Transitional Fossils would not prove we evolved from other species

[SavedByChrist94]

How so? say the required amount of Transitional Fossils is fulfilled(it is not, something for another day/post), we can easily assume that YHWH made all those species... similar, so it appears like an evolve, take Playstation Consoles for Example(just an example, don't commit a fallacy and take the example literal), the PS1, PS2, and PS3 for example,

it all starts from the PS1, but did the PS3 evolve and descend from the PS2 and so forth? No, they were individually designed by human beings, one better and more advanced than the other, likewise,

Apes, Humans, birds, etc, even if there were supposed "Transitional Fossils" that make it appear as if everything slowly evolved, it is not proof, why? because with the same fossils we can theorize, Just as we theorize that they evolved, that they were designed... Similar, some better than the other, and it appears as if they evolved(like the Playstation analogy)

The evolution hypothesis is not required and therefore fossils called "transitional fossils" offer no proof for one species evolving into a new/different species as they could have just been designed this way.

 

[BarryDesborough]

How so? say the required amount of Transitional Fossils is fulfilled(it is not, something for another day/post), we can easily assume that YHWH made all those species... similar, so it appears like an evolve, take Playstation Consoles for Example(just an example, don't commit a fallacy and take the example literal), the PS1, PS2, and PS3 for example,

it all starts from the PS1, but did the PS3 evolve and descend from the PS2 and so forth? No, they were individually designed by human beings, one better and more advanced than the other, likewise,

Apes, Humans, birds, etc, even if there were supposed "Transitional Fossils" that make it appear as if everything slowly evolved, it is not proof, why? because with the same fossils we can theorize, Just as we theorize that they evolved, that they were designed... Similar, some better than the other, and it appears as if they evolved(like the Playstation analogy)

The evolution hypothesis is not required and therefore fossils called "transitional fossils" offer no proof for one species evolving into a new/different species as they could have just been designed this way.

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

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

Universal common descent is a general descriptive theory concerning the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, universal common ancestry entails the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, macroevolutionary history and processes involving the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.

This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

 

[AV1611VET]

The evolution hypothesis is not required and therefore fossils called "transitional fossils" offer no proof for one species evolving into a new/different species as they could have just been designed this way.

For every fossil found, there are two more missing links.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

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

Are you man of Science and Truth? If so, you will be willing to have your truths tested, give me the best proof you have for one species evolving into a new/different species, the best one, so we can see if they can be refuted or not, suspend your beliefs.

 

[AV1611VET]

Are you man of Science and Truth?

I'd say he's a man of science ... and probably good at it too.

But Truth? no.

Jesus said:

John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Note what Jesus didn't say here:

John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in science and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in science and in truth.

 

[ConfuseddotCom]

Why is this so important to you?

 

[BarryDesborough]

Are you man of Science and Truth? If so, you will be willing to have your truths tested, give me the best proof you have for one species evolving into a new/different species, the best one, so we can see if they can be refuted or not, suspend your beliefs.

If you agree to make a similar commitment, that if I show you that there is no sensible interpretation of the evidence I do show you other than common descent, you will accept common descent? I have no interest in de-converting you. I don't care what, if any god you believe in, but I want you to commit to giving me a fair, unbiased hearing. I shall take you through the argument from endogenous retroviruses that indicates that chimpanzees and humans share common ancestors. You can ask all the questions you want, and I will answer to the best of my ability, as clearly and plainly as I can manage. I believe I am good at doing this, as I am a trained and experienced teacher. Shall we have a 1-1 thread in the debate forum?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is this so important to you?

Hi, Confused!

Are you talking to me?

If so, did you happen to see the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey?

The movie has a lengthy prolog.

It starts out at the "dawn of civilization," where two different tribes of monkeys are vying for the same water hole.

They jostle back and forth at the hole, and eventually one monkey picks up a transitional fossil, studies it with near Homo sapiens contemplation, then uses it to whack his antagonist over the head and then beat him to death.

This "discovery" that gives the one tribe military advantage over the other, coincides with an object called the Black Monolith, that appears throughout history; and every time it appears, "mankind" takes an evolutionary step forward.

Scientists today are still whacking their antagonists over the head with transitional fossils, but these antagonists are prepared!

Ephesians 6:17a And take the helmet of salvation,

 

[ConfuseddotCom]

Hi AV,

Not specifically, but thanks for the response

Why is it important to you? I can't quite glean that from your above response.

(No I haven't seen the movie, not much of a movie fan)

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is it important to you?

Why is what important to me?

We're in a spiritual warfare, Confused; and the enemy is marching on holy ground waiving the Darwin banner on a pole of a transitional fossil.

Evolution is a form of voodoo, where their priests don't wear skulls as necklaces; but they do display them just as prominently:

 

[SavedByChrist94]

If you agree to make a similar commitment, that if I show you that there is no sensible interpretation of the evidence I do show you other than common descent, you will accept common descent? I have no interest in de-converting you. I don't care what, if any god you believe in, but I want you to commit to giving me a fair, unbiased hearing. I shall take you through the argument from endogenous retroviruses that indicates that chimpanzees and humans share common ancestors. You can ask all the questions you want, and I will answer to the best of my ability, as clearly and plainly as I can manage. I believe I am good at doing this, as I am a trained and experienced teacher. Shall we have a 1-1 thread in the debate forum?

Debate it is, commit one fallacy, insult, be condescending, pseudo-intellectual, use words beyond my comprehension then do not make definitions layman, be disrespectful, make something not understandable(which is a cheap shot) even after asked to, hide any knowledge, not admit when you are wrong, refuse to demonstrate something when asked to, or any fallacious and disingenuous thing and the debate is over, and you are disqualified.

you have to convince me and prove beyond reasonable doubt that nothing other than common descent can be demonstrated.

So yes, I accept. create the debate.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Go ahead, commit one fallacy, insult, be condescending, pseudo-intellectual, use words beyond my comprehension then do not make definitions layman, be disrespectful, make something not understandable(which is a cheap shot) even after asked to, hide any knowledge, not admit when you are wrong, refuse to demonstrate something when asked to, or any fallacious and disingenuous thing and the debate is over, and you are disqualified.

you have to convince me and prove beyond reasonable doubt that nothing other than common descent can be demonstrated.

So yes, I accept.

I can't guarantee not to use terms you don't understand, because I do not know what you know and what you do not. I will, however explain any terms you ask me to.

I don't know why you would be worried about me being a boor. I'll be presenting the case to you. It would be counter-productive, leaving aside the fact that it is not in my nature.

I shall set up a thread and let you know when it is ready. Maybe today, maybe tomorrow. I've got other stuff to do right now.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

I can't guarantee not to use terms you don't understand, because I do not know what you know and what you do not. I will, however explain any terms you ask me to.

I don't know why you would be worried about me being a boor. I'll be presenting the case to you. It would be counter-productive, leaving aside the fact that it is not in my nature.

I shall set up a thread and let you know when it is ready. Maybe today, maybe tomorrow. I've got other stuff to do right now.

What if I'm not notified? do I lose because time runs out?(Never debated here), if so I'm willing to check the page all day(unemployed and single at the moment, so I have alot of free time.

I can guarantee that I will win this debate if no fallacies are committed(I have lost debates countless of times against pharisees and atheists alike, not due to proof or who had better argument, but due to bad tactics) in the debate you will attempt to demonstrate your claim,

"Design" does not explain these facts

If you can do so and refute it all, you win and I admit common descent has proof to it. if however you are incapable of doing so, you admit that design can explain the facts, therefore ERVs are not proof for common descent and common descent has no proof.

 

[essentialsaltes]

How so? say the required amount of Transitional Fossils is fulfilled(it is not, something for another day/post), we can easily assume that YHWH made all those species... similar, so it appears like an evolve

Yes, you can hypothesize that....

300 million years ago, God created a bunch of species
299 million years ago, God kills some of them and creates new ones that are slightly different.
298 million years ago, God kills some of them and creates new ones that are slightly different.
297 million years ago, God kills some of them and creates new ones that are slightly different.
296 million years ago, God kills some of them and creates new ones that are slightly different.
295 million years ago, God kills some of them and creates new ones that are slightly different.
294 million years ago, God kills some of them and creates new ones that are slightly different.
...

On and on for millions of years.

And God did this to deliberately deceive us into thinking these similar species are related by ancestry.

Yes, you are entirely welcome to that belief.

But to me, it looks like
#1 - this is a contrived idea to avoid coming to the obvious conclusion that the evidence itself suggests (i.e. evolution)
#2 - it requires you to accept a very strange and deceitful deity.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Yes, you can hypothesize that....

300 million years ago, God created a bunch of species
299 million years ago, God kills some of them and creates new ones that are slightly different.
298 million years ago, God kills some of them and creates new ones that are slightly different.
297 million years ago, God kills some of them and creates new ones that are slightly different.
296 million years ago, God kills some of them and creates new ones that are slightly different.
295 million years ago, God kills some of them and creates new ones that are slightly different.
294 million years ago, God kills some of them and creates new ones that are slightly different.
...

This assumes life has been around that long,

1, How do you know how long life has been on earth? has this been observed?

2, has one species evolving into a New/Different species ever been observed?

On and on for millions of years.

And God did this to deliberately deceive us into thinking these similar species are related by ancestry.

Common Ancestor has been observed?

Yes, you are entirely welcome to that belief.

Which means it's a possible theory and transitional fossils aren't proof for one species evolving into a new/different species.

But to me, it looks like
#1 - this is a contrived idea to avoid coming to the obvious conclusion that the evidence itself suggests (i.e. evolution)

"obvious conclusion" means faith, unless it's definitive and proves for certain that evolution happened, then it's not proof.

 

[BarryDesborough]

What if I'm not notified? do I lose because time runs out?(Never debated here), if so I'm willing to check the page all day(unemployed and single at the moment, so I have alot of free time.

I can guarantee that I will win this debate if no fallacies are committed(I have lost debates countless of times against pharisees and atheists alike, not due to proof or who had better argument, but due to bad tactics) in the debate you will attempt to demonstrate your claim,

"Design" does not explain these facts

If you can do so and refute it all, you win and I admit common descent has proof to it. if however you are incapable of doing so, you admit that design can explain the facts, therefore ERVs are not proof for common descent and common descent has no proof.

I'm not proposing a formal debate, but a series of posts where I give you the evidence and reasoning, and you ask questions and raise objections if you have any. Rather like an ordinary thread, but with only us as participants, to ensure there are no distractions. The purpose is not to see who has the best debating tactics, or trickiest rhetorical tricks, or who can wriggle out of a corner, but to get to the truth of the matter, based on evidence and reasoning. We can take our time. There will be no time limit, we will go on as long as we both think it is worthwhile continuing.

I will give you all the facts you ask for, to the best of my own knowledge and capabilities, and explain why I maintain that common descent is the only reasonable conclusion. If, after being brought fully up to speed with the evidence and the conclusion people draw from it, you can come up with an alternative conclusion that is reasonable, then you have disproved my claim. If you cannot, then my claim has been demonstrated.

I can notify you of my posts in your visitor or private message areas, but all you really need to do is to look at the debate forum every now and again, or, better still, subscribe to notification by email of new posts to the thread.

Edited to add: I have kicked off our thread here, http://www.christianforums.com/t7755797-post63460897/#post63460897

 

[ConfuseddotCom]

Why is this so important to you SavedbyChrist94?

 

[essentialsaltes]

1, How do you know how long life has been on earth? has this been observed?

Yes, geology and paleontology provide evidence of fossil evidence that can be reliably dated to hundreds of millions of years old.

2, has one species evolving into a New/Different species ever been observed?

Other people have already offered evidence on this point.

Common Ancestor has been observed?

Common ancestry is a conclusion based on the observed evidence.

Which means it's a possible theory and transitional fossils aren't proof for one species evolving into a new/different species.

Well, calling your idea a theory implies that it is scientific. Your idea is not scientific. But yes, the religious idea that God deliberately manufactured transitional fossils that appear related to ancestors and descendants (but aren't) is possible.

"obvious conclusion" means faith, unless it's definitive and proves for certain that evolution happened, then it's not proof.

Proof is for mathematics. In science, we search for the best theory that explains all the available evidence. Evolution is that theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, geology and paleontology provide evidence of fossil evidence that can be reliably dated to hundreds of millions of years old.

Because of the rocks they're found embedded in ... right?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Because of the rocks they're found embedded in ... right?

Most commonly that's how it's done. In some cases, other methods can be used, including some that directly sample the fossil itself, as in amino acid dating of snail shells. (Though I suspect that method is validated with geochronology.)