Creation vs. Evolution

[Thalassamania]

someone please show me a series of fossils that CLEARLY show "evolution", By evolution, I mean where a fish got ticked off cause its food kept going to ground so it finally slipped of ye old fins, attached its new legs and went for a walk. I have never in any book, any online debate, or anywhere seen the linking fossil records showing the full record of one animal or life form changing into another. No one can point me to them. Like I said a fish is a fish and will allways be a fish.

There are many examples, quite a few of which have been highlighted in previous posts, but since you deny that they exist, there’s not sense showing you.

someone told me to wait, give it time and somewhere one will change. youve had your billions of years, millions of animals, millions of species, and millions of recorded fossils. where are they?

All around you, everywhere you look.

Just because rocks and minerals from the earth measure to be millions of years old, doesn’t make the earth that old. I can use 200 year old wood and make a new house out of it and that doesn’t make the house 200 years old.

It makes the wood that the house was built from 200 years old, so?

as for carbon dating, I have ALWAYS heard carbon dating and terms like millions of years old.

You heard wrong, you do not understand, and you’re making a fool of yourself. This is not a question of belief or religion; you’re trying to measure the distance from New York to San Francisco with a six inch ruler.

Maybe they have reined it in and gone conservative, but I have read it and heard it.

You’re wrong, what you think you’ve read is wrong (if that’s what it said), what you’ve heard is wrong (if that’s what you’ve been told).

this thread is pretty much useless. i almost didnt post and now i remember why. This post will surely go on for hundreds of new posts and never get anywhere. THE END

Frankly, you shouldn’t have posted without reading and understanding what was posted earlier.

 

[Robert Phillips]

Frankly, you shouldn’t have posted without reading and understanding what was posted earlier.

Now go kiss Hank's *** and get your million dollars when you leave town!

 

[Debay777]

i have gone back and read through a good portion of this thread. I researched and read many of the links that supposedly show proof of evolution. most of what I saw were experiments done by man, and not by nature. the results were new species. BUT, they were the result of experimentation, unnatural circumstances, and physical effort(it kind of looks like it takes an intelligent desinger to do this doesnt it). The reslulting plants were not the result of evolution, they were the result of cross pollinization that without the help of scientists would never have happened or survived in the first place. I have never refuted that plants and animals have the ability to adapt to their invironments. According to webster, that is evolution.so in a sense i concede that evolution is in fact real. but I do not believe that one creature can evolve into another entirely different creature. I want someone to lay out an animal that has clearly gone from one form of life to the another. no one can. you can show how two different animals share similar physical traits, but not how or where the one came form the other. Like I said, I can see and agree that one animal can change in ways that are astounding. but it never changes from that animal. I can see where two similar animals mate and come up with a new hybrid that is the better or worse of its parent species. It wouldnt take long for a fertile (from what i saw a while ago on tv, Ligers are sterile) species of Liger to "evolve" if enough lions and tigers were to mate on a continuos basis. but they are still felines. again show me where one species on its own has gone from form of animal to another without human intervention and gene splicing or cross polinization. Animals change. we change. but we dont turn into other creatures. Of all the millions of fossil evidence that evolution claims to have to prove this, show me ONE. just one. you cant. there is still the missing link. there will always be a missing link. because there is no link.

 

[Thalassamania]

i have gone back and read through a good portion of this thread. I researched and read many of the links that supposedly show proof of evolution. most of what I saw were experiments done by man, and not by nature. the results were new species.

Nature does not perform experiments, when man does it, it’s an experiment. When Nature does it it’s called EVOLUTION.

BUT, they were the result of experimentation, unnatural circumstances, and physical effort(it kind of looks like it takes an intelligent desinger to do this doesnt it). The reslulting plants were not the result of evolution, they were the result of cross pollinization that without the help of scientists would never have happened or survived in the first place. I have never refuted that plants and animals have the ability to adapt to their invironments. According to webster, that is evolution.so in a sense i concede that evolution is in fact real.

OK, so evolution is real.

but I do not believe that one creature can evolve into another entirely different creature.

Fortunately the diversity of life on earth does not depend upon your belief, it goes right on regardless of the mythology that you choose to honor.

I want someone to lay out an animal that has clearly gone from one form of life to the another. no one can. you can show how two different animals share similar physical traits, but not how or where the one came form the other. Like I said, I can see and agree that one animal can change in ways that are astounding. but it never changes from that animal.

Your asking for the impossible. If evolution is a slow and gradual process then there will be so many intermediates as to make the proof impractical, not to mention the disruption and discontinuity of the geological record. If evolution is sudden, then you’ll not recognize how one species gave rise to another and you’ll deny it anyway. Just take a look at the Galapagos finches, there’s clear proof of speciation through adaptive radiation.

I can see where two similar animals mate and come up with a new hybrid that is the better or worse of its parent species. It wouldnt take long for a fertile (from what i saw a while ago on tv, Ligers are sterile) species of Liger to "evolve" if enough lions and tigers were to mate on a continuos basis. but they are still felines. .

That has NOTHING to do with evolution which is driven by natural selection.

again show me where one species on its own has gone from form of animal to another without human intervention and gene splicing or cross polinization.

Human intervention, gene splicing and cross pollination are not part of animal evolution.

Animals change. we change. but we dont turn into other creatures. Of all the millions of fossil evidence that evolution claims to have to prove this, show me ONE. just one. you cant. there is still the missing link. there will always be a missing link. because there is no link.

You come so close and then you don’t get it. Think about this for a minute. The evolutionary pathway of an animal can be represented by a delicate threat that is stretched across hundreds of millions of years and tens of thousands of miles. A thread stretched out on the surface of an ever changing planetary surface that is being continuously sculpted by the wind, rain, glaciers, volcanoes, mountain building, subduction, and the actual movement of the land masses themselves. If what you require for proof is that someone walk you over that tread without a single break, your asking the impossible. That’s not to say that we can’t bridge those gaps through careful examination of the structures of organisms and thus deduce, at a level beyond the shadow of a doubt, what occurred. What you appear to be havig trouble with is understanding the process of deduction, something that you use in everyday life but deprive yourself of when it comes to considering the origins of things.

 

[abitton]

The evolutionary pathway of an animal can be represented by a delicate threat that is stretched across hundreds of millions of years and tens of thousands of miles. A thread stretched out on the surface of an ever changing planetary surface that is being continuously sculpted by the wind, rain, glaciers, volcanoes, mountain building, subduction, and the actual movement of the land masses themselves. If what you require for proof is that someone walk you over that tread without a single break, your asking the impossible.

That is beautiful imagery, Thas. BTW cool take on the woodchuck...

 

[Thalassamania]

That is beautiful imagery, Thas. BTW cool take on the woodchuck...

I'm glad that neither fell on deaf ears in all quarters<G>.

 

[Debay777]

That&#8217;s not to say that we can&#8217;t bridge those gaps through careful examination of the structures of organisms and thus deduce, at a level beyond the shadow of a doubt, what occurred.

so, what your saying is that your spin on evolution takes as much "faith" to believe in as my christianity does. neither of us can offer proof of our own thoughts towards the origins of life.
you say, "Your asking for the impossible. If evolution is a slow and gradual process then there will be so many intermediates as to make the proof impractical, not to mention the disruption and discontinuity of the geological record.
But you (as evolutionists in general) say that fossil records prove the timeline of evolution. You even have a long drawn out set of pictures starting with primates that get gradualy taller and more upright. each picture is supposed to be represented by some skeleton dug up somewhere that was decided to be some sort of early cave man. One of those is actualy a full scale drawing of a cave man that was created by a the find of a single tooth! which one is it? do fossil records prove that one animal can morph into another? or is it impossible, as you stated, to tell by fossil records?

Human intervention, gene splicing and cross pollination are not part of animal evolution.

Yes this is true. However, this information is what was used on one of the links that supposedly proves the actual process of the evolution of a plant. A scientist found some odd genes in a plant, used them to pollinate a new species and he called it evolution. Now, if he could have gotten the plant to sprout, legs, arms, feet, fins, or gills, THAT would have been real evolution.....of sorts. Evolution can explain how lots of animals have adapted to their environments, but it will never explain their origins.

you say that evolution is a long process stretched thin over time, geology, climatology, and geneology. If it were just one or two speceis of life that had "evolved" I could see where that kind of eveidence would remain hidden. But every form of life on this planet is supposed to have evolved from something into something else. It would stand to reason that somewhere on this earth someone would have found something by now.

what about the theory of thermal dynamics? if there is an exposion, things will start out hot and close to the explosion. they will gradualy cool and get farther from the center. everything on earth follows that formula. we start out young, and get old, then die. always moving furhter from the beginning. evolution--as in we started from a single cell-- states the exact opposite. we started as a single ameno acid and then grew into something else. and got bigger and more diverse, and more complicated. following that logic I should be able to toss a jig saw puzzle in the air and a few peices at a time it should start to put itself together. who knows, maybe in a million years it will be complete.

You stand by the belief that we all crawled out of a pile of ooze at some point in our past. And I stand by the belief that an all powerfull God created everything that lives, walks, crawls, and breaths on this planet. If I am wrong, then I have lived my life as a good person, done my best to contribute to society in a positive way and have hopefully inspired others to do the same. If I am right, regardless of your lifestyle, I will be standing on the right side of the throne overjoyed that my eternity is secured and sad that yours will be too.

 

[AXL72]

Ooops:freak: I guess nobody liked my 2 Am or 4 AM post about fuzzy logic and "show me a pic".

Oh well, it was a bit sharp edged, so just as well.

Did anybody find a valid pic of you-know-who, yet?

 

[Thalassamania]

Didn't see it. Can't find it. Did the MODs get it?

 

[lamont]

i have gone back and read through a good portion of this thread. I researched and read many of the links that supposedly show proof of evolution. most of what I saw were experiments done by man, and not by nature. the results were new species. BUT, they were the result of experimentation, unnatural circumstances, and physical effort(it kind of looks like it takes an intelligent desinger to do this doesnt it). The reslulting plants were not the result of evolution, they were the result of cross pollinization that without the help of scientists would never have happened or survived in the first place. I have never refuted that plants and animals have the ability to adapt to their invironments. According to webster, that is evolution.so in a sense i concede that evolution is in fact real. but I do not believe that one creature can evolve into another entirely different creature. I want someone to lay out an animal that has clearly gone from one form of life to the another. no one can. you can show how two different animals share similar physical traits, but not how or where the one came form the other. Like I said, I can see and agree that one animal can change in ways that are astounding. but it never changes from that animal. I can see where two similar animals mate and come up with a new hybrid that is the better or worse of its parent species. It wouldnt take long for a fertile (from what i saw a while ago on tv, Ligers are sterile) species of Liger to "evolve" if enough lions and tigers were to mate on a continuos basis. but they are still felines. again show me where one species on its own has gone from form of animal to another without human intervention and gene splicing or cross polinization. Animals change. we change. but we dont turn into other creatures. Of all the millions of fossil evidence that evolution claims to have to prove this, show me ONE. just one. you cant. there is still the missing link. there will always be a missing link. because there is no link.

SIV evolved into HIV-2 and then HIV-1 and (IIRC), HIV-2 can cross-infect certain species of monkeys while HIV-1 has lost that ability. All evolution which has occured in the last ~50-100 years...

Also, you should read The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins which goes over all these arguments in book length (giving it the treatment that it deserves and which you can't reach in an internet forum). He specifically addresses the construction of the eye and can find multiple links in the chain from animals with single cell photosensitive patches, to clusters of patches to a few intermediate forms, up to fully functioning eyeballs. And those are existing species showing transitional forms of the building blocks of developing eyeballs. It is true that there's no evidence of the half-way unsuccessful steps in between the successful steps but that is simply because there weren't many of those animals and they didn't survive as distinct species and there were never enough of them to make it probable that you would find them in the fossil record.

Evolution as applied to paleontology does not predict that you would see all possible forms of transitional species in a perfect spectrum from fish to lizards, therefore you cannot falsify the theory in that way. But if you bother to open your mind there is evidence in existing species and the fossil record for transitional species.