• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Transitional Fossil Features

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by crjmurray, Jun 30, 2015.

  1. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,940
    Agnostic
    Found them for you.

    [​IMG]


    Finding 3 individuals from the transitional species H. erectus is 3 transitional fossils.

    Where did the breeds come from?

    Also, no one has ever claimed that H. erectus is H. sapiens. No one. They are not a breed of H. sapiens. You can't point to a single feature that H. erectus is missing that a transitional would have.
     
  2. Split Rock

    Split Rock Conflation of Blathers

    +649
    Agnostic
    Single
    What are Ring Species, then? http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html
     
  3. Willtor

    Willtor Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

    +1,405
    Presbyterian
    Married
    US-Others
    The racist stuff is fodder for another thread.

    But the picture that Loudmouth posted is the one I would have posted to show the smooth transition. The "A" skull on that list is not anything that anybody would call a modern human. Again, if you're looking for a non-functional partial feature, evolution predicts that it doesn't exist.
     
  4. PapaZoom

    PapaZoom Well-Known Member

    +4,381
    Baptist
    Private
  5. PapaZoom

    PapaZoom Well-Known Member

    +4,381
    Baptist
    Private
  6. PapaZoom

    PapaZoom Well-Known Member

    +4,381
    Baptist
    Private
    I don't know what you mean by creationist source. I'm not a fan of arguments that claim that Christians who believe in an intelligent agency behind the universe can't be "real" scientists. It's a genetic fallacy anyway. That's like saying atheist scientists can't be trusted because they are atheists.
     
  7. PapaZoom

    PapaZoom Well-Known Member

    +4,381
    Baptist
    Private
    With so many transitional forms necessary I would expect a good sampling.

    But it's not about one species but a multitude. And we don't have a fair representation given the number of different species. And as far as birds go, I find it interesting that studies indicate that birds arose in a "big bang" explosion of their own.

    I probably shouldn't use "fully developed" but rather "unique" body plans. Add to that "complex anatomical features."

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23206146

    I accept it as a possibility but could there be another explanation? And where are other examples of eye development of the eye? Perhaps light sensitivity didn't lead to the development of the eye but was simply a primitive survival trait to stay out of the light and keep in the shadows.

    True but it's not clear that that is what has been observed. It seems that that particular fish has a fin anatomy that is similar to fish today.
     
  8. Willtor

    Willtor Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

    +1,405
    Presbyterian
    Married
    US-Others
    That's not what I'm saying. I'm a scientist, and I believe in God.

    I'm saying that when you read creationist descriptions of evolution, they are descriptions of a theory that is actually contrary to the theory of evolution as held by scientists. Both use the word "evolution" but they mean different things. The scientific theory of evolution isn't looking for (and would be harmed by) the discovery of species with partially formed, but not beneficial features.
     
  9. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,436
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    That doesn't bother me though.

    As long as they don't believe in evolution ... that's good enough for me.

    Creationism is evolution's antithesis, so they don't need to know the particulars.

    HOWEVER, I do wish they would stop trying to combat evolution with science.

    It's science that got evolutionists where they are in the first place.
     
  10. Smidlee

    Smidlee Veteran

    +736
    Baptist
    Married
    Why? There is nothing wrong with science as long as you don't allow it to fill you with pride. In fact I see evolutionist have to continue to deny "science" to continue hold on to their faith. Since Naturalist worldview doesn't match reality they will continue to finding themselves running into "reality" like a blind man running into a wall. If you listen closely you can hear them smacking into the wall of truth. (Or like coyote fall off the cliff after being chased by the truck loaded with evidence)

     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2015
  11. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,436
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Yes, but this isn't cartoon physics we're dealing with and, in my opinion, if we try to fight fire with fire (science with science), we're the ones that will usually get burned.
     
  12. Smidlee

    Smidlee Veteran

    +736
    Baptist
    Married
    Are you sure? Sometimes I feel like scientist are using cartoon physics especially when they admit something breaks all known laws of physics. Just make sure when you are fighting fire you got your shield of faith up.
     
  13. Strathos

    Strathos No one important

    +3,276
    Christian
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Actually that's not true because a fossil of a creature that was the last of its kind before it went extinct wouldn't be transitional.
     
  14. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,436
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    No argument there! :oldthumbsup:
     
  15. Willtor

    Willtor Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

    +1,405
    Presbyterian
    Married
    US-Others
    Arguing against an idea one doesn't understand is like flailing one's arms in the dark and calling it boxing. Before you argue against a thing, you should know what it is. Otherwise, it isn't even obvious that it's something that you need to fight.
     
  16. Strathos

    Strathos No one important

    +3,276
    Christian
    Single
    US-Democrat
    This is a horrible way to think. Consider this:

    A child is raised by creationist parents and a creationist church. The child is told "evolution is wrong, because it claims X, which isn't true".

    The child then goes to school, and learns that evolution does not, in fact, claim X, and all of the actual evidence points toward evolution being true. He/she then realizes that the creationists lied, and figures that if they were lying about that, they might have been lying about everything else as well, so the child deconverts and becomes an atheist. (Talk to several atheists, many of them will give you a story about their upbringing very similar to this).

    Meanwhile, there is a child raised by theistic evolutionist parents and a theistic evolutionist church. They are taught that God created the universe, was incarnated as Jesus Christ, and died to absolve us of our sins. Pretty much the same thing the creationist church teaches, with the exception that evolution is a scientific fact and one of the many processes in God's creation.

    This child then goes to school, learns more about evolution, but it never does anything to threaten their faith. He/she then grows up to be a devout Christian.

    Which of these scenarios is preferable?
     
  17. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,436
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    If I own a red car and someone says it's not red, but xlorph, should I know what xlorph looks like before I disagree?
     
  18. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,436
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    You're asking me to choose between two bad scenarios.
     
  19. Strathos

    Strathos No one important

    +3,276
    Christian
    Single
    US-Democrat
    Which one is worse, in your eyes?
     
  20. Willtor

    Willtor Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor

    +1,405
    Presbyterian
    Married
    US-Others
    If you say it isn't xlorph, you should know what you are saying.
     
Loading...