Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[Baalzebutt]

Start by producing evidence of fossils that show where one creature left off and the other one began directly from it aka the second creature evolved from the first creature, and there are no gaps in the fossils record.

Still looking for the croc-o-duck?

Your statements indicate that you have not even the tiniest shred of knowledge regarding the mechanics of evolution. You still believe that a crocodile laid an egg and it hatched a duck.

That isn't how it works, my ignorant little friend.

[orogenicman]

Quiz time, Mr./Ms. ALTER2EGO.



Hmm.



Must have bugged out.

[LostLocke]

Start by producing evidence of fossils that show where one creature left off and the other one began directly from it aka the second creature evolved from the first creature, and there are no gaps in the fossils record.

I'll try to give you perspective to what you're asking.....

Find a newborn, take a picture of him/her on the 1st of every month for the first 50 years of its life.
Now, go back through the pictures and point to the exact one where the person is now an adult and definitely not a child.
I can guarantee you that single magical picture does not exist.

(I'm also making a bet with myself that I pretty much know what you're going to say in response to that... )

[Minimalist]

You are wasting your time, L/L. You can't reason with creatards.

[Rahul]

Start by producing evidence of fossils that show where one creature left off and the other one began directly from it aka the second creature evolved from the first creature, and there are no gaps in the fossils record.

The problem is punctuated equilibrium. A species can go unchanged for millions of years. Then their environment changes and they have to adapt or die off. This results in a very fast rate of evoluion until they have adapted to the new conditions.

This can happen in as little as a couple tens of thousands of years. So there are far fewer individuals than in a genetically stable species. Since fossilization is so rare, it's very difficult to find such a critter.

[Ryantology]

[Whateverist]

I guess macro-evolution must be that theory no one actually holds which says one animal went to sleep as one species and woke up something altogether different.

[Alter2Ego]

Why? Because you say so? As I previously stated, the scientific consensus a few centuries ago was that earth is the center of the universe. It turns out that that was dead wrong. Rather than being the center of the universe, earth revolves around the sun.

No: because over a century of science says so. You know, that "the earth was once thought to be X, therefore science can't be trusted" argument is so flawed; once we had the ability to test it it became pretty quickly clear that a flat earth, or a geocentric universe, or whatever else was untenable.

But when we gained the ability to test evolution, multiple times over since we've developed genetic, geological and observational tests since the inception of the theory, evolution only becomes a more clear fact. We keep running tests... and those tests keep confirming that evolution is true.

ALTER2EGO -to- ESQUILAX:
What tests are you referring to? You have not quoted any sources that back up your claims about evolution being a "clear fact." Instead, you are simply telling the forum what you have chosen to believe.

FYI: There is no such thing as "evolution fact." There is only evolution theory, and theories are merely attempts at explaining why a phenomena occurred. Or didn't you realize that?

[Ryantology]

I don't recall a single test of this variety which ever demonstrated the 'fact' that the Christian God magicked life into existence.

You can dispute how much evidence evolution has until the cows evolve into pterodactyls, because even disproving the theory doesn't change the fact that creationism is a worthless assertion with zero evidence.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I used to buy creationism. But it was because I grew up in a muslim country where evolution has been kept out of schools for so long that my knowledge of it was limited to knowing the words "theory of evolution". And since no one ever talked about it I only heard of it once or twice in my entire life and dismissed it.

Then I went to university here in Toronto, did my required readings for a course on evolution, and it was immediately apparent that creationism is bullshit, and evolution is true.

The thing is, I don't think anyone can claim to think evolution is not sufficiently proven if they actually go learn about it. Unless they're being intellectually dishonest, and attempting to lie to themselves. Or you have a very high standard for evidence (which you cannot claim with a straight face if you believe in creationism).

If you really think evolution isn't real, don't debate with atheists, do yourself a favour and learn about what it really is. (If you're still waiting for transitional forms then you don't know what it really is, if you still think that gays are unexplained, and morals and alturism are unexplained, you don't know what evolution is.) If you don't trust scientists, fine, read 10 evolution books by scientists (who most probably dedicated their lives to their work), then read 10 creationism books by Christians (who dedicated their lives to convince you that your god is real). Then ask yourself what you really think happened. If you still intend to "convert" people into creationism by the end of that, at least you'll be well informed.