|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Living fossils expose evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3
|
Now 120 posts in we cut to the chase.
They do not know the Engineer of living organisms nor do have they come to trust His word that He means what He says. I see you have come here to preach not actually give evidence. Well if you want to preach head over to the faith forums. Are you taking a few classes at a christian college, because most classes only require you to post 20 messages on "evolutionist" forums. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5235 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
You seem to be abundantly unaware what evolution is, what it says, what it predicts, and what could disprove it. All you are showing is known, accounted for, and indeed proof FOR evolution. On what planet? But this is the kind of thinking that keeps me from returning to the theory of evolution as even a reasonable theory. Showing photo after photo of fossils that have obviously not changed (or very little change) over millions of yrs is 'proof' of evolution? Backwards thinking indeed. It's as simple as this: A 1957 Chevy (in 1957)
Compared to a rebuilt 1957 Chevy:
What's the difference between the two? The hubs, the fin decoration, etc. But they are both still the same 'species' and 'family'. No one who knows cars will mistake the rebuilt car for anything other than a 57 Chevy. That is because the intelligent engineers who made it. So it is with living organisms. Variations within the kind are according to the design of the Engineer, Almighty God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Didn't you see this?
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5235 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
I see you have come here to preach not actually give evidence. Well if you want to preach head over to the faith forums. Are you taking a few classes at a christian college, because most classes only require you to post 20 messages on "evolutionist" forums. You need to stop your complaining and address the issue. It matters not to me if talk about the Creator/God disturbs you. The facts are there and they don't lie....(right?) The subject of this websiste is creation vs evolution; do you think that such a discussion will therefore leave out talk about a 'Creator'? I am nearly 60 yrs of age and have not been a student for 25 yrs. Now deal with the facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3259 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined:
|
Showing photo after photo of fossils that have obviously not changed (or very little change) over millions of yrs is 'proof' of evolution? Evolution neither predicts nor demands the amount of phenotypical changes for a given lineage over a given amount of time. We can make assumptions about the number of mutations that will happen and the percentage of those that will become fixed, but again, this is not a hard and fast number. If the environmental niche the animal inhabits doesn't change much, why would they need to change much? Evolution predicts they won't. So showing pictures of animals that don't change much makes evolution yawn and say, "Yeah, so?" Second, looking at what's left of the animals in a fossil is a very poor way of knowing alot about how the animal looked. We don't know its coloration, we don't know it's habits, we don't know it's fine morphology (the things that don't readily fossilize, but would be noticeable in a living animal). SHowing me two different skeletons and saying they look similar is like pointing out that Toyotas and Fords both use metal, plastic and rubber in grossly the same shape and saying they all must have been made by the same person. It just don't work that way.
No one who knows cars will mistake the rebuilt car for anything other than a 57 Chevy. Quite right. And no one who knows the type of animal in question will mistake the two examples in any of the numerous "picture posts" you make for being the same species.
Variations within the kind are according to the design of the Engineer, Almighty God. Before we can even debate this, we need a hard and fast definition of "kind." I would say evolution demands the same thing, I define "kind" as "life that exists on this planet." In that case, all variation is variation within kind, as predicted by evolution. Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Do you understand that showing animals in stasis, that have not evolved much lately, doesn't really say anything about all the other animals that have been evolving?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5235 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Post your source. I did! Read carefully please. I even gave the page number.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5235 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Evolution neither predicts nor demands the amount of phenotypical changes for a given lineage over a given amount of time. That is so much balderdash. The definition of evolution according to Sir Julian Huxley.
Evolution can be defined as a directional, essentially irreversible process, occurring in time, which in its course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its products. Our present knowledge forces us to the view that the whole of reality is evolution — one single process of self-transformation. Evolutionists are such chamelions on this issue. They invent arguments that 'prove' the changes from one kind of organism to another and they deny that changes are made in those that won't give them the changes they hoped to see in the matter of living fossils. It's rather disgusting actually. Edited by Calypsis4, : correction, 'transition'to 'transformation'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5235 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Do you understand that showing animals in stasis, that have not evolved much lately, doesn't really say anything about all the other animals that have been evolving? They are ALL in stasis, friend. Get used to it. By the way, your little chart vanished from the screen both times you posted it and was replaced by that nasty little red 'x'. I can't comment on what I can't see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Did you intend that last paragraph to be written in the English language?
It is hard to decipher your meaning, except that it is plain that you are very angry at people who know more about biology than you do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
They are ALL in stasis, friend. Get used to it. I believe that I have already pointed out that making false statements, even repeatedly, will not magically make them true. Because your words do not have the power to erase reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Try this:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.4
|
They are ALL in stasis, friend. Get used to it. Once again: what are in statis? Are you claiming that Families don't change? Species? Genera? What? Don't just say "Kind", what is a Kind? How do we identify it? Are you sticking to your claim that a kind equates to the scientific concept of family?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Learned men? I do that all the time. And I find out that even those who have an expertise much better than mine in certain areas can indeed know details that I may not be familiar with but if their basic premise encompassing that field is wrong to begin with then no matter how well they can excel others in describing function or homology then it is no better than natives from a 3rd world country who had never seen a jet before but concluding upon their first view of one that it is a 'great silver bird!'. Such people might, in time be able to class the birds into large red ones, small blue ones, or long and short ones. They could observe that the 'great silver birds' leave chem trails, or that some could even fly much higher than others. But unlil those natives actually come into contact with the jet and its operators their entire basis of understanding is in error. So it is with Skeptic evolutionists. They do not know the Engineer of living organisms nor do have they come to trust His word that He means what He says. Ah yes, I was forgetting. You're a creationist. So the fact that you're wrong about everything in particular doesn't stop you from being right about everything in general; the fact that you know nothing about biology doesn't stop you from knowing better about biology than the world's biologists; and the fact that you're talking nonsense doesn't stop you from being absolutely correct. This is because you have a secret arrangement with God whereby everything you say is "His word" ... an arrangement so secret that God himself is apparently unaware of it. For if you were really speaking for God, then he, being all-knowing, would surely prevent you from repeatedly making a fool of yourself. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Calypsis4 Member (Idle past 5235 days) Posts: 428 Joined: |
Going further with the fossils in amber that reveal no evolutionary.
The phasmid encased in amber:
Compared with its offspring:
Where in the fossil record do we see phasmids evolving into non-phasmid?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024