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 biologists will shred the scientific errors of your post so I'm fine fielding the task of dealing with your errors from the scriptures.
Hey, can anyone synopsise the video for those of us with poor connections please?
Just where is the evidence for that? Where is the evidence that the Pre-Cambrian single celled life evolved into what we see in the Cambrian Explosion. What they call Darwin's Dilemma. The evidence points toward Creationism. The best explanation for the evidence is Creationism not Evolutionary theory. Evidence that is etched in stone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-1nXb5uH8Q
Let me try and translate this from Creationist to English.
1. The Creationist straw man is existing taxa giving rise to other existing taxa. Sometimes it's a generic saltational straw man like a dog giving birth to a cat. Sometimes it goes after a specific target like dinosaur evolution with something like a stegosaurus hatching a clutch of ostriches. ....
He's saying that animals trend to staying in their class as if there were limits to how far an animal will show variation. That's a valid observation and matches the Creation story as well.
He's saying that animals trend to staying in their class as if there were limits to how far an animal will show variation. That's a valid observation and matches the Creation story as well.
Selective breeding shows that you can produce very different results from a single source species (including possibly some hybridisation). Look at the varieties of "dogs" they are. We call them all "dogs" because historically we know that they came from the same origin. but there is MUCH more variation in form of dogs than there are between a lot of species. If we found these creatures living naturally, we would have assigned them to different species. Because we know where they came from, we call them all "dogs".
Dogs, and other creatures that have been selectively bred, show how much an individual "kind" can vary, and it's a lot.
Did you look for any? Did you go to any source that isn't specifically out to sell you creationism and look for the evidence?
A problem and a question. You realize missing links are missing BY DEFINITION, right? Second, transitional fossils that you like?
That you like.
COMMENT: You cannot provide evidence that suffice most people in the world; let alone myself. Face it, the evidence that evolutionists have provided does not scientifically support their hypotheses that all biological life forms originated from a common ancestor.That you like.
I'll believe your god's words when you accept lastwednesdayism.
There is no evidence Solomon ever existed.
Where did you look?COMMENT: I sure did! And I found no factual evidence in support of evolution which alleges a linking of all biological life to a common ancestor. That was easy.
No I'm arguing definitions.COMMENT: You do realize that you are avoiding the question.
Do you want transitional fossils, or transitional fossils that you like? I can do the former, though no guarantee that you'll like what I have to show you. You'll most likely dislike them and as such reject them.And what about so-called transitional fossils in which I allegedly like?
COMMENT: You cannot provide evidence that suffice most people in the world; let alone myself.
Face it, the evidence that evolutionists have provided does not scientifically support their hypotheses that all biological life forms originated from a common ancestor.
Whether you believe God's words or not is not the issue here. The issue is the lack of integrity of evolutionist to admit that their proof of evolution has not been proven SCIENTIFICALLY.
The fact that you keep using the phrase "missing link" tells us all we need to know about your familiarity with the science behind evolution. The phrase is an anachronistic 19th Century reference to a single species connecting humans with our fellow apes. It's outdated and while perfectly good for selling pop science, should be avoided when one is trying to have a science based discussion.
Now, as far as your lack of aweness regarding common ancestry goes, I'd suggest that you're in for a lot of reading - even if we provide you with Reader's Digest sources. I'd also say I hope you understand that the evidence for common ancestry extends beyond fossils into DNA and molecular evidences.
As far as your first request, you appear to be asking for a tuna laying a clutch of seagulls. That's not how evolution works. It's a very complicated process that occured over many hundreds of millions of years.
But since you were asking for fish to birds, here's some resources.
Living fish and birds share a UrVertebrate common ancestor
Vertebrata
Living fish and birds share a common ancestor with a jaw
COMMENT: Typical evolutionist argument: Avoid providing proof by questioning the opponents knowledge. How I use the word "missing link" is my prerogative; there is not one single application of this phrase as you put it.
What's a Missing Link?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Evolutionists often speak of missing links. They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both. But there are supposed missing links all over the evolutionary tree. For instance, dogs and bears are thought to be evolutionary cousins, related to each other through a missing link. The same could be said for every other stop on the tree. All of the animal types are thought to have arisen by the transformation of some other animal type, and at each branching node is a missing link, and between the node and the modern form are many more.
If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one. They're still missing. Evolution depends on innumerable missing links, each of which lived in the unobserved past and have gone extinct, replaced by their evermore evolved descendants.
While we don't really know what a missing link is (or was), we can know what they should be. As each type evolves into something else, there should be numerous in-between types, each stage gaining more and more traits of the descendant while losing traits of the ancestor.
If some type of fish evolved into some type of amphibian, there should have been distinct steps along the way of 90% fish/10% amphibian; then 80% fish/20% amphibian; etc., leading to the 100% amphibians we have today. You would suspect that unless evolution has completely stopped, there might even be some transitional links alive today, but certainly they lived and thrived for a while in the past before they were replaced.
Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore. With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium" in the early 70s, they seem to have made their peace with the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Their claim is that basic animal types exhibited "stasis" (or equilibrium) for a long period, but they changed rapidly (punctuation) as the environment underwent rapid change, so rapidly they had little opportunity to leave fossils. Thus we wouldn't expect to find transitional forms or missing links. Fair enough, but the fact is we don't find them. Evolution says they did exist, but we have no record of them. Creation says they never existed, and agree that we have no record of them.
Some of these gaps which should be filled in by missing links are huge. Consider the gap between invertebrates and vertebrate fish. Which marine sea creature evolved into a fish with a backbone and internal skeleton? Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian, and dated very early in the evolution scenario. But there are no missing links, no hint of ancestors. The missing links, which should be present in abundance, are still missing!
Both creation and evolution are views of history, ideas about the unobserved past, and both sides try to marshal evidence in their support. Creation says each basic category of life was created separately, thus there never were any "missing links." Evolution says links existed whether or not we find them. The fact is we don't find them. The question is: which historical idea is more scientific, and which is more likely correct?
* Dr. Morris is President of the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Morris, J. 2006. What's a Missing Link? Acts & Facts. 35 (4).
COMMENT: Wrong again about my knowledge and research! Creationism scientists like Dr. Morris have pioneered through all of evolutionists entanglement and double-talk for me. You see, I don't need to read about all of the mechanics of an airplane in order to ride one. Regardless of where you think the evidence lies; my point is that you do not have none.
COMMENT: Not even close. I think Dr. Morris hit it on the nail. My point is that evolution never work no matter what evidence is present today. I give you credit that the idea is complicated; but so is chaos and a bunch of apes typing a War And Peace novel with a typewriter.
COMMENT: Typical evolutionist argument:
Avoid providing proof by questioning the opponents knowledge.
How I use the word "missing link" is my prerogative; there is not one single application of this phrase as you put it.
John D. Morris, Ph.D.
Evolutionists often speak of missing links.
They say that the bridge between man and the apes is the "missing link," the hypothetical ape-like ancestor of both.
If you still don't know what a missing link is, don't worry. No one knows what a missing link is, because they are missing! We've never seen one. They're still missing.
Actually, evolutionists don't mention missing links much anymore.
Evolutionists often speak of missing links.
With the introduction of "punctuated equilibrium"
Fish fossils are even found in the lower Cambrian
Solomon was a man though. He did not have the mind of Christ. Today we can have the mind of Christ.To this very day, King Solomon was the wisest man on earth, thanks to God's providing him with wisdom and knowledge.
Solomon was a real person. He wrote books in the Bible. He built the first temple in Jerusalem. Although as a city Jerusalem may go back 1000 years before Solomon. Also Solomon had a lot of horses and chariots. They have found what they call Solomon's stables. No one else was that rich back then to own a stable with that many chariots and horses.There is no evidence Solomon ever existed.
COMMENT: Wrong again about my knowledge and research!
Creationism scientists like Dr. Morris have pioneered through all of evolutionists entanglement and double-talk for me.
You see, I don't need to read about all of the mechanics of an airplane in order to ride one. Regardless of where you think the evidence lies; my point is that you do not have none.
COMMENT: Not even close. I think Dr. Morris hit it on the nail. My point is that evolution never work no matter what evidence is present today. I give you credit that the idea is complicated; but so is chaos and a bunch of apes typing a War And Peace novel with a typewriter.
{snip poor command of the quote function}
COMMENT:
"Stalling over Transitional Forms
by Frank Sherwin, M.A. *
Solomon was a real person. He wrote books in the Bible. He built the first temple in Jerusalem. Although as a city Jerusalem may go back 1000 years before Solomon. Also Solomon had a lot of horses and chariots. They have found what they call Solomon's stables. No one else was that rich back then to own a stable with that many chariots and horses.
Solomon lived around 1000BC. There are people like Imhotep in Egypt that could go back as far as 2700BC and people consider him to be a real person.
So creationists are coming out of the woodwork everywhere?Creationist shill and former teacher at Creationist Pensecola Christian College?
Really? Why is that? How much more history of Imhotep do you have, compared to Solomon?The historicity of Imhotep is far more concrete than Solomon.
Really? Why is that? How much more history of Imhotep do you have, compared to Solomon?
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?