Just Accidental?

[Hockeycowboy]

You,me, Darwin and every evolutionist at the time the theory was proposed agree entirely on the logic;

I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't know, but progress through random mutations means lots of very small steps, not great leaps- we should see vast numbers of intermediates. The lack of these was originally attributed to being an artifact of an incomplete record, the gaps would be smoothed out over time, as fossils emerged. In stark contrast, the gaps, leaps, sudden appearances have become ever more abrupt, well defined.

There are countless examples of transitionals that were once claimed as evidence for evolution, based purely on superficial physical appearance, but were later debunked.

The remaining ones like hippos to whales, have never been confirmed- they are just the remaining ambiguous ones- though like all the others, the available time slot for this miraculous metamorphosis is ever shrinking to absurdly small time frames

Yet these shrouded events, where the light of science cannot illuminate...and contrary to all evidence, testing and modelling MUST be where all that evolutionary magic happened somehow- because the theory demands it

evolution of the gaps

Hello, Guy, I sure enjoyed your posts!

I just wanted to mention, all these myriads of anatomy-modifying generations, had to have begun, not 3.8 billion years (as these evolutionists would have us think), but really, only 550 - 600 million years, since life was unicellular before that! About 1/7th of 3.8 billion!

That is correct, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello, Guy, I sure enjoyed your posts!

I just wanted to mention, all these myriads of anatomy-modifying generations, had to have begun, not 3.8 billion years (as these evolutionists would have us think), but really, only 550 - 600 million years, since life was unicellular before that! About 1/7th of 3.8 billion!

That is correct, right?

Nope. The Cambrian marked the evolution of life's ability to make hard body parts such as shells. Multi-cellular life is much older than the Cambrian:

Ediacaran - Wikipedia

The beginning of the Ediacaran is not marked by the onset of a particular type of life, as later eras are marked. It is marked by strata that indicate an ice age. The beginning of multi- cellular life is hard to define. Like many beginnings in evolution it is hard to even define, much less spot.

 

[Deeje]

What we do find are more and more fossils that always fall into the evolutionary paradigm and the creationists cannot even come up with one. It is a case of mountains of evidence against none at all.

But of course...what other paradigm are they going to fall into when evolutionists are putting their own interpretation on their evidence?

The "mountains of evidence" have been examined and found to be molehills made out of vivid imaginations.
So unless you want to present some actual evidence that macro-evolution ever took place, (and please do not post anything on adaptation or anything that is based on a belief or faith) your responses here are redundant.....its a long thread and its all been said before. You are just rehashing.

Based upon evidence, more than half of which you have ignored. And once again no evidence to the contrary. Find some evidence for your claims and you might convince some people.

LOL....what evidence? Please tell me what I ignored?

You seem to think that those who believe in ID (I am not a creationist BTW) need evidence over and above what we can see with our own eyes and can evaluate with our God-given intelligence. Our claims I believe, are way more convincing than the fairy tale that you guys accept without question. It makes me wonder if you have ever read your own science? Its got holes you can drive a Mack Truck through.

There are over 50 species of ancestral and side species that have been identified to date. Trying to refute the argument with an over simplified argument is not proper. Of course if a proper one was used any honest person would immediately see that horses evolved. Here let me help you:

"Ancestral and side species"....what does that even mean? That there is a wide variety of animals that belong in the equine family? There is no evidence that horses evolved from that "tiny" ancestor....or even that he was an ancestor at all. That is an assumption linking these animals like dots on some evolutionary line, but no one really knows. Science just talks like it does. Without the detailed diagrams, what would they have really?

I must emphasize the point that creation "scientists" are afraid to form a testable model that has not been almost instantly refuted that explains the fossil record. We don't need to know how God did it to explain the fossil record, but it needs to be explained if someone wants to claim that creationism is true.

I am not a creation scientist, nor am I a YEC. I do not depend on science for my beliefs at all, even though I believe that true science backs up ID way better than the musings of scientists trying to convince people that macro-evolution is true.

With a Creator, who invented the science that evolutionists study, who needs to rely on man-made testing to reveal the existence of an Intelligent first cause of it all? We can see evidence of his handiwork everywhere we look.

The Bible explains how creation was fashioned and it backs up what science already knows...that "all life comes from pre-existing life". The Creator is the lifeform from which all other life originated....unless you believe that life just accidentally popped into existence one day, for no apparent reason, and magically transformed itself into all the lifeforms we see on earth today......? There is not a shred of solid evidence that macro-evolution ever took place. Adaptation is not in question, but what is suggested outside of what can be demonstrated in lab experiments, is all guesswork.
If there was real evidence, it would have been presented by now.....there is an easy way to solve the argument....produce the proof. Up to this point in time, evidence has been shoved aside in favor of the loud but empty protestation of those who have to resort to name calling to try and discredit those who believe that creation had to have been designed....and beautifully.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The Bible explains how creation was fashioned and it backs up what science already knows...that "all life comes from pre-existing life". The Creator is the lifeform from which all other life originated....

So what pre-existing life did God come from?

 

[Thief]

If there was any evidence at all for the creation side then rational thinking people would change their minds, if enough evidence was found. To date there is not any scientific evidence at all for creationism that I am aware of. In fact I have yet to meet a creationist that understands the nature of evidence.

yeah, yeah.......

and the story of Genesis was sooooooooooooo imaginative

and the play of events
the selection
the anesthesia
the surgery
the cloning
the genetic manipulation
are just pure conjecture
delivered to a people that could not understand

and yet they believed

the story is not going to fade

 

[Thief]

If by "transitional" you mean that a creature can alter its color or other physical feature to compensate for a change in diet or environment?....then yes....but it will always be in the same taxonomic family. What science cannot provide is any evidence that adaptation went further than what they can actually test in a lab. Beyond adaptation, it is all assumption....not proven fact.

Speciation as described by science, provides evidence that it creates variety within a family of creatures...it never creates a new species outside of it own family of creatures. That is a fact.

Darwin's finches are still finches....the iguanas have adapted to a marine environment, but they are still iguanas. No creature has been shown to transform itself into an entirely different animal or even a different kind of bacteria.



Of course there are many creatures that existed back before recorded history, but science concludes that there is relationship or descent because they want that to be true. But the so called "missing links" are all still missing. That is because they never existed. When you examine the fossils, they tell no story at all apart from the one scientists want them to tell.

go deeper......
at some point there was no animal life as we know it

supposedly, we share 50% of our genetics......with plants

 

[SkepticThinker]

But of course...what other paradigm are they going to fall into when evolutionists are putting their own interpretation on their evidence?

The "mountains of evidence" have been examined and found to be molehills made out of vivid imaginations.
So unless you want to present some actual evidence that macro-evolution ever took place, (and please do not post anything on adaptation or anything that is based on a belief or faith) your responses here are redundant.....its a long thread and its all been said before. You are just rehashing.

LOL....what evidence? Please tell me what I ignored?

You seem to think that those who believe in ID (I am not a creationist BTW) need evidence over and above what we can see with our own eyes and can evaluate with our God-given intelligence. Our claims I believe, are way more convincing than the fairy tale that you guys accept without question. It makes me wonder if you have ever read your own science? Its got holes you can drive a Mack Truck through.



"Ancestral and side species"....what does that even mean? That there is a wide variety of animals that belong in the equine family? There is no evidence that horses evolved from that tiny" ancestor....or even that he was an ancestor at all. That is an assumption linking these animals like dots on some evolutionary line, but no one really knows. Science just talks like it does. Without the detailed diagrams, what would they have really?



I am not a creation scientist, nor am I a YEC. I do not depend on science for my beliefs at all, even though I believe that true science backs up ID way better than the musings of scientists trying to convince people that macro-evolution is true.

With a Creator, who invented the science that evolutionists study, who needs to rely on man-made testing to reveal the existence of an Intelligent first cause of it all? We can see evidence of his handiwork everywhere we look.

The Bible explains how creation was fashioned and it backs up what science already knows...that "all life comes from pre-existing life". The Creator is the lifeform from which all other life originated....unless you believe that life just accidentally popped into existence one day, for no apparent reason, and magically transformed itself into all the lifeforms we see on earth today......? There is not a shred of solid evidence that macro-evolution ever took place. Adaptation is not in question, but what is suggested outside of what can be demonstrated in lab experiments, is all guesswork.
If there was real evidence, it would have been presented by now.....there is an easy way to solve the argument....produce the proof. Up to this point in time, evidence has been shoved aside in favor of the loud but empty protestation of those who have to resort to name calling to try and discredit those who believe that creation had to have been designed....and beautifully.

Your god did not invent science. Humans came up with the scientific method. Your God has yet to provide is with something as useful as that. If you think your God invented it, let's see the proof you constantly demand from others.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So what pre-existing life did God come from?

God gets to break the rules, don'tcha know?

 

[Thief]

and tweak any genetic structure He cares to.....

 

[Jose Fly]

@Deeje I concluded a while ago that a reasonable, rational discussion with you simply isn't possible. If you'd like to know why, I refer you to the following.....

I have not seen one single shred of your evidence that was remotely convincing in the first place.

As I've pointed out to you multiple times, you declared very early on in this thread: "No one will ever convince me that the billions of amazing lifeforms on this planet evolved from a single organism that somehow sprang to life in some primordial soup billions of years ago."

The fact that you don't see the problem there is just further testimony to your self-delusion and solid justification for not wasting time with you.

 

[Jose Fly]

This applies to anyone. Many fear the consequences and loss of friends, reputation, and what ensues if they were to question anything regarding evolution theory or the discerning as to what is actual science and what is pseudoscience masquerading as science.

Many "scientists" themselves also fear loss of career, grants, money, reputation if they oppose the status quo in anyway.

It is slavery to be a people pleaser, worry about reputation, worry about what others will think of them if someone decides to be free and escape those chains.

“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”
— Albert Camus

That's quite a series of accusations. Any actual substance behind them?

 

[Jose Fly]

Once again ID accepts the empirical scientific evidence,

ID creationism is dead.....has been for quite some time now. It was crafted as a means to subvert court rulings and get creationist talking points into classrooms, and the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial put an end to that. Put that together with fact that it never accomplished a single thing scientifically and there's only one conclusion to reach....it's dead.

You should probably let it go, drop the facade, and just argue for straight up Biblical creationism.

 

[FearGod]

No, it isn't. Talk to an insurance actuary. They can explain how their work is not "accidental". Don't focus on the individual. That is a common creationist error. Focus on the population. There will always be variation in a population. That is not an accident.

And how mutations aren't random, and then it's about chances that a mutation is useful and
not harmful, natural selection comes next.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But of course...what other paradigm are they going to fall into when evolutionists are putting their own interpretation on their evidence?

The "mountains of evidence" have been examined and found to be molehills made out of vivid imaginations.
So unless you want to present some actual evidence that macro-evolution ever took place, (and please do not post anything on adaptation or anything that is based on a belief or faith) your responses here are redundant.....its a long thread and its all been said before. You are just rehashing.

First off no one owns evidence. It is just evidence. There is no reliable evidence for creationism, tap dancing of creationists supports that claim of mine. Of course a creationist could surprise me and find actual evidence for their beliefs. And evidence has been presented for evolution (please note that "macro-evolution" is a bogus creationist term and should not be used. The only difference between micro and macro in evolution is time.

And of course we are rehashing. When creationists refuse to learn rehashing is the result.

LOL....what evidence? Please tell me what I ignored?

The list is endless, but your response only indicates that you do not understand the nature of evidence. How about we discuss what is and what is not evidence first so that this error is not repeated.

You seem to think that those who believe in ID (I am not a creationist BTW) need evidence over and above what we can see with our own eyes and can evaluate with our God-given intelligence. Our claims I believe, are way more convincing than the fairy tale that you guys accept without question. It makes me wonder if you have ever read your own science? Its got holes you can drive a Mack Truck through.

Then you need to define what you mean by "ID". ID can mean many different things from God guided evolution, including common descent, to just creationism. If you do not accept the fact of common descent then you are a creationist.

"Ancestral and side species"....what does that even mean? That there is a wide variety of animals that belong in the equine family? There is no evidence that horses evolved from that tiny" ancestor....or even that he was an ancestor at all. That is an assumption linking these animals like dots on some evolutionary line, but no one really knows. Science just talks like it does. Without the detailed diagrams, what would they have really?

]

You really don't know? Then you do not even understand what a transitional fossil is. And again you prove that you do not understand the concept of evidence. There is no point in going on until we go over some of the basics so that you do not keep repeating the same errors.

I am not a creation scientist, nor am I a YEC. I do not depend on science for my beliefs at all, even though I believe that true science backs up ID way better than the musings of scientists trying to convince people that macro-evolution is true.

Not being a YEC does not mean that you are not a creationist. So far your posts indicate that you are a creationist. And you are wrong. Science doe not back up ID one iota. That is why your side lost in front of a conservative judge in Dover. Once again learning what and what is not evidence would help you greatly in this debate.

With a Creator, who invented the science that evolutionists study, who needs to rely on man-made testing to reveal the existence of an Intelligent first cause of it all? We can see evidence of his handiwork everywhere we look.

This is a bogus claim that creationist make all of the time, but then they only go on to demonstrate that they have no evidence and do not understand the concept.

The Bible explains how creation was fashioned and it backs up what science already knows...that "all life comes from pre-existing life". The Creator is the lifeform from which all other life originated....unless you believe that life just accidentally popped into existence one day, for no apparent reason, and magically transformed itself into all the lifeforms we see on earth today......? There is not a shred of solid evidence that macro-evolution ever took place. Adaptation is not in question, but what is suggested outside of what can be demonstrated in lab experiments, is all guesswork.
If there was real evidence, it would have been presented by now.....there is an easy way to solve the argument....produce the proof. Up to this point in time, evidence has been shoved aside in favor of the loud but empty protestation of those who have to resort to name calling to try and discredit those who believe that creation had to have been designed....and beautifully.

No, the Bible does not explain anything. It only makes unsupported claims. Once again that is why your side constantly loses in the courts. Judges understand the nature of evidence. It is part of their job.



Instead of a constant repetition of claims that only demonstrate a lack of understanding of basics let's go over what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And how mutations aren't random, and then it's about chances that a mutation is useful and
not harmful, natural selection comes next.

Individual mutations are random, but that does not mean that evolution is random. The mistake made here is ignoring natural selection. When variation is combined with natural selection the results are not random. This is so obvious that it should not have to be repeated constantly.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What we do find are more and more fossils that always fall into the evolutionary paradigm and the creationists cannot even come up with one. It is a case of mountains of evidence against none at all.

Please tell me, then: what prediction and evolutionary paradigm did the Cambrian Explosion meet? That fit no evolutionary paradigm. But it does fit creation, organisms with fully developed appendages appearing suddenly, with no precursors in the strata beneath.

Both in the Burgess and Chiangjeng shale...they contain well-defined body structures of life forms, even the soft-bodied. I have quite a few fossils of them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Please tell me, then: what prediction and evolutionary paradigm did the Cambrian Explosion meet? That fit no evolutionary paradigm. But it does fit creation, organisms with fully developed appendages appearing suddenly, with no precursors in the strata beneath.

Both in the Burgess and Chiangjeng shale...they contain well-defined body structures of life forms, even the soft-bodied. I have quite a few fossils of them.

You should take a trip up here by me, where you can visit the Precambrian Shield and view all kinds of precursors in the strata.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Hold on, SZ!

I said multicellular life appeared about 550 to 600 million years ago. Then you said:

Nope. The Cambrian marked the evolution of life's ability to make hard body parts such as shells. Multi-cellular life is much older than the Cambrian

Here's the Wikipedia article on the Ediacaran:
"This geological period was from 635–542 million years ago (mya), but the fossil biota was only from 575–542 mya."

So my timeframe was right on, since we're discussing the fossils.

It's always wise to know the current understanding, before posting.... don't you think?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You should take a trip up here by me, where you can visit the Precambrian Shield and view all kinds of precursors in the strata.

Not hard-shelled forms, like the trilobites.

I'd really like to visit the area, again.

 

[FearGod]

Individual mutations are random, but that does not mean that evolution is random. The mistake made here is ignoring natural selection. When variation is combined with natural selection the results are not random. This is so obvious that it should not have to be repeated constantly.

Actually no need for selection, the good ones that came by randomness will pass
it to the next generations, basically it's based on randomness and chances.