Heated debate on evolution with brother

[Mr Greene]

Mmmm... Copypasta...

"Evolution is just a proposal without the fossils"... or the junk DNA, embryology, vestigial organs, phylogeny, protein redundancy,...

[Esquilax]

Fossils support Biblical Creation. An example with be the Trilobites. They appeared suddenly without evidence of transitional forms. Naturalism propounds something like this:  "Trilobite Origins and Extinction: Trilobites probably arose from a soft bodied ancestor in the Pre-Cambrian. The first actual trilobites fossils found are from the Cambrian"*

Wrong: not only do we have pre-cambrian trilobyte fossils- redlichiids, for one- we also have fossils detailing the emergence of distinct morphological features that do not exist within the earliest specimens, as close to a transitional record as one can reasonably expect for such an ancient classification.

Mind you, even if you hadn't begun with a complete falsehood, restricting your argument to a single order of creatures and ignoring all the other ones would still not be good logic. But then, that's what we expect from you by now.

The Cambrian period corresponds to the 5'th day ('day' here is a long but definite period of time'). Some 500 mya, the number of Earth’s animal phyla (a phylum designates life-forms sharing the same basic body plan) increased dramatically. Somewhere between 50 and 80 percent of all animal phyla ever to exist appeared.

Pretty convenient that a "day" can just mean whatever stretch of time you want it to. I wonder what possible justification you might have for using the term that way?

But if you want to go that way, then you've now got to reckon with all the many, many ways that the "day" order in genesis is simply dead wrong. Because, see, if you're pegging the Cambrian period as the fifth day, you've fucked up: god is all like "hey, here's seeded plants now, woo!" on the third day, yet the earliest known precursor of modern seeds- not even actual seeds but the things seeds evolved from- is a Devonian era fossil, and the Devonian era is about a hundred million years after the Cambrian. So now you've got day three happening before day five, good for you. You also have vegetation existing before the stars, including the sun, which... no. You have birds coming into existence on day five along with the water-borne creatures, which is not even close to true, because the first birds arose long after the Cambrian era and there are no avian fossils in Cambrian strata, since you place so very much importance on fossil evidence.

So is the Cambrian the fifth day or not? Because if it is, then your genesis account literally cannot be true: the third day precedes the fifth in the bible, yet it happens after it in the evidence. Which is it?

So what's being proposed here is 'probably' a soft-bodied ancestor evolved to a fossil exoskeleton arthropod; however, there is no soft-bodied specimen, nor any somewhat fossilized specimen that can be presented. Without the fossils, evolution is just a proposal.

So you're just going to arbitrarily hone in on an area where we have fossils, but not the particular ones you've arbitrarily assigned importance to, while ignoring all the rest?

Okay, whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Alex K]

Mmmm... Copypasta...

"Evolution is just a proposal without the fossils"... or the junk DNA, embryology, vestigial organs, phylogeny, protein redundancy,...

ERVs...

[AceBoogie]

Fossils support Biblical Creation. An example with be the Trilobites. They appeared suddenly without evidence of transitional forms. Naturalism propounds something like this:  "Trilobite Origins and Extinction: Trilobites probably arose from a soft bodied ancestor in the Pre-Cambrian. The first actual trilobites fossils found are from the Cambrian"*

The Cambrian period corresponds to the 5'th day ('day' here is a long but definite period of time'). Some 500 mya, the number of Earth’s animal phyla (a phylum designates life-forms sharing the same basic body plan) increased dramatically. Somewhere between 50 and 80 percent of all animal phyla ever to exist appeared.

So what's being proposed here is 'probably' a soft-bodied ancestor evolved to a fossil exoskeleton arthropod; however, there is no soft-bodied specimen, nor any somewhat fossilized specimen that can be presented. Without the fossils, evolution is just a proposal.
*http://www.fossilguy.com/gallery/invert/arthropod/trilobite/.

Are you suggesting that the possibility of there being some gaps in the line means that you consider the whole of the theory to be false or irrelevant?

[The Valkyrie]

Funny thing is, you don't have to try very hard to "dismantle the Christian belief." You just have to sort of look around you and observe.

operator

Fossils support Biblical Creation. An example with be the Trilobites. They appeared suddenly without evidence of transitional forms. Naturalism propounds something like this:  "Trilobite Origins and Extinction: Trilobites probably arose from a soft bodied ancestor in the Pre-Cambrian. The first actual trilobites fossils found are from the Cambrian"*

The Cambrian period corresponds to the 5'th day ('day' here is a long but definite period of time'). Some 500 mya, the number of Earth’s animal phyla (a phylum designates life-forms sharing the same basic body plan) increased dramatically. Somewhere between 50 and 80 percent of all animal phyla ever to exist appeared.

So what's being proposed here is 'probably' a soft-bodied ancestor evolved to a fossil exoskeleton arthropod; however, there is no soft-bodied specimen, nor any somewhat fossilized specimen that can be presented. Without the fossils, evolution is just a proposal.
*http://www.fossilguy.com/gallery/invert/arthropod/trilobite/.

One Hundred Per cent Correct.

Now, in MY fantasy world....

[Amarok]

Not to mention we have soft body fossils there very rare but they do exist . But that's to be expected as soft parts don't fossilized well that's just chemistry .And yes this yahoo is ignoring what we know .And desperately trying to shift the conversation to area's were we know less . as if that helps creationism . No gap proves sudden appearances  by magic . Nor disproves the fossils we do have . And hell even if we had all the fossils ever creationist would still declare evolution wrong anyway. It's about ideology not evidence.

[Fake Messiah]

Yeah like some other members mentioned "why don't you read a science book? why don't you look at the evidence?" and the difference between me (or any other rational person) and you is that I take the world as it is, I rely on observable evidence; while you have an agenda. In your case it's that Jesus rose from the dead. You start with that foundational belief then conveniently sidestep logic and reason backward to specific beliefs. Everything has to subordinate so that your fundamentalism can be untouched. Therefore since Jesus divinity makes perfect sense to you, evolution can't because that is ultimately contradictory to divinity of Jesus.

Therefore you have to ask yourself why do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead and that it wasn't a case that people lied, someone ransacked the tomb, the witnesses were unreliable (of course if Jesus even existed)?
Seriously, What evidence would prove you that Jesus was not divine/rise from the dead?

That's why when you mostly talk to religious people that deny evolution, it is rarely about the evolution itself and showing them the evidence, rather it's about their bias, their core belief on which their worldview stands on.

No one has come close to showing that even the simplest living entity could possibly assemble itself.

Again snowtracks you just prove your bias that you fail to read any science book because of Jesus. You want him to be divine so you just ignore the science.
So am I supposed to teach you here how there are these things called DNA and RNA? And how activated RNA actually builds DNA. Some viruses don’t have DNA, but they do have RNA (and yet viruses are not even considered alive although they can be killed), and this led many scientists to hypothesize life beginning in an RNA world.
RNA and DNA are both made of many-times repeated components called nucleotides. It took a while, but researchers have shown how RNA nucleotides could have formed naturally in conditions now expected of the prebiotic Earth.
But why bother because you won't care until you let your agenda away and we all know what that agenda is.


Another thing is that this is a topic about evolution and not abiogenesis. Evolution deals with changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next and descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations, but it does not deal with the emergence of the theories of life origins. Sure abiogenesis has a decent amount of evidence behind it, but nowhere near as much as evolution does. There are still hypoteses competing and the one that proposes it was Jesus' magic doesn't have much going for it.

[Whateverist]

Without the fossils, evolution is just a proposal.[/font][/color][/size]
*http://www.fossilguy.com/gallery/invert/arthropod/trilobite/.

As opposed to "goddidit" for which the evidence of God's existence could scarcely be any better.

[Amarok]

*http://www.fossilguy.com/gallery/invert/arthropod/trilobite/.

Fossil guy is fuck hack turn to actual science sites for science

[snowtracks]

No one has come close to showing that even the simplest living entity could possibly assemble itself.

Can I try, too?
No one has come close to showing that even the simplest god could possibly assemble itself.

False Equivalence - created entity to eternal entity.
Creation affirms that God is a necessary being (a being that cannot not exist or must exist) that called all contingent realities (things that cannot create themselves) into existence. God is thus the infinite and eternal, self-existent. Past infinite regression explanations breakdown logically into metaphysical speculations. God has reveal himself in two ways: 1. General Revelation (Creation), 2. Special Revelation (Scripture). All 7 billion persons should know the reason for Creation*. It appears per scripture that a large minority will choose connection with God thru redemption; while the smallest majority will choose separation by rejecting redemption.
-------------
Probably most would concluded using the natural mind where we perceive things subject to the cosmic timeline (didn't exist prior to the Big Bang per the space-time theorems) that there should be nothing (as no thing), but there is. How can a Triune God have always existed, no one can come close to comprehending.
* The reason is per Special Revelation: God's Work of Redemption**. Creation is the backdrop or stage where it's all played out.
** He has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time - (before Creation, therefore a greater work). The gift of free will makes people responsible for their choices.