Evolution is true? (macro evolution)

[Overswarm]

Crimson King, you are absolutely right in every respect. However, I think that we should try to counter Jona on his own terms, in hopes that he might be "enlightened" by out point of view.
On another note, homosexuality, atheism, other religions, etc. not only fly in the face of an omnipotent creator, but are good enough arguments for free will/nihilism and evolutoin to stand on their own. Of course, the standard creationist argument is "God wanted it that way, and that's how He made it." I guess you have to keep Satan company somehow.
What I (still) want is one, just one, logical and well-concieved argument AGAINST evolution.

 

[MattNF]

The question remains, where did those cells come from?

Abiogenesis, RNA World, Miller-Urey Experiment.

Do some research plz.

EDIT: I'll do it for you, lol.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

 

[Overswarm]

Abiogenesis, RNA World, Miller-Urey Experiment.

Do some research plz.

EDIT: I'll do it for you, lol.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

....and where did the materials to make these proteins come from?

It goes back and back, and no amount of words will change that. At some point, the rules were different and something went POP and was just there.

 

[Dolente]

Ignoring the straw man arguments inherent.... yes, you do believe we came from nothing. The question remains, where did those cells come from? In the beginning, there was ____. That's all you've got. Your best answer is "I don't know", so you can't slam him very hard for that.

My answer is "hundreds of millions of years of volcanic oceans and other environmental factors playing with highly reactive and organic carbon."

Flawed from your standpoint, perhaps. If we were meant only to see and some of us had degenerative conditions with our eyes, then sure... but your attributing your own personal beliefs as to what we are "made for" to God, which you cannot do. That's like a casual smasher calling a tournament a failure because there weren't any Final Smashes, you can't do that and expect to be taken seriously.

I am now convinced that it has been a very long time since you read Genesis. We were "made in the image of God, to do His bidding," so unless God is unpredictably flawed unto Himself, he either:
a) Didn't do it right, in which case He is not omniscient
b) Didn't have the means to recreate an avatar, in which case He is not omnipotent, or
c) Wanted certain people to suffer and die, in which case He is not someone I want to worship.

Which of these sounds more plausable than millions of years of small genetic mutations?

<Edit>

It goes back and back, and no amount of words will change that. At some point, the rules were different and something went POP and was just there.

Did you actually read that? The carbon that forms our bodies was forged in the primordial furnaces of this universe! It was "there" to begin with! Nothing went "pop," it went, "BANG!"

 

[RyanPF]

I was going to wait until I got home, but Jona, you are being so laughably ignorant that I am posting on my iPhone.

First, you claim Evolutionists believe that we came from nothing, which is false. We came from cells over millions of years. You however believe we can from dust and wind after about a day when a magical, invisible man decided to create us.

Where did the cells come from? And you might check your definition of God. God is not a human the last time I checked.

Secondly, let's pretend god made us. He is the most flawed creator in history of creation. First, he allows gay people to exist, which is counter productive. Any manufacturer would say if something isn't producing it is shutdown. Then, using your ******** examples, cans and watches are less flawed then we are. The eye comes in numerous shapes, sizes, and defficiencies. If god created the eye, he failed because many people suffer from degenerative conditions with their eyes.

Fact is if god created us, he either failed or abandoned us or we are examples of evolution.

God made everything perfect, then people screwed it up. Think of it as dressing up your kid in a suit for a wedding, then the kid eats the flower and rips the sleeves. Is it your fault? Of course not, you did everything right and the kid is the one that messed it up.

 

[Dolente]

Where did the cells come from? And you might check your definition of God. God is not a human the last time I checked.

You might want to read the last few pages of this thread... we have linked to and stated this at least three times.

God made everything perfect, then people screwed it up. Think of it as dressing up your kid in a suit for a wedding, then the kid eats the flower and rips the sleeves. Is it your fault? Of course not, you did everything right and the kid is the one that messed it up.

If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, why would he create people even capable of "screwing it up?" If God made everything perfect, why does the Earth have hurricanes, tidal bores, earthquakes, massive volcanic eruptions, and meteors hurtling at it?

 

[jellis186]

I always find the attempt to apply logic to a being that defies all logic to be absolutely hilarious. But if that is what we are going to do, lets go ahead and use one single argument to disprove your logic.

I am assuming that people feel God has a plan for everyone and everything, that his actions shape our lives to some end result or to help us build to be better people or whatever. Yet you also claim to have free will.

Lets stop for a moment and examine this. Assume that a beggar asks you for a dollar, we can say that it is God testing your generosity to lesser man. Fine, that works. But what about the beggar? Did he choose to ask you for a dollar or did God place him there to ask you for a dollar.

Well if God chose, does this man have free will? Is he any less human than you are, does he deserve any less free will? Did God affect the entirety of this mans life to lead up to lead up to this moment of asking you for a dollar?

What about all the people he interacted with in his life? Were they all designed to help this man become a beggar only to lead up to this single instance of him asking you for a dollar? What about his parent, and grandparents and great grand parents? Were the entirety of their actions dedicated to building a man who would become a beggar who would ask you for a dollar?

What about the disease that ripped through his great, great, great, great grandfathers village killing almost everyone in it. Did God prevent this disease from killing this man simply so his descendant could one day ask you for a dollar?



What I am not doing here is saying god doesn't exist. What I am saying is that you can not use logical fallacies such as the dichotomy between free will and predetermination to try explain any logical argument.

 

[manhunter098]

....and where did the materials to make these proteins come from?

It goes back and back, and no amount of words will change that. At some point, the rules were different and something went POP and was just there.

Well the assumption would be that all matter/energy in the universe has and always has existed. Thats pretty much part of the idea behind the big bang theory. Either way essentially when the Earth was formed conditions were good for creating proteins and nucleotides, and given the nature of those molecules and the processes they cause to occur life was essentially able to form out of the matter that already existed.

 

[MattNF]

....and where did the materials to make these proteins come from?

It goes back and back, and no amount of words will change that. At some point, the rules were different and something went POP and was just there.

I see where you're getting at with this.

At some point, the rules were different...

Prove it.

something went POP and was just there.

Again, [citation needed].

The Universe could be eternal, with the time dimension being created at the Big Bang. In fact, recent insights into supersymmetric string theory show that this could be possible. Saying what was before the Big Bang is like saying "What's north of the north pole?". The question doesn't make sense.

 

[RyanPF]

You might want to read the last few pages of this thread... we have linked to and stated this at least three times.

And none of you have given a satisfactory answer. All the elements necessary? Where did they come from? Where did the bang come from?

If God made everything perfect, why does the Earth have hurricanes, tidal bores, earthquakes, massive volcanic eruptions, and meteors hurtling at it?

Read what I said again. When God created the world, none of those things happened.

If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, why would he create people even capable of "screwing it up?"

Now you're asking good questions. I think the answer is this: God thinks the earth is nice and all, but his purpose in creating it wasn't to have a nice perfect little piece of machinery. The earth is here for the people, not the other way around.

 

[kr3wman]

Read what I said again. When God created the world, none of those things happened.

So you're saying we're the cause of earthquakes?

 

[MattNF]

And none of you have given a satisfactory answer. All the elements necessary? Where did they come from? Where did the bang come from?

I already answered that. I can also flip the question around right back at you: Where did God come from?

Now you're asking good questions. I think the answer is this: God thinks the earth is nice and all, but his purpose in creating it wasn't to have a nice perfect little piece of machinery. The earth is here for the people, not the other way around.

Why did God create people? So he could be worshipped? Sounds quite self-centered and egotistical... which are qualities of humans, not Gods. Did he create them for fun? But why would a god neeed to create people for fun? Gods shouldn't get bored, that's why they're gods.
You see where I'm going with this.

 

[RyanPF]

So you're saying we're the cause of earthquakes?

Not directly, no. But since mankind is responsible for bringing death into the world (thanks Adam), everything is affected by it. It's like changing one line of code in a program can cause seemingly unrelated effects.

I already answered that. I can also flip the question around right back at you: Where did God come from?

God is outside of the physical realm and therefore doesn't have to come from anywhere. A supernatural being can't be disproved because it exists outside of what we can see and comprehend. Evolution has no such luck because it has to come up with an explanation entirely contained within the physical realm and therefore can be disproved.

Why did God create people? So he could be worshipped? Sounds quite self-centered and egotistical... which are qualities of humans, not Gods. Did he create them for fun? But why would a god neeed to create people for fun? Gods shouldn't get bored, that's why they're gods.
You see where I'm going with this.

He's God. He gets to do whatever the heck he wants. And no, I don't see where you're going with that. Gods are gods because they don't get bored? Is that what you said? Wow!! All I have to do to become a god is stay busy!!

 

[jellis186]

RyanPF, please do a little research into chemistry and astrophysics before you ask stupid questions such as, where it all come from? It is very easy to simply say I have no explanation, therefore God did it than to say, at this time, we neither have the means nor the understanding to answer that question.

What your doing isn't commendable, its lazy.

 

[Dolente]

And none of you have given a satisfactory answer. All the elements necessary? Where did they come from? Where did the bang come from?

I am very sure that this answer has been given. All of the ingredients have always been there. After enough natural recombinations, you'll get organic compounts. Where did God come from? Did He create Himself? Who/what/when/where/how were His powers granted? My answers are all in "A Breif History of Time," where are yours?

Read what I said again. When God created the world, none of those things happened.

This implies that natural disasters, plagues, and spontaneous human combustion are all our fault. I don't think Moses Magnum was a real person, so I will continue to read what you wrote until I get it.

I think the answer is this: God thinks the earth is nice and all, but his purpose in creating it wasn't to have a nice perfect little piece of machinery. The earth is here for the people, not the other way around.

But He created humankind ... why bother, if it wasn't for Him? I'm sure that He has many other objects available for amusement, but boredom should be impossible for an omniscient being, nevermind the fact that there is NO REASON to experiment when you already know the answer.

Not directly, no. But since mankind is responsible for bringing death into the world (thanks Adam), everything is affected by it. It's like changing one line of code in a program can cause seemingly unrelated effects.


God is outside of the physical realm and therefore doesn't have to come from anywhere. A supernatural being can't be disproved because it exists outside of what we can see and comprehend. Evolution has no such luck because it has to come up with an explanation entirely contained within the physical realm and therefore can be disproved.


He's God. He gets to do whatever the heck he wants. And no, I don't see where you're going with that. Gods are gods because they don't get bored? Is that what you said? Wow!! All I have to do to become a god is stay busy!!

You have got to be kidding me. Mankind is responsible for bringing death ... and which all-knowng being created mankind again? If God is outside of the physical realm, then there must be another realm that he is in! What is it? And no, He cannot do whatever He wants, unless he is not omnibenevolent, in which case He should be no one's God.

 

[RyanPF]

RyanPF, please do a little research into chemistry and astrophysics before you ask stupid questions such as, where it all come from? It is very easy to simply say I have no explanation, therefore God did it than to say, at this time, we neither have the means nor the understanding to answer that question.

What your doing isn't commendable, its lazy.

"Where did it all come from" is a stupid question? Then why are we trying to explain where we came from? We should just live and forget about this silly question of where we came from.

All of the ingredients have always been there.

If you think the ingredients have always been there, why do you have trouble believing that God has always been there?

You have got to be kidding me. Mankind is responsible for bringing death ... and which all-knowng being created mankind again? If God is outside of the physical realm, then there must be another realm that he is in! What is it? And no, He cannot do whatever He wants, unless he is not omnibenevolent, in which case He should be no one's God.

Excuse me, I meant to say the He is not limited to the physical realm because He created the physical realm. And explain to me why He can't do whatever He wants.

 

[manhunter098]

There is a MASSIVE difference between the question where did it all come from and where did we come from. For one we can actually answer one of those questions. We came from evolution. But if god needs not a beginning I would say that neither does the universe, and so I will say that everything always has existed just not necessarily in this state.

Physics and chemistry are the most likely reason for life to exist, not a god.

 

[MattNF]

God is outside of the physical realm and therefore doesn't have to come from anywhere. A supernatural being can't be disproved because it exists outside of what we can see and comprehend.

The same thing can be said about Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Superman Invisible Pink Unicorns, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster. That doesn't mean they're real, though. There's no reason to believe in any of those things without proof.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/argumentfromignorance.html

I ask you for proof that a God or Gods exist. Also, why do you find it logical to believe in God but not Santa Claus?

Evolution has no such luck because it has to come up with an explanation entirely contained within the physical realm and therefore can be disproved.

Yep, evolution can be disproved.

Except it hasn't.

He's God. He gets to do whatever the heck he wants. And no, I don't see where you're going with that. Gods are gods because they don't get bored? Is that what you said? Wow!! All I have to do to become a god is stay busy!!

More flawed arguments...

I was saying that gods should not have irrational human emotions, because they're not humans. They're gods. And why would you be busy if you were a god? A god shouldn't be busy either, since they're omnipotent and can do everything and anything at once.

Heh, btw I found this humorous pic:

 

[Dolente]

Excuse me, I meant to say the He is not limited to the physical realm because He created the physical realm. And explain to me why He can't do whatever He wants.

Okay, this is getting to the point that I am being forced to repeat myself several times:
Given: God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent:
Omnibenevolence means that He cannot fully untilize omnipotence, because He cannot perform malicious deeds. Thus, He cannot do whatever He wants. Is this clear? Or is God not always good? Do you want to worship a being that is all-powerful, but malevolent? I personally would not be very cool with that.

I'm still waiting for a response on my refutation of human beings creating death and earthquakes.

 

[RyanPF]

The same thing can be said about Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Superman Invisible Pink Unicorns, and The Flying Spaghetti Monster. That doesn't mean they're real, though. There's no reason to believe in any of those things without proof.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/argumentfromignorance.html

I ask you for proof that a God or Gods exist. Also, why do you find it logical to believe in God but not Santa Claus?

Santa's real !1!11!! No, just kidding. The reason I don't believe in Santa is because he doesn't bring me presents (or coal) like Santa is supposed to. If you read the entire Bible and find something that God is supposed to do that He doesn't, tell me.

Yep, evolution can be disproved.

Except it hasn't.

No argument here. It all depends on your definition of "disproved."

More flawed arguments...

This looks so funny when it's quoted in the message box; it looks like you're saying that you're going to give more flawed arguments. XD

I was saying that gods should not have irrational human emotions, because they're not humans. They're gods. And why would you be busy if you were a god? A god shouldn't be busy either, since they're omnipotent and can do everything and anything at once.

OK, I misunderstood your oddly-worded thought. And what irrational human emotions are we talking about here?

Heh, btw I found this humorous pic:

Haha, that's cool. But I can't see how God is evil for giving the good people a home in a perfect world (heaven) and making the bad people suffer for their wrongdoing.

Okay, this is getting to the point that I am being forced to repeat myself several times:
Given: God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent:
Omnibenevolence means that He cannot fully untilize omnipotence, because He cannot perform malicious deeds. Thus, He cannot do whatever He wants. Is this clear? Or is God not always good? Do you want to worship a being that is all-powerful, but malevolent? I personally would not be very cool with that.

I'm still waiting for a response on my refutation of human beings creating death and earthquakes.

Actually, the three omnis are omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Here's the thing: death is not something that exists, it is a deficiency in something that does exist. Evil is simply the absence or incompleteness of good. I would compare to darkness. Darkness technically is not an object, it is merely the absence of light. Humans didn't create anything, they just destroyed it.

I'm not sure why I get into these conversations. It never ends and if I decide I've done all I can do, people point and say that I left because I was wrong.

 

[Dolente]

Santa's real !1!11!! No, just kidding. The reason I don't believe in Santa is because he doesn't bring me presents (or coal) like Santa is supposed to. If you read the entire Bible and find something that God is supposed to do that He doesn't, tell me.

I can tell that you are no Biblical scholar. I have studied the bible academically in several classes, and I have found that the more I read the Bible, the less I believe in any facet of Christianity or Judaism. According to the Bible, God has rescinded virtually everything that He has given to humanity: The garden of Eden - Gone; The Promised Land - Gone; one-thousand year life spans - Gone; not afflicting us with horrible circumstances and diseases - oh, he did. I'm not even out of the Old Testament, either. Could you perhaps show me something that God does for you that doesn't come from either your intrinsic self-satisfaction or another person?

Actually, the three omnis are omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Here's the thing: death is not something that exists, it is a deficiency in something that does exist. Evil is simply the absence or incompleteness of good. I would compare to darkness. Darkness technically is not an object, it is merely the absence of light. Humans didn't create anything, they just destroyed it.

I'm not sure why I get into these conversations. It never ends and if I decide I've done all I can do, people point and say that I left because I was wrong.

So God doesn't have to be good, then? That seems terrible! Omnipresent contradicts you: Didn't you just say that God is in some other realm? Death definately exists, man, I hate to break it to you. Death is not the absence of life. How can something be dead that was never alive? And I will say YET AGAIN that if God created humans and humans went about destroying His work, then he did not do a very good job, and is either not omniscient nor omnipotent. Take your pick, you're wrong either way.

 

[RyanPF]

I can tell that you are no Biblical scholar.

It's true that I haven't studied it in college. But I have read it cover to cover about 7 times and I've studied in-depth parts like the gospels.

I have studied the bible academically in several classes, and I have found that the more I read the Bible, the less I believe in any facet of Christianity or Judaism. According to the Bible, God has rescinded virtually everything that He has given to humanity: The garden of Eden - Gone; The Promised Land - Gone; one-thousand year life spans - Gone; not afflicting us with horrible circumstances and diseases - oh, he did. I'm not even out of the Old Testament, either. Could you perhaps show me something that God does for you that doesn't come from either your intrinsic self-satisfaction or another person?

When the people break their deal with God, they lose what God allows them to have.

Eden - God says not to eat from one tree. That's it! So what do they do? Eat from the tree of course!
Promised Land - God tolerates their shenanigans for a long time, but finally the people go too far and completely forsake God.
1000 years - I'm not familiar with this promise. I have to eat now but I will check on that later.

Actually I really have to go right now. I'll try to get back to you.

 

[virtualgamecafe]

huh?

wait, lemme say something. if the ingredients got there, how DID they get there? how would they get there?


the bible says god was always there, so you cant just assume he created himself, because we cant comprehend it at all. where did the big bang come from? what were the rules for it to happen? how did they magically change to something else? why go on with that theory when you dont have proof. lets get this in a picture. somehow, a dot apeared and faster thann anything, it got hot and exploded. that happened because crystals or ingredients or whatever you want to call it were magically there, and the universe was random and chaotic, then when the water had creatures, somehow diferent chemicals or whatever made some organism. then it changed or combined like super sayains or transformers, and they kept doing that to form animals, then later, buhzillllion years later, it made fish, birds, and all that stuff, which somehow made babys and they kept becoming different each time and somehow one was an ape, and the black apes had magic oreo babys that turned white after time, lost alot of hair and changed body strusture and all that, and became a man or woman, who somehow was able to f*** an ape so it had the same baby as him or her, then they kept changing to make TWO humans! and somehow the ods had it that they didn't change when they had babys, and they havn't been changing, and now they are here, and magic ones changed colors around the world and mad different color and shapped humans somehow while being able to be humans although they should have been something random also, and made humans until now, and the rules change so now they cant evolve and none have different babys now?




ya, horrible spelling and punctuation without much point, but how would you explain that?

its not that we're lazy and say an imaginary man created us all and floats in teh sky but is invisible and you can hear him if you try. no. we have proof and someone actually recorded what happened in books, and many people recorded what happened to make the bible, so we know what happened.....



i feel really dumb not being able to explain the way i want to, but i dont have the time to do that much.
you have to think of something you cant even explain just so you can feel as to win against believers in God? we have an explanation. go find yours then come back. you need to be able to say more than "oh, i can turn your answers back" and come op with a totally unoriginal question. people make up ideas that they think sound cool, make up a something, say they have proof, which is just info that they shape into the way theyt want. and go along with it.......what the fudge!?

you may try to get info that many people change it into crystals, evolution, big bang, organisms changing, ingredients in space apearing, etc, but there isn't much you can say or prove without thinking on your own....


i keep forgetting what i wanted to say, so lemme just post this.....



anyways, how could the rules change? the universe doesn't think......if i drop a pencil, why cant it go up, fall left, turn alive, explode, pee on me, whatever? why does it have a set area to fall in and that be the rule that never chaanges ever?





you are treating the universe as your god. you think it created you. its just another got for you to believe in. an idol....


i need to go for today.

 

[Crimson King]

Still on phone so I can't quote, but I figured of the issues with the debate. Creationists are forcing atheists to assume god exists, so we have the burden of disproving god AND proving evolution(which we have done through ignored examples). To creationists: make god into a theory and prove he is at least possible. Google what quantifies as theory because while evolution is "just a theory", then god, as Dawkins once said, is just a hypothesis.

 

[Overswarm]

Still on phone so I can't quote, but I figured of the issues with the debate. Creationists are forcing atheists to assume god exists, so we have the burden of disproving god AND proving evolution(which we have done through ignored examples). To creationists: make god into a theory and prove he is at least possible. Google what quantifies as theory because while evolution is "just a theory", then god, as Dawkins once said, is just a hypothesis.

Whether the argument fits into mankind's philosophical paths has no impact on whether it is true or false. In the case of God, something that exists outside of our rules, it is more likely he is an exception.

Simply put, you can't disprove the idea any more than you can prove it.

 

[kr3wman]

<Simply put, you can't disprove the idea any more than you can prove it.

Then why even debate about the idea of God?

This is all pretty stupid.

 

[manhunter098]

@virtualgamecafe

Nothing indicates that anything needs to have been created and you dont understand big bang theory very well. Basically lets assume that all of the matter and energy in the universe BECAME condensed into a single point, but was unstable and thus exploded, now you have a reasonable cause for the big bang. Granted it cant be proven, but it does make sense and something like that would work within the lines of physics.

As for evolution, we already know that the molecules necessary for life to form WILL be generated in the proper environmental conditions. There is an experiment that already proves this. As for increasing complexity in life forms, essentially once you have a chemical that will cause a reaction to occur if there is energy present, and it is a very dynamic chemical, like RNA and proteins are, then there is room for with random recombination and mutations that it can become more effective, by that merit alone progress will continue to be made as long as it is physically possible. Really look into evolution a bit more, actually learn some biology and chemistry, think about it scientifically and you should think "hey that actually makes sense".

 

[RyanPF]

Then why even debate about the idea of God?

This is all pretty stupid.

Exactly. I don't think anybody's going to change their mind because of this debate.

Peace out.

 

[kr3wman]

I was talking about the idea of God.

 

[otg]

Then why even debate about the idea of God?

This is all pretty stupid.

lollllllllll Perfect.

One word Jona: "Dinosaurs"

 

[Wizard Of Seraphym]

Posting so I don't lose the thread, I've been reading on this same topic plenty before and I have read multiple theories over this, so after I get home I'll give you all a piece, so long as this doesn't turn into a flame war.

 

[Crimson King]

If it's anti-religion, you are proving that religious people are wasting their time. If it's pro-religion, you are proving science wastes their time. You will offend someone in this argument.

 

[JonaDiaper]

Second condition for macro evolution to be considered true.

that one specie gradually changes over time into another species.

scientists line up various creatures point out similarities and say they are obviously descended from a common evolutionary ancestor.

have you seen the charts in school textbooks?
they go from fish to reptiles to mammals.

lets say i line up cars of various styles from a certain manufacturer according to their size,
from sub compact to luxary cars and pointed out similarities.

would you say they obviously had a common ancestor?
or with your common sence think they had a common maker?

at best the fossils used to create the charts demonstrates

such as the variety within horses, but is there proof of one species changing into another? no

in fact there is proof of the opposite, that they didnt. for it if were true, all species would have spent more time in transition then in completion thus the fossil record would reveal millions upon millions of transitional forms.

charles darwin acknowledged this lack of transitional forms as one of his theory's fatal flaws

"as by this theory innumerable tranistional forms must have existed."

why havent we found them?

geological research does not yield the infinatley many fine gradations between past and present species requiered by the theory.

there should be millions upon millions of fossils in the intermidiate stages of their transitions. but there are none.

he said the problem was the imperfection of the fossil record, that we havent seen enough of it.
that has been remedied with modern geology

150 years after darwin what do we find in the fossil record? fully formed wolly mamoths, whole fish, whole reptiles and so on.

everything in the fossil record appears to be fully formed and true to its own kind.

there are no creatures with partially formed skeletons, or partial fins or beaks

umong the billions of fossils found we dont find one example of the transitional forms darwin said must exist ifhis theory of evolution were true.

the fossils record should show gradual transition from lesser forms to the more complex forms for this theory to be true.

 

[manhunter098]

Second condition for macro evolution to be considered true.

that one specie gradually changes over time into another species.

scientists line up various creatures point out similarities and say they are obviously descended from a common evolutionary ancestor.

have you seen the charts in school textbooks?
they go from fish to reptiles to mammals.

lets say i line up cars of various styles from a certain manufacturer according to their size,
from sub compact to luxary cars and pointed out similarities.

would you say they obviously had a common ancestor?
or with your common sence think they had a common maker?

at best the fossils used to create the charts demonstrates

such as the variety within horses, but is there proof of one species changing into another? no

in fact there is proof of the opposite, that they didnt. for it if were true, all species would have spent more time in transition then in completion thus the fossil record would reveal millions upon millions of transitional forms.

charles darwin acknowledged this lack of transitional forms as one of his theory's fatal flaws

"as by this theory innumerable tranistional forms must have existed."

why havent we found them?

geological research does not yield the infinatley many fine gradations between past and present species requiered by the theory.

there should be millions upon millions of fossils in the intermidiate stages of their transitions. but there are none.

he said the problem was the imperfection of the fossil record, that we havent seen enough of it.
that has been remedied with modern geology

150 years after darwin what do we find in the fossil record? fully formed wolly mamoths, whole fish, whole reptiles and so on.

everything in the fossil record appears to be fully formed and true to its own kind.

there are no creatures with partially formed skeletons, or partial fins or beaks

umong the billions of fossils found we dont find one example of the transitional forms darwin said must exist ifhis theory of evolution were true.

the fossils record should show gradual transition from lesser forms to the more complex forms for this theory to be true.

Well if you look at two HUMAN skeletons can you tell they are the same species? So then why cant you tell if another species is just slightly different, and likely an ancestor of another species. We can see the differences within a species, nothing stops us from understanding the differences between species either. You really show a clear lack of understanding of evolutionary theory an no motivation to learn anything about it.


Essentially with evolution there is no transition stage, the "transitions" as you would call them perform different functions than the "fully formed" parts do.


Now seriously, read this link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/), and actually learn about the theory of evolution before you go making assumptions that are based on nothing but your own conjectures.

 

[TP]

Whether the argument fits into mankind's philosophical paths has no impact on whether it is true or false. In the case of God, something that exists outside of our rules, it is more likely he is an exception.

Simply put, you can't disprove the idea any more than you can prove it.

This is a major problem. One of the key principals of science is falsifiability. If something can't be proven false, it can't be considered valid (Math is an exception). Evolution can be proven false. It is falsifiable. If we suddenly found a car in great condition next to some dinosaur bones, evolution is over. Cell theory can be disproved by finding a gigantic living blob.

God is not falsifiable. No matter what evidence is made against Him, the religious folk can always say "God made it that way," "He's testing our faith," etc. That is not valid science I'm not sure if this matters or not to any of you, but I felt it had to be pointed out.

Now, on to the Big Bang. What caused it? I don't know. That's okay. It would be stupid to say humans know everything or will ever know everything. That's okay. I feel that religious people need an answer to everything, so they make God that answer. I think a much more rational choice is to accept that I don't know and not guess at the answer in a nonscientific way.

Science can explain everything, even if we don't know those explanations.

 

[JonaDiaper]

maybe you should read the quote from darwin again.

and maybe you shouldnt try and define evolution your own way.

its darwins theory not yours. his theory has the flaw, in your own theory its perfect and has no flaws

speaking to manhunter btw

 

[Dolente]

Second condition for macro evolution to be considered true.

that one specie gradually changes over time into another species.

scientists line up various creatures point out similarities and say they are obviously descended from a common evolutionary ancestor.

have you seen the charts in school textbooks?
they go from fish to reptiles to mammals.

lets say i line up cars of various styles from a certain manufacturer according to their size,
from sub compact to luxary cars and pointed out similarities.

would you say they obviously had a common ancestor?
or with your common sence think they had a common maker?

at best the fossils used to create the charts demonstrates

such as the variety within horses, but is there proof of one species changing into another? no

in fact there is proof of the opposite, that they didnt. for it if were true, all species would have spent more time in transition then in completion thus the fossil record would reveal millions upon millions of transitional forms.

charles darwin acknowledged this lack of transitional forms as one of his theory's fatal flaws

"as by this theory innumerable tranistional forms must have existed."

why havent we found them?

geological research does not yield the infinatley many fine gradations between past and present species requiered by the theory.

there should be millions upon millions of fossils in the intermidiate stages of their transitions. but there are none.

he said the problem was the imperfection of the fossil record, that we havent seen enough of it.
that has been remedied with modern geology

150 years after darwin what do we find in the fossil record? fully formed wolly mamoths, whole fish, whole reptiles and so on.

everything in the fossil record appears to be fully formed and true to its own kind.

there are no creatures with partially formed skeletons, or partial fins or beaks

umong the billions of fossils found we dont find one example of the transitional forms darwin said must exist ifhis theory of evolution were true.

the fossils record should show gradual transition from lesser forms to the more complex forms for this theory to be true.

You, sir, have a LOT to learn. There are far too many errors here for me to take one by one, so I'll just hit the highlights:
1)If you insist upon using cars, they DO have a common ancestor, the prototype patented by Karl Benz in 1885. It was from this four-wheel design that all other modern cars were conceived.
2) You need to realize that evolution fueled by natural selection is a process that produces a great many intermediate forms, but these are not necessarily long-lived. Taking into account the perfect conditions that must be present to form a fossil, I am not personally surprised that few have been found. Along this lines, many of the Paleolithic fossils, mammoths, fish, and others were found as a result of the time in or around the Ice Age, when conditions were MUCH more conducive to creation of fossils. If you were right about nonevolution, why have we not found fossils of genetically identical humans from 1,000,000 years ago?
3) If a creature had a partially formed ANYTHING, it would probably die pretty quickly, and not enough would be populated to increase the chances to the point of a fossil being formed. You must realize that natural selection tends to pick home runs over base hits, meaning that if a fish is mutated with no gills, it will instantly die, but if a fish mutates to have functional lungs AND gills, like some salamanders (which are an example of an intermediate form that has changed VERY LITTLE in the past few hundred thousand years) then it will survive quite well, and be reproduced as a result of its superior characteristics.

 

[JonaDiaper]

for 1) ok got me there i guess


for 2) your saying that the transitions werent long lived?

so they were too fast to see the transition between them?

im not sure thats what you mean but,

isnt an argument we dont see macro evolution now that its too slow so we cant see it?

and even so out of the millions and millions of fossils that could have and should have been made none of them exist?

thats odd..

for 3) i dont even know what to say

 

[manhunter098]

maybe you should read the quote from darwin again.

and maybe you shouldnt try and define evolution your own way.

its darwins theory not yours. his theory has the flaw, in your own theory its perfect and has no flaws

speaking to manhunter btw

Thats why I said you dont know anything about evolution. Darwins theory is old and outdated, we have better models for evolution now. Funny that you didnt seem to know that. Furthermore theories are DESIGNED TO CHANGE based on observations that are made. You do realize that even newtons law of universal gravitation has changed since it was first put forth.

for 1) ok got me there i guess


for 2) your saying that the transitions werent long lived?

so they were too fast to see the transition between them?

im not sure thats what you mean but,

isnt an argument we dont see macro evolution now that its too slow so we cant see it?

for 3) i dont even know what to say

We actually can see evolution and given enough work we could probably create new species through artificial selection, but really, look at dogs, which all have a common ancestor and tell me that species cannot diverge over time.

 

[Crimson King]

Why are you assuming that the transitional phase would even be noted? The ape-like creature "Lucy" is considered the first creature to walk upright. How did this happen? Apes, who were at risk of lions in the wild, would stand upright to see them approaching. This began taught to the young, and in turn, became to be the only form of motion. With this pack of apes, they were able to outlast other apes like them because they could see predators coming.

Jonadiaper, I will close this topic if you do not stop just replying. People have provided you with LOADS of information and you just say "Nah, that's not true," or cite Darwin with no sources. Stop. This is quickly becoming tiresome for me and will end soon.