johnhanks
Well-Known Member
Libraries and museums are full of evidence for evolution. Take a look some time.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If asked...
- Thread starter Parsimony
- Start date
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
The problem is, all the evidence for change actually satisfies the OPs request for evidence of creationists common kinds. Yet, they are looking for more evidence. This is actually what creationists have been asking evolutionists for years, more evidence, and all we get is its science, or youre to dumb. Evidence for change, called evolution, is the evidence given for frog to man, which doesnt satisfy because the same evidence for change is also the evidence for the creation model that satisfies the OP.
Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
I know it won't make any difference, because the way that scientific data is interpreted is based on a philosophic framework about the past, rooted in assumption, however you should study more about observational science vs. historical science. What we see can tell us some about the past sure, but if there are multiple options about how we got here, either naturally or supernaturally, then one option is set aside based on a philosophy of naturalism that we call science. Observational and experimental science ends and naturalistic philosophy begins at some point in the evolution model, which is why it keeps changing and the evolution tree has been thrown out, even though it has been called a fact in the past. We are doomed to debate this until the world ends because of philosophy, not science.
AndromedaRXJ
Active Member
Yeah no.
Let me ask you, can you prove that the Greek gods Zeus or Poseidon exist? If you can't, it means your Christian bible is wrong. See how stupid that sounds? It's unfair for me to ask for proof of something that you or your religion doesn't even claim. Man did not evolve from frogs according to evolution. Frogs are modern amphibians.
Understand the framework and the actual predictions of Evolution, not what you think should be predictions of Evolution.
There is no such distinction. There is just science.
I think you're under the false idea that you have to see an event happen as it happens to know for sure that it happens. Which is not the case.
Most science relies on inference, or using indirect observations to arrive at conclusions, such as forensic science. Detectives have to rely on forensic science because they are almost never present at the event of a crime. Even still, there's plenty of times where they arrive at a conclusion with damn near certainty.
If you come home and see a window broken with the glass on the inside, there's A LOT you can conclude from that without actually being present when the event took place.
You know that whatever hit your window did it from the outside because broken glass is on the inside. If the broken glass is a certain distance from the window, you can calculate the force of impact. If it's a certain angle from the window, you know the angle of impact. If there's a small hole in the wall at the same angle as the broken glass and you find a bullet, now you know the bullet is what broke your window, AND you know the exact direction it came from.
Were you there for the event? No. Are there "multiple options" for a conclusion of what could happen? Maybe variations in specific detail, but it'd be foolish for someone to conclude that the window was, say, broken from the inside with a baseball bat.
The best option, by far, is a bullet impacted it from the outside.
Apart from Evolution, what other "option" is there to explain such smooth sequential changes in the fossil record?
Take for instance, the gradual development of the middle ear-bone in synapsid-to-mammal Evolution.
The following discussion is taken from
What other "options" or explanations are there for ERV markers in the genome?
(Skip to 7:58 in the video for information on ERV markers.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0
[/QUOTE]
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Can the evolutionists here just provide a chart or list of animals species evolution progression....
Gordian Knot
Being Deviant IS My Art.
Creationists seem to want it both ways. For example, they admit that evolution exists in modern times. That man himself has altered certain plants and animals, evolving them from one type to another.
Yet they insist that this could not have happened in the past. That all species began in their final form.
And of course, their evidence for this is a complete dodge in their statement that we weren't there to see it happen, therefor it could not have happened. As if the only form of legitimate evidence is visual.
Yet they insist that this could not have happened in the past. That all species began in their final form.
And of course, their evidence for this is a complete dodge in their statement that we weren't there to see it happen, therefor it could not have happened. As if the only form of legitimate evidence is visual.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Yet they believe in the Genesis account which they never personally saw, and not the author either. If Moses, or whoever who wrote Genesis, saw the Creation, it could not have been with physical eyes. Every bit and piece of it must be language that represents the events, not the actual scientific terms or descriptions. Simply because no one would be able to see Big Bang or God creating stars. Genesis is obviously a religious poetic descriptiion of God's act of creation, not a literal scientific journal. It should be read as a religious text. That's the purpose of the Bible as a whole. Young Earth Creationist literalists are missing the point of the Bible completely. They're worshipping the text, not the spirit.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Just show a chart or something, make a list....we show scriptures all the time.
AndromedaRXJ
Active Member
In my last post I posted a link on sequential changes in synapsid-to-mammal Evolution. It shows you a chart.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Did you read, earlier in the thread, I brought up /proto-mammal/ and this thread turned into chicken little.
AndromedaRXJ
Active Member
Well address the smooth sequential/transitional changes in the fossil record of proto-mammals. Make that fit into the creationist framework, if you can.
The best way I would be able to do it is to assume some god deliberately made it look like Evolution took place and kept killing off populations of organisms only to replace them with slightly more advanced variants, and kept repeating this cycle. But not before assuming that said god exists in the first place.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Hmm, lets see if others answer on this thread.
I was more interested in the cat discussion tbh.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Wiki has a short list here: List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Berkeley has a database without pictures of 500,000 fossils, which is not complete either. No one has worked on a internstional fossil database yet, as far as I know.
Berkeley has a database without pictures of 500,000 fossils, which is not complete either. No one has worked on a internstional fossil database yet, as far as I know.
i don't need to. I receive periodically issues of Nature and Scientific American. They seem not to have studied more about observational vs. historical science, either. Silly people, they still speak of electrons, although nobody ever observed one directly, lol.
This difference is only in the mind of creationists. After all, I don't think they have much left than inventing not existing differences in the scientific process.
Yes. The problem, of course, is that natural explanations evict supernatural explanations all the time. The reverse never happens, for some reason.
So, your alleged epistemological symmetry in interpretations has a pretty unbalanced record. Naturalism wins, supernaturalism loses. 1000,0000'000 to 0.
The evolution tree has been thrown out? I am afraid, Nature and Scientific American might have missed the peer reviewed research from Answers in Genesis or other oximorons like Christian Science
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
AndromedaRXJ
Active Member
No, let's see you address the sequential changes of the highly suggestive progression in synapsid Evolution.
Nice try, but I'm not gonna let you dodge this and let you fall back on "I'm more interested in cats, so show me changes among them. Examples of other groups of organisms don't count, for absolutely no reason I can come up with."
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Lol what a joke, you're lucky I responded to this thread in the first place.
Ridiculous..
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
Does it really? For instance, is it your view that birds are the same "kind" as dinosaurs? Fossil evidence unearthed in the last twenty or so years shows a pretty seamless transition between the two: is this accommodated in "creationists common kinds"?
I would very much like to see a recorded exchange between a creationist and a scientist culminating in the put-downs you quote. Link, please?
What you've actually been getting, of course, is the extra evidence you say you're looking for - new fossils, ERVs etc.
Could you please quote for me the source that claims humans are descended from frogs?
No, were not, you have done nothing but troll.
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
AndromedaRXJ
Active Member
I did.