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

[FrenchyBearpaw]

If something is missing, and never found, how can one show that an unfounded fossil had offspring?

I don't know why you would love such an asinine point.

(then again, I have an idea)

Well, he did think Hovind had a good point, so take that for what you will.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course not.

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

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

Right?

I love the point Mr. Hovind made concerning this:

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

Of course fossilized species never existed as individuals. They existed as members of a species and it really does not matter if Lucy never had any offspring. We can be extremely sure that here relatives did.

Here is a hint for debating against evolution. If you ever find yourself agreeing with Hovind the odds are almost insurmountable that you are wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course fossilized species never existed as individuals. They existed as members of a species and it really does not matter if Lucy never had any offspring. We can be extremely sure that here relatives did.

Here is a hint for debating against evolution. If you ever find yourself agreeing with Hovind the odds are almost insurmountable that you are wrong.

Then let me make this as perfectly clear as I can.

Either daisy-chain atoms-to-adam macroevolution -- and not just on paper -- or macroevolution can take a hike.

 

[StormanNorman]

Then let me make this as perfectly clear as I can.

Either daisy-chain atoms-to-adam macroevolution -- and not just on paper -- or macroevolution can take a hike.

Can't. We have enough evidence to suspect a murder took place, but not enough to nail the culprit. Sorry.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Then let me make this as perfectly clear as I can.

Either daisy-chain atoms-to-adam macroevolution -- and not just on paper -- or macroevolution can take a hike.

So can your opinion. (take a hike, that is)

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

In my opinion, Lucy, along with all these other Homo [whatevers], was a human being, struck down by a bone-altering disease, a la Deuteronomy 28.

What about all of the other fossils of the same species? (Lucy was simply a convenient nickname for the FIRST remnants of that species to be found.) Are you saying that all of Lucy's "sisters" had a bone-altering disease as well?

Why do creationists so often claim that various homonid fossils had bone diseases or arthritis? (Kirk Cameron uses that same excuse quite often.)

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

Then let me make this as perfectly clear as I can.

Either daisy-chain atoms-to-adam macroevolution -- and not just on paper -- or macroevolution can take a hike.

There's no such thing as "atoms-to-adam" macroevolution except in the minds of creationists. The Theory of Evolution says nothing about atoms. You confuse it with abiogenesis. (Genesis 2:7)

Also, you confuse evolution and common descent with genealogy. So it doesn't matter if Lucy had children. That's a silly issue.

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

I was referring to the fact that you referred to inmate Hovind as "Mr.", not "Dr."

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.]

 

[AV1611VET]

Can't. We have enough evidence to suspect a murder took place, but not enough to nail the culprit. Sorry.

Too bad then.

 

[AV1611VET]

So can your opinion. (take a hike, that is)

That's fine with me -- I'm no better than you guys.

 

[Tomk80]

There's no such thing as "atoms-to-adam" macroevolution except in the minds of creationists. The Theory of Evolution says nothing about atoms. You confuse it with abiogenesis. (Genesis 2:7)

Also, you confuse evolution and common descent with genealogy. So it doesn't matter if Lucy had children. That's a silly issue.

I can't daisy chain my ancestors beyond somewhere in the 18th century. I guess that going by AV's logic, that means my great great great great grandfather was created ex nihilo.

 

[AV1611VET]

What about all of the other fossils of the same species? (Lucy was simply a convenient nickname for the FIRST remnants of that species to be found.) Are you saying that all of Lucy's "sisters" had a bone-altering disease as well?

Why do creationists so often claim that various homonid fossils had bone diseases or arthritis? (Kirk Cameron uses that same excuse quite often.)

Three possible reasons:

1. All those struck with this particular disease congregated; like a leper community.

2. God struck whole populations down at times.

3. Both.

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

I can't daisy chain my ancestors beyond somewhere in the 18th century. I guess that going by AV's logic, that means my great great great great grandfather was created ex nihilo.

And perhaps he was created with "appearance of age"!

Maybe he got caught in the backwash and the flood took him to Neptune, from where he awaited rescue by the Challenger voyage.

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

Three possible reasons:

1. All those struck with this particular disease congregated; like a leper community.

2. God struck whole populations down at times.

3. Both.

How about:

1) Lucy and other members of her species lived.

2) And eventually they died.

3) The next generation repeated that pattern.

 

[StormanNorman]

Too bad then.

No worries. We'll keep looking.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's no such thing as "atoms-to-adam" macroevolution except in the minds of creationists.

Good -- then we're on the same page here.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.]

Didn't Mr. Galilei complete two of his most famous works while under house arrest?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then let me make this as perfectly clear as I can.

Either daisy-chain atoms-to-adam macroevolution -- and not just on paper -- or macroevolution can take a hike.

I can't daisy chain my ancestors beyond somewhere in the 18th century. I guess that going by AV's logic, that means my great great great great grandfather was created ex nihilo.

You macroevolved from your great great great great grandfather, did you?

 

[JoyfulExegesis]

Good -- then we're on the same page here.

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.)

Perhaps AV is right: it gives creationists the illusion of being correct when others agree that the badly worded claim is false.

 

[AV1611VET]

And perhaps he was created with "appearance of age"!

Maybe he got caught in the backwash and the flood took him to Neptune, from where he awaited rescue by the Challenger voyage.

Now we see the real reason you started this thread, don't we?