Darwin's False Religion

[fossten]

Not to mention the FACT that as time goes on and more discoveries are made, many "missing links" HAVE been found in the fossil record. It's just a matter of time before the others have been found. But FACTS must not be good enough for someone who's entire world is based on BELIEFS.

Name one.

 

[TheDude]

Not to mention the FACT that as time goes on and more discoveries are made, many "missing links" HAVE been found in the fossil record. It's just a matter of time before the others have been found. But FACTS must not be good enough for someone who's entire world is based on BELIEFS.

Not necessarily... You have to take into account that a fossil formation is EXTREMELY rare and changes are at best minimal generation to generation.

 

[MAC1]

Not necessarily... You have to take into account that a fossil formation is EXTREMELY rare and changes are at best minimal generation to generation.

In fact, evolutionists admit that there are huge gaps where so-called missing links have yet to be found; hence, the term "missing link." If some alleged links can be found, one would expect others can be found as well. Also, many important so-called links are missing, not simply minor transitional links.

 

[TheDude]

In fact, evolutionists admit that there are huge gaps where so-called missing links have yet to be found; hence, the term "missing link." If some alleged links can be found, one would expect others can be found as well. Also, many important so-called links are missing, not simply minor transitional links.

1) Consider the time-line "we're" dealing with. [hint: it isn't a mear 6k years]

2) Evolutionary changes are slow.

3) Fossil formation is EXTREMELY rare, conditions have to be precise for a a dead creature to become a fossil.

4) Fossils are not easily found, even if a certain fossil exist it still has to be discovered.

 

[fossten]

1) Consider the time-line "we're" dealing with. [hint: it isn't a mear 6k years]

2) Evolutionary changes are slow.

3) Fossil formation is EXTREMELY rare, conditions have to be precise for a a dead creature to become a fossil.

4) Fossils are not easily found, even if a certain fossil exist it still has to be discovered.

Translation: You have zero fossil proof of evolution. The very absence of these missing links points toward Creation. Deal with it.

 

[TheDude]

Translation: You have zero fossil proof of evolution. The very absence of these missing links points toward Creation. Deal with it.

Well, animals becoming more diverse and specialized towards specific environments over time is proof in itself, deal with that... but I certainly love your [translation]:

"If we can prove 'A' to have faults than 'B' MUST be the only answer!"

Look, I can do it too:

We haven't found the Arc, so the Noah story has to be false solely based on that premise (though in reality, it's just down right silly; all baby animals and they were all vegetarian before the flood?)

We haven't found any fossilized giants; therefore David must have never taken out Goliath with a slingshot to the cranium.

 

[fossten]

Well, animals becoming more diverse and specialized towards specific environments over time is proof in itself, deal with that... but I certainly love your [translation]:

"If we can prove 'A' to have faults than 'B' MUST be the only answer!"

Look, I can do it too:

We haven't found the Arc, so the Noah story has to be false solely based on that premise (though in reality, it's just down right silly; all baby animals and they were all vegetarian before the flood?)

We haven't found any fossilized giants; therefore David must have never taken out Goliath with a slingshot to the cranium.

Animals becoming diverse and specialized toward specific environments, as you put it, are NOT to be equated with evolution. Darwinian evolution teaches a transition from one SPECIES to another, not adapting to weather or some other condition. Anyway, the dinosaurs didn't adapt, they died. There isn't a single prehistoric-type dinosaur alive today, nor are there fossils showing the transition phases. There are, however, fossils showing actual horses around the same time as dinosaurs. So much for evolution.

By the way, you misquoted me. You said, "If we can prove 'A' to have faults than 'B' MUST be the only answer!"

I was careful to say that it merely points in the direction of Creation, but you had to hyperbolically exaggerate my statement so you could then discredit it. That's a phony straw man argument, which you are very well known for.

 

[TheDude]

Animals becoming diverse and specialized toward specific environments, as you put it, are NOT to be equated with evolution. Darwinian evolution teaches a transition from one SPECIES to another, not adapting to weather or some other condition. Anyway, the dinosaurs didn't adapt, they died. There isn't a single prehistoric-type dinosaur alive today, nor are there fossils showing the transition phases. There are, however, fossils showing actual horses around the same time as dinosaurs. So much for evolution.

By the way, you misquoted me. You said, "If we can prove 'A' to have faults than 'B' MUST be the only answer!"

I was careful to say that it merely points in the direction of Creation, but you had to hyperbolically exaggerate my statement so you could then discredit it. That's a phony straw man argument, which you are very well known for.

No, minor adaptations over hundreds, thousands and/or millions of generations could/would lead to species diversification (evolution). Get off the "Darwin teaches" bit, ask any Evolutionist and they'll say that much of Darwin's work has been re-worked; he wrote "Origin of The Species" in 1859.

Also, it isn't necessarily one-species-to-another as you put it so cut and dry, species more or less branched out; not a rat turned into a badger and there weren't any more rats after that.

Dinosaurs existed for millions of years; species adapted, evolved and died out during those millennia. As far as the Dinosaur "mass extinction", whatever caused that, be it meteor, rapid environmental change, disease or anything else you can think of; the very fact that they died out because they couldn't adapt is [in a sense] Darwin thinking.

Please show me a horse fossil dated in sync with a dinosaur one.

You're calling my argument phony? Proving something to have faults does not make the opposing argument any more (or less) valid by default. E.g., what if we're both completely wrong.

 

[Marcus]

Animals becoming diverse and specialized toward specific environments, as you put it, are NOT to be equated with evolution. Darwinian evolution teaches a transition from one SPECIES to another, not adapting to weather or some other condition. Anyway, the dinosaurs didn't adapt, they died. There isn't a single prehistoric-type dinosaur alive today, nor are there fossils showing the transition phases. There are, however, fossils showing actual horses around the same time as dinosaurs. So much for evolution.

A minor point, but since you somehow tie this to a fault in evolution, the fact is that dinosaurs died out around 65 million years ago. The earliest known ancestor to the horse was Hyracotherium, which didn't come into existence until the Eocene, which was 50 million years ago, or 15 million years after the dinosaurs.

As for your definition of evolution being the transition from one species to another, biologists can't even agree on the definition of the word "species" to begin with (a fact which has no effect on the validity of evolution). The ability to reproduce is only one simple definition, but doesn't work when talking about animals that are able to self-reproduce. The further back in the fossil record you go, the more organisms start to look similar, blurring any clear delineation between separate species.

And we do indeed have examples of transitional animals, the precursors to the whale being one. The fact that we don't have a perfect sequence from one fossil to the next only speaks to the fact that fossil formation is so rare. There are plenty of indicators in the fossils we DO have that link the primitive land dwellers to whales.

Of course I would never expect any of this to convince you. I'm only posting this to counter your argument that scientists have no evidence of transitional species, which is flat-out wrong. You choose to reject or ignore the evidence, which is fine by me.

 

[fossten]

Both of you are just spouting talking points without any evidence with which to back them up. It's a waste of good cyberspace.

 

[TheDude]

Also DNA comparisions... Chimpanzees and Humans share something like 95% of the same DNA. Does this mean that humans are chimps and chimps are humans? No; what it means is, we have common ancestry going WAY back.

 

[TheDude]

Both of you are just spouting talking points without any evidence with which to back them up. It's a waste of good cyberspace.

Let's see that horse that ran with the dinos?

 

[Marcus]

Both of you are just spouting talking points without any evidence with which to back them up. It's a waste of good cyberspace.

No, we've provided evidence. You just choose to ignore it. The fact that you replied with your inane remark no more than 10 minutes after I posted the link to the whale article proves that.

 

[fossten]

No, we've provided evidence. You just choose to ignore it. The fact that you replied with your inane remark no more than 10 minutes after I posted the link to the whale article proves that.

To use one of your phrases, I don't have time to get into this right now, and it's not going to convince you anyway, since any evidence I provide you will reject or ignore. So what's the point?

You may enter the "last word" here: __________________________________

 

[TheDude]

To use one of your phrases, I don't have time to get into this right now, and it's not going to convince you anyway, since any evidence I provide you will reject or ignore. So what's the point?

You may enter the "last word" here: __________________________________

I'd still love to see that horse though...

 

[MAC1]

Also DNA comparisions... Chimpanzees and Humans share something like 95% of the same DNA. Does this mean that humans are chimps and chimps are humans? No; what it means is, we have common ancestry going WAY back.

Ahh...That's still about 1 million mutations away from being identical. The chimp argument is not as convincing as you may think.

 

[TheDude]

Ahh...That's still about 1 million mutations away from being identical. The chimp argument is not as convincing as you may think.

Huh? If chimp DNA was "identical" in it's sequence to human DNA then a chimp wouldn't be a chimp, it'd be human.

Also, not sure if you're implying that [evolution dictates] humans evolved from chimps, but that isn't the case either.