What proof would you need? (2)

[Keachian]

'Missing links' only exist because of the incredibly small number of fossils that exist.

Small number is incredibly deceptive, but then I guess millions isn't large by anyone's standards...

"This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of fossils, of which there are millions"
List of fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries."
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To just have a start...

 

[Gath]

Yes, I know.

Evolutionists want us to connect their [1%] dots, then call it 'science', and we refuse.

If they expected to prove evolution based on nothing besides the fossil record, then that would be true. However, the fossil record is only one small piece of the evidence for evolution.

Even if you had 99%, I still wouldn't believe it.

So you wouldn't believe in it regardless of the evidence? That's just ignorant.

I don't mind 'human logic', as long as it gets us to the moon and back safely, or makes my toothpaste mintier; but when 'human logic' sticks its nose into the Bible, it had better tread softly and not carry a stick.

Human logic made the Bible, it can mess with it however it wants.

@Progmonk Considering how many organisms have lived, even millions of fossils is an incredibly small sample. But I see your point, saying there's a small amount can be deceiving.

 

[AV1611VET]

"This is not meant to be an exhaustive list of fossils, of which there are millions"

As I have said before, if you can't daisy-chain fossils from atom-to-Adam, then your lists mean nothing.

As Mr. Hovind points out, you can't prove that any one of those animals had an offspring.

 

[Keachian]

As I have said before, if you can't daisy-chain fossils from atom-to-Adam, then your lists mean nothing.

Evolutionists want us to connect their [1%] dots, then call it 'science', and we refuse.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't

As Mr. Hovind points out, you can't prove that any one of those animals had an offspring.

And what is your point? This is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

[Huram Abi]

As I have said before, if you can't daisy-chain fossils from atom-to-Adam, then your lists mean nothing.

As Mr. Hovind points out, you can't prove that any one of those animals had an offspring.

We can't prove that your parents had offspring, either.

 

[AV1611VET]

If they expected to prove evolution based on nothing besides the fossil record, then that would be true.

No, it wouldn't be true -- see my next point.

However, the fossil record is only one small piece of the evidence for evolution.

No, it isn't.

In fact, it is evidence against evolution.

It's like saying one or two million granules of dirt from Boston to Los Angeles is evidence that there is a road that leads from Boston to Los Angeles.

So you wouldn't believe in it regardless of the evidence? That's just ignorant.

That's just 'ignorant' -- right after you said the fossil record is only one 'small piece of the evidence for evolution'?

Human logic made the Bible, it can mess with it however it wants.

No, it didn't -- man isn't smart enough to make a writing that well.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

No, it didn't -- man isn't smart enough to make a writing that well.

Oh boy.

 

[Keachian]

No, it didn't -- man isn't smart enough to make a writing that well.

Joseph Smith III begs to differ

 

[AV1611VET]

Joseph Smith III begs to differ

Good for Joseph Smith III.

 

[Keachian]

Good for Joseph Smith III.

Oh you with your head in the sand

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh you with your head in the sand

First of all, I assume you meant Joseph Smith II.

Second of all -- if you did -- my 'head in the sand' is justified.

Joseph Smith is what we would rightly call a 'false prophet'.

There are no more prophets since AD 96.

Christians called Mohammad a 'false prophet', and Mr. Smith is no exception.

 

[Zaius137]

...Are you serious? Evolution is one of the most proven theories in existence! Or do nylon-eating bacteria not count as empirical evidence? Nor do the Galapagos finches? What about the flu virus? Ring species? The fossil record? Similarities in embryos? Convergent evolution? How is that not empirical evidence?

Sorry to break the news to you but evolution is inconstant with the findings in genetics and science in general.

Also evolution in its early beginning provided an explanation of abiogenesis but since the new evolution synthesis (accepting spontaneous generation could not happen) abiogenesis is no longer covered by the Darwinist.

You have two challenges to overcome to prove evolution:

• provide real evidence
• discover a new physics and a new chemistry

I have participated in several threads about evolution. Both of the ones that come to mind showed that either the participants did not understand there own dogma or that they could not support there position with real evidence. You are more than welcome to begin a new thread…

Creationists in this forum welcome fresh meat.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

No, it didn't -- man isn't smart enough to make a writing that well.

That is a statement of opinion, certainly not fact. The Bible has always seemed to me to be transparently human in origin (which is my opinion), so I am curious as to how someone comes to the conclusion that man isn't smart enough to "make a writing that well".

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Sorry to break the news to you but evolution is inconstant with the findings in genetics and science in general.

And yet geneticists and the scientific community disagree with you.

 

[Keachian]

Sorry to break the news to you but evolution is inconstant with the findings in genetics and science in general.

The fact that you're still parroting that is laughable.

Also evolution in its early beginning provided an explanation of abiogenesis but since the new evolution synthesis (accepting spontaneous generation could not happen) abiogenesis is no longer covered by the Darwinist.

Really? Can you show me where?

You have two challenges to overcome to prove evolution:

• provide real evidence
• discover a new physics and a new chemistry

Why do we need to prove evolution, proofs are maths we're talking science. If you want to talk about evidence then you should have taken me up on my offer to talk about how we build evolution from the evidence. I also don't understand why you are saying that we need a "new" physics and chemistry, the ones we have right now perfectly help to support evolutionary theory in what limited ways that they do.

I have participated in several threads about evolution.

It's amazing that you're still trotting out the same PRATT then

Both of the ones that come to mind showed that either the participants did not understand there own dogma or that they could not support there position with real evidence. You are more than welcome to begin a new thread…

I'm a layman at biology so sue me, creationists are no better, in reality most people here are laymen duking it out for a bit of sport.

Creationists in this forum welcome fresh meat.

The only honest creationist here is AV

 

[Zaius137]

And yet geneticists and the scientific community disagree with you.

You are more than welcome to take up your banner and put us poor ignorant Creationists to shame.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

You are more than welcome to take up your banner and put us poor ignorant Creationists to shame.

Well, if your starting point is a big incorrect statement about science and genetics in general, there doesnt seem to be a lot of point in bothering with your other incorrect statements.

 

[Zaius137]

Well, if your starting point is a big incorrect statement about science and genetics in general, there doesnt seem to be a lot of point in bothering with your other incorrect statements.

Starting a thread is a big investment in time but it has its rewards. I extend a friendly invitation to prove your point.

Post and they will come.

 

[begt]

How Evolution REALLY Works, Part I - YouTube

Interesting video.

 

[mzungu]

Adam wrote the creation account, not Moses; and since I believe they spoke English from Adam → Tower of Babel, that means I believe Adam wrote the creation account in English, and Moses (or his predecessor, Noah?) translated it into Hebrew.

Adam walked and talked with God up until the time of the Fall; and I assume God dictated the creation account to him, and he wrote it down.

AV, You starting a new religion
Also considering that Greek comprises of around 26% of the total English words and that English is a Germanic language (Both Angles and Saxons were Germanic tribes) and the True inhabitants of the British isles were the Celts and Celtic is nothing like English.

But in all honesty if Adam existed and spoke then surely he would have spoken the one and only true language: KLINGON!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vwmxUi5XKE&feature=related