Does creationism really say that god adds a new equine species every 12 million years?
Is this really the pattern of special creation?
Upvote
0
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.
The evidence you propose to kids is that you have a fossil record showing gradual transitions. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Even the horse evolution exhibit has been removed from our museums. So, what does the fossil record reveal exactly? Tiny changes over around 12 million year steps, then a sudden introduction of NEW species. There is no gradual progression at all. What we observe is EXACTLY what we would expect from creation. This includes Man being the last addition.
The evidence you propose to kids is that you have a fossil record showing gradual transitions. However, nothing could be further from the truth. Even the horse evolution exhibit has been removed from our museums. So, what does the fossil record reveal exactly? Tiny changes over around 12 million year steps, then a sudden introduction of NEW species. There is no gradual progression at all. What we observe is EXACTLY what we would expect from creation. This includes Man being the last addition.
It depends upon the species that you are looking at.
We have extremely good records for much of sea life. Land life, since fossilization is an extremely rare event, will have gaps. The important fact is that every fossil out there fits very neatly into the evolutionary paradigm, this is something that creationists cannot explain.
I see, so every 8 to 12 million years new life springs up with records, but everything else in between just simply vanishes? hmm. Bit odd dont you think? With so many dinosaurs going extinct around 65 million years ago, how many species evolved into birds? we should see plenty of transitions for that because dinosaurs were everywhere and we certainly see enough fossils of them.
Some changes are gradual, some are not.The evidence you propose to kids is that you have a fossil record showing gradual transitions.
A blatant Falsehood.However, nothing could be further from the truth. Even the horse evolution exhibit has been removed from our museums.
How would you know? Have you examined any fossils?So, what does the fossil record reveal exactly?
That may happen in some cases, but not all. You are painting with a very wide brush here.Tiny changes over around 12 million year steps, then a sudden introduction of NEW species.
EXACTLY?? How often has God created new species over the last 4 billion years?There is no gradual progression at all. What we observe is EXACTLY what we would expect from creation. This includes Man being the last addition.
Some changes are gradual, some are not.
A blatant Falsehood.
Horse
Maybe you should actually go to a museum and see what is there instead of sitting at home and surfing "Creation Ministry" websites that lie to you.
How would you know? Have you examined any fossils?
That may happen in some cases, but not all. You are painting with a very wide brush here.
EXACTLY?? How often has God created new species over the last 4 billion years?
It's a bit like digging up a coin from 10 metres, then a pot from 5 metres and saying "Oh look, the pot is newer, the coin is older, so the coin obviously evolved into the pot"
Massive in size compared to today, but that's explained by higher oxygen levels. However, it looks the same.
What happened to its evolution? Millions of years and all it has done is shrunk, but that's not evolution, that's limitation due to air quality.
A friend of mine has been collecting fossils for many years and I went with him a few years ago to lyme regis on the english coast. Lots of ammonites there from millions of years ago. Strange thing tho, my friend was showing me shells further up the strata saying "this is what the ammonites evolved into". Couldn't see it myself, I saw it as a huge assumption. It's a bit like digging up a coin from 10 metres, then a pot from 5 metres and saying "Oh look, the pot is newer, the coin is older, so the coin obviously evolved into the pot". The differences were just too great, nothing I saw showed a gradual transition.
I have another friend who studies insects, and I was amazed when he showed me a picture of a dragonfly from millions of years ago. Massive in size compared to today, but that's explained by higher oxygen levels. However, it looks the same. What happened to its evolution? Millions of years and all it has done is shrunk, but that's not evolution, that's limitation due to air quality.
Coins and pots don't reproduce. Your analogy fails at the most basic level.
It doesn't look the same. It's bigger.
No, it's evolution. And it's not 'air quality', it's oxygen content.
What do you think evolution is?
Larger, smaller, that's just scaling due to available fuel, not what I would call evolution.
Today they are smaller due to lower oxygen. What evolved to change anything?
Larger, smaller, that's just scaling due to available fuel, not what I would call evolution. Look, the insect has ALWAYS been limited in growth by oxygen availability, even millions of years ago. Today they are smaller due to lower oxygen. What evolved to change anything? nothing. This restriction has always existed. Is that the best argument you can offer?
Larger, smaller, that's just scaling due to available fuel, not what I would call evolution. Look, the insect has ALWAYS been limited in growth by oxygen availability, even millions of years ago. Today they are smaller due to lower oxygen. What evolved to change anything? nothing. This restriction has always existed. Is that the best argument you can offer?
So how large did these get then
Your point?
You are the one trying to make a point by showing pics of large insects.
I'm saying they are still limited, just as they have been for millions of years. That is not evolution you are presenting in any shape or form.
No, I'm not.
Yes, it is. It's natural selection.
Meganuera - the big dragonfly you're talking about - is not the same thing as dragonflies today. Dragonflies came from meganuera, but they're not the same thing.
http://dragonflyevolution.wikispaces.com/Extinct+Dragonfly
It evolved.
Not the same thing? so you didn't look at it and say "hmm dragonfly"?
Not the same thing? so you didn't look at it and say "hmm dragonfly"?
It has a difference of veins and patterns of them on the wings. If you put some in a chamber with higher oxygen, don't you agree it would grow more veins to support the wings?
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?