RE: Argument #1: Transitional Fossils
April 22, 2014 at 10:47 pm
(This post was last modified: April 22, 2014 at 10:52 pm by Revelation777.)
(April 21, 2014 at 6:48 pm)pocaracas Wrote:(April 21, 2014 at 5:27 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: drawings of foot bones and sketches are unconvincing to me
3 points I addressed.... you decided to speak of one of them.... and in a very rude and crude manner... not to say something "minimalist-like".
In the 2 lines preceding the "drawings and sketches", what did I write?
Care to tell me?
What was the very relevant piece of information I relayed to you by the form of writing on an online forum?
Did you understand it?
Clearly not, or else you wouldn't have taken the time to write that turd I'm quoting above!
Were you perhaps expecting me to send you, via this very online forum, the actual fossils, the millions of fossils from thousands and thousands of different locations, depths and plant and animal species??
And did you expect to understand from what sort of plant or animal that ancient fossil came from?
Can you even grasp the number of different fields of knowledge and science that are required to identify one fossil?
Let go of your lying and conning sites and learn from the people who actually work in the fields of science you are trying to address.
Do you know what a fossil is?
I looked it up on the net and read about it. The lack of fossil evidence doesn't defend your position. Also, a discovery of a tooth or part of a jawbone doesn't give the greatest scholar the right to draw a detailed animal that suits their theories.
(April 21, 2014 at 6:05 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:(April 21, 2014 at 5:27 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: drawings of foot bones and sketches are unconvincing to me
In other words, you aren't familiar enough yourself with the concepts involved to properly evaluate the evidence yourself, so you reject it for not fitting your untrained expectations.
(April 21, 2014 at 5:27 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: I respectfully disagree, if you lived back in the Garden my money would be you would of been in complete awe and wonderment.
Speaking for myself, I'm in complete awe and wonderment right now. What does that have to do with the topic?
(April 21, 2014 at 5:27 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Actually evolution would expect creatures over time transitioning into a trilobyte, instead, we just find trilobytes...sounds like Creation to me.
Due to the haphazard nature of fossilization, we don't expect to find complete lineages of most species, so it's not unexpected that some would appear in the fossil record whose direct ancestors weren't preserved. If Creation were true, we wouldn't expect to find organisms that were extinct before humans showed up, and we wouldn't expect to find any transitional fossils at all, because Creation excludes the possibility of transitional organisms entirely.
Either that or it requires evolution at a pace that no organism can manage (all extant cat species having evolved from one proto-cat-kind in the last several thousand years, for instance).
(April 21, 2014 at 5:27 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Then everyone should of evolved into the strongest, most rugged, smartest, creature imaginable. The rabbit must not of got the memo.
Evolution doesn't have an arrow. It always has to make do with what it's got to work with, and the only criteria it has is reproductive success. Rabbits are VERY successful, evolutionarily speaking. That is how badly you misunderstand what the theory actually says.
You make it sound like "evolution" is some sort of intelligence. "it has to make do" and "its got to work with." Does evolution have a plan and a will? Sounds like evolution has some qualities of a Creator?
