Evolution? How?

RL, from your above statement, I see that you have no idea how the game is played. EVIDENCE is analyzed and presented in context with all the other. Where does tiktaliik fit, where did he live, what was his environment, what did he bring to the table morphologically, whAT WERE HIS ENVIRONMENTAL HABITS. tHESE AND OTHGER QUESTIONS ARE INVESTIGATED FROM THE DATA in-situ. When Daescler et al presented their data and interpretations, it was after a few years of intensive searching and prepping and comparitive anatomy.

By your reasoning, why would anyone even spend a summer in Ellsmere? Your conclusions are all pre ordained and you dont even have to do any analyses.
You didnt even do a decent job of trying to refute the evolutionary significance of all these pre amphibian fish.

As all these fossils are found, doesnt it get more difficult for Creationists to evade the obvious conclusions , that evolution is in action?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

RL, from your above statement, I see that you have no idea how the game is played. EVIDENCE is analyzed and presented in context with all the other.

RL,

This is exactly the way Darwin presented evidence. Once again, here is that summary from the November 2004 National Geographic Magazine:

Quote:

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

]Is that how you "use" evidence? You merely atete that , because you see a fossil, it automatically is assumed to have been "Created". So the inherent feATURES of Tiktalik, its location in the early Devonian, (Its tectonic position in the alluvial deposits), the zircon ages, the specific body features as compareed to Eustehenopteron or[/I]Icthyostega and at least 24 other localities worldwide.

RL treats everything in isolation, as though every living thing bears no meaningful relationship to any other, or to its environment or to the passing of time.

At least it's consistent. This is exactly the viewpoint you would expect from someone who believed in spontaneious creation (magic).

The question it doesn't answer is *why* a creator would spontaneously create everything and *include* obvious connections between things, and obvious histories and obvious evolution.

0 Replies

or fossils . . .

0 Replies

It's a test rosborne. God is testing your faith. You have failed and hell awaits you.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

The question it doesn't answer is *why* a creator would spontaneously create everything and *include* obvious connections between things, and obvious histories and obvious evolution.

Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean 'why do different creatures share similar features, systems etc?'

Perhaps because the challenges they faced (topography, weather, predators, food supply) were similar, so having similar features just makes sense.

0 Replies

You have said that you are a young-earth creationist. How do fossils "just make sense?"

0 Replies

rl, by your last post youve sort of, concluded that Creation is an ongoing process? Since the similar environmental conditions resulting in these aspecial ceations appear to ahve occured at different times and in places that were only connected in the past but are since disconnected.

0 Replies

You forget, FM, that as a young-earth creationist, he won't believe in plate techtonics, Pangaea or the movement of continents.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You have said that you are a young-earth creationist. How do fossils "just make sense?"

What is there about a fossil that you consider inherently inconsistent with creation?

If a creature dies and is buried in sediment, for instance, we may dig him up years later. It makes no difference if you are an evolutionist or a creationist.

The fact that he was fossilized is not any indication that he evolved from another species.

Setanta wrote:

You forget, FM, that as a young-earth creationist, he won't believe in plate techtonics, Pangaea or the movement of continents.

This is an unwarranted assumption.

0 Replies

rl
How long do you think it takes to make a fossil?

5 yrs?

100 yrs?

2000 yrs?

0 Replies

By your belief rl, how old is the earth?

0 Replies

Evolution is a load of ****

0 Replies

If he's a young earth creationist, then he would likely plump for 6000 years. So "real life," if you accept Pangaea, plate techtonics and the migration of continents, do suggest that they were doing all of this rocketing around in the last 6000 years? Why did they suddenly slow down?

0 Replies

nick17 wrote:

Evolution is a load of ****

and therefore so are you

0 Replies

Absolutely no science whatsoever has been produced by creationists/ID-iots
No literature supportive of Creationism/ID-iocy is to be found external to the Creationist/ID-iot community
Science provides an ever-growing, cross-discipline, mutually corroborative body of evidence not merely consistent with but unequivocally confirmatory of evolution
Science provides absolutely no evidence contraindicative of evolution
Creationists/ID-iots consistently misrepresent, misconstrue, and/or misquote legitimate scientific literature and otherwise display no functional grasp either of the science behind evolution or the principles of debate
Creationism/ID-iocy have be found by court of law to be essentially coequal, dependent upon, and descended from a religionist proposition
Creationism/ID-iocy likewise have been found by court of law to be not science
No court decision or other legal decision prohibiting the teaching of Creationism/ID-iocy ever has been successfully appealed
Creationism/ID-iocy is overwhelmingly rejected by both the scientific and academic communities
Any argument ever posed in support of Creationism/ID-iocy has been demonstrated to be scientifically, forensically, and logically flawed

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

It's a test rosborne. God is testing your faith. You have failed and hell awaits you.

I know. My Grandmother told me that when I was five years old. I didn't believe it back then, and I still don't.

(She meant well. And I forgive her for it.)

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
The question it doesn't answer is *why* a creator would spontaneously create everything and *include* obvious connections between things, and obvious histories and obvious evolution.

Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean 'why do different creatures share similar features, systems etc?'

RL, everything in nature is interconnected, it extends from cosmological levels with production of heavy elements (age of univers matching requirements for stellar evolution producing heavy atoms), through geological changes aligned with biological changes (oxygen levels affecting rock formations aligned with biological evolution), to species interacting with environments (orchid evolution matching pollinators over time) and speciation corresponding with continental expansion, and down into genetics.

Those interactions exist. Even if they were *poofed* into existence yesterday complete and fully formed, they still exist.

These connections, and many many more are the evidence. Evidence isn't just a fossil in a rock, it's the fossil in a particular rock, in a particular place, which represents a particular time, which MATCHES a prediction which leads to more and more detail.

0 Replies

It is a paradox -- God creates all the evidence for evolution to convince us it is true in order to convince us he doesn't exist. If there was an entity we cannot understand, I could believe it was the Great Mover causing the Big Bang and then leaving the Universe to evolve by its own volition. The bearded man in the robes waving a wand and then meddling, coaxing, destroying parts of his creation is beyond all reasonable logic and reason.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

It is a paradox -- God creates all the evidence for evolution to convince us it is true in order to convince us he doesn't exist. If there was an entity we cannot understand, I could believe it was the Great Mover causing the Big Bang and then leaving the Universe to evolve by its own volition. The bearded man in the robes waving a wand and then meddling, coaxing, destroying parts of his creation is beyond all reasonable logic and reason.

Exactly. The very concept belittles the idea of God.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know