• 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!

Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
BALONEY. You are now backpedaling as is your wont.
How so? You made specific claims about the fossil record, and they have been falsified. You tried to present S.J. Gould as saying that there are no transitional fossils, and that was shown to be dishonest quote mining.

When you are pinned down, you immediately resort to ad hominems
When someone in a conversation is being blatantly dishonest, it's not ad hominem to point out their dishonesty. If you don't like having your dishonesty pointed out, then stop being dishonest.

So, what have you posted from the fossil record that shows many transitional forms occurring in one species evolving into another species.
See above. I've posted that several times to this forum, but amazingly you somehow managed to miss it every time.

As I have stated, and evolutionists back to Charlie have stated, they must be everywhere, just pick a few
Done.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Lol, it happens, but no one knows why, do you ? Remission occurs but is always considered temporary when there are no other possible interventions possible. It does not explain the complete disappearance of mets to every organ and bone structure in a very short period of time that lasts for decades with death ensuing from another cause. I know quite a bit about this since my wife died of cancer, to every organ and skeleton at age 35. God saves some, and some he does not, it is totally up to him,
Actually spontaneous cures are being actively investigated. Several causes have been identified and treatment methods developed from them. There is nothing miraculous here,

How do members of other religions explain Christian faith healing?
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
How can there be transitional form between species? Every individual animal, living or dead belongs to one species or another, by definition. Transitional form is a coherent idea only between groups of species.
You are going to have to define your definition of species. Lets use type. Where are the transitional fossils in the gradual evolution from any sea creature, to a mammals. That is a huge group of groups of species .
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
You are going to have to define your definition of species. Lets use type. Where are the transitional fossils in the gradual evolution from any sea creature, to a mammals. That is a huge group of groups of species .
Sea creatures became amphibians first. Mammals came much later from reptiles. Here is the transitional fossil sequence from fish to amphibians.

Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

Also this article about tiktaalik
Tiktaalik fossils reveal how fish evolved into four-legged land animals
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Lol, it happens, but no one knows why, do you ? Remission occurs but is always considered temporary when there are no other possible interventions possible. It does not explain the complete disappearance of mets to every organ and bone structure in a very short period of time that lasts for decades with death ensuing from another cause. I know quite a bit about this since my wife died of cancer, to every organ and skeleton at age 35. God saves some, and some he does not, it is totally up to him,
You said there was no scientific explanation available and that the doctor was not aware of any scientific explanation. There is actually an explanation that doesn't require inserting a selective god into the equation. And if there is a god, I would have to wonder why he ignores the prayers of parents hoping that their young child won't die of cancer.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
How so? You made specific claims about the fossil record, and they have been falsified. You tried to present S.J. Gould as saying that there are no transitional fossils, and that was shown to be dishonest quote mining.


When someone in a conversation is being blatantly dishonest, it's not ad hominem to point out their dishonesty. If you don't like having your dishonesty pointed out, then stop being dishonest.


See above. I've posted that several times to this forum, but amazingly you somehow managed to miss it every time.


Done.
Y
What a piece of work. You cannot deal with transitional forms between species, nor have you posted any. I quoted Gould EXACTLY, and you know it.I made it perfectly clear that I was speaking of transitional forms between species, and EVERY quote I posted addressed that. You attempt to use one that was accurate as showing dishonesty, while totally ignoring the others that put the lie to you and your theory. Checkmate, the game is over. You lose, and all the whining sophistry in the world won't change that.
Here ya go @shmogie .....

ScienceDirect - Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology : Paleobiogeographic patterns in the morphologic diversification of the Neogene planktonic foraminifera

EVOLUTION AT SEA: COMPLETE FOSSIL RECORD FROM THE OCEAN UPHOLDS DARWIN'S GRADUALISM THEORIES

"In recent years, however, scientists began revisiting the oceans, curious about how certain sea fossils fit models of evolutionary theory synthesized almost entirely from scattered, often puzzling evidence recovered from dry land. Some intriguing results turned up recently in the laboratories of two Florida State University (FSU) marine paleontologists.

Tony Arnold and Bill Parker compiled what may be the largest, most complete set of data on the evolutionary history of any group of organisms, marine or otherwise. The two scientists amassed something that their land-based colleagues only dreamed about: An intact fossil record with no missing links.

"It's all here--a virtually complete evolutionary record," says Arnold. "There are other good examples, but this is by far the best. We're seeing the whole picture of how this group of organisms has changed throughout most of its existence on Earth."

The organism that Arnold and Parker study is a single-celled, microscopic animal belonging to the Foraminiferida, an order of hard-shelled, planktonic marine protozoans...

...The species collection also is exceptionally well-preserved, which accounts largely for the excitement shared by Parker and Arnold. "Most fossils, particularly those of the vertebrates, are fragmented--just odds and ends," says Parker. "But these fossils are almost perfectly preserved, despite being millions of years old."

By being so small, the fossil shells escaped nature's grinding and crushing forces, which ovet the eons have in fact destroyed most evidence of life on Earth. The extraordinary condition of the shells permits the paleontologists to study in detail not only how a whole species develops, but how individual animals develop from birth to adulthood...

...Darwin termed the process gradualism, a theory that invokes the slow accumulation of small evolutionary changes over a large period of time, as a result of the pressures of natural selection. What Arnold and Parker found is almost a textbook example of gradualism at work.

We've literally seen hundreds of speciation events," syas Arnold. "This allows us to check for patterns, to determine what exactly is going on. We can quickly tell whether something is a recurring phenomenon--a pattern--or whether it's just an anomally. This way, we cannot only look for the same things that have been observed in living organisms, but we can see just how often these things really happen in the environment over an enormous period of time...

...Transitional forms between species are readily apparent, making it relatively easy to track ancestor species to their descendents. In short, the finding upholds Darwin's lifelong conviction that "nature does not proceed in leaps," but rather is a system prepetually unfolding in extreme slow motion...
"​

Your claims about the fossil record have been falsified.
I never claimed it was falsified, where do you get this stuff ? I will look into what you posted for myself.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
You cannot deal with transitional forms between species, nor have you posted any.
Now you're just lying.

I quoted Gould EXACTLY, and you know it.
Ah, the last refuge of the elementary school student......"I'm right and you know it!"

I made it perfectly clear that I was speaking of transitional forms between species, and EVERY quote I posted addressed that. You attempt to use one that was accurate as showing dishonesty, while totally ignoring the others that put the lie to you and your theory.
Except as I've shown, there are examples of species-species transitions in the fossil record, and we've directly observed the evolution of new species in real time. You waving your arms, stamping your feet, and shouting "Nuh uh" doesn't change that reality.

Checkmate, the game is over. You lose, and all the whining sophistry in the world won't change that.
Sheesh.....what are you, 5 years old?

I never claimed it was falsified, where do you get this stuff ?
Try and keep up. You claimed that there are no transitional fossils between species. That claim has been falsified.

I will look into what you posted for myself.
Color me skeptical that we'll ever hear from you again on that data.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Double talk, he said what he said and it applied to the time he was speaking. He was a leader in trying to explain the gaps.,
That makes no sense since he's an "evolutionist". How in the world could you miss his context is beyond me. Maybe a hint: he was talking about Darwin and the time period shortly after him.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
For what, something you can't post, or specify, only allude to?
For a lot of things. What do you want to know? And do you know how to Google?

Can you show that man would have left remains and fossilized if he lived say, in the Cambrian layer time?
You want evidence for something that didn't happen?

Can you give evidence there was radioactive decay at that time, or modern genetics? Get down to the nitty gritty and defend your beliefs.
Another poster has gone on at great length about radioactive decay.

I don't know what else you're asking here. You want to know if organisms had genes in the past?
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Always the CRUTCH, we haven't a clue now, but that doesn't mean we won't. Pure, unadulterated faith in no knowledge now, but maybe some at some future date. What a pitiful excuse for scientific knowledge and lack thereof
Guess what? Everything we know today started off as something we didn't know before. We didn't learn it all from positing that some god did it and giving up. We learned it all by observing, testing, repeating, verifying and correcting. I.e. Science!
 

dad1

Active Member
Science "wasn't around" for a lot of things in the past, and yet scientists are able to determine what happened in the past.
But they can't determine what the laws and forces were long ago. Face it. Otherwise we would see some proper responses here.
 

dad1

Active Member
For a lot of things. What do you want to know? And do you know how to Google?
I am already aware of what is known. All that remains is for you to face facts.

You want evidence for something that didn't happen?
I want evidence your claimed same state past did happen.

Another poster has gone on at great length about radioactive decay.
Not in this thread. We know how it works now, and the current rates. Now try to superimpose that on the unknown past. Can you?
I don't know what else you're asking here. You want to know if organisms had genes in the past?
I see no reason to assume that cells molecules atoms and genes worked the same in a different nature? You have no evidence.
 

dad1

Active Member

...Darwin termed the process gradualism, a theory that invokes the slow accumulation of small evolutionary changes over a large period of time, as a result of the pressures of natural selection. What Arnold and Parker found is almost a textbook example of gradualism at work.

We've literally seen hundreds of speciation events," syas Arnold. "This allows us to check for patterns, to determine what exactly is going on. We can quickly tell whether something is a recurring phenomenon--a pattern--or whether it's just an anomally. This way, we cannot only look for the same things that have been observed in living organisms, but we can see just how often these things really happen in the environment over an enormous period of time...

...Transitional forms between species are readily apparent, making it relatively easy to track ancestor species to their descendents. In short, the finding upholds Darwin's lifelong conviction that "nature does not proceed in leaps," but rather is a system prepetually unfolding in extreme slow motion...
"​
.
Unfolding...yes. In slow motion, no. That is a belief. Also, since most life on earth likely could not leave fossils, the fossil record cannot be viewed as a record of life. Only as a very very small portion of life. Your religion has completely missed the point, and looked at evidence through colored glasses.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Science is a godless philosophy and belief set and methodology that omits God by design.

That's one reason science works. Science is empirical, that is evidence based. Religion is independent of evidence, and has no place in science.

Inject faith based thinking into it, and science transforms from science into religion, and becomes as incapable of understanding and explaining the universe as the Bible.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Most "evolutionists" are not atheists (defined as a belief there are no deities), with a great many of them believing in "theistic evolution". Indeed, even most Christian theologians (about 70% of them according to the last survey I saw) take that position as well.

In my opinion, whatever the number of Christian evolutionists that realize that they advocate theistic evolution and so say, if one believes that man was created in God's image and has a soul, then this evolution had to be nudged by God to assure that a creature evolved in God's image - apparently the non-human one's didn't - and at some point after branching from the line leading to chimps, a soul has to be injected like the cream filling in a Twinkie. That's not the scientific theory. It's theistic evolution.

Christianity is incompatible with Darwin's theory however many of them say they accept it. If they do, the deny Christian doctrine.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Unfolding...yes. In slow motion, no. That is a belief. Also, since most life on earth likely could not leave fossils, the fossil record cannot be viewed as a record of life. Only as a very very small portion of life. Your religion has completely missed the point, and looked at evidence through colored glasses.
Your empty denial is noted.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I quoted Gould exactly. I also have the quote you used. I have made it abundantly clear that there is no fossil record of transitional forms BETWEEN SPECIES. Gould agrees with this and so does his quote. Transitional forms within species is micro evolution. Evolutionists propose that one species gradually with many transitional forms turned into another species. THIS CANNOT BE PROVEN BY THE FOSSIL RECORD. So what category do you fall into, do you hold on to a theory that cannot be proven by the evidence out of stupidity, or blind faith, or both ? Don't get angry at me because what you preach can't be proven, it isn't my fault.


And yet you ignore the fact that there are transitions between higher taxa. And *that* is the macro-evolution everyone seems to be harping about. The transitions between *species* don't show up as often in the fossil record, but they are the ones that can be verified today: we have witnessed changes in species.
 
Top