Our brain. What Evolution cannot account for!

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?
 

LJ4ptplay

Starter
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.
 

LJ4ptplay

Starter
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.
 
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?
 

KnicksFan4Realz

Benchwarmer
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.
 

KnicksFan4Realz

Benchwarmer
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.
 

Paul1355

All Star
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.

The amount of proof of the Bible can either be tremendous or very little depending on the research of the person presenting it...i have seen people really look into it and amazed me with the amount of visual evidence for certain events the Bible mentions. Look at it from a religious historian or religious scientist point of view and you may see some things you cant explain.
 
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.


He did not expose anything, he has a certain way he chooses to view things, and that's his right.

Those are people who have written these things and said them. Period. If the best you can do is say incomplete qoutes, then more power to you.
 

KnicksFan4Realz

Benchwarmer
He did not expose anything, he has a certain way he chooses to view things, and that's his right.

Those are people who have written these things and said them. Period. If the best you can do is say incomplete qoutes, then more power to you.

You have already been proven to have quoted them incorrectly and half-assed!! Not only did he show all the quotes you posted...but in their ENTIRETY..which clearly go against what you're trying to claim.

Seriously now you're just plain being a liar.
 
You have already been proven to have quoted them incorrectly and half-assed!! Not only did he show all the quotes you posted...but in their ENTIRETY..which clearly go against what you're trying to claim.

Seriously now you're just plain being a liar.

Actually smartest man who ever lived, read it again. Carl Hagan did say exactly what was quoted. His quote was not taken out of context neither, because he went on to elaborate that if the universe has a deisgner then its an imperfect one. That still does not mean that there could be a designer.

His arguement was that it appears that Hagan was saying evolution is not a fact, and that is not what the book brought out with the quote. It was just quoting Hagan for saying essentially the argument could be brought up, not whether or not he supports creationism or not.

This is called discernment.
 

KnicksFan4Realz

Benchwarmer
Actually smartest man who ever lived, read it again. Carl Hagan did say exactly what was quoted. His quote was not taken out of context neither, because he went on to elaborate that if the universe has a deisgner then its an imperfect one. That still does not mean that there could be a designer.

His arguement was that it appears that Hagan was saying evolution is not a fact, and that is not what the book brought out with the quote. It was just quoting Hagan for saying essentially the argument could be brought up, not whether or not he supports creationism or not.

This is called discernment.

U still did not even provide the whole quote in your original statement...only because the ACTUAL WHOLE QUOTE NEGATED YOUR ARGUMENT.

So at this point you have ZERO 0 CREDIBILITY.

WHAT U DID IS CALLED...

LYING!! PERIOD.

THE WHOLE QUOTE AGAIN IN ITS ENTIRETY

"The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer"
 
Last edited:
U still did not even provide the whole quote in your original statement...only because the ACTUAL WHOLE QUOTE NEGATED YOUR ARGUMENT.

So at this point you have ZERO 0 CREDIBILITY.

WHAT U DID IS CALLED...

LYING!! PERIOD.

THE WHOLE QUOTE AGAIN IN ITS ENTIRETY

"The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer; perhaps some species are destroyed when the Designer becomes dissatisfied with them, and new experiments are attempted on an improved design. But this notion is a little disconcerting. Each plant and animal is exquisitely made; should not a supremely competent Designer have been able to make the intended variety from the start? The fossil record implies trial and error, an inability to anticipate the future, features inconsistent with an efficient Great Designer"

Full quote, partial quote, it still is the same. The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer.
Him elaborating does not change that it could be consistent witha great designer. His elaboration is just his reasoning for why he feels the designer would be inefficient.

Yet his quote in full, or partial does not say that there is not a designer. He just argues if there is one, he is not effiecient. And that of course, is his opinion.

But this remains...""The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer"
 

KnicksFan4Realz

Benchwarmer
Full quote, partial quote, it still is the same. The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer.

Him elaborating does not change that it could be consistent witha great designer. His elaboration is just his reasoning for why he feels the designer would be inefficient.

Yet his quote in full, or partial does not say that there is not a designer. He just argues if there is one, he is not effiecient. And that of course, is his opinion.

But this remains...""The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer"

STOP LYING.
 

LJ4ptplay

Starter
Full quote, partial quote, it still is the same. The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer.
Him elaborating does not change that it could be consistent witha great designer. His elaboration is just his reasoning for why he feels the designer would be inefficient.

Yet his quote in full, or partial does not say that there is not a designer. He just argues if there is one, he is not effiecient. And that of course, is his opinion.

But this remains...""The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a Great Designer"

STOP IT...STOP IT. STOP F*CKING LYING!!! God dammit. What the f*ck is wrong with you people. After I just exposed Paul1533 for lying in the Richard Dawkins Thread, I come to this thread and see you lying again. Jesus Christ!! You are done. All of you. You've been caught in a lie. Lying about you lying makes you look worse. You even quote me out of context too. That is LYING motherf*cker.

If Carl Sagan (not Hagan...liar) says "the fossil record COULD be consistent with a designer, but IT'S NOT" (which is essentially what he's saying) and you say..."Carl Sagan said the fossil record could be consistent with a designer"...you are lying. Dishonesty is a form of lying. And I said this a few pages ago. But you keep lying. Your credibility is finished.

But I'll restate what I just said in the Dawkins thread:
Religious people bury their heads in the sand and ignore facts and irrefutable evidence. Then they lie about the facts and evidence to make it seem their lies are true. But that's just it. They want to believe in a God. They don't want to believe their lives are insignificant. It makes them feel special and they don't want science showing them they are not.
 
Why the hostility?

It's not that deep. If it is lies, then move on.

I move on after I show you don't know an ounce of the bible after I show you the truth.

You choose to bury your head in the sand there quite nicely.

You think you have a clue about the bible, and you know as much about it as a new born baby.

And when this is shown to you, you have nada to say. That though, is the smartest thing you have done. Say nothing. Cuz that is what you know about the bible.
 
Top