new or better adaptation? Even the preliminary stages of one? If its a constant, then why 6000 years ago was there no record of such an occurrence? Or anywhere up until now? I'm pretty sure granny's prize cow giving birth to something that wasn't a cow would've been some pretty big news no matter what age it was.

 

[MostlyLurking]

Why can't two scientists objectively look at evidence and come to different conclusions without being run out of his profession?

Perhaps because when scientists look at evidence OBJECTIVELY, they all reach the same conclusion about the realities of evolution.

Meanwhile, tell me the names of two such scientists who each were "run out of his profession."

Can you even name one?

On the other hand, I can name various Christians who lost their faculty positions simply for acknowledging the the realities of the theory of evolution and failing to stay on the Creationism bandwagon. For example, Dr. Bruce Waltke was the most renowned scholar on his campus but he lost his faculty position in the middle of a term and within 24hours of his "spiritually incorrect statement."

So let's hear the names of your two scientists who were "run out of their profession."

 

[MostlyLurking]

God didn't use evolution for one. He's quite explicit in how he created life.

Then perhaps you can help me. For years I've looked in the Bible for ANY statement which denies the the theory of evolution. So where did you find it?

As to "he quite explicit", I can't find anywhere in the Bible where this "explicit" description is found. The processes are never described. The Bible simply says that God created things, made things, and formed things. It doesn't say how. It doesn't list the processes. So in my Bible there is NO explicit description.

So the question is moot.

I agree. The Bible says nothing to deny evolutionary processes.

Second, again you are skipping past all the steps to get life here. Evolution does not simply encompass life already here, without assuming life was already here!

Huh?? Evolutionary theory explains CHANGES in life forms. Not the beginnings of life on earth.

That would be like looking at a lot full of cars and assuming that because the SUV's are parked before the trucks they must've come first, and ignores how they got there.

Huh???

Perhaps you are talking about the fossil record. Yes, the oldest layers are the deepest. Those came before the organisms found in high layers.

But lets try this instead. If evolution is a fact, then why do we not see any living evidence today?

We do. By the thousands and thousands.

Why aren't there still chimps giving birth to babies with strikingly human features?

Because that never happened. And if that ever happened, it would be important evidence AGAINST the The Theory of Evolution.

Why aren't there horses giving birth to offspring with some striking new or better adaptation?

It depends upon what you mean by "striking." But both Genesis and The Theory of Evolution agree on those offspring: male & female reproduce, each after their own kind.

If its a constant, then why 6000 years ago was there no record of such an occurrence? Or anywhere up until now? I'm pretty sure granny's prize cow giving birth to something that wasn't a cow would've been some pretty big news no matter what age it was.

It would be HUGE NEWS, because such an event would destroy The Theory of Evolution!

So until you can document that such an event has happened, evolution remains a solid theory.

[Have you ever considered the idea of learning what The Theory of Evolution states? Then you wouldn't have to humiliate yourself with these strawman embarrassments of what you THINK or WISH The Theory of Evolution claims.]

 

[Metal Minister]

John freshwater, David Coppege, Richard Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, and Caroline Crocker...looking at something objectively would work both ways, but evolutionists refuse to acknowledge that evolution has MAJOR flaws. I've seen this several times now so I'll ask: if evolution only relates to changes in life and not its origin, doesn't that fly in Darwin's face, as well as most of the scientific communities? I must say to think evolution began on life that was mysteriously already here takes a mountain of faith...

 

[Metal Minister]

Then perhaps you can help me. For years I've looked in the Bible for ANY statement which denies the the theory of evolution. So where did you find it?



As to "he quite explicit", I can't find anywhere in the Bible where this "explicit" description is found. The processes are never described. The Bible simply says that God created things, made things, and formed things. It doesn't say how. It doesn't list the processes. So in my Bible there is NO explicit description.
Gen. 1:20-29


I agree. The Bible says nothing to deny evolutionary processes.
If he placed everything here already what part is hard to understand? Besides the fact that the Bible also states than Man brought death into the world where evolution says death brought man into the world.



Huh?? Evolutionary theory explains CHANGES in life forms. Not the beginnings of life on earth.


Again, this shows an incredible amount of faith on the part of evolutionists...to have evolution take place to life that was just mysteriously here already...


Huh???

Perhaps you are talking about the fossil record. Yes, the oldest layers are the deepest. Those came before the organisms found in high layers.



You're jumping in on a totally different topic i was discussing with someone else. The point was again that evolution without taking into account origin of life is like looking at the lot of cars and assuming one came before another without knowing how they got there in the first place. The point later discussing the hyrax as a suppoedly ancient horse that not only still exists, but modern horses are found in strata far older than some hyrax fossils.

We do. By the thousands and thousands.


"Micro-evolution" does not prove "macro-evolution"


Because that never happened. And if that ever happened, it would be important evidence AGAINST the The Theory of

no, the whole theory of evolution is based on this when you use punctuated equilibrium.






It depends upon what you mean by "striking." But both Genesis and The Theory of Evolution agree on those offspring: male & female reproduce, each after their own kind.



It would be HUGE NEWS, because such an event would destroy The Theory of Evolution!

So until you can document that such an event has happened, evolution remains a solid theory.

[Have you ever considered the idea of learning what The Theory of Evolution states? Then you wouldn't have to humiliate yourself with these strawman embarrassments of what you THINK or WISH The Theory of Evolution claims.]

Actually the only embarrasment is the theory of evolution itself. Punctuated equilibrium states that a bird hatched from a reptile egg. This is the current most widely held belief of evolutionists today. There is no proof, so there's our proof. Again, evolution does not state that everything produces after its kind, but that changes create a new kind. As I said, a cow producing a non-cow. Through moden genetics we can see this is impossible. That an animal can only produce afyer what's already in its gene code.

 

[MostlyLurking]

John freshwater, David Coppege, Richard Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, and Caroline Crocker...looking at something objectively would work both ways, but evolutionists refuse to acknowledge that evolution has MAJOR flaws.

Have you published these alleged "major flaws" in evolution? Can you name some here?

If evolution only relates to changes in life and not its origin, doesn't that fly in Darwin's face, as well as most of the scientific communities?.

You aren't making sense.

Considering that Darwin was trying to explain the CHANGES in living organisms why would an entirely separate issue (the origin of life) "fly in Darwin's face"? And what "scientific communities" are you talking about? Can you name one which wants The Theory of Evolution, after 150 years, to tackle a second question?

I must say to think evolution began on life that was mysteriously already here takes a mountain of faith...

So you are saying that The Germ Theory of Disease should be ignored until it explains where germs originally came from? Is Plate Tectonic Theory fail because it doesn't explain where the earth came from?

Do you have any idea how illogical your protest sounds?

 

[MostlyLurking]

Actually the only embarrasment is the theory of evolution itself. Punctuated equilibrium states that a bird hatched from a reptile egg. This is the current most widely held belief of evolutionists today. There is no proof, so there's our proof. Again, evolution does not state that everything produces after its kind, but that changes create a new kind. As I said, a cow producing a non-cow. Through moden genetics we can see this is impossible. That an animal can only produce afyer what's already in its gene code.

You are embarrassing yourself. Your descriptions bear little resemblance to The Theory of Evolution. Have you ever considered that this might explain why the world's scientists affirms The Theory of Evolution as one of the best supported of ALL scientific theories---but you don't? That fact could give you a BIG HINT as to why evolution sounds crazy to you but not actual scientists.

No evolutionary biologist thinks that a cow produces a "non-cow." Don't take my word for it. Get yourself a basic textbook or consult the many evolution tutorials online. You don't have to be so poorly informed.

I don't know if you are literally a minister but I'm a born-again, Bible-believing Christian minister who preaches the Gospel, and I consider evolution among God's most marvelous creations. You should be praising God for his wonders, not denying it or complaining about it.

If you wish to ignore the mountains of evidence for evolution, that's your choice. But if you continue to repeat your straw-man versions of evolution after you've been told what The Theory of Evolution actually states, you violate the 9th Commandment. Dishonesty about evolution is a huge problem for the Kingdom because it so often convinces the public that Christians and the Bible in general can't be trusted. So PLEASE learn the basics of The Theory of Evolution. If you are going to continue opposing it, at least learn what it is.

 

[createdtoworship]

Then perhaps you can help me. For years I've looked in the Bible for ANY statement which denies the the theory of evolution. So where did you find it?

try any verse in genesis one to two.

 

[Norman321]

Then perhaps you can help me. For years I've looked in the Bible for ANY statement which denies the the theory of evolution. So where did you find it?

The Bible says that God knows the end from the beginning. This contradicts evolution where they say you can not know the end from the beginning. People like Gould say if you were to do it all over again, you would end up with totally different results. Although not everyone agrees with Gould. Some evolutionists believe that the elements remain consistent, so you would end up with the same results.

"I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please." Isaiah 46:10

 

[Metal Minister]

You are embarrassing yourself. Your descriptions bear little resemblance to The Theory of Evolution. Have you ever considered that this might explain why the world's scientists affirms The Theory of Evolution as one of the best supported of ALL scientific theories---but you don't? That fact could give you a BIG HINT as to why evolution sounds crazy to you but not actual scientists.

No evolutionary biologist thinks that a cow produces a "non-cow." Don't take my word for it. Get yourself a basic textbook or consult the many evolution tutorials online. You don't have to be so poorly informed.

I don't know if you are literally a minister but I'm a born-again, Bible-believing Christian minister who preaches the Gospel, and I consider evolution among God's most marvelous creations. You should be praising God for his wonders, not denying it or complaining about it.

If you wish to ignore the mountains of evidence for evolution, that's your choice. But if you continue to repeat your straw-man versions of evolution after you've been told what The Theory of Evolution actually states, you violate the 9th Commandment. Dishonesty about evolution is a huge problem for the Kingdom because it so often convinces the public that Christians and the Bible in general can't be trusted. So PLEASE learn the basics of The Theory of Evolution. If you are going to continue opposing it, at least learn what it is.

I'm glad to hear you're a Christian, and that you are saved to Christ. Would love to have a debate with you on the topic of old earth (evolution) and young earth creation. If you would be so kind as to jpin me, please give ke a chance to set it up. Perhaps we might learn from one another.

 

[Norman321]

Have you ever considered that this might explain why the world's scientists affirms The Theory of Evolution as one of the best supported of ALL scientific theories---

Have you ever considered that the world's best Theologians affirm Creationism as one of the best supported of all Theistic beliefs?

In July 2007 Pope Benedict XVI noted that "the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance."

 

[MostlyLurking]

try any verse in genesis one to two.

I did. They all harmonize with The Theory of Evolution.

Your "answer" reminds me of something one of my seminary professors used to say prior to each exam where we had to identify scriptures and concepts as to where they could be found: "The answer 'It's in the Bible' is not sufficient!"'

So your "answer" above is one of those "I can't think of any" replies where you hope nobody notices that you didn't provide an answer but everybody DID notice. But message received. I won't push you for an answer that you don't have.

 

[MostlyLurking]

The Bible says that God knows the end from the beginning. This contradicts evolution where they say you can not know the end from the beginning.

No. There is no such contradiction.

The Theory of Evolution is science, therefore, it makes NO statements of any kind concerning God. So you are wrong in suggesting that The Theory of Evolution says that God doesn't know the end from the beginning.

The Bible talks about what God knows. Science doesn't. So they CAN'T possibly produce a contradiction about God.

So your attempt at finding a conflict by means of the statement quoted above entirely failed.