Questions about Evolution basic beliefs

[nucity]

Hello I am to this forum and i heard it is a good place to ask questions and get feedback. I do have some questions about evolution.

1. Where are the in-between fossils? If amphibians evolve into reptiles, or dogs to horses, or apes to human, then we should see some in-between fossil remains. But so far, whatever fossils no not point that way.

2. Why no cellular change evidence. If one specie cross over to another, then we should see cellular change evidence. But none so far.

3. Why say the earth is 10 millions or 50 millions years old? How do evolutionists believe or have faith in such numbers? Why not 2 million? Whither the evidences to explain what happen in the first 1000 years, next x million years, the next 20 million? No one ever explain anything stage-by-stage that we can consider. Not even close.

Evolutionists use the time facade to say that with time, changes did happen. They have to say earth is very old to imply that cells changed veryyyy slooowlyyyy. But isn't it all theoretical without sustainable evidences? In a nutshell, where are some credible evidences that we can appreciate?

 

[SteveB28]

Are you asking genuine questions or just making unfounded statements?

 

[Shemjaza]

Plenty of human and base ape transitionals.

The second image is of my favorite fish. It's a fish with a neck, nostrils and wrists.

 

[Ophiolite]

Hello I am to this forum and i heard it is a good place to ask questions and get feedback. I do have some questions about evolution.

Excellent. Asking questions is the first step to enlightenment.

1. Where are the in-between fossils? If amphibians evolve into reptiles, or dogs to horses, or apes to human, then we should see some in-between fossil remains. But so far, whatever fossils no not point that way.

There are an enormous number of transitional fossils. In fact every fossil is transitional, since evolution is a continuous process. However, in the sense in which transitional fossil is normally meant, there are many. These are very well documented in the research literature, textbooks, popular science books and some of the better internet sites. It does not take too much effort to look these out, but if you require help doing so, please ask.

2. Why no cellular change evidence. If one specie cross over to another, then we should see cellular change evidence. But none so far.

I am not quite sure what you mean by "cellular change". We have many cases of documented change in the genetic structure of organisms, some of which produce changes in the behaviour of cells. What exactly is it that you think we have not observed at the cellular and genetic level?

3. Why say the earth is 10 millions or 50 millions years old?

I don't. I say it is approximately 4.5 billion years old and I say so because that is what a multitude of evidence supports as being the case.

How do evolutionists believe or have faith in such numbers?

I neither believe, nor have faith in such numbers. I accept such numbers because they are the numbers that are most consistent with the evidence. Belief and faith are not useful concepts when dealing with reality.

Why not 2 million?

Because the evidence clearly indicates that the Earth is much older than that.

Whither the evidences to explain what happen in the first 1000 years, next x million years, the next 20 million? No one ever explain anything stage-by-stage that we can consider. Not even close.

On the contrary, there is vast body of well validated research explaining many aspects of the development of the planet. Much remains to be learned, but we have a broad brush appreciation of the early years and increasing detail as we come closer to the present.

Evolutionists use the time facade to say that with time, changes did happen. They have to say earth is very old to imply that cells changed veryyyy slooowlyyyy.

The evidence for an old Earth was emerging - through the work of clerics - well before Darwin published his ideas on evolution.

But isn't it all theoretical without sustainable evidences? In a nutshell, where are some credible evidences that we can appreciate?

In a nutshell the evidences available today would take you more than a lifetime to read. Fortunately you do not require to read them all to understand just how solid and well substantiated the theory of evolution is. Of course, this also requires that you approach this with an open mind. I'm not sure that you are there yet.

 

[SteveB28]

Oh, well stated sir! My son, who is looking over my shoulder, tells me your name identifies you either as a snake, or someone well versed in geology.

I'm plumbing for the latter - I hope our friend above truly appreciates your advice.

 

[SkyWriting]

They have to say earth is very old to imply that cells changed ....

Animals and cells do change with each generation.

Is Jesus The Creator?

Jesus created some wine.

Was it young wine He instantly created or properly aged wine?

"Then he called the bridegroom aside 10 and said, “Everyone brings out the
choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too
much to drink; but you have saved the best till now.”"

11 What Jesus did here in Cana of Galilee was the first of the signs through
which he revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

 

[Ophiolite]

Oh, well stated sir! My son, who is looking over my shoulder, tells me your name identifies you either as a snake, or someone well versed in geology.

I'm plumbing for the latter - I hope our friend above truly appreciates your advice.

Thank you for your kind words. I studied geology at university and my interest in it continues. Ophiolites, fragments of ocean 'welded' onto the continent through plate tectonics, interest me.

My experience on other forums is that the 'target' of the advice only occasionally 'gets it'. While I post for them, I also post for the undecided lurker who may benefit from some objective information.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...

Jesus created some wine.

...

I've created wine too. Honestly, it's not that hard to do.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Hello I am to this forum and i heard it is a good place to ask questions and get feedback. I do have some questions about evolution.

Cool. There are a number of people who can give you very clear, well thought out answers. Sadly, I'm not one of them. That being said...

1. Where are the in-between fossils? If amphibians evolve into reptiles, or dogs to horses, or apes to human, then we should see some in-between fossil remains. But so far, whatever fossils no not point that way.

2. Why no cellular change evidence. If one specie cross over to another, then we should see cellular change evidence. But none so far.

Your use of the word "crossover" leads me to believe you think we should find something like the famous Crocoduck. Finding this would be strong evidence against evolution as one species does not "crossover" to another species. It is all about inheritance. Think of a tree, and most(?) modern animals are at the tips of the branches.

 

[AV1611VET]

Finding this [Crocoduck] would be strong evidence against evolution as one species does not "crossover" to another species.

I seriously doubt that.

Scientists would just give it its own classification, and that would settle the matter.

It's a matter of Occam's razor.

Which is easier? assuming there's strong evidence against evolution, or just give this Crocoduck its own classification?

Case in point, the duck-billed platypus.

The unusual appearance of this egg-laying, duck-billed, beaver-tailed, otter-footed mammal baffled European naturalists when they first encountered it, with some considering it an elaborate hoax.

And from the same source:

It is the sole living representative of its family (Ornithorhynchidae) and genus (Ornithorhynchus), though a number of related species have been found in the fossil record.

SOURCE

Tell me, TFY -- from the time this thing was discovered, until they gave it the name Ornithorhynchus, do you really believe they had "strong evidence against evolution"?

If so, it looks like their PR department went into overtime to get their cognitive dissonance resolved.

I'd love to see what would happen if they found rabbits in their Precambrian, and how they would powwow themselves out of it.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I seriously doubt that.

Scientists would just give it its own classification, and that would settle the matter.

It's a matter of Occam's razor.

Which is easier? assuming there's strong evidence against evolution, or just give this Crocoduck its own classification?

If a Crocoduck was discovered, scientists would look for the best explanation. They would undoubtedly try to do that within the framework of Evolution as that is the best model we have.

If more and more evidence emerged which could not be explained by Evolution, then more and more scientists would question evolution.

Of course, there is no evidence against evolution, so this is not happening.

Tell me, TFY -- from the time this thing was discovered, until they gave it the name Ornithorhynchus, do you really believe they had "strong evidence against evolution"?

If they had found a line of mammals that descended from birds, then that would be strong evidence against evolution.

Of course, this has never happened.

 

[AV1611VET]

If more and more evidence emerged which could not be explained by Evolution, then more and more scientists would question evolution.

That ain't gonna happen.

Of course, there is no evidence against evolution, so this is not happening.

Then do you object to Christians turning to the Bible to pwn evolution?

After all, if there is no evidence against evolution, surely you won't fault us for going with Plan B, would you?

Put another way, if we can't fight fire with fire, we'll fight fire with fire & brimstone.

If they had found a line of mammals that descended from birds, then that would be strong evidence against evolution.

I'll assume you don't know the answer to my question then.

 

[JacksBratt]

If more and more evidence emerged which could not be explained by Evolution, then more and more scientists would question evolution.

Of course, there is no evidence against evolution, so this is not happening.

There is always evidence that evolutionists cannot explain, or that puts the theory in peril. The powers that be simply hide, destroy, divert, discount, deflect or explain away the fact.

Many of these giant, inhuman, but part human skulls and skeletons are showing up all over the globe and have been for hundreds of years.

In south America they are very numerous.

The skulls have different suture structures than every human skull, have much larger brain cavities, many times have double rows of teeth and the skeletons, when found, many times have six toes and fingers.

The native people of North and South America all have legends and stories of giant people who terrified the people of that time.

Many news paper articles from the 1800's clearly document the discoveries of these evolution crushers.

There are, all over the globe, structures that are proof that civilizations, here before us, had technologies far more advanced than were supposed to be at that time and in many cases surpass what we can do even today.

You will never hear any of this from main stream egg head's and accredited people with all the letters after their name because it goes against the people who back their education, grants, bursaries, scholarships, and fund their "research" and "exploration".

It is proof that evolution is flawed and maybe even proves it is a farce.

Soooo, NO TRUTH FOR YOU.....

By the way, the skull below was that of one very large and very intelligent dude... Do you see any resemblence of this guy's head and the pictures of the people in the "walk like an Egyptian" era???

Funny that eh? So much for evolution not having evidence against it.

We should all try to think for ourselves instead of swallowing all the crap that the accepted people of merit are trying to feed us, before we choke on falsehoods.

 

[crjmurray]

There is always evidence that evolutionists cannot explain, or that puts the theory in peril. The powers that be simply hide, destroy, divert, discount, deflect or explain away the fact.

Many of these giant, inhuman, but part human skulls and skeletons are showing up all over the globe and have been for hundreds of years.

In south America they are very numerous.

The skulls have different suture structures than every human skull, have much larger brain cavities, many times have double rows of teeth and the skeletons, when found, many times have six toes and fingers.

The native people of North and South America all have legends and stories of giant people who terrified the people of that time.

Many news paper articles from the 1800's clearly document the discoveries of these evolution crushers.

There are, all over the globe, structures that are proof that civilizations, here before us, had technologies far more advanced than were supposed to be at that time and in many cases surpass what we can do even today.

You will never hear any of this from main stream egg head's and accredited people with all the letters after their name because it goes against the people who back their education, grants, bursaries, scholarships, and fund their "research" and "exploration".

It is proof that evolution is flawed and maybe even proves it is a farce.

Soooo, NO TRUTH FOR YOU.....

By the way, the skull below was that of one very large and very intelligent dude... Do you see any resemblence of this guy's head and the pictures of the people in the "walk like an Egyptian" era???

Funny that eh? So much for evolution not having evidence against it.

We should all try to think for ourselves instead of swallowing all the crap that the accepted people of merit are trying to feed us, before we choke on falsehoods.

 

[Papias]

nucity wrote:

Hello I am to this forum and i heard it is a good place to ask questions and get feedback. I do have some questions about evolution.

nucity-

Welcome to the forums. I hope we can give you a good opportunity to learn. Perhaps the most important realization is that there are some here who are very knowledgeable, as well as people who just say things that are wrong. You'll need to check on external sources.


You wrote:

1. Where are the in-between fossils? If amphibians evolve into reptiles, or dogs to horses, or apes to human, then we should see some in-between fossil remains.

There are literally hundreds of "in-between" fossils, including amphibians to reptiles, apes to humans (shown already), and so on (dogs didn't evolve into horses). Many are listed in secion 1 . 4, here. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Geologists have mentioned that there are many transitional fossils, confirming evolution beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Why no cellular change evidence. If one specie cross over to another, then we should see cellular change evidence.

I think you are looking for the information given in section 4 at the link above.

3. Why say the earth is 10 millions or 50 millions years old? How do evolutionists believe or have faith in such numbers? Why not 2 million? Whither the evidences to explain what happen in the first 1000 years, next x million years, the next 20 million? No one ever explain anything stage-by-stage that we can consider. Not even close.

Because dozens of different dating methods all give the same answers, confirming the age of the earth at 4.55 Billion years. There are whole college courses explaining each of your sub-questions above, as well as online resources. Here is one example which explains a few of these methods of finding out how old something is: Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Geochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolutionists use the time facade to say that with time, changes did happen. They have to say earth is very old to imply that cells changed veryyyy slooowlyyyy. But isn't it all theoretical without sustainable evidences? In a nutshell, where are some credible evidences that we can appreciate?

It is all based on evidence, and tested many times over with new evidence, which has confirmed it. Don't take my word for it, but look at the above resources, and others, and you'll see why evolution is better established as fact as is the idea that the Roman Empire existed.

It will take some time, but I wish you the best. Perhaps your biggest threat is the Dunning-kruger effect.

Lastly, don't forget that evolution is compatible with Christianity - in fact, most of those who support evolution in the United States are Christians. Evolution is not an "atheist idea" any more than gravity is an "atheist idea".


In Christ-

Papias

 

[Loudmouth]

Look at the chin. It's an anatomically modern human. I guess you are unaware of the practice of using boards to reshape the human skull?

Skullture: A History of People Reshaping Their Heads | Motherboard