Why keep denying "transitional fossil forms" when they are so numerous?

[AV1611VET]

How about:

1) Lucy and other members of her species lived.

2) And eventually they died.

3) The next generation repeated that pattern.

1) Sounds good to me.

2) Sounds good to me.

3) Hopefully the next generation learned a lesson.

QV the 38th Psalm, where I believe King David died of such a disease.

In my opinion, if his grave was robbed by paleoarchaeologists, they would conclude he was either Neanderthal or Cro-magnon.

 

[AV1611VET]

And that brings up the obvious question: Why do so many creationists insist on such misuse of terminology. (In this case, they try to combine abiogenesis and evolution into one "macroevolution" of their own imagination.)

I can't speak for other creationists here, but for the record, I believe the merging of evolution with abiogenesis is something the Antichrist himself is going to do; a point I have made many times here.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

If someone wants to get a few laughs while wasting as many minutes, you should read the Kent Hovind "newsletter from prison" where he says that he's having a great time in prison: "It gives me lots of time for earning additional doctorates!"

Considering that Hovind has yet to earn a college bachelor's degree, those many Ph.D.'s are incredible achievements. [Sarcasm alert.]

At first.

Then.

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

In my opinion, if his grave was robbed by paleoarchaeologists, they would conclude he was either Neanderthal or Cro-magnon.

What evidence do you have which supports that opinion?

And why don't other, non-David graves studied by archaeologists produce research papers describing Neanderthal or Cro-Magnon finds? Why do you think David's grave would be classified so uniquely? (That is, why do you insist that his skeletal remains would be classified so differently from his contemporaries?)

You do realize that anatomists can distinguish between "deceased human skeletons" and the skeletons of other species, right?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I can't speak for other creationists here, but for the record, I believe the merging of evolution with abiogenesis is something the Antichrist himself is going to do; a point I have made many times here.

Steeling your mind for the inevitable. (is this how "prophecy" works?)

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

I can't speak for other creationists here, but for the record, I believe the merging of evolution with abiogenesis is something the Antichrist himself is going to do; a point I have made many times here.

So you are saying that creationists who incorrectly "merge" abiogenesis with evolution are inspired by Satan??!!

(After all, you don't see most scientists trying to merge those terms into one term.)

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course not.

If it was, then evolution would be too hard to demonstrate.

Not at all. Evolution predicts which transitionals we should see and which we should not see. Each and every fossil is a test of those predictions, and evolution keeps passing those tests.

After all, if you can't daisy-chain, do the next best thing -- connect the dots.

Right?

We do the absolute best thing at all times, which is continually test the theory with new evidence. Each new fossil species is a test.

I love the point Mr. Hovind made concerning this:

You can't show that any of those missing links had offspring.

What we can show is that the mixture of characteristics found in these fossils exactly matches the predictions made by the theory of evolution. Creationism makes no such predictions.

 

[AV1611VET]

What we can show is that the mixture of characteristics found in these fossils exactly matches the predictions made by the theory of evolution. Creationism makes no such predictions.

Mainly on paper though, right?

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Mainly on paper though, right?

Are you trying to compare this to your bible?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So AVET will still look at the sketchiest of evidence for the Bible and say that it is true and look at the evidence for evolution, which is greater than the evidence provided at any murder trial in the history of the world and state that evolution is false.

Hmm, sounds like somebody has a problem with reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

So AVET will still look at the sketchiest of evidence for the Bible and say that it is true and look at the evidence for evolution, which is greater than the evidence provided at any murder trial in the history of the world and state that evolution is false.

Hmm, sounds like somebody has a problem with reality.

Some scientists might be able to demonstrate that Roundup™ needs to be stronger this year than last, but that's a far cry from demonstrating we came from a previous race of hominids.

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

Some scientists might be able to demonstrate that Roundup™ needs to be stronger this year than last, but that's a far cry from demonstrating we came from a previous race of hominids.

So you admit that the Roundup resistance is due to evolution. Then explain to us how how the "boundary" works, which prevents evolution from traversing some imagined line that is somewhere between Roundup-resistance evolution and hominid evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you admit that the Roundup resistance is due to evolution. Then explain to us how how the "boundary" works, which prevents evolution from traversing some imagined line that is somewhere between Roundup-resistance evolution and hominid evolution.

I can't.

I could be anything -- our God is a God of boundaries, and He has set boundaries that nature cannot go; that includes evolution.

That boundary could be in the form of a preset number of generations, sterility, or whatever.

 

[Loudmouth]

Mainly on paper though, right?

No, in the fossils themselves. The fossils have mixtures of characteristics from divergent taxa. Those mixtures of characteristics are used to test the theory of evolution since the theory makes predictions as to which mixtures you should AND should NOT see. Creationism makes no such predictions.

 

[Loudmouth]

Some scientists might be able to demonstrate that Roundup™ needs to be stronger this year than last, but that's a far cry from demonstrating we came from a previous race of hominids.

Which is why we do not use the evolution of Roundup resistance as evidence for shared ancestry between humans and chimps. Instead, we point to the shared genetic markers and transitional hominid fossils.