Somthing for evolutionist's to ponder

[PatRussell]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


There are records to show macroevolution. It is a theory that is proven. Creation is long dead and has been proven wrong.

And those would be ???

Originally posted by Giancarlo

Creation is long dead and has been proven wrong.

Again, where is the proof ?

[Jack the Bodiless]

Originally posted by PatRussell

Yes, microevolution (adaptation) is observable, but there is NO evidence that this leads to macroevolution nor are there any transitional fossil records to support a macroevolutionist view.

"Micro" evolution is a little evolution, "macro" is a lot. Millions of years of micro gives macro. This is one of the most pathetic of all creationist arguments. Everything required for "macro" to operate (mutation, natural selection, increased information in the genome, the formation of new species) has been observed.

And there are thousands of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

Creationism is false, it HAS been disproven. Creationism cannot account for the sequence of the fossil record, which clealrly shows species appearing in the evolutionary "tree of life" sequence, not the Genesis sequence.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Creationism is false, it HAS been disproven. Creationism cannot account for the sequence of the fossil record, which clealrly shows species appearing in the evolutionary "tree of life" sequence, not the Genesis sequence.

It has not been disproven because you can always argue that God planted the fossils to test the faithful. How do you know that you are not in a big Virtual Reality computer simulation a la The Matrix?

[PatRussell]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

"Micro" evolution is a little evolution, "macro" is a lot. Millions of years of micro gives macro.

You are simply restating the same assumption without any evidence.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

This is one of the most pathetic of all creationist arguments. Everything required for "macro" to operate (mutation, natural selection, increased information in the genome, the formation of new species) has been observed.

Observation of a new species being formed? When? Where?

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

And there are thousands of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

Then it should be easy for you to post a few references to these.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Creationism is false, it HAS been disproven. Creationism cannot account for the sequence of the fossil record, which clealrly shows species appearing in the evolutionary "tree of life" sequence, not the Genesis sequence.

Again, evidence please.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Pat, I suggest you spend some time at www.talkorigins.org, then study some paleontology.

You want speciation? Talkorigins has examples.

You want transitional forms? Tetrapods (fish/amphibian), therapsids (reptile/mammal), Arhaeopteryx (reptile/bird), Ambulocetus (early whales that could walk on land), many hominids between humans and apes (Australopithecines, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus and so forth). I could go on, but how many would be enough? Twenty? Fifty? Two hundred?

I am curious to know why you believe this evidence does not exist. Do you seriously think that agents of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy are inventing all this?

[reds4ever]

It has not been disproven because you can always argue that God planted the fossils to test the faithful. How do you know that you are not in a big Virtual Reality computer simulation a la The Matrix?

...but for that to be true the old testament has to be a pack of lies!! are you called God a lair???

[Yog-Sothoth]

http://mcb.harvard.edu/BioLinks/Evolution.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

The two links above contains a large number of links to evolution related material.

Here is some about fossil records:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by PatRussell
Observation of a new species being formed? When? Where?

Er, say what? Have you ever actually bothered to read up on the evolutionist argument? Yes, there is evidence of geographically separated populations not being able to produce fertile offspring due to a number of small evolutionary changes that eventually made them incompatible (no micro/macro distinction enters into it). For example, the evidence that "there are different species" is a pretty decent one.

[Giancarlo]

Thank you, Yog sothoth for providing the evidence against this bible thumping Russell. I am sorry Russell, but does the old testament account for fossil records? No it does not, infact it proposes something completely different which incidentally is not true. The whole entire theory of creation is founded by the creation of life on earth and life that does not change, however fossils collected in the past century disprove that whole theory therefore creationism is downright false. Evidence is provided in the links by the post of Yog SotHoth.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Do you seriously think that agents of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy are inventing all this?

You don't know about that.

[Dr Spin]

There is of course, a difference between a 'belief' and a 'prediction'.

There is of course, a difference between a 'laymans theory' (a.k.a. 'scientific hypothesis') and a 'scientific theory'.

Confuse them and I will think (predict) you a fool.

[Saint Marcus]

Mathematicians have set it is impossible that man could have walked the earth for 3 million years. According to them.if this was the case..the population should be roughly around 500,000 per SQUARE mile ...putting the total population on earth well above 5 trillion instead of billion.....

Nice Troll Source please?

Also remember, one of the original arguments against evolution came from mathematicians as well. They argued that the Earth was too young for evolution to take place. Of course, that argument proved incorrect. If this argument isn't a poor troll, then I'm sure it will be proven wrong soon enough.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Mark L


Nice Troll Source please?

Also remember, one of the original arguments against evolution came from mathematicians as well. They argued that the Earth was too young for evolution to take place. Of course, that argument proved incorrect. If this argument isn't a poor troll, then I'm sure it will be proven wrong soon enough.

There is also evidence that the earth is nearly 6 billion years old (was it not?), the bible on the other hand concludes that it is 6,000 years old.

I sorta like your argument style, Mark L... and we found something we argee on... which is strange.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by reds4ever
...but for that to be true the old testament has to be a pack of lies!! are you called God a lair???

Why would you say that? What does it contradict in the bible? Even if it were to, many Christians do not believe that your translation/version of the bible is necessarily the correct one.

[Zylka]

Sigh... You do have to take the bible into metaphorical terms, you know. There is a reason everything in it seems "scientifically" incorrect at face value. It was simplified at the hands of man, to best communicate to man. We are slightly flawed creatures compared to God, afterall

I'm a Christian who believes in evolution, as most do.

[PatRussell]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Thank you, Yog sothoth for providing the evidence against this bible thumping Russell. I am sorry Russell, but does the old testament account for fossil records? No it does not, infact it proposes something completely different which incidentally is not true. The whole entire theory of creation is founded by the creation of life on earth and life that does not change, however fossils collected in the past century disprove that whole theory therefore creationism is downright false. Evidence is provided in the links by the post of Yog SotHoth.

I have looked at several of the links posted (including the transition FAQ) and still state, based on several key gaps in the fossil records, that you cannot prove species to species evolution. I do credit the site for it's honest regarding these gaps, but they are significant enough to reenforce my original point - macroevolution cannot be proved.