Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Mushy

What Would It Take For You To Believe In Evolution

Recommended Posts

Im having trouble using the quote or text format function sorry. So ill give space between quotes and my reply.

 

 

If you were simply talking about micro in you analogy, then you would have some validity in your example, as you can show that micro (which is nothing more than adaption within a kind/species) can be shown to be true. But macro, on the other hand has no application in this analogy, as there is absolutely no evidence that is anything other than a hypothesis or model. So the correlation fails.

72006[/snapback]

I dont understand the difference people see between macro and micro. It sounds kind of like saying that even though a man can run 10 metres there's is no way he could run 100( given time). Macro is just checking the adaptations after a longer period, im sure if you searched google you would find the evidence your looking for. And what analogy were you referring to?

72020[/snapback]

I fixed your post for you… You have to insure your quote boxes are correctly placed.

 

First – microevolution is nothing more than “adaptation†within a kind/species; or more succinctly the phenomena’s ability to adapt to inside and outside pressures. This is not at issue, as we see it every day. Further, it doesn’t need to be called ‘microevolution’, or even ‘evolution’ at all, as it was always called ‘adaptation’ before the evolution crowd came along and changed it, so as to make it support the model of ‘evolution’.

 

Second – macroevolution is the assertion that one species changes ‘evolves’ into another species. For example, an ape like creature ‘evolves’ into a man. Or in chain form; protozoa, to fish, to land mammal, to ape-like creature to man (oversimplified). The problem is that this is totally based upon assumption and supposition. There is absolutely NO empirical evidence to support this hypothesis. And the massive ‘gaps’ between the so-called evidence is so great that it creates an ‘evolution of the gaps’ problem for the evolutionists. But if you think you can simply “google†it for the evidence, please do so… Then we can discuss the presuppositions in your worldview.

 

Third – Your above analogy fails in it correlation between a ‘man running’ and ‘an ape-like creature evolving into a man’ scenario. First, we have seen (literally) tens of thousands of men who can run between 10 and 100 meters. Therefore, based upon these ‘empirical’ facts, we can deduce that given a healthy male running 10 meters, we can then extrapolate with reasonable certainty the same man can run 100 (or even 1,000) meters or more given the correct training regimen. Macroevolution, on the other hand, has NEVER been ‘empirically’ proven; therefore your analogy is a ‘non sequitur’ and fails. Further, whenever you make a statement like “macroevolution works because future evidence will support it†you are committing the logical fallacy of “Argumentum ad Futurisâ€ÂÂ. And since you are making the statement without firstly proving it (i.e. providing actual evidence for your assertions), you are committing the logical fallacy of “Assertum Non Est Demonstratum†or ‘to assert is not to demonstrate’.

 

Fourth – You had a couple of loosely based and false analogies, but well just look at the most blatant. You said “It depends what you mean by christ.†and “I believe there was a man named Jesus and the bible may provide a rough outline of his life. I dont believe he was anything more than a man.â€ÂÂ… The first was a question; you then follow it up by two faith statements. Further, the plethora of historical evidence that supports the historicity of Jesus Christ AND that of His followers, further pushes your analogous statements into the faith realm. And to extend it out-and-out, there is far more evidence for Jesus Christ than there ever was for macroevolution.

 

As I mentioned earlier, you can take a look at the following link to get a better idea:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...topic=1957&st=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you telling me that plants and animals will just suddenly stop adapting. 

No, of course not. Simply that the adaptions fluctuate in tact with the environment. Why wouldn't they?

 

And what environmental fluctuation continues in a particular direction for millions of years, singling out only one kind of animal, for example reptiles, and turns them into birds? It just doesn't make sense. The number of necessary changes is enormous and would require every tendency to adapt, to do so in that particular direction.

 

There has to be something concrete, that you as an evolutionist can point to to explain how evolution can determine a particular path of development. In some cases we have statis. In others we have enormous changes, and yet other cases we can see sea creatures turning into land animals and then back again, animals climbing up in trees, living there for a few million years, and then climbing down again. What is it that is pulling the strings? Fluctuations in the environment occur way too quickly to explain all this.

 

Sorry but iv seen many diligent requesting of evidence for evolution, I would like you to provide this evidence of organisms remaining the same over millions of years.

 

Here is an example of a thread discussing living fossils.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fixed your post for you… You have to insure your quote boxes are correctly placed.

Thanks for that.

 

 

First – microevolution is nothing more than “adaptation†within a kind/species; or more succinctly the phenomena’s ability to adapt to inside and outside pressures. This is not at issue, as we see it every day. Further, it doesn’t need to be called ‘microevolution’, or even ‘evolution’ at all, as it was always called ‘adaptation’ before the evolution crowd came along and changed it, so as to make it support the model of ‘evolution’.

Ok i agree with you on this point.

 

 

Second – macroevolution is the assertion that one species changes ‘evolves’ into another species. For example, an ape like creature ‘evolves’ into a man. Or in chain form; protozoa, to fish, to land mammal, to ape-like creature to man (oversimplified)

Right now im not sure how literally you meant this as you put (oversimplified) but why do you think a species evolves into another species. Heres another analogy. If you take a picture of multiple people everyyear from when they are born till when they are 30, then show the first and last photos to someone, they are often unable to match them up( they are completedly different), but if you show them every picture it is obvious who is who.

 

 

Further, whenever you make a statement like “macroevolution works because future evidence will support it†you are committing the logical fallacy of “Argumentum ad Futurisâ€ÂÂ. And since you are making the statement without firstly proving it (i.e. providing actual evidence for your assertions), you are committing the logical fallacy of “Assertum Non Est Demonstratum†or ‘to assert is not to demonstrate’. 

I see what you mean, i never meant to state that future evidence will support macroevolution and thus that is why it works. I meant more that if we agree on mircoevolution(or adaptation) as having happened and continuing to happen, why shouldn't macroevolution also be happening and have happened. Just so i know, what kind of evidence were you looking for, the most common that comes to mind is fossil but if you would like experiments on evolution i can probably find some of those.

 

 

Fourth – You had a couple of loosely based and false analogies, but well just look at the most blatant. You said “It depends what you mean by christ.†and “I believe there was a man named Jesus and the bible may provide a rough outline of his life. I dont believe he was anything more than a man.â€ÂÂ… The first was a question; you then follow it up by two faith statements. Further, the plethora of historical evidence that supports the historicity of Jesus Christ AND that of His followers, further pushes your analogous statements into the faith realm. And to extend it out-and-out, there is far more evidence for Jesus Christ than there ever was for macroevolution.

 

Im unsure what you mean by false analogies, i use analogies to explain things. When i said “It depends what you mean by christ.â€ÂÂ( not an analogy) what i meant was that if someone refers to christ they often mean jesus, however by saying christ they often also imply supernatural, which i dont believe. I also dont feel these are faith statements. In my life people dont write accounts of a fictional person's life and make them out to be true, so i can conclude it is likely Jesus was a real person. I also know that back in Jesus's time much was not understood about the world and people would have easily seen quite natural things as supernatural, therefore i feel its reasonable to be skepticle about any 'miracles' performed.

 

 

And what environmental fluctuation continues in a particular direction for millions of years, singling out only one kind of animal, for example reptiles, and turns them into birds? It just doesn't make sense. The number of necessary changes is enormous and would require every tendency to adapt, to do so in that particular direction.

 

There has to be something concrete, that you as an evolutionist can point to to explain how evolution can determine a particular path of development. In some cases we have statis. In others we have enormous changes, and yet other cases we can see sea creatures turning into land animals and then back again, animals climbing up in trees, living there for a few million years, and then climbing down again. What is it that is pulling the strings? Fluctuations in the environment occur way too quickly to explain all this.

 

The thing is, evolution( as far as i understand it) doesnt single out one kind of animal. If i may introduce analogous structures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy_%28biology%29 , basically what im saying is that while it may be true that reptiles evolved into what we call birds( i have no idea personally), around the globe, other mammalian animals may also evolved into birds. Also, yes the changes would be enormous, however there is almost no way( i never say for certain) that they would have happened at once. If the enviroment changed so rapidly that the selection pressure was for what we class as birds now, those reptiles would have died. Changes such lower temperature could have selected for a more spikey skin to hold in warmth, later different food availability may have selected for more beak like mouths, etc. There is no direct 'path' from one to the other.

It depends what you mean by changes in the enviroment, in terms of the seasons obviously they happen quickly and in evolutionary terms don't count as actual changes. In terms of the climbing up and down. I'v been taught that Africa was once much more covered in forest than it is now, thus it would have been more effecient to swing between the trees than walking. However as the climate warmed and the forest dwindled, trees became more spread apart and would require more land travel between them.

 

 

 

For the record i realize that i stated that species don't evolve into each other but later talked about reptiles evolving into birds. I did this for the sake of argument and would be happy to clarify if anyone wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a foreword, Im going to have little access if any to a computer next for most of this week so ill be unable to reply to any posts for a while sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a foreword, Im going to have little access if any to a computer next for most of this week so ill be unable to reply to any posts for a while sorry.

Don't worry, we'll probably still be here when you get back! :blink:

Just reply when it is appropriate for you.

 

The thing is, evolution( as far as i understand it) doesnt single out one kind of animal.

72032[/snapback]

I understand how evolution works. I simply used the words "Singles out" to get across a point that otherwise just gets blurred out by evolutionists who suggest that selection pressure magically evaporates every other survival path available to an animal. Every organism must constantly be exposed to a great flora of survival alternatives. The one that is closest at hand would dominate and therefore determine what kind of development an organism would adopt. That's OK, I guess. But if you are going to tell me that the gods of selection pressure would patiently and benevolently wait around for millions of years for a reptile to take flight before some other survival mechanism steps in to save the day, then you are just one more example of someone who sucks in fairytale fluff simply because that's what the "scientists" say. Atheism provides enough "selection pressure" to cause both you AND the scientific community to select evolution. That's the way it works.

 

Furthermore, the suggestion that the coverage of forest in a continent could possibly provide enough selection pressure to change one kind of animal to another is just plain ridiculous. When forrest areas are cut down today, what happens to the animals? They starve and die. In order for evolution to occur, it would require that the rate that the forest coverage disappears would have to be carefully balanced for millions of years. No sudden movements... in other words. Does it take millions of yeas for forrests to grow and shrink? If so then why? What fluctuations are we talking about and how do they fit into the concept of uniformitarianism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose evolution made sense to me, kind of like physics. It depends what you mean by christ. I believe there was a man named Jesus and the bible may provide a rough outline of his life. I dont believe he was anything more than a man.

Interesting, turning the question around. Hard to say, I'm somewhat less inclined to convert in too much of a hurry. I said before that i had only heard the evolution side of the argument and so this may sound arrogant. The thing is ill hear an argument for creationism, believe it, then later ill hear it refuted. Because of this i try to remain skeptical because often 'miracles' can actually be explained without the supernatural.

72003[/snapback]

Some miracles, and phenomena can not be explained by natural, logical explanations. I was a missionary in Africa, and if you want to get laughed at, just tell the Africans there are no demons. Why? Is it because they are uneducated? No, the educated ones will laugh at you too. Then why? Because the people there suffer from demonic powers reaking havoc on them. Now can their belief be exaggerated so that they are superstitious--yes. Demons work in fear, so their strategy is to bully and minipulate.

 

But it is based on true occurrances. I have seen conditions of demonic opression in Africa. Any missionary in Africa who has spent any time in the village has seen demonic activity. We once prayed for a man to be healed in Jesus Name, who suffered from a continual case of hiccups that would not go away. This was a commmonly known spell that a "fetisher" or "gueriseur" (witch doctor) would put on people for payment. Hold on before you shut me out.

 

I doubted these kinds of things at first, until the day we prayed that God would take away the hiccups from this man. The man could walk, until we prayed. As soon as we prayed he told the pastor I was with something in the Boule (Bowlay) tongue. He was showing discomfort, so I asked the pastor. He told me in French in a matter of fact manner, "L'esprit a bouge en bas, dans sa hanches." "The spirit has moved to his hips." The man could not walk after that. Several weeks later, after agreeing prayer (Matthew 18:19;Leviticus 26:8) of 10 pastors, the man was delivered of the spirit, and could walk again.

 

This agrees with "the spirit of infirmity" found in Luke 13:11-17. I would like to say the purpose of this miracle was to glorify God--not man. Exactly why you go preaching Jesus, and you pray in Jesus Name. So Jesus does the work, we just do it like he said.

 

11And there was a woman who had had(A) a disabling spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not fully straighten herself. 12When Jesus saw her, he called her over and said to her, "Woman, you are freed from your disability." 13And he laid his hands on her, and immediately she was made straight, and she glorified God....all the people rejoiced at all the glorious things that were done by him.

I believe the OP asks, what would it take for me to believe in evolution. The fact is after 27 years of being a Christian, and having experienced the power of the Word of God, and the Spirit of God, there is nothing that can convince that God is not responsible for creation and that the miracles of the Bible aren't true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every organism must constantly be exposed to a great flora of survival alternatives. The one that is closest at hand would dominate and therefore determine what kind of development an organism would adopt

Nothing really determines what path will be taken. This is where chance does come into it. Whatever mutation that occurs that benefits will be selected for but that doesn't decide the path.

 

 

 

But if you are going to tell me that the gods of selection pressure would patiently and benevolently wait around for millions of years for a reptile to take flight before some other survival mechanism steps in to save the day

Of course not. There is no predestined path. Flight just happened to be one of the things those reptiles evolved. Those that did we now call birds.

 

 

 

Furthermore, the suggestion that the coverage of forest in a continent could possibly provide enough selection pressure to change one kind of animal to another is just plain ridiculous

Not change from one kind of animal to another, change in the animal. Constant adaptation. After so many changes we call it macro evolution. And what do you find ridiculous about it?

 

 

When forest areas are cut down today, what happens to the animals? They starve and die. In order for evolution to occur, it would require that the rate that the forest coverage disappears would have to be carefully balanced for millions of years. No sudden movements... in other words.

Basically yes. Your right, when we cut down forests the animals starve and die. There is not really any time for animals to evolve. The difference is that back then trees weren't being cut down. It was just gradually became harder to grow and where in one location plants once sprung up, it may have been slightly too dry and no tree grew there.

 

What fluctuations are we talking about and how do they fit into the concept of uniformitarianism?

Sorry could you clarify?

 

 

I believe the OP asks, what would it take for me to believe in evolution. The fact is after 27 years of being a Christian, and having experienced the power of the Word of God, and the Spirit of God, there is nothing that can convince that God is not responsible for creation and that the miracles of the Bible aren't true.

I don't think I can really respond much to your post. I can imagine that seeing 'miracles' would be convincing and i wont bother debating them, I wasn't there so I cant judge how supernatural it was. I suppose perhaps I'll repeat a sort of mantra that given time most phenomena will be able to be explained. Also I noticed you didn't actually answer the OP's question. He didn't ask what would convince you that God didn't create the universe and cause miracles. he asked what it would take to believe in evolution. One can believe both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing really determines what path will be taken.

72162[/snapback]

That's my point. As long as any path would require more than one step there would have to be a reason why that organism did not surive through all the other paths available for that organism to survive. At any given point in time, the survival method of each and every organism on the face of this planet should constantly radiate into every possible survival method available - UNLESS there is something confining it to only one of those methods.

 

Why, for example, would the closest survival method for a reptile be to fly, which would require a HUGE number of steps, rather than to change diet if lack of a particular diet was threatening its existance, or develop longer and faster legs if predators were threatening its existence. There would have to be an incredibly broad range of other survival methods available within that animal's environment than something available outside of its environments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I noticed you didn't actually answer the OP's question. He didn't ask what would convince you that God didn't create the universe and cause miracles. he asked what it would take to believe in evolution. One can believe both.

72162[/snapback]

Yes you can believe in 'a god,' and believe in evolution, and/or you can claim to be able to belive in the God of the Bible and belive in evolution. We have had several on here that have claimed just that. The problem is you can not believe in Genesis literally and believe in evolution.

 

Now you might say that it's no problem, because Genesis is only one book. But Genesis is actually the root of the tree. It is where sin and death originated, which is man's problem. If man does not know what his problem is, or that he has a sin problem, and the nature of that sin problem, then he will attribute his problems to other things, and will seek to cure them by other means than what God provided.

 

Genesis is also the birth of the nation of Israel via Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, through which the promise of God's salvation plan of righteousness by faith came--again via Abraham. If you don't take Abraham literally, then it's hard to take any Pauline writng (the New Testament epistles). It's kind of saying your an evolutionist, but you don't take Origin of Species literally. Charles Darwin was speaking symbollically.

 

And finally, Genesis is traditionally accepted to have been written by Moses, who was one who had one of the greatest revelations of Yahweh God. He received the 10 commandments while on Mt. Sinai for 40 days. He was so full of God's glory, his face would radiate, so that he would wear a veil. This was known as 'shikanah' and many have seen this glory. I myself, after times of prayer, have vaguely seen this glory in the room. It is very faint, but appears almost as a glowing yellow mist. I have seen it only a couple of times in my life--and others have seen it also. It has been seen thgouhout the ages, so it is not something out of line with the scriputures, nor corroborating Christian testimony.

 

At any rate, you can not truly believe the gospel as preached and taught by the apostles and evolution. They are completely contradictory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an athiest, i accept evolution as the best understanding we have for the diversity of life. When i read about all the evidence that backs it up, it leaves little doubt that the theory of evolution is true.

 

I really think that the main reason people don't believe in it, is because they don't understand it. Anyway, i was wondering what it would take for you to accept evolution as a fact?

70429[/snapback]

Evolution defined as what exactly? Creationism is actually a radical evolutionary scenario. From Ararat emerges the parental forms of all living species, a few thousand years ago? That's evolution in no uncertain terms.

 

However, I know what you mean, you are talking about all of life having descended from a population of primordial bacteria that lived 3.5 billion years ago, right?

 

Here would be the first thing I would have to have, I would have to know how bacteria can evolve into plant and animal cells and then differentiate and organize into plants and animals. At a species level or even a genus level I'm not really all that skeptical that evolution happens, only what the limits are. At the kingdom level you would have to demonstrate something very convincing to persuade me that evolution at the level of kingdom is even possible.

 

Also, the time and the means for the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes. Time doesn't seem to be a problem since evolutionists have all the time in the world. What is needed is the means and changes in brain related genes, called mutations, are devastating.

 

That's pretty much it, get that much done and I could believe in evolution as a 'fact'. As a matter of fact, it probably wouldn't make a dimes worth of difference in my religious convictions.

 

Have a nice day <_<

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's my point. As long as any path would require more than one step there would have to be a reason why that organism did not surive through all the other paths available for that organism to survive

When you walk randomly through a forest you make your own path right? You didnt choose between multiple paths but chose each step. When you finish you call it the path you took.

 

At any given point in time, the survival method of each and every organism on the face of this planet should constantly radiate into every possible survival method available - UNLESS there is something confining it to only one of those methods.

For the organism the steps are each mutation. Once they have taken one we cannot really tell what the next one will be. Admittedly if one survival method appears then there may be selection pressure against others due to inconvenience. Not sure if i addressed your problem.

 

 

 

Why, for example, would the closest survival method for a reptile be to fly, which would require a HUGE number of steps, rather than to change diet if lack of a particular diet was threatening its existance, or develop longer and faster legs if predators were threatening its existence.

I think you raised the idea of a reptile evolving to bird like. But your right things like diet change or better legs are more likely to appear or at least appear sooner than wings.

 

 

There would have to be an incredibly broad range of other survival methods available within that animal's environment than something available outside of its environments.

Sorry i dont quite understand what you are saying here. Could you clarify please?

 

 

At any rate, you can not truly believe the gospel as preached and taught by the apostles and evolution. They are completely contradictory.

Ok my mistake.

 

 

Here would be the first thing I would have to have, I would have to know how bacteria can evolve into plant and animal cells and then differentiate and organize into plants and animals. At a species level or even a genus level I'm not really all that skeptical that evolution happens, only what the limits are. At the kingdom level you would have to demonstrate something very convincing to persuade me that evolution at the level of kingdom is even possible.

I think your addressing mushy who has been banned. I'm curious, why are you skeptical about evolution occurring at the kingdom level?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would take me to show that in a lab someway from said bacteria or what not that can be grown and simulated lab that a new species is formed.

 

i will do a thread on transpoons or jumping genes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

    i would take me to show that in a lab someway from said bacteria or what not that can be grown and simulated lab that a new species is formed.

Sorry do you mean grow a new species of bacteria from scratch or evolve it from another one. Also what would you define as a new species?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry do you mean grow a new species of bacteria from scratch or evolve it from another one. Also what would you define as a new species?

72269[/snapback]

a massive jump from bacteria to another kingdom. say amoebas? or the reverse.

 

i am not an expert on evolution and the specifics of each species known to man or a bio major.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry i had been thinking within a kingdom. Yes while ultimately not impossible the time taken for an organism to evolve from one kingdom to another would be astronomical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fixed your post for you… You have to insure your quote boxes are correctly placed.

72026[/snapback]

Thanks for that.

72032[/snapback]

No problem, it takes a little getting used to. Plus, if not corrected, it becomes pretty hard for other members to follow your post.

 

First – microevolution is nothing more than “adaptation†within a kind/species; or more succinctly the phenomena’s ability to adapt to inside and outside pressures. This is not at issue, as we see it every day. Further, it doesn’t need to be called ‘microevolution’, or even ‘evolution’ at all, as it was always called ‘adaptation’ before the evolution crowd came along and changed it, so as to make it support the model of ‘evolution’.

72026[/snapback]

Ok i agree with you on this point.

72032[/snapback]

Thanks, I try to keep things succinct ( for myself as much as anyone else), and the convoluted rabbit trails need to be removed just as chaff is removed from wheat to make it edible.

 

Second – macroevolution is the assertion that one species changes ‘evolves’ into another species. For example, an ape like creature ‘evolves’ into a man. Or in chain form; protozoa, to fish, to land mammal, to ape-like creature to man (oversimplified)

72026[/snapback]

Right now im not sure how literally you meant this as you put (oversimplified) but why do you think a species evolves into another species. Heres another analogy. If you take a picture of multiple people everyyear from when they are born till when they are 30, then show the first and last photos to someone, they are often unable to match them up( they are completedly different), but if you show them every picture it is obvious who is who.

72032[/snapback]

First – I take it quite literally, therefore I oversimplified to save time (mine) and forum space (here). To regurgitate the entire assumed line of succession, as promulgated by evolutionist, from protozoa to man, would prove quite lengthy, and I just don’t have time for that. Further, as I stated, it is assumed/presupposed, as there is no empirical evidence to tie these assumptions together.

 

Second – I don’t “think†any ‘species evolves into another species’. As I said; there is no empirical evidence to tie these assumptions together, therefore, until I see any empirical “real†evidence to support said “evolutionâ€ÂÂ, it (evolution) remains a hypothesis/model discussed in the abstract. And, when defended by evolutionists dogmatically, zealously and feverously as a fact or facts, is nothing more than another religion.

 

Third – you photograph analogy is weak at best (therefore a non sequitur) because you can absolutely prove “empirically†the identity of each and every person. But the evidence submitted for macroevolution is presupposed and assumed.

 

Further, whenever you make a statement like “macroevolution works because future evidence will support it†you are committing the logical fallacy of “Argumentum ad Futurisâ€ÂÂ. And since you are making the statement without firstly proving it (i.e. providing actual evidence for your assertions), you are committing the logical fallacy of “Assertum Non Est Demonstratum†or ‘to assert is not to demonstrate’. 

72026[/snapback]

I see what you mean, i never meant to state that future evidence will support macroevolution and thus that is why it works. I meant more that if we agree on mircoevolution(or adaptation) as having happened and continuing to happen, why shouldn't macroevolution also be happening and have happened. Just so i know, what kind of evidence were you looking for, the most common that comes to mind is fossil but if you would like experiments on evolution i can probably find some of those.

72032[/snapback]

What you are still failing to realize is that when you imply that “microevolution + time = macroevolution†sans any empirical evidence, no matter how you state it, is still “Argumentum ad Futuris†because of the “Assertum Non Est Demonstratumâ€ÂÂ!

 

One type of ‘Empirical’ evidence would be “gradual transitional fossils showing a lizard type animal ‘evolving’ into a bird type animalâ€ÂÂ. This does not imply a “lizard type animalâ€ÂÂ, then all of a sudden an animal with presupposed mixed features, then all of a sudden (again) a bird type animal. That would be macroevolution of the gaps, and these gaps are too wide for even the bondo of imagination to fill. AND why macroevolution is nothing more than a hypothesis/model discussed in the abstract. And, when defended by evolutionists dogmatically, zealously and feverously as a fact or facts, is nothing more than another religion.

 

Further, you can indeed submit ‘experiments on evolution’, but absolutely none have provided ‘empirical’ evidence to support ‘macro’ thus far. So, if you wish to provide them, you can, but will oyu be willing to admit the fallaciousness built into them as they are pointed out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fourth – You had a couple of loosely based and false analogies, but well just look at the most blatant. You said “It depends what you mean by christ.†and “I believe there was a man named Jesus and the bible may provide a rough outline of his life. I dont believe he was anything more than a man.â€ÂÂ… The first was a question; you then follow it up by two faith statements. Further, the plethora of historical evidence that supports the historicity of Jesus Christ AND that of His followers, further pushes your analogous statements into the faith realm. And to extend it out-and-out, there is far more evidence for Jesus Christ than there ever was for macroevolution.

72026[/snapback]

 

Im unsure what you mean by false analogies, i use analogies to explain things. When i said “It depends what you mean by christ.â€ÂÂ( not an analogy) what i meant was that if someone refers to christ they often mean jesus, however by saying christ they often also imply supernatural, which i dont believe. I also dont feel these are faith statements. In my life people dont write accounts of a fictional person's life and make them out to be true, so i can conclude it is likely Jesus was a real person. I also know that back in Jesus's time much was not understood about the world and people would have easily seen quite natural things as supernatural, therefore i feel its reasonable to be skepticle about any 'miracles' performed.

72032[/snapback]

A false analogy is when two totally opposing word pictures are presented, and then an attempt is made to reconcile them, or cobble them together. But the stiches of the seamstress are so obviously glaring, that it becomes easy to unravel it stich by stich (not unlike attempting to put new wine in an old wine skin, then letting it age) and expose the non sequitur. It just doesn’t work, because the conclusion does not follow from the premises submitted (i.e. Non Sequitur)…

 

Also, we ALL uses analogies when explaining everything from our children, to chemistry; from our automobiles to astronomy (etc...). But, as I explained above, false analogies, like fallacious syllogisms, are usually not all that hard to dismantle.

 

Further, when you attempt to separate the historical Jesus from the spiritual Jesus, based simply on your “beliefs†and totally ignore the mounds of historical evidences, your analogy does not follow (non-sequitur).

 

You assume that the eye witness cannot ‘simply’ describe what they saw. ALL of which, even when viewed today, would be considered miracles.

 

For example:

 

 

When Jesus fed thousands from a few loaves and a few fish, by simply pulling them out of a basket: I would be interested in your current empirical scientific explanation.

 

 

When Jesus turned water into wine, without even touching it (i.e. by simply speaking it): I would be interested in your current empirical scientific explanation.

 

 

When Jesus raised Lazarus from death, by simply speaking it: I would be interested in your current empirical scientific explanation.

 

 

I could go on and on, but I think, when viewed honestly, you’ll be able to see the fallacies in your argumentation and analogies.

 

 

And finally, what you think is “reasonable to be skeptical†about, when you obviously pour so much assumption into your analogy, can easily be exposed for the fallacies you’ve built into said opinion. The “critical thinker†looks from all angles, considers all the “evidencesâ€ÂÂ, separates the dross of presupposed opinion, and considers then, only the facts, to arrive at truth.

 

For the record i realize that i stated that species don't evolve into each other but later talked about reptiles evolving into birds. I did this for the sake of argument and would be happy to clarify if anyone wants.

72032[/snapback]

It is still simply assumption and presupposition; therefore you can indeed clarify all you wish to. I, although, on the other hand, would be more interested in empirical facts and evidences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t “think†any ‘species evolves into another species’. As I said; there is no empirical evidence to tie these assumptions together, therefore, until I see any empirical “real†evidence to support said “evolutionâ€ÂÂ, it (evolution) remains a hypothesis/model discussed in the abstract. And, when defended by evolutionists dogmatically, zealously and feverously as a fact or facts, is nothing more than another religion.

 

I dont suppose you have tried googling for evidence yet have you? I'm having trouble sorting through all the sites, Im assuming your wanting actual pictures and not references?

And for the record

re·li·gion

   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA

–noun

1.

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2.

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3.

the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

 

 

I suppose you could lump evolution with the first one but you would have to only take the first line.

 

Third – you photograph analogy is weak at best (therefore a non sequitur) because you can absolutely prove “empirically†the identity of each and every person. But the evidence submitted for macroevolution is presupposed and assumed.

How could you prove empirically the identity? If someone found those photos would it be simple belief to connect the people?

 

 

One type of ‘Empirical’ evidence would be “gradual transitional fossils showing a lizard type animal ‘evolving’ into a bird type animalâ€ÂÂ. This does not imply a “lizard type animalâ€ÂÂ, then all of a sudden an animal with presupposed mixed features, then all of a sudden (again) a bird type animal. That would be macroevolution of the gaps, and these gaps are too wide for even the bondo of imagination to fill

Ok so how big a gap is too big? I very much doubt we can find a line of fossils showing even every 100 generations due to the probability of fossilizing being so low.

 

Further, you can indeed submit ‘experiments on evolution’, but absolutely none have provided ‘empirical’ evidence to support ‘macro’ thus far. So, if you wish to provide them, you can, but will oyu be willing to admit the fallaciousness built into them as they are pointed out?

Yes i realized after i posted that the experiments i was thinking about only really proved microevolution which we both agree on. The problem with macro is indeed time and so i suppose your right in saying that( at least right now) there is no EMPIRICAL evidence. That isnt to say there is no evidence altogether but in terms of experiments there hasn't been enough time and there probably wont be for a long time.

 

 

Further, when you attempt to separate the historical Jesus from the spiritual Jesus, based simply on your “beliefs†and totally ignore the mounds of historical evidences, your analogy does not follow (non-sequitur).

What "beliefs" of mine are you referring to? Also i was wondering, aside from the biblical documents, is there other evidence for supernatural Jesus.

 

 

You assume that the eye witness cannot ‘simply’ describe what they saw. ALL of which, even when viewed today, would be considered miracles.

 

Actually i assume the eye witness did describe simply what they saw. And what makes you think that they would be considered miracles today? When my cousin bunches up paper in his hand and makes it disappear i dont believe it is a miracle, i believe he knows a clever magic trick.By the way do you apply the empirical standard to your evidence for Jesus?

 

 

For example:

 

 

When Jesus fed thousands from a few loaves and a few fish, by simply pulling them out of a basket: I would be interested in your current empirical scientific explanation.

 

 

When Jesus turned water into wine, without even touching it (i.e. by simply speaking it): I would be interested in your current empirical scientific explanation.

 

 

When Jesus raised Lazarus from death, by simply speaking it: I would be interested in your current empirical scientific explanation.

 

 

I could go on and on, but I think, when viewed honestly, you’ll be able to see the fallacies in your argumentation and analogies.

Interesting that you mentioned the Lazarus one, i had recently had an idea on how that happened involving natural tricks. For the others i could only make speculation, i dont know enough about the conditions. Did you watch that Sherlock Holmes movie that came out a while back? I found it great because of the supernatural elements that were explained at the end. A man managed to come back to life, set someone on fire without touching him etc. All done with clever tricks that appeared supernatural.

 

 

And finally, what you think is “reasonable to be skeptical†about, when you obviously pour so much assumption into your analogy, can easily be exposed for the fallacies you’ve built into said opinion. The “critical thinker†looks from all angles, considers all the “evidencesâ€ÂÂ, separates the dross of presupposed opinion, and considers then, only the facts, to arrive at truth.

What analogy are you referring to? I was explaining my position without comparing it to something else.

 

By the way as a starter site try wikipedia. Wikipedia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don’t “think†any ‘species evolves into another species’. As I said; there is no empirical evidence to tie these assumptions together, therefore, until I see any empirical “real†evidence to support said “evolutionâ€ÂÂ, it (evolution) remains a hypothesis/model discussed in the abstract. And, when defended by evolutionists dogmatically, zealously and feverously as a fact or facts, is nothing more than another religion.

72275[/snapback]

I dont suppose you have tried googling for evidence yet have you? I'm having trouble sorting through all the sites, Im assuming your wanting actual pictures and not references?

And for the record

re•li•gion

   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA

–noun

1.

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2.

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3.

: a world council of religions.

 

 

I suppose you could lump evolution with the first one but you would have to only take the first line.

72280[/snapback]

First – I am very aware of what evolutionists posit as ‘evidence’. But you are the one making the claims that macroevolution is true, therefore it is incumbent upon YOU to provide said evidence. If you cannot provide said evidence, you are doing nothing more than submitting mere opinion.

 

Second – The religion of evolution fits quite nicely under #1 of your reference definition “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universeâ€ÂÂ. But your definition is lacking additional lines.

 

Third – Here is a more definitive definition (there are other as well):

 

World English Dictionary

religion (rɪˈlɪdʒən)  n

1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny

2. any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief: the Christian religion

3. the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers

4. chiefly RC Church the way of life determined by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience entered upon by monks, friars, and nuns: to enter religion

5. something of overwhelming importance to a person: evolution is her religion

6. archaic

a. the practice of sacred ritual observances

b. sacred rites and ceremonies

 

[C12: via Old French from Latin religiō fear of the supernatural, piety, probably from religāre to tie up, from re- + ligāre to bind]

 

In the above lines, #5 fits evolutionism when the evolutionists attempts to defend macroevolution as a fact, dogmatically, fervently and zealously.

 

 

Third – you photograph analogy is weak at best (therefore a non sequitur) because you can absolutely prove “empirically†the identity of each and every person. But the evidence submitted for macroevolution is presupposed and assumed.

72275[/snapback]

 

How could you prove empirically the identity? If someone found those photos would it be simple belief to connect the people?

72280[/snapback]

Hmmmmm, quite simply… You do the leg work by investigation, looking for facts, checking the backgrounds, questioning relatives, friends and other “eyewitnessesâ€ÂÂ. It’s pretty basic stuff…

 

Oh, and by the way, that was a nice bit of goalpost shifting by “all of a sudden†introducing the “If someone found those photos†twist. But you did do one thing by introducing that, you did describe evolutionary investigation quite well. Looking at fossils and “simply believing†it was true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One type of ‘Empirical’ evidence would be “gradual transitional fossils showing a lizard type animal ‘evolving’ into a bird type animalâ€ÂÂ. This does not imply a “lizard type animalâ€ÂÂ, then all of a sudden an animal with presupposed mixed features, then all of a sudden (again) a bird type animal. That would be macroevolution of the gaps, and these gaps are too wide for even the bondo of imagination to fill

72275[/snapback]

Ok so how big a gap is too big? I very much doubt we can find a line of fossils showing even every 100 generations due to the probability of fossilizing being so low.

72280[/snapback]

The actual gap that evolution has to surmount is too big! And everything in-between is rife with faith statements and presupposed guesses. Further, your ‘doubt’ should be your first clue.

 

 

 

Further, you can indeed submit ‘experiments on evolution’, but absolutely none have provided ‘empirical’ evidence to support ‘macro’ thus far. So, if you wish to provide them, you can, but will oyu be willing to admit the fallaciousness built into them as they are pointed out?

72275[/snapback]

Yes i realized after i posted that the experiments i was thinking about only really proved microevolution which we both agree on. The problem with macro is indeed time and so i suppose your right in saying that( at least right now) there is no EMPIRICAL evidence. That isnt to say there is no evidence altogether but in terms of experiments there hasn't been enough time and there probably wont be for a long time.

72280[/snapback]

And therein lies the rub for the evolutionist: “Assertum Non Est Demonstratum†means that you are asserting macro, but you have not provided evidence for macro. But you further reinforce the evidence of my assertion of “Argumentum ad Futuris†with the above statement ‘at least not right now’ and “there probably won’t be for a long time’… this is basically a prayer to the future for evidence to support your assertion.

 

 

Further, when you attempt to separate the historical Jesus from the spiritual Jesus, based simply on your “beliefs†and totally ignore the mounds of historical evidences, your analogy does not follow (non-sequitur).

72275[/snapback]

What "beliefs" of mine are you referring to?

72280[/snapback]

If you go back to your statement that I was referring to, you’d see where you made a “belief†statement.

 

Also i was wondering, aside from the biblical documents, is there other evidence for supernatural Jesus.

72280[/snapback]

Absolutely! There are many historical witnesses to miracles over the centuries, just as there are contemporaneous miracles for the supernatural Jesus. I, myself have been witness to many miracles that point directly to the supernatural Jesus. But, we are discussing the Biblical historicity of Jesus, as we not? That is what you were making “belief statements†against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You assume that the eye witness cannot ‘simply’ describe what they saw. ALL of which, even when viewed today, would be considered miracles.

72275[/snapback]

Actually i assume the eye witness did describe simply what they saw. And what makes you think that they would be considered miracles today? When my cousin bunches up paper in his hand and makes it disappear i dont believe it is a miracle, i believe he knows a clever magic trick.By the way do you apply the empirical standard to your evidence for Jesus?

72280[/snapback]

So, you are attempting to make your cousin analogous to Jesus? Or is this another non sequitur? Wadding up paper and making it disappear is analogous speaking someone back to life? This should be a very revealing discussion.

 

 

For example:

 

When Jesus fed thousands from a few loaves and a few fish, by simply pulling them out of a basket: I would be interested in your current empirical scientific explanation.

 

When Jesus turned water into wine, without even touching it (i.e. by simply speaking it): I would be interested in your current empirical scientific explanation.

 

When Jesus raised Lazarus from death, by simply speaking it: I would be interested in your current empirical scientific explanation.

 

I could go on and on, but I think, when viewed honestly, you’ll be able to see the fallacies in your argumentation and analogies.

72275[/snapback]

Interesting that you mentioned the Lazarus one, i had recently had an idea on how that happened involving natural tricks. For the others i could only make speculation, i dont know enough about the conditions. Did you watch that Sherlock Holmes movie that came out a while back? I found it great because of the supernatural elements that were explained at the end. A man managed to come back to life, set someone on fire without touching him etc. All done with clever tricks that appeared supernatural.

72280[/snapback]

Hmmmmm, I find it quite interesting that I was asking for “your current empirical scientific explanationâ€ÂÂ, and you provide red herrings, and/or equivocations? Therefore, I will humor you and say “no, I didn’t watch that Sherlock Holmes movie that came out a while backâ€ÂÂ…. Please explain…

 

 

And finally, what you think is “reasonable to be skeptical†about, when you obviously pour so much assumption into your analogy, can easily be exposed for the fallacies you’ve built into said opinion. The “critical thinker†looks from all angles, considers all the “evidencesâ€ÂÂ, separates the dross of presupposed opinion, and considers then, only the facts, to arrive at truth.

72275[/snapback]

What analogy are you referring to? I was explaining my position without comparing it to something else.

72280[/snapback]

Zendra… Whenever you explain your position, you are always comparing it to something/someone else. You do realize that, do you not?

 

 

 

By the way as a starter site try wikipedia.  Wikipedia

72280[/snapback]

 

Zendra… I used to be a contributor to Wikipedia. I am very familiar with the evolutionary leanings and liberal interpretations and sometimes fallacious (non-parsed and non-vetted) sources being used there.

 

Further, I am aware of all the arguments evolutionists attempt to promulgate as fact. But the thing is this, I am not calling on Wikipedia to answer for their assertions; I am calling on YOU to back up your assertions with facts, and to explain them cogently! I can link to sources all day long and have you chase them around. But then again, that wouldn’t be conversation between us, would it!

 

I have already done quite a bit of homework on these subjects, as I have been at this a very long time. I am still learning every day, and I read quite extensively on many diverse subjects every day (and I’m not talking about Wikipedia).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First – I am very aware of what evolutionists posit as ‘evidence’. But you are the one making the claims that macroevolution is true, therefore it is incumbent upon YOU to provide said evidence. If you cannot provide said evidence, you are doing nothing more than submitting mere opinion.

I understand that and I'm sorry for seeming to be dodging around it. I think I'll start with the fossil record especially concerning the whale and horse seeing as we have a pretty good line for them. Im not sure if you checked that link i posted but heres another Evo Horses

 

Hmmmmm, quite simply… You do the leg work by investigation, looking for facts, checking the backgrounds, questioning relatives, friends and other “eyewitnessesâ€ÂÂ. It’s pretty basic stuff…

I had meant found as in side of the road found, where you would not know the relatives and friends. In the same way that we find fossils. I was trying to get at that we make the links by spotting similarities, we may not know but we can work out the most likely possibility.

 

Oh, and by the way, that was a nice bit of goalpost shifting by “all of a sudden†introducing the “If someone found those photos†twist. But you did do one thing by introducing that, you did describe evolutionary investigation quite well. Looking at fossils and “simply believing†it was true.

I wasn't trying to goalshift. As i said above I was trying to represent how we link fossils. When you said how we knew who the photos were off i felt you were missing my point so i tried to narrow it by saying they were found. And i'm surprised you felt it was simply believing. Like I said before we actually use reasoning to work out the links.

 

 

The actual gap that evolution has to surmount is too big! And everything in-between is rife with faith statements and presupposed guesses. Further, your ‘doubt’ should be your first clue.

I hope your not implying that because we cant find one fossil the organism didn't exist. I dont need a photo of my grandmother to know she existed. the fact that i have a great grandmother and a mother i can conclude there was an in between generation.

 

 

So, you are attempting to make your cousin analogous to Jesus? Or is this another non sequitur? Wadding up paper and making it disappear is analogous speaking someone back to life? This should be a very revealing discussion.

You had stated that the miracles Jesus performed would be considered miracles today. I was pointing out that in fact nowadays when we see a 'miracle' we dont assume they are supernatural but instead believe them to be a clever trick.

 

 

Hmmmmm, I find it quite interesting that I was asking for “your current empirical scientific explanationâ€ÂÂ, and you provide red herrings, and/or equivocations? Therefore, I will humor you and say “no, I didn’t watch that Sherlock Holmes movie that came out a while backâ€ÂÂ…. Please explain…

I stated that i didn't have an explanation due to lack of information. I refereed to Sherlock Holmes because it is an excellent example of these supernatural acts which we are unable to explain, being explained with no supernatural intervention needed.

 

Zendra… Whenever you explain your position, you are always comparing it to something/someone else. You do realize that, do you not?

No in fact i dont sorry, please enlighten me.

 

Zendra… I used to be a contributor to Wikipedia. I am very familiar with the evolutionary leanings and liberal interpretations and sometimes fallacious (non-parsed and non-vetted) sources being used there.

 

Further, I am aware of all the arguments evolutionists attempt to promulgate as fact. But the thing is this, I am not calling on Wikipedia to answer for their assertions; I am calling on YOU to back up your assertions with facts, and to explain them cogently! I can link to sources all day long and have you chase them around. But then again, that wouldn’t be conversation between us, would it!

 

I have already done quite a bit of homework on these subjects, as I have been at this a very long time. I am still learning every day, and I read quite extensively on many diverse subjects every day (and I’m not talking about Wikipedia).

Fair enough, what do you take as fact. Evolution is generally accepted as fact yet we are debating it here. I dont really have access to physical evidence so thats why i refer to sites. Im perfectly happy to explain things.

 

 

If you go back to your statement that I was referring to, you’d see where you made a “belief†statement.

Sorry i couldn't find it, but then again i probably wont consider it a belief statement. Could you please provide the quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you walk randomly through a forest you make your own path right? You didnt choose between multiple paths but chose each step.

72185[/snapback]

Hi zendra,

 

You seem to be totally missunderstanding my point. Perhaps that is my fault as I am not as good at explaining things as others here.

 

Naturally, if I was to trip over my neighbor's cat, fall down the stairway and tumble out into the street then that would be the "path" I had taken - whether or not it was the result of something random.

 

However, since the evolution of a reptile into a bird would require a great number of steps in a specific direction, then it doesn't follow a random pattern. A reptile does not turn into a bird over night. It requires multiple steps.

 

If I start climbing up a ladder then, at any given point in time, I would always have three basic choices: to continue upwards, to stay on the rung I'm standing on, or to go back down again. Amazingly, that is what we are observing in nature, but RARELY within the same kind of animal. Some stay the same, some apparently undergo millions of changes, and some leave their environment, go into another, only to return again to their original environment.

 

What on earth would confine ONE type of animal to ONE survival path? A lizzard being chased by a preditor would develop faster legs long before developing the ability to fly. A lizzard that survives by jumping from branches would also survive by adapting its appetite to the abundance of food that obviously exists on the ground long before morphing into a bird.

 

Evolution is a fantasy. A fantasy that no one wants to reject.

 

I'm not sure if I will have the time to respond that much from now on, but I noticed that goldliger deals with this idea, primarily in point nr. 2, here

 

Hope you have the time to address his points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be totally missunderstanding my point. Perhaps that is my fault as I am not as good at explaining things as others here.

all good, thats why i like the internet, in reality i often rush and speak as i think.

 

Naturally, if I was to trip over my neighbor's cat, fall down the stairway and tumble out into the street then that would be the "path" I had taken - whether or not it was the result of something random.

 

However, since the evolution of a reptile into a bird would require a great number of steps in a specific direction, then it doesn't follow a random pattern. A reptile does not turn into a bird over night. It requires multiple steps.

 

If I start climbing up a ladder then, at any given point in time, I would always have three basic choices: to continue upwards, to stay on the rung I'm standing on, or to go back down again. Amazingly, that is what we are observing in nature, but RARELY within the same kind of animal. Some stay the same, some apparently undergo millions of changes, and some leave their environment, go into another, only to return again to their original environment.

 

What on earth would confine ONE type of animal to ONE survival path? A lizzard being chased by a preditor would develop faster legs long before developing the ability to fly. A lizzard that survives by jumping from branches would also survive by adapting its appetite to the abundance of food that obviously exists on the ground long before morphing into a bird.

The problem I feel you have( i may be wrong) is that you seem to be assuming there is are specific survival paths. In terms of the legs before wings thing, I think the theory is that feathers actually evolved for warmth first, when later mutations came it wasn't a great leap for arms to evolve into wings.

Wouldn't a lizard that survives from jumping from branch to branch evolve to take advantage of the new food sources available to it up in the trees?

 

I get that lizard to bird would require many changes but there is no specific direction from one to the other. Birds are just what we call the things in our time. Perhaps it would help if you dont think of animals as separate species.

 

Sorry I wish i could finish but I'm in a rush. Maybe I'll be able to finish this post later if you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all good, thats why i like the internet, in reality i often rush and speak as i think.

The problem I feel you have( i may be wrong) is that you seem to be assuming there is are specific survival paths. In terms of the legs before wings thing, I think the theory is that feathers actually evolved for warmth first, when later mutations came it wasn't a great leap for arms to evolve into wings.

Wouldn't a lizard that survives from jumping from branch to branch evolve to take advantage of the new food sources available to it up in the trees?

 

I get that lizard to bird would require many changes but there is no specific direction from one to the other. Birds are just what we call the things in our time. Perhaps it would help if you dont think of animals as separate species.

 

Sorry I wish i could finish but I'm in a rush. Maybe I'll be able to finish this post later if you want.

72334[/snapback]

If there are no specific paths where are the other attempts via random mutation to bring about legs, wings etc... All we ever see in the fossil record are the ones with the proper design. If evolution is about the survival of the fittest where are the attempts that were not-so-fit... they should exist as well yet we do not find them... Unless evolutionists assume that the first random mutation that occured was the correct one and thereafter and so forth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms