The Fossil Record- As God Would Have Made It Through Time

[doubtingmerle]

No. Only as long as the laws were the same would this work. So for the last say, 3000 years...fine.

What evidence do you have that the laws of nature changed some 3000 years ago?

You cannot conclude that maybe nature was the same at the crime scene or in the Jurassic unless you have evidence it indeed was. You don't. I cannot lose.

We do have evidence that the laws were always the same, and I told you that before.

If you say that the laws of nature change, how do you know they were not different at that crime scene last Tuesday?

 

[dad]

Please. Point out the strawman. Creationists repeatedly lie about the existence of evidence for evolution... and your reaction was "Who cares?".

Right, I have no problem with tons of evolving that went on real fast in the former different nature. You problems include claiming that it was present nature slow evolving, and that it was only evolving that did it all, and that you have no clue what was created TO start evolving! So adapt/evolving is fine, but the theory of evolution is a complete fable. The great deception. It is a theory that was not randomly produced, or naturally selected, but supernaturally and deliberately introduced to man to instill fear and doubt in God and creation.

Evolution claims works on the principle that the slow evolution we see evidence for in real time is all that is required to account for the diversity of life... and the evidence checks out.

No more than it checks out without your imaginary same nature in the past.

As far as your house of fables built on the foundation of a same nature in the past, the assumption remains pointless, so the house of cards built on it is also pointless. (except for the aforementioned point of being inspired by fallen spirits, to try and delude and damn mankind)

I'm curious why you are immune to the mistakes the rest of them are making?

I have eyes to see. I have ears to hear. Science has religion.

Except you have never presented any reason aside from your own dubious supernatural discernment to even accept that a different state existed.

You have never presented any reason to even accept that a same state past existed, despite history and the bible records flying in the face of that belief. I don't have to claim it never happened. As I said, no one has given me a good reason to even entertain the idea. The records of history and God also give me many reasons to know your claimed imaginary past is bogus.

Oh, and passion about honesty is "shrill" now? Charming.

Claiming that evolution was anything but a created trait and that if we deny the theory of evolution, we are denying any evolving is a strawman.

 

[dad]

We do have evidence that the laws were always the same, and I told you that before.

Not in any way do you have even a tiny piece of evidence for your religion, and I told you that before.

If you say that the laws of nature change, how do you know they were not different at that crime scene last Tuesday?

Because we know approx when nature was no longer the same.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Again, not one fossil sequence showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another. Got it.

You were saying?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You know, there are millions of fossils of advanced mammals that the fossil record shows zero sequence of one type of mammal remains going through morphological changes to a structurally different life form.

Zero is zero.

There are none. What exists are scientific guesstimations of the tree of life lifeforms found.

And of the below picture, imagine the many very complex mutations to bring about mental, nerve, blood vessel array, and such to transition one human-like species to another. Incredibly complex and intricate biomoleculer and anatomical mutations.

View attachment 225285

Classic argument from incredulity.

This is the equivalent of "my evidence against evolution, is that I don't understand it"

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because we know approx when nature was no longer the same.

Ah, I asked you how you know that it was not the same, and you tell me because you know when it was not the same.

Thanks for answering...Wait, what?

[Shaking my head in sorrow]

 

[doubtingmerle]

Not in any way do you have even a tiny piece of evidence for your religion, and I told you that before.

Ah, you know it must be a religion because we force children to science religion school to sing:

The Origin of the Species.
Yes, that's the book for me!
I stand alone on the word of Darwin,
The O-O-T-S!
​

Oh wait, we don't do that. Isn't that what you do?

 

[xianghua]

No, you worked it backwards. Basic logic. If humans make a biological compound does NOT mean that all biological compounds had to be made by humans.

but to do so you need to prove that living creatures can evolve naturally. but since no one can then the conclusion for living things is the same as for a car.

Sure, but it shows it can work. And we see it working pretty much every day! No designer is needed in order to create a "super-bug" out of just a regular "bug".

sure that simple mutations can happen. but they just simple mutations. we never seen how such simple mutations can evolve complex systems like an eye, a motion system etc. so this kind of mutation mean nothing.

 

[Speedwell]

but to do so you need to prove that living creatures can evolve naturally. but since no one can then the conclusion for living things is the same as for a car.

No, the burden of proof is still on you to prove that living creatures cannot evolve naturally.

The reason is that you are stating that living creatures must be intelligently designed, whereas our position is that it can't be determined.

 

[xianghua]

You never have an actual example of evolution actually requiring a large jump.

yes i do. do you agree that a minimal car need at least several parts for its minimal function? if so: why not a minimal complex biological system?

 

[theQuincunx5]

but to do so you need to prove that living creatures can evolve naturally.

As noted before we see evolution happening pretty much every day. The fact that those who don't like evolution arbitrarily define evolutionary evidence as not being "real" evolution doesn't change the fact.

but since no one can then the conclusion for living things is the same as for a car.

Really?

So you have proven the existence of the Great Designer who can only really be God? Wow! You should definitely share that with everyone.

sure that simple mutations can happen. but they just simple mutations.

You don't do your argument any favors by simply waving off pretty astounding things.

we never seen how such simple mutations can evolve complex systems like an eye, a motion system etc. so this kind of mutation mean nothing.

Really?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[theQuincunx5]

yes i do. do you agree that a minimal car need at least several parts for its minimal function? if so: why not a minimal complex biological system?

Irreducible complexity almost never pans out as truly irreducible.

Usually the things we see presented as "irreducibly complex" systems are actually made up of other pre-existing systems which evolve to have utility that is perfectly rational.

The Flagellum Unspun

The Eye and Irreducible Complexity - Creationism Debunked :: DNA Learning Center

Irreducible complexity cut down to size

 

[Shemjaza]

Right, I have no problem with tons of evolving that went on real fast in the former different nature. You problems include claiming that it was present nature slow evolving, and that it was only evolving that did it all, and that you have no clue what was created TO start evolving! So adapt/evolving is fine, but the theory of evolution is a complete fable. The great deception. It is a theory that was not randomly produced, or naturally selected, but supernaturally and deliberately introduced to man to instill fear and doubt in God and creation.
No more than it checks out without your imaginary same nature in the past.

Present a reason to believe a different state past existed. We have evidence for the the state staying the same, in that it has never been shown to for all human history and that the evidence of ancient times supports it being the same.

You need evidence that it ever happened.

You also need to present evidence that the theory was presented from supernatural sources. This is even harder for you as we have the actual detailed writings of the scientists who developed the theory.

As far as your house of fables built on the foundation of a same nature in the past, the assumption remains pointless, so the house of cards built on it is also pointless. (except for the aforementioned point of being inspired by fallen spirits, to try and delude and damn mankind)

The nature being the same is a totally reasonable conclusion from the evidence.

WHY SHOULD WE ASSUMED IT CHANGED?

I have eyes to see. I have ears to hear. Science has religion.

Being poetic doesn't answer the direction question: "How do you know you are more reliable in your ability to discern then anyone else, Christian and non Christian alike?"

Also I really need to know how you define religion. Because I can't work it out from context.

Currently you seem to believe:
Religion: "We have these ideas about the universe from the results of these bits of evidence and these test results."
Not-Religion: "The Creator God of the universe gave me the supernatural ability to see truth from lies because I worship him in my heart."

This seems like a unique and distinctly useless

You have never presented any reason to even accept that a same state past existed, despite history and the bible records flying in the face of that belief. I don't have to claim it never happened. As I said, no one has given me a good reason to even entertain the idea. The records of history and God also give me many reasons to know your claimed imaginary past is bogus.

What history? All you have is your interpretation of a distinctly mythical chapter of the bible.

The evidence is that languages did not develop simultaneously with ancient Babylon.

There is no layer or evidence for a great flood.

And individual lines life converge into previous forms.

Claiming that evolution was anything but a created trait and that if we deny the theory of evolution, we are denying any evolving is a strawman.

You use that term again: What do you think strawman means?

You can't present objective evidence for a creator, do you can't use that as evidence that it created anything.

 

[Shemjaza]

yes i do. do you agree that a minimal car need at least several parts for its minimal function? if so: why not a minimal complex biological system?

You mean the first life? That's not even a part of evolution.

Cars aren't organic and undergo small random changes every generation... they don't even have generations, because they don't breed, aren't animals and aren't magical.

Do you have an actual example of a leap too far actually proposed by evolution?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Do you have an actual example of a leap too far actually proposed by evolution?

Reset.

Queue up previous 1000 post discussion.

Begin.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You have never presented any reason to even accept that a same state past existed, despite history and the bible records flying in the face of that belief.

This should be good. Please show be where history confirms there was a complete change of nature a couple of hundred years after a global flood.

And while you are at it, please show me where the bible says there was a complete change in nature when you say it happened.

Finally, please explain to me why I should trust a book that praises a man for setting out to kill his son as a sacrifice to God.

 

[jamesbond007]

It is fact which has given Evolutions a black eye - out of billions of fossils inspected and documented there is not one single sequence/succession that shows Evolution by the fossil record.

Not one sequence showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform.

Again, not one evidence has been found.

What the fossil record does show is how God over time would have made Kinds of lifeforms. The fossil record proves this - since there is not one case of displaying by physical remains of postulated evolution of life forms.

Again, out of billions of fossils not one sequence showing hard physical fact of morphological change of one lifeform changing into another lifeform.

This is called no foundation for Evolution.

The fossil record instead has tantamount evidence in how God would have developed life over time. And their remains we would have physical evidence to display before all.

It is time for bias debaters and believers in Evolution to face up to the obvious. What the fossil record really shows.

I don't believe you can defeat evolution just by fossil record alone, but showing that evolution happened rapidly and not over long time. The three positions of Darwinian evolution are 1) Changes over time, 2) Common ancestor and 3) Tree of life. What we are discovering is how plants and animals change rapidly such as elephants losing their tusks to avoid poachers, birds' wings changing to accommodate urban environments. We had the ground finch and central Eurpoean blackcap birds evolve rapidly on Galapagos island as humans observed. Scientists are looking more closely at how species can evolve rapidly since they started researching epigenetics after the human genome chart was completed in 2003. Also, we are finding out that tree of life may be more bushes of life.

 

[jamesbond007]

That was easy.

Next question?

I see chimps and apes skulls lined up side by side with a few humans. No relation.

 

[Shemjaza]

I see chimps and apes skulls lined up side by side with a few humans. No relation.

Those on the right of the top row have larger brains and less developed muzzles then any modern chimp or gorilla.

Those on the left of the bottom row have smaller brains and heavier bone structure then any human.

But all seem very similar to those near by. The fact that they all (except the modern chimp) walked upright is also unlike any modern non human ape.

Our of curiosity, which do you think are human and which are apes? (Creationists never seem to be able to agree).

 

[theQuincunx5]

Cars aren't organic and undergo small random changes every generation... they don't even have generations, because they don't breed, aren't animals and aren't magical.

Fig. 1 Cars breeding (this is how the Ford Focus was born)

Fig. 2 Car as animal . (I don't believe this is a real Jaguar, but it may be a juvenile)

Fig 3. Cars can be magical.

QED.