Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Tonus]

Seems like you have made some harsh judgmental statements towards people you don't share the same views towards.

Such as "if you reject Jesus you will spend an eternity in Hell"?

[Confused Ape]

I believe my mind can be changed, but only if God changes it. I don't claim to know it all. However, I do believe in an Intelligent Designer who knows it all because He created it all.

You can still believe in an Intelligent Designer if you want to without resorting to Answers In Genesis. From Old Earth Ministries -

Old Earth Belief

Let's start with a basic explanation of old earth theology. There are several major positions one can take with regards to belief in an old earth and universe. Using a simplistic view of old earth creationist beliefs, they can basically be split into two groups, those who hold to a Day-Age Interpretation, and those who believe in the Gap Theory.

Some people mix and match these theories. For instance, a Gap Theory believer may believe in evolution during the billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

In an informal poll conducted on this website, with over 1,100 respondents who believe in an old earth, 45 percent are Progressive Creationists, 32 percent are Theistic Evolutionists, 10 percent believe in the Gap Theory, and the rest are old earth, but undecided as to which position to believe in.

This means that the majority of Christians, who all believe that God did it one way or another, think that Ken Ham and other Young Earth creationists are talking garbage.

I am not trying to argue old earth vs. new earth.

You're using a Young Earth Creation website for your sources. Everything on that website is written from the belief that the universe is only 6,000 years old. This gives the impression that you're trying to promote Young Earth Creation.

Most people on this board do not believe in God, I do. I am here to present God, many on here feel I am doing a terrible job at it.

You'll never convince anyone by using a site which is about how God didn't do it, all supposing that he did it at all, of course.

I wonder what would of happened if you lived in Jesus' day and asked, "Rabbi, did we come from monkeys?"

Asked who? Jesus or any rabbi who happened to be passing?

[Ryantology]

I wonder what would of happened if you lived in Jesus' day and asked, "Rabbi, did we come from monkeys?"

Asked who? Jesus or any rabbi who happened to be passing?

If Jesus told you that we descended from earlier primate ancestors in central Africa, I might actually be tempted to take him seriously because it's evidence he isn't a total fraud.

[Revelation777]

hmmm... if a chihuahua and a mastiff belong to the same species, imagine just how different their fossils must look like, in the far future...
How many different species are in the fossil record which may belong to the same species, but of different breeds or races?

Lots. Absent soft tissue and/or DNA, it is often hard to tell whether two somewhat different fossil specimens really represent two species, or different sexes within the same species, or normal range of morphological variation within the same sex of the same species. Sometimes it is even hard to tell if two different specimens really represent two individual of same species, but died at different ages, or even different part of the year, resulting in differences in annual growths such as deer antlers.

Also, many species are recognized based on partial remains. If two sets of non-overlapping partial fossil remains are discovered, it is often impossible to tell whether they represent two different species, or are different parts of animals of the same species.

Sometimes mistakes happen in reverse, such as assigning two non-overlapping sets of partial remains to the same species, when in fact they came from different species, resulting in fanciful fossil reconstructions of a single species that really consist of parts of two different species.

That is why it is unrealistic and deceptive to draw a rendering of an "transitional" organism when all you have is a tooth and a part of a jawbone.

---

Then everyone should of evolved into the strongest, most rugged, smartest, creature imaginable. The rabbit must not of got the memo.

*must not have (you don't learn, do you?)

You do not understand even the first thing about evolution; your statement above demonstrates that. Read a real science book, not "Answers in Genesis".

---

You can criticize my poor grammar but go please refrain from the obscenities. Thank you.

You are a fucking moron.

I hope someday in the future you evolve from foul language and insults.

---

This seems to be a common reply to those who reject God and don't have an answer to perplexing questions. "We don't yet but we are working on it." The problem is that the answer is, "God." Because some don't like that answer they keep searching in vain.

Now you're not even confronting the objection. You're off in left field somewhere, with a personal insult twist.

This seems to be a common reply to those who reject Zeus and don't have an answer to the perplexing question of lightning. "We don't about lightning yet but we are working on it." The problem is that the answer is, "Zeus." Because some don't like that answer they keep searching in vain.

What you don't realize is the you've latched on to a source not only laughed at by atheists, but the entire scientific community at large, secular and religious scientists alike.

If you're fine with throwing away your argument and admitting you've lost, sticking to this source is a clear indicator.

Instead of dismissing the source, retort it. Many shrugged off and laughed at Jesus' words as well. Doesn't mean it isn't true. They said, "Is this not the carpenter's son?"

---

Then everyone should of evolved into the strongest, most rugged, smartest, creature imaginable. The rabbit must not of got the memo.

Sure they 'got the memo'.

They evolved the ability to breed constantly. They do not have wait to be in heat like most animals do. Larger populations guarantee population survival.

You do get the evolution effects populations and not individuals....right?

They also have quite good eyesight, see distances very well, and can detect fast changes in movement. Good for detecting predators.

They also evolved to blend into every environment they inhabit. White rabbits live in areas with snow. Tan colored rabbits live in tan colored deserts. Just a coincidence, I'm sure. Has nothing to do with survival and reproduction fitness or anything...

Nice response. God did a good job creating the rabbit - they are tasty too, taste just like chicken.

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

Look to the trilobite!

---

Wait a second...

If something was impossible, then nothing could have caused it, not even an intelligence.
But if something was possible, then you can apply the anthropic principle.

And isn't it kind of funny that all the good arguments for theism revolve around the appearance of life?

Nothing is impossible for God. He is all powerful and creation for Him is as easy as speaking.

---

Listen, we refer to a God that is not just floating mysteriously in space. He has revealed Himself to mankind through His Son.

Given that you can't prove even an iota of that claim, then I'd say "floating in space" is a safer bet.

Dear Sir,
Is everything in your life false unless you can see, touch, understand, and prove?

---

Given that you can't prove even an iota of that claim, then I'd say "floating in space" is a safer bet.

More like lost in space.

God's throne is in heaven and earth is His footstool. We are the lost ones.

---

That sounds more like what an agnostic would say. Listen, we refer to a God that is not just floating mysteriously in space. He has revealed Himself to mankind through His Son.

Now let's say, hypothetically, for some reason, you were exposed to all this, but it really is not true, and were all made up to exploit your psychological weakness and deceive the likes of you.

In such a hypothetical scenario, how would YOU, from this moment, go about so you can discover whether all this is a lie?

God's Word is true, however, if that were flawed, which it is not, then I stand on sand. I have found it to be true and consistent in my life and in the lives of many.

[pocaracas]

Lots. Absent soft tissue and/or DNA, it is often hard to tell whether two somewhat different fossil specimens really represent two species, or different sexes within the same species, or normal range of morphological variation within the same sex of the same species. Sometimes it is even hard to tell if two different specimens really represent two individual of same species, but died at different ages, or even different part of the year, resulting in differences in annual growths such as deer antlers.

Also, many species are recognized based on partial remains. If two sets of non-overlapping partial fossil remains are discovered, it is often impossible to tell whether they represent two different species, or are different parts of animals of the same species.

Sometimes mistakes happen in reverse, such as assigning two non-overlapping sets of partial remains to the same species, when in fact they came from different species, resulting in fanciful fossil reconstructions of a single species that really consist of parts of two different species.

That is why it is unrealistic and deceptive to draw a rendering of an "transitional" organism when all you have is a tooth and a part of a jawbone.

You're, of course, aware that science isn't made from the drawings and artistic depictions which are based on very incomplete fossils, aren't you?
The science that comes through to the masses is very simplified and the drawings help the public relate... the actual scientists couldn't care less about those drawings.... so I fail to understand why you keep bringing them forward...

[DarkHorse]

Rev, it seems you hold AiG with the same high regard as you do the bible. Your two seemingly never wrong sources. Pity.

[Ryantology]

Is everything in your life false unless you can see, touch, understand, and prove?

I doubt anything I don't personally experience, to some greater or lesser degree. I doubt quite a few things I do personally experience, because my ability to correctly interpret my own sensations is not perfect.

[Chas]

*must not have (you don't learn, do you?)

You do not understand even the first thing about evolution; your statement above demonstrates that. Read a real science book, not "Answers in Genesis".

---

You are a fucking moron.

I hope someday in the future you evolve from foul language and insults.

I hope that someday in the future you evolve from ignorance and closed-mindedness to knowledge and wisdom.

You are worse than completely ignorant of what evolution is - you have adopted lies and misinformation.

Read a book on evolution written by an actual scientist or just shut the fuck up.

[Silver]

but can you respect that?

No, because silly personal beliefs are not above reproach and do not necessarily deserve respect.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Lots. Absent soft tissue and/or DNA, it is often hard to tell whether two somewhat different fossil specimens really represent two species, or different sexes within the same species, or normal range of morphological variation within the same sex of the same species. Sometimes it is even hard to tell if two different specimens really represent two individual of same species, but died at different ages, or even different part of the year, resulting in differences in annual growths such as deer antlers.

Also, many species are recognized based on partial remains. If two sets of non-overlapping partial fossil remains are discovered, it is often impossible to tell whether they represent two different species, or are different parts of animals of the same species.

Sometimes mistakes happen in reverse, such as assigning two non-overlapping sets of partial remains to the same species, when in fact they came from different species, resulting in fanciful fossil reconstructions of a single species that really consist of parts of two different species.

That is why it is unrealistic and deceptive to draw a rendering of an "transitional" organism when all you have is a tooth and a part of a jawbone.

You've been given several extensive lists of transitional fossils. Straw manning this extensive list as "a part of a jawbone and some teeth" is extremely dishonest.

Now you're not even confronting the objection. You're off in left field somewhere, with a personal insult twist.


What you don't realize is the you've latched on to a source not only laughed at by atheists, but the entire scientific community at large, secular and religious scientists alike.

If you're fine with throwing away your argument and admitting you've lost, sticking to this source is a clear indicator.

Instead of dismissing the source, retort it. Many shrugged off and laughed at Jesus' words as well. Doesn't mean it isn't true. They said, "Is this not the carpenter's son?"

Hello in there Rev, can you hear me? Is this thing on?

Your source, AiG, has already been thoroughly retorted, disproven, shown to be a biased and false collection of fake straw men.

Answers in Genesis (AiG) is a non-profit Christian apologetics ministry with a particular focus on supporting young Earth creationism by interpreting scientific evidence in favor of a young earth, which differs from the scientific consensus on the matter. It also advocates a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.[2]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis

Your source is being laughed off because it has been examined, and shown to be fake science, and yet you keep posting it, because it says what you want to hear. Not unlike a Flat-Earther, Bigfoot believer or Alien Abductee.

Claiming it hasn't only shows you have not bothered to click a single link in any of the replies in between searching AiG for something to copy-paste.

The biblical passages you're quoting do not support your argument about transitional fossils, and every claim you've made has been thoroughly debunked.

Time to hike up your Big Boy Pants and move on.