justlookinla
Regular Member
There's a huge missing link between the alleged single life form of long long ago and the human of today. One that will never be found, to the chagrin of atheistic Darwinist creationists.
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
No Missing Links?
- Thread starter Loudmouth
- Start date
Let's take a look at the dolphin/shark comparison, just for kicks.
Dolphin
Shark (modern and ancient sharks)
These are the front limbs for both animals. As you can see, they are nothing alike. However, the dolphin fin has all of the bones that you would find in the human arm (humerus, radius, ulna, carpals, metcarpals, phalanges). The dolphin's fin shares more with the human arm than it does with the shark. How do the creationists explain that? Evolution explains it just fine.
Dolphin
Shark (modern and ancient sharks)
These are the front limbs for both animals. As you can see, they are nothing alike. However, the dolphin fin has all of the bones that you would find in the human arm (humerus, radius, ulna, carpals, metcarpals, phalanges). The dolphin's fin shares more with the human arm than it does with the shark. How do the creationists explain that? Evolution explains it just fine.
Upvote
0
What features would a fossil need in order to be a transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps?
Why can no creationist answer this question?
Upvote
0
selfinflikted
Under Deck
- Jul 13, 2006
- 11,441
- 786
- 46
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I have a feeling that, if they did, we could easily provide what they asked for. Keeping things nebulous keeps them in the game, so to speak.
Upvote
0
It's not even nebulous. They keep it contradictory. At one moment, we are told that they can't be transitional because they are not similar enough. The next moment, we are told that we can't use similarities to determine if a fossil is transitional. They lack some serious critical thinking skills.
Upvote
0
I don't know if you have read through the entire thread yet, but if you haven't, I just wanted to let you know that you are in elite group. Everyone else is on her ignore list.
Upvote
0
selfinflikted
Under Deck
- Jul 13, 2006
- 11,441
- 786
- 46
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I don't know if you have read through the entire thread yet, but if you haven't, I just wanted to let you know that you are in elite group. Everyone else is on her ignore list.
Indeed. And I cannot, for the life of me, figure why? There were accusations of being uncivil, but clearly I'm not the only one NOT seeing "uncivil" out of you in this thread (nor really any other), Rick.
Upvote
0
bhsmte
Newbie
Because inside the creationist's mind, this is the reaction this question creates:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG0ochx16Dg
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
There are common design elements in many forms of life. What those need to do which promote the unscientific idea of creation by chance is to offer evidence that all of creation is the result of only creation by chance.
The burden of proof is on you.
Upvote
0
The burden has been met by the observation that all transitional fossils fall into the predicted nested hierarchy. Contrary to your claim, the theory of evolution is scientific because it predicts a pattern of shared characteristics, and that pattern is a nested hierarchy.
I will ask again. What features would a fossil need in order to be a transitional between modern humans and a common ancestor shared with chimps ACCORDING TO YOU?
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
Nested hierarchy doesn't prove a thing. The prediction that tremendously complex creations are the result of a designer and creator is easily proven by a plethora of complex creations we can actually observe though.
There would be no feature which would offer evidence for this, the only conclusion would be from biased guesses and suppositions.
Can you offer anything other than a biased guess...supposition?
Upvote
0
It proves evolution.
The prediction of a nested hierarchy can be tested.
As usual, you ignore the evidence.
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
"Evoution" isn't a monlithic term and it doesn't prove anything. It only offers a particular view based on guesses and suppositions.
The prediction that a Boeing 777 is the result of design instead of chance can be tested too.
There is no evidence for atheistic Darwinist creationism, only faith-based guesses and suppositions.
Upvote
0
I have offered testable scientific predictions, which you continue to ignore.
Airplanes do not fall into a nested hierarchy, and they are designed. Looks like the evidence is still on my side.
When you can use terms correctly, let us know.
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
Predict that a Boeing 777 is the product of something other than a designer and test it. Predict that the human body, infinitely more complex than a Boeing 777, is the product of something other than a designer and test it.
Airplanes fall into the category of design....for a reason.
When you can use the term "evolution" as something other than a monolithic term, let us know.
Upvote
0
If humans come from something other than design, then we will observe them being produced through natural reproduction.
Want to test the prediction?
Airplanes do not fall into a nested hierarchy for a reason.
I never said that it was a monolithic term. You are the one making up that term.
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
Yes, test the prediction that a Boeing 777 and the human body are products of anything but design.
Want to guess the outcome?
There's a reason airplanes fall into the category of being designed by a designer.
You use it as a monolithic term. When one claims that Christians believe in evolution, that is just part of the story, a half truth.
Upvote
0
"Our understanding of the evolution of horse feet, so often depicted in textbooks, is derived from a scattered sampling of horse fossils within the multi-branched horse evolutionary tree. These fossil organisms represent branches on the tree and not a direct line of descent leading to modern horses.
But, the standard diagram does clearly show transitional stages whereby the four-toed foot of Hyracotherium, otherwise known as Eohippus, became the single-toed foot of Equus. Fossils show that the transitional forms predicted by evolution did indeed exist."
Transitional forms
But, the standard diagram does clearly show transitional stages whereby the four-toed foot of Hyracotherium, otherwise known as Eohippus, became the single-toed foot of Equus. Fossils show that the transitional forms predicted by evolution did indeed exist."
Transitional forms
Upvote
0
Similar threads
