Why Creation Is Right and Evolution Is Wrong.

[JohnD]

19 minutes ago, JohnD said:

13 hours ago, one.opinion said:

The fossil record has many examples of transitional forms, if this is what you are referring to.

Not one legitimate macro-evolution transitional form.

One.opinion has provided us with the atheist programmed response. Which I clarified to my original point. 

There are many  fossils that are miscategorized as transitional forms... like the Nebraska man tooth that turned out to be a pigs tooth.

Or there are just plain frauds where an apes jawbone was filed down to fit a human skull (the name of that one escapes me... was it Piltdown man?).

Extinct species were placed in incorrect sub-species of other forms. This sort of thing.

There are developments within kinds of animals etc. Dogs are offshoots of wolves. This is why I was careful to say Macro-evolution.

But dogs do not become cats.

Plants do not become people.

Monkeys or apes do not become people.

No transitional forms whatsoever in the fossil record.

None.

Evolutionists merely tell everyone there are. This is a lie. And they cite the frauds, miscategorizations, or examples of micro-evolution within a species (like a moth that changes color over time from white to black which is still a moth) as "proof" their religious belief in evolution is true.

And when these don't work, they try to bully people or bog down the discussion with straw man arguments or endless rabbit trail arguments. 

All of which is a lot of trouble to go to form what they claim to be the simple truth.

Fact... running into brick walls hurts, breaks bones, can kill you because the simple truth is brick walls are solid. 

Fact... gravity holds us to the Earth.

Fact... the sky is blue.

See what I mean?

Those who hold to untruth as truth are up against the facts and reality so they must invent ever growing subterfuge to argue it or disguise it or try to convince everyone (including themselves).

 

[vlad]

14 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Thank you for your patience and wisdom in this reply and in this thread, Vlad. It might be a good idea for me to follow your example more closely.

Thank you for your support, brother. God bless you.

[Guest shiloh357]

15 hours ago, one.opinion said:

The fossil record has many examples of transitional forms, if this is what you are referring to.

No, the fossil record has nothing in terms  of transitional forms.  That is pure myth.

[Guest shiloh357]

16 hours ago, vlad said:

Did you really write that: "Yes, there and honest skeptics and Atheists like Dawkins know that to be true.  Christians are less honest than skeptics when it comes to Evolution.  Pretty bad when unbelievers can tell the truth and so-called "Christians"  are the ones who promote the lie."?  

 

Yes, I really did write that because it is true.   Atheists are far more honest about how the Bible and Evolution do not mix.   It's "Christians" who need to either edit the Bible, redefine key biblical terms or simply outright reject essential biblical doctrine in order to make the Bible "fit' artificially into an evolutionist world view.    Atheists actually take the Bible for what it says and while they are wrong, at least they are honest about the text and the biblical worldview.   "Christians"  that support evolution lack the basic integrity, honest and moral character needed to tell the truth about the Bible and its relationship to Evolution.

[Guest shiloh357]

15 hours ago, one.opinion said:

1. Mice accidentally introduced to the Island of Madeira by Portuguese sailors have differentiated into different species within the last 500 years.

  http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/island_mice.shtml

Certain mouse populations underwent genomic changes (Robertsonian translocation) that altered the number of chromosomes in the different populations, rendering them reproductively incompatible.

2. Mice introduced to the Faroe islands also underwent phenotypic divergence and speciation.

https://www.setur.fo/uploads/tx_userpubrep/A_molecular_characterization_of_the_charismatic_Faroe_house_mouse.pdf

3. In the 1800s, Hawthorn flies in the United States underwent some interesting speciation. A subpopulation of the Hawthorn flies became more attracted to apple trees and diverged away from the main population. The new population diverged behaviorally from the original Hawthorn flies and became a new species by sympatric speciation.

http://news.ncbs.res.in/research/rise-apple-maggot-fly-–-how-altered-sense-smell-could-drive-formation-new-species

4. A population of fireweed underwent speciation when a small pocket became autotetroploid (four copies of each chromosome, instead of two). The tetraploid population was no longer reproductively incompatible, thus different species.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1514534?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Are these new species vastly different from the species they diverged from? Obviously not. However, they are indeed completely different species.

No, they are not, if you are talking about macro-evolution.  A new species of fly is still a fly.   If you could find a fly that evoloved into a mouse, then we have something to talk about.   Like I said, you have nothing that supports the base claims of Evolution.

[one.opinion]

14 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, they are not, if you are talking about macro-evolution.  A new species of fly is still a fly.

You asked for examples of something becoming a completely new species. Here's your quote:

"Give me a modern example of a speicific animal where it has been observed evolving from one species to an entirely different species.   I mean, science is all about observation, so show it."

I provided 4 examples of organisms becoming completely new species. You re-defined the parameters of your request after I provided four examples for you. It is a straw-man argument to claim "if you could find a fly that evolved into a mouse, then we have something to talk about." Christians that argue against evolution should understand the theory well enough to argue legitimately. Regardless, I will humor you. If you want to see a transition beyond species, you have two options -- 1) wait a really long time or 2) check the fossil record.

39 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

No, the fossil record has nothing in terms  of transitional forms.  That is pure myth.

 

2 hours ago, JohnD said:

No transitional forms whatsoever in the fossil record.

None.

Now, you two and I will obviously disagree on the legitimacy of the examples I will use, but if you don't even know the claims of evolution well enough to avoid straw-man arguments, you should probably admit that your expertise in the area of paleontology is insufficient for legitimate arguments against experts in the field. I am not claiming expertise in this area, but will show you claims that experts make.

1. Archaeopteryx

Eleven different fossils remains of Archaeopteryx have been found. The fossils are different enough that paleontologists classify these as a family, rather than a single species. The fossilized remains of Archaeopteryx show both bird and dinosaur features. At first glance, these clearly had wings and feathers, but these also had a long tail, teeth, and claws on the wings. This family clearly exhibits features of two very different groups, thus it is claimed to be transitional.

2. Whale series

I'm sure we can all agree that whales and dolphins are fascinating animals. The theory of evolution requires that terrestrial mammals developed into whales and dolphins, which might stretch the imagination a bit. However, there is available evidence to argue that the fossil record shows us exactly that. There is a series of fossils beginning with Pakicetus, then extending through Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Rodhocetus, and Duradon, that ends up with current dolphins and whales. The series shows the progression of features consistent with the overall transition, like restructuring of limbs, and movement of nostrils to the top of the head.

Guys, these are just two of many examples. If you want to argue about what these fossils really mean, then do that. But please don't stick your heads in the sand and pretend that these fossils don't exist. This willful ignorance reflects poorly on Christians.

 

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

7 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

You asked for examples of something becoming a completely new species. Here's your quote:

"Give me a modern example of a speicific animal where it has been observed evolving from one species to an entirely different species.   I mean, science is all about observation, so show it."

 

Yes, I gave you examples previously of what I meant and your examples don't meet that criteria.

[Guest shiloh357]

16 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

1. Archaeopteryx

Eleven different fossils remains of Archaeopteryx have been found. The fossils are different enough that paleontologists classify these as a family, rather than a single species. The fossilized remains of Archaeopteryx show both bird and dinosaur features. At first glance, these clearly had wings and feathers, but these also had a long tail, teeth, and claws on the wings. This family clearly exhibits features of two very different groups, thus it is claimed to be transitional.

It is only transitional insomuch that Evolutionists need a transitional fossil.  

Quote

 

. Whale series

I'm sure we can all agree that whales and dolphins are fascinating animals. The theory of evolution requires that terrestrial mammals developed into whales and dolphins, which might stretch the imagination a bit. However, there is available evidence to argue that the fossil record shows us exactly that. There is a series of fossils beginning with Pakicetus, then extending through Ambulocetus, Kutchicetus, Rodhocetus, and Duradon, that ends up with current dolphins and whales. The series shows the progression of features consistent with the overall transition, like restructuring of limbs, and movement of nostrils to the top of the head.

Guys, these are just two of many examples. If you want to argue about what these fossils really mean, then do that. But please don't stick your heads in the sand and pretend that these fossils don't exist. This willful ignorance reflects poorly on Christians.

 

Pakicetus was originally thought to be a whale based solely on the head in absence of any other skeletal remains.  It was later discovered to be a full on land animal and not an ocean dweller.   So I am not buying into the whale evolution nonsense. 

Edited January 8, 2018 by shiloh357

[one.opinion]

9 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

It is only transitional insomuch that Evolutionists need a transitional fossil.  

So you don't have any reason to reject a family of animals with characteristics of both dinosaurs and birds being transitional, you are just going to claim it isn't so.

 

10 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Pakicetus was originally thought to be a whale based solely on the head in absence of any other skeletal remains.  It was later discovered to be a full on land animal and not an ocean dweller.   So I am not buying into the whale evolution nonsense. 

So something that looked like a whale in the skull, but was still terrestrial is your evidence against transitional forms? What is the problem, does it look too transitional?

[one.opinion]

23 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Yes, I gave you examples previously of what I meant and your examples don't meet that criteria.

So you're just going to double-down on your straw-man argument?