Question for anti-evolutionists

[MorningGlory]

I would expect, if we shared a common ancestor, to find hybrids at some point. If a group splits into two genomes you wouldn't suddenly see two species. It would seem that there would be interbreeding for ages. I'm not aware of any fossils that show this. Do they exist?

No, they do not exist. Your analysis is correct. This is where evolution falls flat every time, there would have to be intermediate species that do not exist.

If your question was directed at one person, I did not mean to be rude.

No, it was addressed to the board so feel free. But, please, quote the poster's name you're addressing; I thought that was my post but it was so long ago I wasn't sure.

[Guest]

.... As far as credentials of those supporting evolution you can go to the specific field of BIOLOGY where over 99% of professional biologists will tell you that the evidence supports evolution. Who cares what cosmologists or physicists think about biology? Why not, you know, ask biologists about biology since that is their specialty? ....

Where Are The Controlled And Repeatable Experiments Showing Evolution

(Yet Repeatably We DO Observe Life Only Coming From Life)?

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Colossians 1:16-17

Would They Lie About Science By Claiming Man's Myths Are Facts?

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Romans 1:25

Where Are The Controlled And Repeatable Measurements Of Evolution In Action

(Yet Repeatably We DO Observe Like Life Forms Only Coming Only From Like Life Forms)?

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Genesis 1:21-22

Would They Lie About Science By Claiming Man's Myths Are Facts?

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?

Isaiah 29:16

>>>>>()<<<<<

Question For Anti-Creationists

Why Lie About The Creator The LORD Jesus Christ?

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Revelation 4:11

Why Lie About Science? Is The Intent To Destroy The Faith Of The Little Ones?

And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

Mark 9:42

Ever Think That There Might Really Be A Creator God And He Might Just Hold These Mockers Of His Holy Bible Accountable?

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

Mark 12;36

Hummmm...

[Boash]

Lurker here are few more for you to critic just for kicks: E. Theo Agard, Alan Gillen, D. Russell Humphreys and the list could go on. But while we are on the credentials kick what are yours?

Why you think someone with a physics degree is imminently qualified to understand biological evolution escapes me. As far as I can tell Agard uses his area of expertise to argue against a purely natural origin of the universe (something I agree with him on), and abiogenesis.

Russell Humphreys is just a flat out crack pot, the guy's cosmology (notice, again, the absence of biologists?) includes things like supernatural time dilation and white holes. You might as well watch an episode of Star Trek and call it science because they use lots of big words.

As far as credentials of those supporting evolution you can go to the specific field of BIOLOGY where over 99% of professional biologists will tell you that the evidence supports evolution. Who cares what cosmologists or physicists think about biology? Why not, you know, ask biologists about biology since that is their specialty?

Lurker

No need for me to go you just acknowledged my point.

[Shiloh62]

I have been wondering if any of the people here can name some predictions of what type of evidence we should be looking for concerning evolution. For instance, if we take the basic idea that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, what sort of evidence would we expect there to be for this? If these two organisms do share a common ancestor it would mean that their two genomes, which we can see now and examine in essentially as much detail as we want, were formerly the same genome, in the common ancestor, and that differences have built up since they split. Working on this basis, what would we expect the two modern genomes to look like? What evidence should there be that these two genomes are ultimately derived from the same one?

As a follow on, if the genetic data sets the existence of the common ancestor at around 5-7 million years ago, what should the fossil record look like from that point on?

They're not because they don't.

[Hawkins]

I have been wondering if any of the people here can name some predictions of what type of evidence we should be looking for concerning evolution. For instance, if we take the basic idea that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, what sort of evidence would we expect there to be for this? If these two organisms do share a common ancestor it would mean that their two genomes, which we can see now and examine in essentially as much detail as we want, were formerly the same genome, in the common ancestor, and that differences have built up since they split. Working on this basis, what would we expect the two modern genomes to look like? What evidence should there be that these two genomes are ultimately derived from the same one?

As a follow on, if the genetic data sets the existence of the common ancestor at around 5-7 million years ago, what should the fossil record look like from that point on?

First, truth is evidence-independent. Evidence is for a human belief system to believe that it is the truth. Faith is inevitably involved in this process.

Science is about the discovery of natural rules that can predict. It takes not much faith to believe in science because scientific rules can predict precisely for a human brain to reckon them as the truth.

The bad part is that evidence are waiting for a human brain to explain. Even worse, evidence ca be used by a belief system to interpret in a subjective way to support what the belief system itself wants to believe. When a school of thoughts go through such a process, or has to rely on such a process, it can hardly be scientific.

History can hardly be proven scientifically, historical evidence are waiting for a human brain (rather human belief system) to interpret. History can thus hardly be scientific at all. In contrary, faith is inevitable whenever history is involved. The more far away history is, perhaps more faith is needed.

How can a scientific theory never cater related basic elements. Or how can a scientific theory is incapable of handling basic factors directly impact the theory itself. If a scientific theory cannot even handly the basic elements or direct factors impacting the theory itself, how can this theory be scientific?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Temperature, humidity and so forth are basic environmental factor directly impacting evolution itself (if evolution exists at all). Yet ToE appears as if they are irrelevant. ToE can hardly be scientific because it is incapable of dealing the most basic elements which directly impacting the process. This is actually why ToE can never make a prediction.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Hawkins