Observable evidence for evolution?

[d taylor]

God is the PERFECT artist! Man is an imperfect artist striving to become closer to God .. at least in his appreciation for the artistry of God. The human artist if he is of sound sound soul, is held in awe of the artistry that the Lord can do. After all.. God created the artist in His image, too!

God creates. Fascinates the artist's mind and soul. And, then says to him.. "paint that!.. Study all that went into the design. Be amazed!"

And, ENJOY LIFE! Knowing I am God who creates beauty!

I do not agree, God is a perfect God The Creator not an artist unless you want to redefine the term artist. If anything He was a carpenter.

 

[ReesePiece23]

God is the PERFECT artist! Man is an imperfect artist striving to become closer to God .. at least in his appreciation for the artistry of God. The human artist if he is of sound sound soul, is held in awe of the artistry that the Lord can do. After all.. God created the artist in His image, too!

God creates. Fascinates the artist's mind and soul. And, then says to him.. "paint that!.. Study all that went into the design. Be amazed!"

And, ENJOY LIFE! Knowing I am God who creates beauty!

No surprise to hear that I agree completely.

I don't know what else I can add. The artistry is everywhere, that's why I paint nature. To CREATE and nudge closer to Him. Like a teenage lad picking up a guitar trying to be like Hendrix.

Would the God *I* know be content to just click his fingers and make something magically appear? I don't think so. He could but I just DON'T think it's His style. He's a craftsman, and a God who enjoys the process of building this spectacle that we're all so fortunate enough to live and experience.

I don't know, it's just funny how we're only created in His image when we're self lacerating. "We're so sinful and imperfect, we don't deserve your love" - but isn't that the whole point of being human though? To learn, grow, evolve our story?

I'm not saying I'm right. But open minded Christianity is the way forward. Churches are literally being converted into nightclubs where I am. It only seems to be the elderly over here in the UK that preserve the faith. The rest were understandably tired of the bigotry and took off for Wicca and pseudo spirituality.

The person who shreds this post to pieces will show you exactly what I'm talking about...

 

[loveofourlord]

It is not that its not compatible, It actually explains what it is the evolutionists mishandle to make the assumption that the prehistoric life is what we evolved from. It makes both young earth creationists and evolutionists look foolish... yet, while thinking they are wise.

Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks he is wise in this age,
let him become a fool so that he can become wise." 1 Cor 3:18
​

..........

Shows you don't understand anything, the evidence is we evolved from them, no assumption needed, funny how multiple independent lines show it, it's the creationists that need to make assumptions to make the bible fit.

 

[d taylor]

Human artists are not God. Stop trying to make God into being a mere mortal who is an artist, to qualify to be an artist... and then your irrational launching point will stop looking foolish.

Men on the other hand are BS artists. I agree. That kind of artist God can not be.

You are stating or trying to state points that i never said. 1 never did i say human artist are God 2. i never tried to make God into a mere mortal who is an artist.

God is God The Creator

Human only make things they make paintings, they make pottery, they make cloths, etc..

If you believe in evolution (which i do not) then God would be an artist and to complete Gods work it would take time. But the Bible never shows God working that way In the beginning God created heaven and earth or like when Jesus heals or causes a basket of fish to feed thousands. I all happens in a moment of time. artist do not make things in moments of time (oh a few prodigies may make a quick masterful drawing etc..) but that gift if from God.

 

[chad kincham]

All I heard was white noise. I don't understand why people are so obtuse on this subject.

Evolution just proves to me how MUCH of a creator God IS. You can't evolve life itself without first being an artist, a story teller, a creator, and a genius all in one.

If you're in the creationism mindset, then you're just seeing God as a two dimensional shape in my view, and NOT the awesome creator He truly is.

Embrace science, and believe in magic - then apply both to your faith and enjoy life. Don't try so hard to squeeze into a compartment on this subject, we already have enough of that with politics.

Evolution is the metaphysical philosophy of naturalistic materialism, masquerading as science, and it’s not compatible with the Bible in any way.

Adam wasn’t the result of millions of years of evolution, he had no ape-like ancestry or genealogy whatsoever, he had a sudden creation from dirt that God made alive - and scripture is clear there was no death in all of creation before Adam fell, whereas evolution requires death of every species that supposedly lived, died, and evolved into a higher life form.

Stephen Gould stated that the trade secret of paleontology is that transitional forms are missing in the most important places, then invented punctuated equilibrium to explain away the lack of transitional forms - which is the theory that evolution occurs quickly in isolated populations, and is so rapid that it leaves no substantial fossil evidence behind.

Yet wildlife biologists who work with endangered species, state that isolated populations lose genetic information, instead of gaining it - and for lower life to evolve into a higher life form, it requires a huge quantum leap of increased genetic information.

Lack of transitional forms is worse than Gould stated - since life goes from single cell organisms that replicate via division, to hundreds of billion cell life forms that reproduce sexually - with no transitional forms at all between them.

There are no two cell, four cell, etc, organisms, and there’s no viable explanation how life could go from splitting in two to replicate, to sexual reproduction.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Shows you don't understand anything, the evidence is we evolved from them, no assumption needed, funny how multiple independent lines show it, it's the creationists that need to make assumptions to make the bible fit.

God said that He created, made and formed. We know how the creation came about. God spoke it into existence. You are denying God's word. I can't speak for all creationists, maybe some make assumptions. I do not make assumptions. I study God's word to find out what He has to say. Anyone who can find any hint of evolution in the Bible is misreading it.

My concern is not for those who have made up their minds. I'm concerned for those who are wavering because Satan's system casts doubt on God's word. This is exactly the ploy Satan used on Adam and Eve. I suppose you don't believe that either.

Evidence requires interpretation. I do not agree that the fossil record demonstrates evolution. There is nothing observable in nature that supports evolution. And don't give me that rubbish about finches and fruit flies. Adaptation is not evolution. There is not a shred of hard evidence that evolution has, is or will happen. Everything that evolutionists come up with has an alternate and plausible explanation. And the last word belongs to God. In the beginning, He created.........

 

[GenemZ]

Satan does not want man to understand the prehistoric creation.... For in its remains holds the secret as to why Satan was condemned and at present attempting to appeal his sentence...

The more ignorant of sound doctrine we are, the more we will not be made free while Satan demands total control of life on earth... and has many doing his cosmic remote control demands, because of the dullness of their unregenerated mind. And, the dullness of believers who seek to follow traditional false teachings. Everything gets turned inside out. Evil becomes, good. And, what God sees as good, becomes evil..

Dare to try to clarify why we find fossils using the Bible? Look no further to see how good becomes being called evil.

All the same.. having truth on the matter still makes the one free even when rejected. That's the beauty of God's freedom by grace.

 

[ReesePiece23]

Evolution is the metaphysical philosophy of naturalistic materialism, masquerading as science, and it’s not compatible with the Bible in any way.

Adam wasn’t the result of millions of years of evolution, he had no ape-like ancestry or genealogy whatsoever, he had a sudden creation from dirt that God made alive - and scripture is clear there was no death in all of creation before Adam fell, whereas evolution requires death of every species that supposedly lived, died, and evolved into a higher life form.

Stephen Gould stated that the trade secret of paleontology is that transitional forms are missing in the most important places, then invented punctuated equilibrium to explain away the lack of transitional forms - which is the theory that evolution occurs quickly in isolated populations, and is so rapid that it leaves no substantial fossil evidence behind.

Yet wildlife biologists who work with endangered species, state that isolated populations lose genetic information, instead of gaining it - and for lower life to evolve into a higher life form, it requires a huge quantum leap of increased genetic information.

Lack of transitional forms is worse than Gould stated - since life goes from single cell organisms that replicate via division, to hundreds of billion cell life forms that reproduce sexually - with no transitional forms at all between them.

There are no two cell, four cell, etc, organisms, and there’s no viable explanation how life could go from splitting in two to replicate, to sexual reproduction.

Good read.

Obviously, as a Christian I'm going to try and be on the same page as much as I can - but the human ego has got a lot to answer for. I wish it wasn't so, but I'm still only eight years into this journey. Before God, my religion WAS science.

I guess I just DON'T like to simplify God. For as long as I believe that He IS this impossibly complex, multidimensional being that the human mind can't comprehend (who's working towards a detailed plan) then I have peace. But for some reason, the idea of 'creationism on demand' casts a dark and woeful cloud over me. I can't fully explain that feeling, or why I feel it, but it's bleak. And depressing.

Surely it can't be that simple?

 

[GenemZ]

Good read.

Obviously, as a Christian I'm going to try and be on the same page as much as I can - but the human ego has got a lot to answer for. I wish it wasn't so, but I'm still only eight years into this journey. Before God, my religion WAS science.

I guess I just DON'T like to simplify God. For as long as I believe that He IS this impossibly complex, multidimensional being that the human mind can't comprehend (who's working towards a detailed plan) then I have peace. But for some reason, the idea of 'creationism on demand' casts a dark and woeful cloud over me. I can't fully explain that feeling, or why I feel it, but it's bleak. And depressing.

Surely it can't be that simple?

Speaking of good reads.. Without Form and Void - Frontpage

 

[ReesePiece23]

Speaking of good reads.. Without Form and Void - Frontpage

All laid out ready to go. Nice one.

For clarification I'm searching for answers. I don't necessarily have a fixed point of view yet. I'm very much the Nowhere Man of this faith.

 

[GenemZ]

All laid out ready to go. Nice one.

For clarification I'm searching for answers. I don't necessarily have a fixed point of view yet. I'm very much the Nowhere Man of this faith.

God has an answer for those who seek with all their heart.

For all the others... man will substitute his own.

 

[Job 33:6]

Evolution is the metaphysical philosophy of naturalistic materialism, masquerading as science, and it’s not compatible with the Bible in any way.

Adam wasn’t the result of millions of years of evolution, he had no ape-like ancestry or genealogy whatsoever, he had a sudden creation from dirt that God made alive - and scripture is clear there was no death in all of creation before Adam fell, whereas evolution requires death of every species that supposedly lived, died, and evolved into a higher life form.

Stephen Gould stated that the trade secret of paleontology is that transitional forms are missing in the most important places, then invented punctuated equilibrium to explain away the lack of transitional forms - which is the theory that evolution occurs quickly in isolated populations, and is so rapid that it leaves no substantial fossil evidence behind.

Yet wildlife biologists who work with endangered species, state that isolated populations lose genetic information, instead of gaining it - and for lower life to evolve into a higher life form, it requires a huge quantum leap of increased genetic information.

Lack of transitional forms is worse than Gould stated - since life goes from single cell organisms that replicate via division, to hundreds of billion cell life forms that reproduce sexually - with no transitional forms at all between them.

There are no two cell, four cell, etc, organisms, and there’s no viable explanation how life could go from splitting in two to replicate, to sexual reproduction.

Actually, Gould stated that transitional fossils are in abundance above a species level. Are you aware of this?

And evolution is mostly dependent upon cladistics in paleontology, and cladistics isn't about subjective interpretations at all, but rather it's about direct measurements of morphology. For example, if something has a notochord, it is a chordate. Nothing subjective about that. If it has warm blood or nipples, it is a mammal. Nothing subjective here either. Etc.

The same follows for the fossil record. The fossil sequence is defined by physical traits that can be readily observed and measured. For example, nobody could confuse a trilobite with a horseshoe crab, or a dinosaur with an iguana, because they are morphologically different. And they exist at different times in the fossil succession and in the geologic column. Therefore a succession can be objectively observed.

 

[ReesePiece23]

I STILL don't understand the almost OCD like grip that some people have over this subject, but it all makes for interesting reading when an argument is presented soundly WITHOUT name calling.

Obviously, most of us can guess that VARIOUS denominations of human exited together on earth at a point. Homo erectus and modern humans probably knew each other very well - but would have been separate in behaviour with the homo erectus being more inclined towards instinct and less so towards emotion or ego.

I personally suspect that Adam and Eve was a metaphorical parable and NOT an account of a historical event. *Pulls pin; ducks for cover*

I'm not saying I'm right, because I wasn't there. But that's my hunch. In fairness, I don't feel as if the bible is as clear as people like to make out. If it were, there'd be no differences of opinion and my pastor wouldn't have gone to university to study the thing.

I should probably save this conversation for when I see him actually. These CF conversations can be like Googling your symptoms when you have something nasty.

Yep, definitely one for the professionals.

 

[GenemZ]

Actually, Gould stated that transitional fossils are in abundance above a species level.

Are they? More "fake news?"

 

[Job 33:6]

Are they? More "fake news?"

So you did know that Gould said this, or you didn't know?

 

[chad kincham]

Actually, Gould stated that transitional fossils are in abundance above a species level. Are you aware of this?

And evolution is mostly dependent upon cladistics in paleontology, and cladistics isn't about subjective interpretations at all, but rather it's about direct measurements of morphology. For example, if something has a notochord, it is a chordate. Nothing subjective about that. If it has warm blood or nipples, it is a mammal. Nothing subjective here either. Etc.

The same follows for the fossil record. The fossil sequence is defined by physical traits that can be readily observed and measured. For example, nobody could confuse a trilobite with a horseshoe crab, or a dinosaur with an iguana, because they are morphologically different. And they exist at different times in the fossil succession and in the geologic column. Therefore a succession can be objectively observed.

It’s not that there aren’t fossils claimed to be transitional forms, it’s that the most important ones that need to be there are missing.

Fossil evidence of intermediates are generally absent, as paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould explains:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."4

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."5

And Categorizing common features in animals only proves a common creator, and doesn’t prove common ancestry going back to a single-cell organism.

 

[Job 33:6]

Fossil evidence of intermediates are generally absent, as paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould explains:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."4

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."5

And Categorizing common features in animals only proves a common creator, and doesn’t prove common ancestry going back to a single-cell organism.

But are you aware that Gould has acknowledged an abundance of transitional fossils above a species level?

Notice how Gould explicitly notes "gradualistic accounts of evolution". He isn't referring to evolution as a whole, he isn't referring to punctuated equilibrium evolution, he isn't referring to common descent etc.

Indeed, he is not actually saying that evidence of intermediates is absent (in a broad sense), as you seem to be suggesting. But rather he is explicitly referring to an absence of intermediates at and below a species level. Which is fair to say. I'm sure any paleontologist would agree.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.


I would recommend you read some of Goulds works sometime, and see what he actually has to say about the fossil succession, rather than what random creation websites suggest. In truth, Gould acknowledges and advocates and teaches about many transitional forms in books that he has written. So it really isn't honest to suggest that he believed in an overall absence of evidence for the fossil succession. Rather, he more correctly just challenges gradualism and evidence for gradualism, while simultaneously he accepts and advocates punctuated evolution and advocates for evidence in favor of this alternative mode of evolution.

 

[loveofourlord]

It’s not that there aren’t fossils claimed to be transitional forms, it’s that the most important ones that need to be there are missing.

Fossil evidence of intermediates are generally absent, as paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould explains:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."4

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."5

And Categorizing common features in animals only proves a common creator, and doesn’t prove common ancestry going back to a single-cell organism.

That were missing majour fossils, the amount and diversity of fossils we've found grow all the time, and non disprove evolution and in fact prove it. Just have to look at all of the feathered dinosaurs we've found including the one trapped in amber. Creationits have to start coming up with reasons for why dinosaurs have feathers if birds didn't evolve from them.

 

[coffee4u]

I STILL don't understand the almost OCD like grip that some people have over this subject, but it all makes for interesting reading when an argument is presented soundly WITHOUT name calling.

OCD like grip
This is because of it's connection to sin and redemption.

The grip is not so much over how something like a tree or a dog came to be but over how sin came to be and the answer for sin. I would say most if not all of us who believe in creation (and we have different views on how exactly that happened) believe you cannot separate sin from creation.

For me to deny creation, would be me denying God. That is how strong that grip is.

 

[GenemZ]

So you did know that Gould said this, or you didn't know?

I do not follow Gould. Like you do not follow what the Hebrew texts reveal about a destroyed previous creation.

I see you were possibly being facetious when you stated what you did.



“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our text- books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps, He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory."

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never -seen- in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.
[Evolution’s Erratic Pace - "Natural History," May, 1977]”


Quote by Stephen Jay Gould: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the...”