Fossil Record Shows Complete Record of MACROevolution (if you want to use that word)

any time evidence appears, whether it be about human or other species development which does not meet the expectations of the researcher, it is simply ignored.....

an example....
 
I'm shocked to find yet another thread where lefty's are promoting science, and conservatives are denying evolution and defending creationism.
 
Cypress said:
I'm shocked to find yet another thread where lefty's are promoting science, and conservatives are denying evolution and defending creationism.
Click to expand...

1) I promote science as well as any "lefty"...2) I have not denied evolution, and 3) I am not a creationist as that term is typically defined by the average "lefty"......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???...yes, why?.....
Click to expand...

Then why are you posting a link to a youtube video about some obscure archeology book recounting second-hand stories of supposedly incredible, earth shattering ARCHEOLOGY finds when you supposedly have tens of thousands of fossils disproving evolution?
 
ib1yysguy said:
Then why are you posting a link to a youtube video about some obscure archeology book recounting second-hand stories of supposedly incredible, earth shattering ARCHEOLOGY finds when you supposedly have tens of thousands of fossils disproving evolution?
Click to expand...

because it, (and your post by the way) are demonstrative of the attitude of seculars towards science that doesn't fit their faith choices....

http://www.zazzle.com/fossil_anomalies_poster-228744124353656369
 
PostmodernProphet said:
any time evidence appears, whether it be about human or other species development which does not meet the expectations of the researcher, it is simply ignored.....

an example....
YouTube - Buried Evidence
Click to expand...

:lmao:


Good job Einstein!

It never fails: science hating conservatives get their "evidence" and facts from youtube or google.

Yo man, how about linking me up with some actual peer reviewed scientific studies from leading scientists from Johns Hopkins or MIT? Or at least, University of Michigan.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
hardly....my position instead is that for many secularism IS a spiritual belief.....be that as it may, Christians can understand and and accept the principles of science as well as seculars can.....
Click to expand...
Thank you for agreeing that you made a false paradigm




I believe my understanding of evolution exceeds that of the vast majority of graduates of the American public school system....for one thing, it is commonly assumed by most that evolution explains the origin of life......
Click to expand...
Well that aint saying a hell of a lot and you still have not demonstrated an understanding of evolutionary theory. Are you saying that evolutionary theory explains the origins of life?[/quote]


why would this be evidence of macroevolution....could not such creatures as easily have been created as they existed? When we look at the common features of Windows 3.2 and Vista do we assume it to be a random evolution or designed plan?.......
Click to expand...
Just asking me that question implies you don't understand evolutionary theory. For example look at animals that diverge phylogenetically like whales, bats and humans. Look at the bone structures of the flippers of whales, the wings of bats and the hands of humans. They are homologous. They have the same basic anatomical organization, patterns and arrangements. They consist of 8 sets of carpal bones (trapezium, trapezoid, capitate, hamate, schaphoid, lunate and pisiform) with four articulations. The distal ends of carpal bones form a singular carpometacarpal articulation with 5 metacarpal bones. This pattern of organization is identical in all three species. So you have these homologous structures in 3 different appendages (flippers, wings, hands) with radically different functions in creatures of diverging phylogonies (cetaceans, chiroptera, primates). Why would this occur? How can this occur? What naturalistic phenomena would explain this? Design? Hardly. In fact these homologies violate the very principle of design, that is, to produce the best design to optimize a specific function. None of these homologous appendiges are optimal, from a design standpoint, for the functions which they perform but they are adequate and they do work.

These very homologies would then be very powerful evidence for common descent and since they exist within these divergent phylogenetic groups it's very powerful evidence for macroevolution and since these homologies do not optimize function they are very compelling evidence against design.

if, as evolutionists argue, a change from one diverse species to another can occur at random over a millenia, could not an intelligent designer create the same change in a single generation by "nudging" the DNA of a species?......
Click to expand...
There you go again, marginalizing those you don't agree with through the use of pejoratives. There is no such thing as "evolutionist". There is this scientific discipline called "biology" studied and practiced by professionals called "biologist" whom happen to have this theory which is foundational to their field of work called "evolutionary theory" which I'm begining to suspect, you don't understand. You're last argument is a strawman. Biologist make no such argument that all evolutionary changes occur randomly. Just the underling genetic mutations that drive the change in allele frequency over time. These in turn are governed by the natural laws of chemistry and physics.

Could not an Intelligent Designer create this change? Sure, under the philosophy of "Anything is possible" but from a scientific standpoint there are some problems with that.

#1. An Intelligent Designer creating such changes implies supernatural causation and places such a causation outside the relm of science.
#2. As I've shown with the fact that homology creates phylogeny the physical evidence provides compelling evidence against design. That and there is little physical or natural evidence that supports intelligent design.
#3. The fact that this intelligent designer is not identified is very problematic.
#4. What independently verifiable test or observation can be made demonstrating the existence of this (these) design(s) and the designer? None that I"m aware of.
 
Last edited:
ib1yysguy said:
You're supposed to show us the science. Show us the fossils. You have tens of thousands of them, after all.
Click to expand...

I thought I was supposed to be proving my point....which was "These are ignored because they don't comply with the faith structure of the evolutionist".....

I'm just sitting here letting you demonstrate my point for me....you've been very cooperative.....
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Thank you for agreeing that you made a false paradigm
Click to expand...

and what paradigm do you believe that to be?

Well that aint saying a hell of a lot and you still have not demonstrated an understanding of evolutionary theory. Are you saying that evolutionary theory explains the origins of life?
Click to expand...
not at all....I am saying that the typical secular incorrectly believes it does.....

These very homologies would then be very powerful evidence for common descent
Click to expand...

no, common descent is merely the faith assumption you make to explain the similarity......it is not a proven or provable assumption....


Could not an Intelligent Designer create this change? Sure, under the philosophy of "Anything is possible" but from a scientific standpoint there are some problems with that.

#1. An Intelligent Designer creating such changes implies supernatural causation and places such a causation outside the realm of science.
- macro evolution is equally outside the realm of science, being untestable....

#2. As I've shown with the fact that homology creates phylogeny the physical evidence provides compelling evidence against design.
- just the opposite, homology makes intelligent design MORE compelling...

That and there is little physical or natural evidence that supports intelligent design. - and none that compels a belief in macro evolution....one faith choice versus another....

#3. The fact that this intelligent designer is not identified is very problematic.
why?.....you don't seem to have a problem with an unidentified non-designed origin....


#4. What independently verifiable test or observation can be made demonstrating the existence of this (these) design(s) and the designer? None that I"m aware of. - which means it differs not at all from both macro evolution and abiogenesis.....
 
Cypress said:
Yo man, how about linking me up with some actual peer reviewed scientific studies from leading scientists from Johns Hopkins or MIT? Or at least, University of Michigan.
Click to expand...
because they, like you, don't study incidents that don't fit into their religious choices......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
Have you read any parts of the book Forbidden Archeology.....obviously as a believer in intelligent design I do not agree with the author's conclusions, but you cannot deny that in the 900 pages of the book he has documented thousands upon thousands of anomalies that contradict the accepted theories of transition......
Click to expand...
Sure I can. I never even heard of the author or his book. What's his credentials?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top