(April 21, 2014 at 9:10 am)Revelation777 Wrote: If a kind or basic type of animal over a long period of time has evolved into a different kind of basic type of animal, then it is reasonable to expect a plethora of transitional forms in the fossil record. However, this is not the case, rather, the fossil record shows the original diversity of animal and plant forms.

How did you become an expert on this subject? If you're not an expert, why do you think you know more than the people who have devoted their lives to the study of fossils do?

(April 21, 2014 at 9:10 am)Revelation777 Wrote: Evolution models of the fossil record predict the following:
- wholesale transitions in organisms over time
- primitive forms evolving into complex forms
- gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms

We do not find any of these to be true based on our fossil record.

Oh, really?

(April 21, 2014 at 9:10 am)Revelation777 Wrote: Trilobites are an example of an organism appearing suddenly in the fossil record void of any evidence of transitions. Furthermore, trilobites have an organized complexity comparable to modern day invertebrates.

Do you think it follows that 'appear suddenly in the fossil record' equates to 'appears suddenly'. How do you measure complexity in fossils? Does evolution really predict that simple forms will evolve into more complex forms, or does it actually predict that life forms will either evolve to be better fitted to their reproductive environment--even if that involves 'growing more simple', stay roughly the same, or go extinct?

(April 21, 2014 at 9:10 am)Revelation777 Wrote: The facts remain, fossils have been discovered to suddenly appear in the record without transition. This is what would be expected from intelligent design not macroevolution.

Some fossils do. Some lineages have an exquisitely detailed fossil record showing all significant transitions for long periods of time.

---

(April 21, 2014 at 12:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Wow! This Rev guy is even dumber than I originally thought.

Nah...I knew from the start.

It's less idiocy, I think, than having been brainwashed very effectively. Maybe I'm more sympathetic because getting out of it was a slow process with me rather than precocious skepticism as it was for many posters, or those who were never indoctrinated in the first place.

Natural hybrid!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyX7HH0omIU

(April 21, 2014 at 9:34 am)Faith No More Wrote: http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

Well, that was easy.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...-creatures

This clearly answers if apes evolved into humans

---

(April 21, 2014 at 9:44 am)FreeTony Wrote: If you want to play at science then I would expect you to answer this:

What would you expect to see in the fossil record that would support a Creationist hypothesis?

http://www.creationproof.com/id24.html

probably some of this

(April 21, 2014 at 3:47 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(April 21, 2014 at 3:43 pm)Cato Wrote: Not likely, he's too afraid of falling off.

Come on, all bible believing Christians known the earth is at the center of the universe, where can you fall off to from there?

Sorry to bust your bubble but the earth is at the center of the observable universe.

(April 21, 2014 at 5:22 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...-creatures

http://www.creationproof.com/id24.html

probably some of this

Humans are apes.

https://iho.asu.edu/

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/nick.he.html

http://www.wilderdom.com/evolution/Human...ctures.htm

Sounds like someone's been huffing Ken Ham's fumes to me.

(April 21, 2014 at 11:13 am)Chuck Wrote:

(April 21, 2014 at 9:10 am)Revelation777 Wrote: Trilobites are an example of an organism appearing suddenly in the fossil record void of any evidence of transitions. Furthermore, trilobites have an organized complexity comparable to modern day invertebrates.

If more primitive ancesters of trilobites were found some time in the future, dating to before when you and your ilk thought there was a "sudden appearence", would you then admit transitional form exists and the biblical creation thereby proven to be bullshit?

If not, then how ingenuous can be possibly be in raising these objections?

there are changes that happen within species, but not species into a different species

I thought this thread was going to be an argument, not a bunch of unsupported assertions.

That, to me, indicates a complete failure to present a compelling argument. So argument 1 has been an utter failure.

He's now just repeating the same assertions that have already been knocked down, such as having different expectations what to see with Evolution, because he gets his understanding of Evolution from

ANSWERS IN GENESIS