24 Aug 10
Creationists on his forum often try to find holes in evolutionary theory (KellyJays thread on the human eye being the latest), and i have read numerous times how evolution is made up, lies, religious dogma etc etc.
If life on this planet didn't evolve as evolutionary theory would have us believe, simply, how did God do it then? I've read countless postings on how life didn't come into existence, but never any actual postings on how it did, other than 'God did it'.
So my questions -
Obviously i know the Biblical account of how human life allegedly came into existence, but how do creationists explain the gradual changes evident in the fossil record that seem to show evolution?
How come we (mankind) have catalogued 250,000 distinct different extinct species from the fossil record? Are we suppossing God incorrectly made them and then killed them off?
If evolutionary theory is false as is claimed, then what is taught on evolutionary biology courses at University level and above throughout the world?
24 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobGod made creation, including us by His Voice and Will, there's nothing in the fossil record that shows anything of the sort people are still searching for the "missing link" and have said the changes have happened later and later (example 1 billion years instead of 1 million), because the fossil records prove that there were no changes, also supposed skulls of "evolution" sitting next to each other to "prove" evolution were discovered to be part human, part animal, ok what does extinct species have to do with anything?, No God didn't incorrectly make anything, God can decide when He wants something to be extinct or not if He wants to
Creationists on his forum often try to find holes in evolutionary theory (KellyJays thread on the human eye being the latest), and i have read numerous times how evolution is made up, lies, religious dogma etc etc.
If life on this planet didn't evolve as evolutionary theory would have us believe, simply, how did God do it then? I' taught on evolutionary biology courses at University level and above throughout the world?
24 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by daniel58You choose to use "fossil records" in your argument but ignore
God made creation, including us by His Voice and Will, there's nothing in the fossil record that shows anything of the sort people are still searching for the "missing link" and have said the changes have happened later and later (example 1 billion years instead of 1 million), because the fossil records prove that there were no changes, also supposed skulls ake anything, God can decide when He wants something to be extinct or not if He wants to
them when used by others!!!!!!
And why talk about the "missing link"? This is a total red herring;
the further back we go the further back the "missing link"
Ultimately we are related to mushrooms!!
😛
25 Aug 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59I didn't ignore them when used by others, what you said doesn't even make any sense "And why talk about the "missing link"? This is a total red herring;
You choose to use "fossil records" in your argument but ignore
them when used by others!!!!!!
And why talk about the "missing link"? This is a total red herring;
the further back we go the further back the "missing link"
Ultimately we are related to mushrooms!!
😛
the further back we go the further back the "missing link"
what? that's my point there is none, we are not related to mushrooms!
25 Aug 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobI believe life changes, I just disagree with the starting point.
Creationists on his forum often try to find holes in evolutionary theory (KellyJays thread on the human eye being the latest), and i have read numerous times how evolution is made up, lies, religious dogma etc etc.
If life on this planet didn't evolve as evolutionary theory would have us believe, simply, how did God do it then? I' ...[text shortened]... taught on evolutionary biology courses at University level and above throughout the world?
Kelly
25 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by daniel58You don't believe in anything you don't want to believe in. You wouldn't accept a 'missing link' even if there is one right in front of your very eyes. Because you are scared to face facts.
God made creation, including us by His Voice and Will, there's nothing in the fossil record that shows anything of the sort people are still searching for the "missing link" and have said the changes have happened later and later (example 1 billion years instead of 1 million), because the fossil records prove that there were no changes, also supposed skulls ake anything, God can decide when He wants something to be extinct or not if He wants to
You don't know much about evolution. You don't want to learn anything about evolution. Because you are scared of the facts the will be presented to you. Because you are scared to face facts.
How do you define "missing link"? Why is this "missing link" so important for creationists? Why just not accept the facts? Are they so scared?
25 Aug 10
Originally posted by Proper KnobI'll try to comment on your other questions tomorrow. But I don't think any human can answer how he did it and even if one of us happened to be there to watch somehow, it would be so far from what we could possible understand it probaly would do no good. I know that many of us would love to have answers to things like that as well as many other things from our past and how God has done many things. Who wouldn't?
Creationists on his forum often try to find holes in evolutionary theory (KellyJays thread on the human eye being the latest), and i have read numerous times how evolution is made up, lies, religious dogma etc etc.
If life on this planet didn't evolve as evolutionary theory would have us believe, simply, how did God do it then? I' ...[text shortened]... taught on evolutionary biology courses at University level and above throughout the world?
I personally have thousands of questions that I know I will never get answers to but I know the Bible speaks of "new scrolls" being opened in the future. Maybe some of the questions that we all have will be answered then.
25 Aug 10
I'm not sure on this 100% but the argument for creationist is not so much on this so called missing link. The real dispute should be the transitional species in the fossil record or from what I understand is the lack there of. Example: Where is the swimming animal that then sprouted little buds that eventually became legs which then came out of the sea and walked about the land then started to develop wings and fly? Now I have not studied on this subject too much but from what I understand this is the biggest problem evolutionist have to contend with. The lack of evidence in the fossil record. These transitional species should be there if they exist right?
Manny
25 Aug 10
Originally posted by menace71Well you are mistaken, which is perfectly understandable considering that you have not studied the subject too much. A lack of transitional species has never been a problem for evolutionists to contend with.
Now I have not studied on this subject too much but from what I understand this is the biggest problem evolutionist have to contend with.
We do often find it interesting to look for 'transitional species' ie species that show characteristics that indicate it is related to two different known groups. We also like to find species that help elaborate how certain things happened eg the development of land animals, the development of flight in birds, bats , the development of sea mammals etc. But at no point is failing to find one of these interesting species a problem for evolutionists.
25 Aug 10
Originally posted by menace71I don't know if we have found fossils of any species that fit your description (excluding the flying bit) and were our ancestors, but I do know that there are mud-skippers in the aquarium here in Cape Town that demonstrate one possible way in which it happened.
Example: Where is the swimming animal that then sprouted little buds that eventually became legs which then came out of the sea and walked about the land then started to develop wings and fly?
25 Aug 10
Originally posted by menace71Correct Manny. And not just those type of transitional fossils but there should be millions of them because of the amount of time it would have taken for a transition to happen. But they just dont exist....
I'm not sure on this 100% but the argument for creationist is not so much on this so called missing link. The real dispute should be the transitional species in the fossil record or from what I understand is the lack there of. Example: Where is the swimming animal that then sprouted little buds that eventually became legs which then came out of the sea and ...[text shortened]... in the fossil record. These transitional species should be there if they exist right?
Manny
Each fossil they find is a complete species that shows no signs of it being in some transitional stage. Where is at least one fossil that shows some early human that still has a tail or the whale that started out as a fish, then went to land with legs and then went back to the seas with fins? They don't exist....