What does the fossil record say?

[Autodidact]

Umm - you're kidding - right? You didn't think this one through. The analogy is perfect. Its YOUR take on it that is truly unreasonable.
Look at it again:
"Before you build a high-rise structure, it it necessary to build a foundation - right?
If that requirement is ignored, the entire structure will collapse."
Are you actually saying that a foundation is not necessary? Can you direct me to ANY high-rise structure, anywhere, that has no foundation?
Tell me - how do you get to the top floor of a 50-story building that could not be built without a foundation - a ground floor? On the wings of a colossal presupposition?

This is hilarious!

I am going to keep a copy of this post on a word processor to show my friends.

Wow, that went right over your head, didn't it. There needs to BE a foundation. You don't need to know how it got there, to figure out how the roof got there.

 

[tumbleweed41]

His analogy doesn't say there is no foundation lol... It's just that we don't know exactly what the foundation is. We're not the ones that built the 50-story building, all we know is that we start at the top floor(which represents the present point in time in the history of life on earth), and we're stuck having to examine the floors under us because we were not around while they were built. To many people, especially those in the scientific community, the evidence uncovered suggests that there are patterns in the fossils found that more than likely mean different species are related to one another. So scientists make predictions on the various lines and fossils that should be found, and we find more and more examples that match what was predicted. But not all predictions are met, and many fossils change our views on the various lineages, but the patterns we still see and the predicted fossils we do find are just too convincing to be coincidental or purposely set there by a creator. We still don't know enough about the foundation and many of the lower floors, but it doesn't change the fact that the patterns we find on most of the floors are still just too convincing to us that it really doesn't matter what the foundation for life was.

Frubals!!

 

[wilsoncole]

His analogy doesn't say there is no foundation lol... It's just that we don't know exactly what the foundation is.

How can you say that with a straight face? The ToE clearly states that the foundation was unicellular.

The books I read says that about 3 ½ billion years ago earth was lifeless. In his book The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins speculates that in the beginning, the earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, lightning and exploding volcanoes enough energy was produced to break these simple compounds apart, thereby producing amino acids. This process, miraculous as it is, must have occurred repeatedly because, according to Dawkins, a variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.

“Then, according to Dawkins’ description, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”—a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself.” (p. 16) (Creation chap. 4 pp. 38-39)

Are you saying that Richard Dawkins got it all wrong and that you totally disagree with him?

We're not the ones that built the 50-story building, all we know is that we start at the top floor(which represents the present point in time in the history of life on earth), and we're stuck having to examine the floors under us because we were not around while they were built.

But that’s your dilemma! How did you get up there? The ToE does not start at the top. If it did then Stanley Miller was way out on a limb when he tried creating amino acids in the lab. He was wrong, Dawkins is wrong - even Talkorigins must be wrong because they say:
“Even the simplest currently living cells contain hundreds of proteins most of which are essential to their functioning. Yet such complexity cannot have stood at the origin of life. Based on research in the field it is proposed here how, once a self-replicating genetic molecule existed, life might have started and gradual evolution of complexity was made possible……”
( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html )

Now take a look at the speculative nature of the conclusions drawn by this writer:

“Gradual build-up of complexity
Let us assume the plausible scenario that either RNA was directly synthesized, see above, so that out of a large pool of random RNAs a self-replicating RNA molecule could arise, or that such synthesis was accomplished by a precursor genetic/catalytic system (possibly on the surface of minerals, cf. Orgel 2004).

Since fatty acids could have been available in the environment (Hanczyc et al. 2003, Orgel 2004), a primitive fatty acid membrane could have surrounded the first self-replicating RNA molecules (due to their molecular properties, fatty acids can form vesicles spontaneously); this would not have allowed passage of the RNA polymers so that they would have stayed together, but would have let the much smaller nucleotides through, fed in from spontaneous prebiotic synthesis or from a precursor genetic/catalytic system.”
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#complexity)

Sorry - but I don’t see any “facts” here - just outright speculation.

No “complexity……at the origin of life.“ Do I understand this wrong or are they talking about a simple beginning? I don’t see any “start at the top” operation here - do you?

That simple beginning is what I’m calling the foundation - that first floor.
It is still missing and your evolutionary structure is still in trouble without it.

To many people, especially those in the scientific community, the evidence uncovered suggests that there are patterns in the fossils found that more than likely mean different species are related to one another.

Without that foundation, the rest of this is all immaterial.

 

[outhouse]

Sorry - but I don’t see any “facts” here - just outright speculation.

excellent, your doing homework. Most creationist dont, frubals.

we dont know everything about abiogenesis. Your right there is specualtion.

BUT

we have fossils that go from cyano bacteria to humans and there is a clear trail in the fossil records that show transitions. The fact that evolution is solid science and does happen would indicate theres no reason to not take it back to the beginning.

How it happened, no idea but they do have some decent guesses.


Ill take these guesses over "POOF" I magically started it for you. lol

look most people base there creation beliefs from a 3000 year old book of lies translated time and time again after being handed down as oral tales for 300-500 years of campfire talk..BEFORE 5 different authors one being the church write it. The hundreds of years later they said moses wrote it. he does have a small role in teh original writings but to how much originality lasted 300-500 years is another story

magic or reality bud, simple as that.

 

[Autodidact]

How can you say that with a straight face? The ToE clearly states that the foundation was unicellular.

Without that foundation, the rest of this is all immaterial.

No, we're saying you don't understand that the foundation of a theory, and chronology of events, are two different things entirely.

We don't know for certain when ancestors of Indians first came to North America. Does that mean we don't know some of them ended up living in Tierra del Fuego?

We don't know who the first Chinese Emperor was. Does that mean we don't know anything about Chinese dynasties?

We don't know the name of the person who first domesticated wheat. Does that mean we can't know anything about wheat?

You don't have to solve problems in chronological order.

As I said,
(1) Let's just all agree that abiogenesis happened by magic zapping and move on to discuss how it diversified into various species.
(2) Alternatively, since you are so fascinated by this subject, and think it's foundational, you may wish to start a thread to discuss it.

What we do know is, whatever the answer is, we're not going to find it by discussing fossils, the subject of this thread.

 

[Amill]

first, i'm no expert on biology(just a few semesters micro), paleontology, or geology so if you read this and find a mistake in my understanding of any of this, I'd like you to correct me.

Sorry - but I don’t see any “facts” here - just outright speculation.

No “complexity……at the origin of life.“ Do I understand this wrong or are they talking about a simple beginning? I don’t see any “start at the top” operation here - do you?

That simple beginning is what I’m calling the foundation - that first floor.
It is still missing and your evolutionary structure is still in trouble without it.

You're right all we really have is speculation. It's not as if we'll find physical evidence from 3+ billions years ago showing signs that a replicating molecule formed. We can perform experiments that show that certain reactions can take place and certain molecules can form but even if we could create a replicating molecule in a lab that would only show that in theory that it COULD have taken place here on earth, not that it 100% did.

The problem is you're looking at the analogy all wrong. The analogy I'm trying to show is a 50 story building representing the history of life on earth, not specifically the theory of evolution. We know life exists on earth and it has for a certain period. Since we are at the furthest point in the history of life we are all at the top floor. We can look out and see that we are in a building but we do not know what the floors beneath us hold since we did not exist when they formed. We can assume that there is a foundation for the building as well. What that foundation is, creation, abiogenesis, panspermia, ect, we do not know. But like I said as we uncover the floors beneath us we do find patterns and physical evidence that suggests(not to all obviously) that different species of organisms are related to one another, and in fact, we find evidence that we feel suggests all life on earth is related. We can make predictions based off this theory and find similarities between existing organisms that fit the idea that they share a common ancestor, and we can even find fossils that fit our prediction for what that common ancestor anatomically looked like. Not all predictions have been met and some fossils have changed our view on the different lineages but the patterns we do see and many fossils we do find seem too fitting to just be coincidental. [youtube]zi8FfMBYCkk[/youtube]
Ken Miller discusses something similar here.

But the first couple floors are tough to examine because there wasn't any fossilization and we can only find signs that single-celled organisms existed. We're not going to find transitional forms between unicellular or microscopic organisms, so we have to speculate and assume that since it appears that common ancestry exists between organisms that produce fossils, that it probably goes further back to the first life forms.

I feel that abiogenesis is speculation because we cannot show that it took place. But since so many of us look at the world around us and feel that everything is controlled by natural processes, and since we all feel that the diversity of life on earth was produced by natural processes, that life "probably" originated via natural processes as well. But there's no reason someone cant believe that a creator produced the first organisms that blossomed into what we see today. Many people used to(including myself) and many people still do. God jump-starting evolutionary processes is not any less sensible an idea than god creating all species in 6 days, wouldn't you agree?

Without that foundation, the rest of this is all immaterial.

And please, name an explanation for the existence of life that has a firm foundation. It's not as if anyone can make a description based on demonstrable evidence how god created the different species we see.
So since all explanations for existence must be immaterial, no one should ever discuss or believe in any of them?

 

[DeistPrimate]

I fear Autodidact's and Amill's excellent responses are pearls before swine. A poster with no ammo to debate the actual topic has been allowed to derail the topic with guns full of blanks.

Wilsoncole is being intellectually dishonest, no one could be this dense unless on purpose. I certainly understand the frustation and motivation to continue repeating these elementary points of logic with him, but the best thing to do would be not respond unless he posts on topic, "what does the fossil record say?" About abiogenesis the fossil record can only suggest the implications from common descent of all life so that would be the sole pertinent post regarding it on this thread.

 

[outhouse]

About abiogenesis the fossil record can only suggest the implications from common descent

It actually goes back to simple cyanobacteria that actually left fossils

It goes back to life before animals

I fear Autodidact's and Amill's excellent responses are pearls before swine. A poster with no ammo to debate the actual topic has been allowed to derail the topic with guns full of blanks.

excellent reply

 

[wilsoncole]

No, we're saying you don't understand that the foundation of a theory, and chronology of events, are two different things entirely.
We don't know for certain when ancestors of Indians first came to North America. Does that mean we don't know some of them ended up living in Tierra del Fuego?
We don't know who the first Chinese Emperor was. Does that mean we don't know anything about Chinese dynasties?
We don't know the name of the person who first domesticated wheat. Does that mean we can't know anything about wheat?

Very, very, very bad analogy! Generations of humans have lived and died without ever having encountered a North American Indian, a Chinaman or dealing with wheat. NONE of those experiences are necessary for life. Here, we are dealing with life itself - a clear necessity if we are going to have any experiences at all!

You don't have to solve problems in chronological order.

Who’s talking about chronology? In view of the foregoing, I believe you can see how irrelevant that is.
Every building has a builder. Will you deny that, too? Regardless of the age of the building, a builder was there. There is no way around that fact.

Who built the evolutionary structure? The ToE tells me that it was nothing but chance. “Under the right conditions,” they say, “life began.” Not good enough! Who determined when the conditions were right? Who mixed the ingredients to the right proportions? Back to the Miller experiments - had it succeeded, it would only have proved that life had to be created and science knows that life comes only from life. Science knows that life cannot just happen. But - just about all "books on evolution skim over the staggering problem of explaining the emergence of life from nonliving matter." (Creation ch. 4 p. 39)

Fossil evidence still leaves the question of transition unanswered. “Natural selection” has been offered as the solution, but:
“ the greatest problem for the theory of evolution by natural selection, is that it cannot enable new organs or traits to emerge in living things. Natural selection cannot develop a species' genetic data; therefore, it cannot be used to account for the emergence of new species. The greatest defender of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, Stephen Jay Gould, refers to this impasse of natural selection as follows:
“The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.” “ (http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about9882.html?hilit=Branches+biology )

As I said,

(1) Let's just all agree that abiogenesis happened by magic zapping and move on to discuss how it diversified into various species.

No! We do not agree here. No movement because I have questions. Abiogenesis “happened?“ Nothing as colossal just happens! WHO did the “zapping?” What diversified? What appeared first? Where are the fossils? Talkorigins says it was “simple.“ What is a “simple” cell? What method of reproduction did it have? When, why and how did it choose to diversify into male and female?
You want to examine the top floor, but you’re asking the wrong questions. The top floor is much too complicated. It is better to start at the bottom where the ToE says it was “simple.”

 

[outhouse]

 

[Autodidact]

Very, very, very bad analogy! Generations of humans have lived and died without ever having encountered a North American Indian, a Chinaman or dealing with wheat. NONE of those experiences are necessary for life. Here, we are dealing with life itself - a clear necessity if we are going to have any experiences at all!

You really don't grasp what an analogy is, do you?

Who’s talking about chronology?

You. In view of the foregoing, I believe you can see how irrelevant that is.
Every building has a builder. Will you deny that, too? Regardless of the age of the building, a builder was there. There is no way around that fact.

Who built the evolutionary structure?

What is "the evolutionary structure"?

The ToE tells me that it was nothing but chance.

No, it doesn't. Ignorance makes me so sad. Do you want to go to wiki and learn what ToE actually says, or do you want us to teach you, or do you prefer to remain ignorant?

“Under the right conditions,” they say, “life began.”

No, wilson, ToE doesn't say that.

Not good enough! Who determined when the conditions were right? Who mixed the ingredients to the right proportions? Back to the Miller experiments - had it succeeded, it would only have proved that life had to be created and science knows that life comes only from life. Science knows that life cannot just happen. But - just about all "books on evolution skim over the staggering problem of explaining the emergence of life from nonliving matter." (Creation ch. 4 p. 39) You seem fascinated by abiogenesis. Why don't you go start a thread on it? This one is about fossils and evolution. Do you have anything to say about fossils and evolution?

Fossil evidence still leaves the question of transition unanswered

What does this even mean?

. “Natural selection” has been offered as the solution, but:
“ the greatest problem for the theory of evolution by natural selection, is that it cannot enable new organs or traits to emerge in living things. Natural selection cannot develop a species' genetic data; therefore, it cannot be used to account for the emergence of new species. The greatest defender of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, Stephen Jay Gould, refers to this impasse of natural selection as follows:
“The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.” “ (http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about9882.html?hilit=Branches+biology )

That's right, wilson, now stop all the noise in your head, pay careful attention, and you might learn something, although my hopes are not high. Ready? Here it comes? It's not natural selection alone, it's descent with modification PLUS natural selection. There are two, two, two parts to the theory. Natural selection alone doesn't do it. It takes descent with modification PLUS natural selection.

If you need me to explain this using smaller words, just let me know and I'll be happy to.

No! We do not agree here. No movement because I have questions. Abiogenesis “happened?“ Nothing as colossal just happens! WHO did the “zapping?” What diversified? What appeared first? Where are the fossils? Talkorigins says it was “simple.“ What is a “simple” cell? What method of reproduction did it have? When, why and how did it choose to diversify into male and female?

You want to examine the top floor, but you’re asking the wrong questions. The top floor is much too complicated. It is better to start at the bottom where the ToE says it was “simple.”

I think you should really go get an education in Biology, and then you can take up this question you think so important. Science has yet to solve it, and apparently you think it's so important that all Biology should stop until it's solved. Go to it?

O.K., can we agree on this:
At some point there were no living things on earth.
There are now living things on earth.
Therefore, at some point, abiogenesis happened.

Can you agree to that?

 

[DeistPrimate]

O.K., can we agree on this:
At some point there were no living things on earth.
There are now living things on earth.
Therefore, at some point, abiogenesis happened.
Can you agree to that?

"Let's say in the beginning there were 6 people, I'd say 2 but that's controversial though most people I ask will agree 'oh [explitive] yeah there were once 6'. OK so 6 people die, 6 return back to the place...niiiiice. There're now 6 billion people on earth, man. Someone's printing up souls and it's ruining their face value!"
George Carlin on "Why I Don't Believe In Reincarnation"

 

[wilsoncole]

O.K., can we agree on this:
At some point there were no living things on earth.
There are now living things on earth.
Therefore, at some point, abiogenesis happened.

Can you agree to that?

I think I’ll deal with this first:
NO! We cannot agree on this. Nothing as important as life just “happens.”
Reminds me of something I read on the web:

"A bachelor, by definition, is a man who does not have a wife.
God is creator and, what he does not have is a beginning.
Therefore, to ask the question: “Where did God come from?” is no different than asking: “Who is the bachelor’s wife?“ Wouldn’t you agree?

A better question would be: “How is it possible for God to have always existed without a beginning?”

First, you need to consider the following basic truth:
NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING!
We all know it is impossible for something to spring out of nothing and that everything that has a beginning was caused by something that existed before it.
With this in mind, imagine a point in the past when nothing existed - no planets, no stars, no galaxies - nothing! Not even God.
If this was the case at some time in the past, what would exist today? NOTHING! For we know that nothing comes from nothing - right?
The fact that something exists today tells us that something or someone MUST have always existed.
That which has always existed must, therefore, be that which created everything else.
Either God, or the universe must have always existed.

You decide.

Stephen Hawking, perhaps the greatest scientist since Einstein, said: “ Today, virtually everyone agrees that the universe and time itself, had a beginning.”
Scripture says: "Even from everlasting to everlasting, you are God.” (Psalm 90:2)

The thinking man HAS to believe."

(Youtube/watch?v+WUMOxvFw4Rk)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think I’ll deal with this first:
NO! We cannot agree on this. Nothing as important as life just “happens.”

Poor logic here. Whether or not you fee life is "important" is irrelevant to how it began. What's more nowhere, be it in the ToE or anywhere else in biology, does it state that "life just happened". That's a childish oversimplification that only someone with an extremely limited grasp of biology would believe is an accurate representation of what scientists actually say. I suggest you learn a bit more before attempting to dismiss an entirely scientific field.

Reminds me of something I read on the web:

"A bachelor, by definition, is a man who does not have a wife.
God is creator and, what he does not have is a beginning.
Therefore, to ask the question: “Where did God come from?” is no different than asking: “Who is the bachelor’s wife?“ Wouldn’t you agree?

No, since people who believe in God constantly assert "everything had to have a beginning". If that does not apply to God, then there are only two possible conclusions. 1) The assertion that "everything had to have a beginning" is false since God does not have a beginning, or 2) God does not exist.

So, which is it? Can things exist indefinitely or does God not exist? You can't have it both ways.

A better question would be: “How is it possible for God to have always existed without a beginning?”

First, you need to consider the following basic truth:
NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING!

That's not a basic truth at all. In fact, it's a falsehood. Look into quantum mechanics - things come from nothing all the time.

We all know it is impossible for something to spring out of nothing and that everything that has a beginning was caused by something that existed before it.

More false assertions based on false assertions.

With this in mind, imagine a point in the past when nothing existed - no planets, no stars, no galaxies - nothing! Not even God.
If this was the case at some time in the past, what would exist today? NOTHING! For we know that nothing comes from nothing - right?
The fact that something exists today tells us that something or someone MUST have always existed.
That which has always existed must, therefore, be that which created everything else.
Either God, or the universe must have always existed.

Are so you childish as to believe that those are the only two possibilities? Your lack of imagination is rather unsettling.

You decide.

Okay then. Matter always existed in some form or another.

Which, basically, completely makes a nonsense out of all your assumptions so far.

Stephen Hawking, perhaps the greatest scientist since Einstein, said: “ Today, virtually everyone agrees that the universe and time itself, had a beginning.”

And? Can you tell me when was the last time you read A Brief History of Time? Also, Hawking is an atheist (or, perhaps more accurately, a deist). He is most definitely not a theist - and neither was Einstein.

Scripture says: "Even from everlasting to everlasting, you are God.” (Psalm 90:2)

In the three little pigs, the wolf says "I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house down".

The thinking man HAS to believe."

Which is why both of the incredible geniuses whose names you just dropped don't believe in God?

Yeah, you're not very good with this whole "logic" thing...

 

[wilsoncole]

Poor logic here. Whether or not you fee life is "important" is irrelevant to how it began. What's more nowhere, be it in the ToE or anywhere else in biology, does it state that "life just happened". That's a childish oversimplification that only someone with an extremely limited grasp of biology would believe is an accurate representation of what scientists actually say. I suggest you learn a bit more before attempting to dismiss an entirely scientific field.


No, since people who believe in God constantly assert "everything had to have a beginning". If that does not apply to God, then there are only two possible conclusions. 1) The assertion that "everything had to have a beginning" is false since God does not have a beginning, or 2) God does not exist.

So, which is it? Can things exist indefinitely or does God not exist? You can't have it both ways.


That's not a basic truth at all. In fact, it's a falsehood. Look into quantum mechanics - things come from nothing all the time.


More false assertions based on false assertions.


Are so you childish as to believe that those are the only two possibilities? Your lack of imagination is rather unsettling.


Okay then. Matter always existed in some form or another.

Which, basically, completely makes a nonsense out of all your assumptions so far.


And? Can you tell me when was the last time you read A Brief History of Time? Also, Hawking is an atheist (or, perhaps more accurately, a deist). He is most definitely not a theist - and neither was Einstein.


In the three little pigs, the wolf says "I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house down".


Which is why both of the incredible geniuses whose names you just dropped don't believe in God?

Yeah, you're not very good with this whole "logic" thing...

Sir/Ms,
Whoever you are - would you like me to respond to you?

 

[newhope101]

I think I’ll deal with this first:
NO! We cannot agree on this. Nothing as important as life just “happens.”
Reminds me of something I read on the web:

"A bachelor, by definition, is a man who does not have a wife.
God is creator and, what he does not have is a beginning.
Therefore, to ask the question: “Where did God come from?” is no different than asking: “Who is the bachelor’s wife?“ Wouldn’t you agree?

A better question would be: “How is it possible for God to have always existed without a beginning?”

First, you need to consider the following basic truth:
NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING!
We all know it is impossible for something to spring out of nothing and that everything that has a beginning was caused by something that existed before it.
With this in mind, imagine a point in the past when nothing existed - no planets, no stars, no galaxies - nothing! Not even God.
If this was the case at some time in the past, what would exist today? NOTHING! For we know that nothing comes from nothing - right?
The fact that something exists today tells us that something or someone MUST have always existed.
That which has always existed must, therefore, be that which created everything else.
Either God, or the universe must have always existed.

You decide.

Stephen Hawking, perhaps the greatest scientist since Einstein, said: “ Today, virtually everyone agrees that the universe and time itself, had a beginning.”
Scripture says: "Even from everlasting to everlasting, you are God.” (Psalm 90:2)

The thinking man HAS to believe."

(Youtube/watch?v+WUMOxvFw4Rk)

Hey there Wilsoncole, just popped in to see what's happening.

These researchers like to put things into neat little boxes so they do separate the origin of the universe, abiogenesis and evolution into different fields.

Steven Hawkins put his lifes work into getting to the singularity that resulted in a mathematical dilemma resulting in the creation of dimentions and multiple hypothesis, and who knows what, to make it work.

Abiogenesis has many models yet none can be mimicked in a controlled laboratory to produce life, the best they can do is synthesise life by using an already living cell as activation.

Evolutionists still have problems turning lizards into birds and the cladistic phylogenic tree supports this. Of course you and I know fish and birds were created prior to land animals so researchers aren't about to clear this up anytime soon. The rest of the field is in similar disarray but I understand the explanation for this is that it is to be expected..go figure that science out!!! It is a loosing battle to point out discrepencies within any field because there is some convoluted explanation to cover it. (Wiki "Precambrain Rabbit")

Lets take simple MtEve. The raw data simply acknowledges that all living homo sapiens sapiens today are all decendant from one female. Creation supported. It takes the addition of convoluted hypothesis to say there were other females also at the time of Eve, they just ended up not leaving any sign of themselves because they all had lines that went through males or something and their DNA was lost. You can see, a huge convoluted hypothesis to turn simple and clear information into a nightmare. Then we are expected to swallow the same scenario when it comes to Y chromosome Adam.

Dear me, these people will swallow anything mamma and pappa researchers feed them. Science is only good at explaining the here and now.

Me thinks any theory is only as good as the veracity within the explanation of it's starting point. Creationists have one, God. Evolutionsists only have a mess.

 

[Amill]

Evolutionists still have problems turning lizards into birds and the cladistic phylogenic tree supports this. Of course you and I know fish and birds were created prior to land animals so researchers aren't about to clear this up anytime soon. The rest of the field is in similar disarray but I understand the explanation for this is that it is to be expected..go figure that science out!!! It is a loosing battle to point out discrepencies within any field because there is some convoluted explanation to cover it. (Wiki "Precambrain Rabbit")

How many people think lizards turned into birds lol? And were all birds created before land animals? Let's see the demonstrable evidence that suggests birds came before land animals.

Science is only good at explaining the here and now.

And it's opponent, myth, is good at explaining what exactly?

 

[outhouse]

creation is outlawed for a reason

we dont teach myths to children

the creation myth is the same as teaching the stork story to a college level reproduction class.

 

[Autodidact]

I think I’ll deal with this first:
NO! We cannot agree on this. Nothing as important as life just “happens.”

You're not following me, wilson. I'm not saying it "just happened." I'm not saying how it happened, because we're not sure. I'm just saying that at some point, in some way, there was a first living thing. Do you disagree?

Are you saying we have always had life on earth? That it's eternal?

There are only 3 choices:

There is no life on earth.
At some point there was a first living thing.
There has always been life on earth.

Which of these statements do you agree with?

 

[Autodidact]

Me thinks any theory is only as good as the veracity within the explanation of it's starting point. Creationists have one, God. Evolutionsists only have a mess.

You do understand that God and evolution are not in any way mutually exclusive, right? Or do we need to go back and review that elementary concept in simpler terms for you? What I keep wondering about you is, are you incredibly stupid, or incredibly stubborn? Is is that you can't grasp concepts that simple, or simply refuse to? Would you address that for me? Thanks.

The word you're looking for, newhope, is not "evolutionist." It is "people who accept science." And yes, science is messy, and doesn't have a single answer for each phenomenon. It has many complicated answers. They just happen to be correct. Creationists have a single answer, and it's always wrong.