Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 51

Thread: Our brain. What Evolution cannot account for!

  1. #16
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    What you fail to take into account is, these are comparisons to primate and other animal life on earth.
    This is not just about how we are designed ourselves. No other animal is history has comparable brain power to humans. From that standpoint, it appears that we were specially designed is the point. Especially since evolution says we came from monkeys. No monkey has the brain capacity of a human. So how could we evolve from them logically?

    In fact, I posted in the evolution thread about two of your found missing links . A scientists said if your africanus monkey was around it would be in the ZOO! It would not be in the workplace, not conducting the rides at six flags.. It would be.. BEHIND BARS IN A ZOO! LIKE A MODERN PRIMATE!

    You said, that is our ancestor. Not all scientists agree.
    We didn't evolve from the monkeys existing today. We both had a common ancestor, and diverted into two different species. A chimpanzee's DNA is 98.75% identical to ours.

    I'm confused as to your understanding of evolution. Could you explain? Because it's obvious that Australopithecus would not be considered human. In fact everything in that Evolution thread you posted does not refute evolution in any way. Actually, in many ways it refutes your faith.

    But again, I can't trust your continued quotes from creationist's websites. They are deceitful. If you copy and paste a statement from a creationist website that says "scientists can't agree on evolution", how am I supposed to trust that? I've already proven to you how dishonest they are. Post the link to the actual journal article and I will read it for myself. Otherwise, stop with the false quotes from scientists.

    Gen 9:
    28 And Noah continued to live three hundred and fifty years after the deluge. 29 So all the days of Noah amounted to nine hundred and fifty years and he died.

    Can you imagine how much healthier the patriarchs were compared to us? Noah dies at 950, you will die likely around 70 if the system lasted long enough.

    One of Adam’s sons was Cain, and one of Adam’s daughters must have become Cain’s wife. At that time in human history when humans still had outstanding physical health and vitality, as indicated by the length of their lives, the likelihood of passing on defects as a result of marrying a close relative was not great. After some 2,500 years of human history, however, when mankind’s physical condition had greatly deteriorated, Jehovah gave to Israel laws forbidding incest

    This shows Jehovah's wisdom in two ways. He knew that the patriarchs would be healthy enough to spawn mankind, but also knew eventually this would be a detriment to mankind, as we clearly know now for a fact.
    Hahaha! So they were extremely healthy?!? That's your answer!! That's the biggest bullsh*t you've come up with to date. And you've said a lot of bull sh*t. Did you just make that up, or does the bible actally say this. If it does, then that is another falsehood of the bible.

    Your overall health has nothing to do with the ability to avoid genetic diseases from interbreeding. And still, your religion is based on incest. That is disgusting. And by the way, history has shown that we are living longer than our ancestors.

    Yet we can't even get all the brilliant minds of science to agree on evolution. And you tell me, it's a fact?
    If that is your basis for refuting evolution then you must refute christianity. Because we can't get all of the christians or great religious scholars to agree on anything either.

  2. #17
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    I've asked this before, were you home-schooled? Just curious.

  3. #18
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Tyre and Alex the great

    You have gone through great legnths to make your point, and I truly, truly commend you Lj. But the veiwpoint you hold is inaccurate, and this short discourse will show why. I added one with Alexander the great for the heck of it.

    ‘TYRE
    WILL BECOME A DRYING YARD FOR DRAGNETS’


    An example of the astonishing accuracy of Bible prophecy concerns the ancient Phoenician seaport city of Tyre. This city grew to be very great at the expense of other people. She was a manufacturer of metal objects, glassware and purple dyes, a trading center for overland caravans, a great import-export depot. Her merchants and tradesmen boasted of being princely and honorable. (Isa. 23:8) At one time friendly relations existed between Tyre and Israel. But this did not continue, for Tyre eventually allied herself with Israel’s enemies. Because of Tyre’s treachery toward Israel, God inspired his prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and others to predict that calamity would come upon this Phoenician seaport. We read, for example:
    "This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said, ‘Here I am against you, O Tyre, and I will bring up against you many nations, just as the sea brings up its waves. And they will certainly bring the walls of Tyre to ruin and tear down her towers, and I will scrape her dust away from her and make her a shining, bare surface of a crag. A drying yard for dragnets is what she will become in the midst of the sea. . . . Here I am bringing against Tyre Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon from the north, a king of kings, with horses and war chariots and cavalrymen and a congregation, even a multitudinous people. And I will make you a shining, bare surface of a crag. A drying yard for dragnets is what you will become. Never will you be rebuilt; for I myself, Jehovah, have spoken,’ is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah."—Ezek. 26:3-5, 7, 14.
    Secular history reports that Nebuchadnezzar began a siege of Tyre sometime after destroying Jerusalem and the temple of Jehovah’s worship in 607 B.C.E. The Jewish historian Josephus, drawing upon Phoenician annals and other previously written history, states that Nebuchadnezzar’s siege against Tyre lasted thirteen years. The Bible indicates that Nebuchadnezzar’s forces inflicted considerable damage upon Tyre.—Ezek. 26:8-11.

    Tyre recovered from this blow struck by Babylon. However, centuries later, Grecian forces under Alexander the Great moved against Tyre, which at that time was located on an island about half a mile (0.8 kilometer) from the mainland. When the inhabitants refused to capitulate to Alexander, he became enraged and had his men scrape up the ruins of the mainland city and throw them into the sea, thus building a causeway out to the island city. Then a sea battle took place in which Alexander’s forces prevailed. After a siege of seven months, Alexander’s men took the island city. When its inhabitants put up desperate resistance, the city was set on fire. It proved to be as another prophet, Zechariah, had foretold: "In the fire she herself will be devoured."—Zech. 9:4.

    Though Tyre kept trying to make a comeback through the centuries, the city repeatedly fell before hostile forces, just as God’s prophet had foretold. (Ezek. 26:3) What is the present condition of Tyre, which was one of the great sea powers of the ancient world? Ruins and a small seaport, called Sour (Sur), mark the site. Nina Jidejian, in her book Tyre Through the Ages (1969), declares: "The port has become a haven today for fishing boats and a place for spreading nets," exactly as prophesied through Ezekiel.—Ezek. 26:5, 14.


    MEDO-PERSIA
    AND GREECE TO SUCCEED BABYLON


    During the sixth century B.C.E., when Babylon held sway as the dominant world power, the prophet Daniel received an amazing dream vision involving two symbolic animals. The first was a ram (a male sheep) having two horns. "And the two horns were tall, but the one was taller than the other, and the taller was the one that came up afterward." (Dan. 8:3) What did this ram represent? An angel explained to Daniel: "The ram that you saw possessing the two horns stands for the kings of Media and Persia."—Dan. 8:20.
    Daniel was here given by name the world power that would succeed Babylon. True to these details, Babylon fell to Medo-Persia. The Medes (the smaller horn) at first were the stronger and the Persians thereafter gained ascendancy (the taller horn that came up afterward).

    What about the second animal of this vision? Daniel tells us that it was "a male of the goats coming from the sunset upon the surface of the whole earth, and it was not touching the earth. And as regards the he-goat, there was a conspicuous horn between its eyes."—Dan. 8:5.
    The he-goat does battle with the ram, overcoming it. (Dan. 8:6, 7) Then something unusual takes place. Daniel continues: "As soon as [the goat] became mighty, the great horn was broken, and there proceeded to come up conspicuously four instead of it, toward the four winds of the heavens."—Dan. 8:8.

    Upon inquiring of an angel as to the meaning of this part of his symbolic vision, Daniel received this reply:
    "And the hairy he-goat stands for the king of Greece; and as for the great horn that was between its eyes, it stands for the first king. And that one having been broken, so that there were four that finally stood up instead of it, there are four kingdoms from his nation that will stand up, but not with his power."—Dan. 8:21, 22.
    Here it is foretold that Medo-Persia would be followed as a world power by Greece.
    What about the he-goat’s "great horn" that was broken and in place of which four other horns appeared? As noted in the angel’s explanation, the great horn represented the "first king" of Greece as a world power. That was Alexander the Great. Interestingly, after Alexander died, in time his empire was divided up four ways among four of his generals, "toward the four winds of the heavens," as foretold.—Dan. 8:8.

    According to Josephus, this prophecy was shown to Alexander when he came near Jerusalem. We read: "When the book of Daniel was shown to him, in which he [Daniel] had declared that one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of the Persians, he believed himself to be the one indicated; and in his joy he dismissed the multitude for the time being, but on the following day he summoned them again and told them to ask for any gifts which they might desire."—Antiquities of the Jews, Book XI, chapter VIII, paragraph 5.


    And just for further proof of how bible prophecy is infallable

    HISTORY
    SIX CENTURIES IN ADVANCE


    A unique prophecy found in Daniel, chapter 9, gives details of history more than six hundred years in advance. This prediction specifies that "Messiah the Leader" would appear sixty-nine "weeks of years . . . from the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem," and that, shortly thereafter, Jerusalem and its temple would be destroyed. (Dan. 9:24-27; An American Translation) How was this fulfilled?

    A decree for the restoration and the rebuilding at Jerusalem was given by Persian King Artaxerxes Longimanus during the twentieth year of his reign. The decree went into effect in the fall of that year, which was 455 B.C.E. Counting forward sixty-nine weeks of years (each "week" being seven years long), or 483 years, from 455 B.C.E., brings us to the year 29 C.E. According to the Scriptural record, that was precisely the year in which Jesus of Nazareth presented himself as Messiah, at his baptism in the Jordan River.—Luke 3:21-23; 4:16-21.

    This same prediction states that Messiah would be "cut off . . . at the half of the [seventieth] week." (Dan. 9:26, 27) In precise conformity Jesus died on Passover Day in the spring of 33 C.E., exactly half a ‘week of years,’ or three and a half years, after his Messianic career began at baptism.—Matt. 26:2; John 13:1, 2.

    As for Jerusalem’s destruction, this prophecy states concerning the generation in which the Messiah would appear and be cut off in death: "And the city and the holy place the people of a leader that is coming will bring to their ruin. And the end of it will be by the flood. And until the end there will be war; what is decided upon is desolations." (Dan. 9:26) Five days before his death Jesus provided further details about this, as we read:
    "And when he got nearby [Jerusalem], he viewed the city and wept over it, saying: ‘If you, even you, had discerned in this day the things having to do with peace—but now they have been hid from your eyes. Because the days will come upon you when your enemies will build around you a fortification with pointed stakes and will encircle you and distress you from every side, and they will dash you and your children within you to the ground, and they will not leave a stone upon a stone in you, because you did not discern the time of your being inspected.’"—Luke 19:41-44.
    Concerning the foretold "fortification with pointed stakes," Josephus reports that, during the Jewish revolt, Roman General Titus urged the building of a wall around Jerusalem. His soldiers denuded the countryside of trees and erected in just three days an encircling fence of stakes nearly five miles (8 kilometers) long. In the holocaust that followed, 1,100,000 of Jerusalem’s "children" perished. As for the thoroughness with which these predictions of the city’s destruction were fulfilled, only three towers and a portion of the western wall remained standing. Josephus writes: "All the rest of the fortifications encircling the City were so completely levelled with the ground that no one visiting the spot would believe it had once been inhabited."

    This destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 70 C.E., some 605 years after Daniel wrote his Bible book (about 536 B.C.E.). How faith-inspiring it is to consider fulfillments of detailed Bible prophecies written centuries in advance! But Scriptural predictions do not deal merely with the distant past. Many are having a remarkable fulfillment today, and they indicate how you may enjoy a bright and happy future.


    Jehovah reveals prophecy to his people. In no part of the bible does Jehovah prophecy using a person who is not devoted to him in worship. Which is why most of the world is lost when it comes to bible prophecy except one group of people


  4. #19
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    We didn't evolve from the monkeys existing today. We both had a common ancestor, and diverted into two different species. A chimpanzee's DNA is 98.75% identical to ours.

    I'm confused as to your understanding of evolution. Could you explain? Because it's obvious that Australopithecus would not be considered human. In fact everything in that Evolution thread you posted does not refute evolution in any way. Actually, in many ways it refutes your faith.

    But again, I can't trust your continued quotes from creationist's websites. They are deceitful. If you copy and paste a statement from a creationist website that says "scientists can't agree on evolution", how am I supposed to trust that? I've already proven to you how dishonest they are. Post the link to the actual journal article and I will read it for myself. Otherwise, stop with the false quotes from scientists.



    Hahaha! So they were extremely healthy?!? That's your answer!! That's the biggest bullsh*t you've come up with to date. And you've said a lot of bull sh*t. Did you just make that up, or does the bible actally say this. If it does, then that is another falsehood of the bible.

    Your overall health has nothing to do with the ability to avoid genetic diseases from interbreeding. And still, your religion is based on incest. That is disgusting. And by the way, history has shown that we are living longer than our ancestors.



    If that is your basis for refuting evolution then you must refute christianity. Because we can't get all of the christians or great religious scholars to agree on anything either.
    Lemme ask you. Would our ancestors need to interbreed? Like once the first africanus came about, how did the others?

    And no, you can't get all Christians to agree, but they usually agree that God favored the Jews at one time. That said, Jesus came around and he taught exactly how Jehovah wanted things to be and how he would bring them about, even though the Jews had the same scrolls Jesus read from.

    So in similar fashion, most Christian faiths will agree or disagree. But only one Christian faith actually just does as the bible says so. No matter the translation. That is why they have Jehovah's favor.
    Last edited by Knicks4lyfe; Jul 29, 2008 at 19:59.

  5. #20
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    Lemme ask you. Would our ancestors need to interbreed? Like once the first africanus came about, how did the others?
    Lol. You don't understand evolution. They are very small changes over time. It doesn't just go into a new species, its a gradual change.

  6. #21
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    Lol. You don't understand evolution. They are very small changes over time. It doesn't just go into a new species, its a gradual change.
    Now here is the problem. On one end I hear some say, yea its a gradual change , then some say its rapid.

    The fossil record, the one record that should give massive evidence of graudal change does not in fact do that. It shows sets of species appearing at the same time. One different from the next.

    It should in fact show gradual signs if what you say is true. It doesn't. So what now?

  7. #22
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    Now here is the problem. On one end I hear some say, yea its a gradual change , then some say its rapid.

    The fossil record, the one record that should give massive evidence of graudal change does not in fact do that. It shows sets of species appearing at the same time. One different from the next.

    It should in fact show gradual signs if what you say is true. It doesn't. So what now?
    The fossil record does show a gradual change over a long period of time.

    You can see rapid change in evolution, but it is typically from less complex organisms that have a high birth rate (i.e. multiple mating seasons, many offspring per births). We have actually witnessed this form of evolution in many species today.

    Normally though, evolution is a gradual change over a long periond of time. More commonly with organisms that have a low birth rare (i.e. few mating seasons, few offspring per birth). This gradual change is usually in sequence with the environment, which also changes gradually over a long period of time. But, when the environment changes drastically, over a short period of time, extinctions or severe population reductions to low birth rate organisms occur.

  8. #23
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,497
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Believing that life came from an organsim, requires more faith than Chrisitianity.

  9. #24
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Paul1355
    Believing that life came from an organsim, requires more faith than Chrisitianity.
    I disagree. Believing that life came from life is far easier than believing that life came from an invisible being.

    Plus there is more evidence of evolution than there is of God.

  10. #25
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by Paul1355
    Believing that life came from an organsim, requires more faith than Chrisitianity.
    Where did God come from?

  11. #26
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    The fossil record does show a gradual change over a long period of time.

    You can see rapid change in evolution, but it is typically from less complex organisms that have a high birth rate (i.e. multiple mating seasons, many offspring per births). We have actually witnessed this form of evolution in many species today.

    Normally though, evolution is a gradual change over a long periond of time. More commonly with organisms that have a low birth rare (i.e. few mating seasons, few offspring per birth). This gradual change is usually in sequence with the environment, which also changes gradually over a long period of time. But, when the environment changes drastically, over a short period of time, extinctions or severe population reductions to low birth rate organisms occur.

    That's fine. But I am reading that the fossil record shows no such thing. Unless I am missing something. Like here.

    No Transitional Features

    28 Another difficulty for evolution is the fact that nowhere in the fossil record are found partially formed bones or organs that could be taken for the beginning of a new feature. For instance, there are fossils of various types of flying creatures—birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According to evolutionary theory, they must have evolved from transitional ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have been found. There is not a hint of them. Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks two thirds or three quarters as long as at present? Are there any fossils of birds evolving a beak from a reptile jaw? Is there any fossil evidence of fish developing an amphibian pelvis, or of fish fins turning into amphibian legs, feet and toes? The fact is, looking for such developing features in the fossil record has proved to be a fruitless quest.

    29 New Scientist noted that evolution “predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” But it admitted: “Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by known intermediate forms. . . . known fossil species do indeed appear not to evolve even over millions of years.”31 And geneticist Stebbins writes: “No transitional forms are known between any of the major phyla of animals or plants.” He speaks of “the large gaps which exist between many major categories of organisms.”32 “In fact,” The New Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.”33—Italics added.

    30 This agrees with the extensive study made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Professor of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: “Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.” Moore added: “No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred.”34

    31 Thus, what was true in Darwin’s day is just as true today. The evidence of the fossil record is still as zoologist D’Arcy Thompson said some years ago in his book On Growth and Form: “Darwinian evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals from earlier quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock. . . . to seek for stepping-stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever.”

    Why are prominent people who study this, saying this? How am I the stupid one, for listening to people like D'Arcy Thompson who live for this stuff, and write books on it? What makes his opinion less to you, than someone who disagrees with him? Personal choice maybe?

    But there is more.

    What the Fossil Record Really Says

    36 When we let the fossil record speak, its testimony is not evolution-oriented. Instead, the testimony of the fossil record is creation-oriented. It shows that many different kinds of living things suddenly appeared. While there was great variety within each kind, these had no links to evolutionary ancestors before them. Nor did they have any evolutionary links to different kinds of living things that came after them. Various kinds of living things persisted with little change for long periods of time before some of them became extinct, while others survive down to this day.

    37 “The concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explanation for the presence of the diverse forms of life,” concludes evolutionist Edmund Samuel in his book Order: In Life. Why not? He adds: “No fine analysis of biogeographic distribution or of the fossil record can directly support evolution.”40

    38 Clearly, the impartial inquirer would be led to conclude that fossils do not support the theory of evolution. On the other hand, fossil evidence does lend strong weight to the arguments for creation. As zoologist Coffin stated: “To secular scientists, the fossils, evidences of the life of the past, constitute the ultimate and final court of appeal, because the fossil record is the only authentic history of life available to science. If this fossil history does not agree with evolutionary theory—and we have seen that it does not—what does it teach? It tells us that plants and animals were created in their basic forms. The basic facts of the fossil record support creation, not evolution.”

    How am I suppose to ignore this?

  12. #27
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    Where did God come from?
    U think you're really going to get a good answer to that one other than something in the form of..."He is as he always was"?

    When they argue from irreducible complexity is that stating GOD is the creator...automatically opens the next door which is..."What created God"? He will evade this question as he has no answer for this logically, because it would then suggest he's worshiping the wrong deity. And since this can't be negated...he's going to avoid the question or answer you from the book of riddles. Now if he says honestly, I do not know..atleast that's respectable.

  13. #28
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    That's fine. But I am reading that the fossil record shows no such thing. Unless I am missing something. Like here.

    No Transitional Features

    28 Another difficulty for evolution is the fact that nowhere in the fossil record are found partially formed bones or organs that could be taken for the beginning of a new feature. For instance, there are fossils of various types of flying creatures—birds, bats, extinct pterodactyls. According to evolutionary theory, they must have evolved from transitional ancestors. But none of those transitional forms have been found. There is not a hint of them. Are there any fossils of giraffes with necks two thirds or three quarters as long as at present? Are there any fossils of birds evolving a beak from a reptile jaw? Is there any fossil evidence of fish developing an amphibian pelvis, or of fish fins turning into amphibian legs, feet and toes? The fact is, looking for such developing features in the fossil record has proved to be a fruitless quest.

    29 New Scientist noted that evolution “predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” But it admitted: “Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by known intermediate forms. . . . known fossil species do indeed appear not to evolve even over millions of years.”31 And geneticist Stebbins writes: “No transitional forms are known between any of the major phyla of animals or plants.” He speaks of “the large gaps which exist between many major categories of organisms.”32 “In fact,” The New Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time.”33—Italics added.

    30 This agrees with the extensive study made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Professor of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: “Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.” Moore added: “No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred.”34

    31 Thus, what was true in Darwin’s day is just as true today. The evidence of the fossil record is still as zoologist D’Arcy Thompson said some years ago in his book On Growth and Form: “Darwinian evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals from earlier quadrupeds, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock. . . . to seek for stepping-stones across the gaps between is to seek in vain, for ever.”

    Why are prominent people who study this, saying this? How am I the stupid one, for listening to people like D'Arcy Thompson who live for this stuff, and write books on it? What makes his opinion less to you, than someone who disagrees with him? Personal choice maybe?

    But there is more.

    What the Fossil Record Really Says

    36 When we let the fossil record speak, its testimony is not evolution-oriented. Instead, the testimony of the fossil record is creation-oriented. It shows that many different kinds of living things suddenly appeared. While there was great variety within each kind, these had no links to evolutionary ancestors before them. Nor did they have any evolutionary links to different kinds of living things that came after them. Various kinds of living things persisted with little change for long periods of time before some of them became extinct, while others survive down to this day.

    37 “The concept of evolution cannot be considered a strong scientific explanation for the presence of the diverse forms of life,” concludes evolutionist Edmund Samuel in his book Order: In Life. Why not? He adds: “No fine analysis of biogeographic distribution or of the fossil record can directly support evolution.”40

    38 Clearly, the impartial inquirer would be led to conclude that fossils do not support the theory of evolution. On the other hand, fossil evidence does lend strong weight to the arguments for creation. As zoologist Coffin stated: “To secular scientists, the fossils, evidences of the life of the past, constitute the ultimate and final court of appeal, because the fossil record is the only authentic history of life available to science. If this fossil history does not agree with evolutionary theory—and we have seen that it does not—what does it teach? It tells us that plants and animals were created in their basic forms. The basic facts of the fossil record support creation, not evolution.”

    How am I suppose to ignore this?
    Why do you post incomplete quotations? He's already exposed you for doing this in the first place.

    Face it you have no leg to stand on in regards to your views that creationism is supported by evolution.

  14. #29
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,497
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    Lol. You don't understand evolution. They are very small changes over time. It doesn't just go into a new species, its a gradual change.
    From an organism to a chimp to a human...yea definite changes.

  15. #30
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,497
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    Where did God come from?
    What organism or chimp did you evolve from?

Similar Threads

  1. Explaining Evolution And Why GOD is NOT LIKELY
    By KnicksFan4Realz in forum Hangout
    Replies: 296
    Last Post: Jan 23, 2013, 17:16
  2. Debunking Ape man ancestor myth- WOW.
    By Knicks4lyfe in forum Hangout
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Oct 03, 2009, 22:28
  3. The Bible - Proof that Christianity is True
    By Paul1355 in forum Hangout
    Replies: 154
    Last Post: Jul 12, 2008, 19:38

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •