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

[tas8831]

Beavers are cool. They are actually designed to do what they do.

Begging the question is so cool!

 

[Shemjaza]

true.

So your comment was wrong and you shouldn't use it anymore.

but we never seen a creature that evolve into a different kind of creature. so we never seen a genome (which contain many genes) that evolved by a natural process.

You've brought this up before, then ignored the responses. It's dishonest or incompetent.

The point of speciation that leads to a split eventually defined as completely separate families are between very similar species.

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

 

[dad]

What part of "slightly changed" don't you understand?

Who cares about slight changes in either the present, or in some hapless fragmentary fossil record?

 

[dad]

What if they want to study last Tuesday? That is no longer current. Are forensic scientists out also? Anybody who examines the crime scene based on scientific evidence is not fine and needs to be excluded from science?

You can what if all day. There is no crime scene for folks living in the Cambrian or Jurassic times. No one cares about some Columbo crime scene 30 years ago in the origin issues debate.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Who cares about slight changes in either the present, or in some hapless fragmentary fossil record?

There is the theory that some of those slight changes are merely different stages of development of the same critter, making it's various fossil remains appear to have 'evolved'.

 

[dad]

Question begging fallacy.

Dismissed.

Re admitted.

 

[dad]

Beavers are cool. They are actually designed to do what they do.

True.

 

[dad]

There is the theory that some of those slight changes are merely different stages of development of the same critter, making it's various fossil remains appear to have 'evolved'.

Could be. But if the only animals, for example that maybe could even leave remains at all were the animals that were somewhat far evolved from the original kind....then whatever changes we see in them do not much matter anyhow.

 

[dad]

You are just saying that. You don't have evidence, just a gut feeling that your reading of the Bible makes all your intuitions correct.

No. I was born again, so I could see. Now I see the wonderful creation.

But it changes. We have mutations and random selections

So what? Prove that these are all we had that are responsible for creation of life on earth.

 

[Shemjaza]

Who cares about slight changes in either the present, or in some hapless fragmentary fossil record?

Who cares?

People who care about evidence care.

People who won't stand for blatant lies care. You can believe in creation, believe that evolution is totally wrong, but if you say that we don't have evidence you aren't disagreeing, you are lying.

No. I was born again, so I could see. Now I see the wonderful creation.

How do you tell the difference between your supernatural discernment and common human error and vanity?

So what? Prove that these are all we had that are responsible for creation of life on earth.

So now that there is clearly evidence for the mechanisms of evolution, it isn't enough?

Now we have to disprove supernatural creation?

Trying to disprove the actions of a mysterious omnipotent diety is impossible... but if there isn't any evidence to begin with, I see no reason to assume it even exists.

 

[tas8831]

Re admitted.

And now laughed at.

Toodles!

 

[dad]

Who cares?

People who care about evidence care.

People who won't stand for blatant lies care. You can believe in creation, believe that evolution is totally wrong, but if you say that we don't have evidence you aren't disagreeing, you are lying.

Shrill strawmen aside, the issue is ot the slow evolving we see today in this nature of the present. The real action in changes was long long long ago. In that time the changes were both rapid, rapid, rapid, and started from created animals.

Pointing out some little slow changes in this present nature simply doesn't cut the mustard.

How do you tell the difference between your supernatural discernment and common human error and vanity?

Easy...I measure it to the bible, and even to all evidences.

So now that there is clearly evidence for the mechanisms of evolution, it isn't enough?

Enough for what? ..To show that a lot of adapting/evolving happened in the different nature past to created kinds?

Now we have to disprove supernatural creation?

Only if you claim it never happened. But since you can't, I wouldn't bother with the denial thingie.

Trying to disprove the actions of a mysterious omnipotent diety is impossible... but if there isn't any evidence to begin with, I see no reason to assume it even exists.

If He created kinds in the former nature, and the ability to adapt/evolve, that is evidence every time we see man or beast. Whether you can see it or not is the only issue.

 

[dad]

And now laughed at.

Toodles!

Overruled, Stamped with the seal of the Almighty, re admitted, and aware that the laughter of heathen will be followed by the roaring laughter of the Creator.

Farbeit from me to care if or how the heathen rage.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When I read this comment I honestly assumed it was an atheist being unkind to Christians.

The scientist is looking into something specific, and learning about the world, and the Christian is making grand pronouncements with no clarity and no detail.

The comment was from a real life event (I expanded it a bit). We have a very polluted lake in my city. One particularly large invasive weed bed is an annual source of pollution. It lies adjacent to the university campus. The (one of many) science department doesn't want it cut because they are studying a "new biological community" found in the weeds. If our scientists had their complete way all of our lakes would return to swamps or marshes so they could be so studied.

 

[tas8831]

There is the theory that some of those slight changes are merely different stages of development of the same critter, making it's various fossil remains appear to have 'evolved'.

Details please!

I'm sure this will be groundbreaking!

 

[tas8831]

Now I see the wonderful creation.

No you can't,

 

[doubtingmerle]

You can what if all day. There is no crime scene for folks living in the Cambrian or Jurassic times. No one cares about some Columbo crime scene 30 years ago in the origin issues debate.

But scientists who were never at the scene when the crime was taking place can find clues to what happened by assuming the laws of nature were the same back when the crime occurred.

You cannot conclude that maybe nature was different at the crime scene or in the Jurassic unless you have evidence it indeed was.

 

[dad]

No you can't,

Can to.

 

[dad]

But scientists who were never at the scene when the crime was taking place can find clues to what happened by assuming the laws of nature were the same back when the crime occurred.

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

You cannot conclude that maybe nature was different at the crime scene or in the Jurassic unless you have evidence it indeed was.

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.

 

[Shemjaza]

Shrill strawmen aside, the issue is ot the slow evolving we see today in this nature of the present. The real action in changes was long long long ago. In that time the changes were both rapid, rapid, rapid, and started from created animals.

Pointing out some little slow changes in this present nature simply doesn't cut the mustard.

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

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.

Different state pasts, created kinds, and "rapid, rapid, rapid" changes don't have any evidence, so there is no reason to assume they are true. It doesn't necessarily make them false, but the assumption remains pointless.

Easy...I measure it to the bible, and even to all evidences.

So you have nothing? You have to use your interpretations to read the Bible given how diverse Christian attitudes towards pretty much everything, I'm curious why you are immune to the mistakes the rest of them are making?

Enough for what? ..To show that a lot of adapting/evolving happened in the different nature past to created kinds?

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

Only if you claim it never happened. But since you can't, I wouldn't bother with the denial thingie.

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.

If He created kinds in the former nature, and the ability to adapt/evolve, that is evidence every time we see man or beast. Whether you can see it or not is the only issue.

More just presenting your own fancies as facts equivalent to events with actual evidence to back them up.


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