Right Divider
Body part
Enough said.
If Evolution
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
Barbarian asks anyone to name two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, which lack a transitional form.
Yep. Otherwise we get creationists asking why there's not a transitional between spiders and eagles. Don't give them a chance to play that game.
Yep. Otherwise we get creationists asking why there's not a transitional between spiders and eagles. Don't give them a chance to play that game.
Right Divider
Body part
Vain speculation is a favorite game of your atheistic evolutionary world-view.
6days
New member
Answered by Right Divider. Saying something and believing is not science.
Barbarian asks anyone to name two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, which lack a transitional form.
(complaints that only absence of transitionals between evolutionarily connected groups count)
Yep. Otherwise we get creationists asking why there's not a transitional between spiders and eagles. Don't give them a chance to play that game.
RD chants the creationist mantra against reason:
Apparently, false accusations are a favorite game of your atheistic creationist worldview. I understand why the issue is frustrating for you. I gather that you've checked and couldn't find any, either. You might next try to see if there are any transitional forms where they shouldn't be, according to evolutionary theory.
And then maybe you should do some serious thinking about your new religious doctrines.
(complaints that only absence of transitionals between evolutionarily connected groups count)
Yep. Otherwise we get creationists asking why there's not a transitional between spiders and eagles. Don't give them a chance to play that game.
RD chants the creationist mantra against reason:
Apparently, false accusations are a favorite game of your atheistic creationist worldview. I understand why the issue is frustrating for you. I gather that you've checked and couldn't find any, either. You might next try to see if there are any transitional forms where they shouldn't be, according to evolutionary theory.
And then maybe you should do some serious thinking about your new religious doctrines.
Last edited:
gcthomas
New member
The paper says this in the Discussion section:
"These data are not sufficient to support the claim that DNA visualized in these cells is dinosaurian in origin; only sequence data can testify to its source. However, these data suggest that affinity purification using antibodies may provide a means of recovering and concentrating sufficient amounts of DNA to be useful for next generation genomic sequencing. Because only about 15%–20% of cells from the dinosaurs reacted positively, and because reactivity that was observed was minimal relative to extant cells, there may be insufficient DNA present to validate its origin by current sequencing technology."
(My emphasis)Interesting research, well carried out, but even the author spells out the limitations and weaknesses of her research. Stripe's claim is premature.
Right Divider
Body part
:mock: "Against reason"
:dizzy:
Please feel to demonstrate some UNEQUIVOCAL and UNAMBIGUOUS data to support these "according to evolutionary theory" trees of life.
:rotfl:
(Barbarian asks for some evidence of the supposed "missing links")
(No one can find one)
Barbarian asks again:
Anyone know of one?
(attempt at diversion)
(No one can find one)
Barbarian asks again:
Anyone know of one?
(attempt at diversion)
Since RD seems to have conceded the fact that evolutionary theory is supported by numerous transitional forms and by the lack of transitionals where they shouldn't be, let's move on to other unequivocal and unambiguous evidence for common descent.
Anyone want to look at genetics next?
Anyone want to look at genetics next?
Right Divider
Body part
RD concedes that atheistic evolutionists like "the Barbs" claim to know far more than they really do.
Sure... not doubt you'll toss out tons of EQUIVOCAL and AMBIGUOUS "data" for our examination.
Barbarian observes:
Since RD seems to have conceded the fact that evolutionary theory is supported by numerous transitional forms and by the lack of transitionals where they shouldn't be, let's move on to other unequivocal and unambiguous evidence for common descent.
Unless you're an atheist, the number of atheists in this conversation is 0. Is there something you're hiding from the rest of us, here?
I'm guessing that in your personal dictionary, "equivocal" and "ambiguous" mean "any facts that contradict things Right Divider really really wants to believe."
Since RD seems to have conceded the fact that evolutionary theory is supported by numerous transitional forms and by the lack of transitionals where they shouldn't be, let's move on to other unequivocal and unambiguous evidence for common descent.
Unless you're an atheist, the number of atheists in this conversation is 0. Is there something you're hiding from the rest of us, here?
I'm guessing that in your personal dictionary, "equivocal" and "ambiguous" mean "any facts that contradict things Right Divider really really wants to believe."
Right Divider
Body part
Equivocal and ambiguous mean just what they mean.
If you're not an atheist, then I apologize for calling you that. BUT, your view on origins and "evolution" are identical to an atheist and therefore my confusion.
The typical "theory of evolution", such as the one your keep preaching here, is full of wild speculation and use of EQUIVOCAL and AMBIGUOUS "facts" to "prove" the "theory".
6days
New member
You seem unable to realize how illogical your question is...unable to realize your question was answered....unable to respond to questions and answers already provided.The Barbarian said:
I asked if you want to trust God's Word and science... or, secularists like Richard Dawkins circular 'logic' (and his comment that it is only an appearance of sudden planting of fossils). Arranging a progression of fossils from a 'monkey' to a man to fit your belief system, does not make any fossil in your pattern, transitional. Science and God's Word exposes that as a lie.
Answering from God's Word.... God created birds before land animals which contradicts your belief system. God created man separate and distinct from primates which contradicts your beliefs. There are no transitional between those groups no matter which picture book of Darwin's tree you place your trust in.
Science helps confirm the truth of Scripture. The problem you are having is ...The Barbarian said:
* you confuse evolutionism with science.
* You confuse evidence with interpretations.
* And you confuse your belief in common ancestry with truth and reject God's Word in the process.
Jesus on a couple occasions refers to humanity existing from "the beginning"...or The "foundations of the world". You reject His plain words because it doesn't fit your secular beliefs in common ancestry.
You were shown to be dishonest on this matter before. You are sort of like Richard Dawkins who has been proven wrong on numerous things, but keeps repeating the same lie. (vertebrate eyes, evolutionary trees etc)The Barbarian said:
You likely aren't as stupid as you make yourself out to be. Are you confused when the weather girl on TV tells you that the sun rose at 6 AM and the temperature is 20 degree. Do you reject everything she says, since the sun does not really rise?The Barbarian said:
The Bible tells us that Jesus was born of a virgin. Do you reject that because of 'science'? The Bible tells us that God created Eve from Adam's rib? Do you reject that because of your a priori beliefs in common ancestry?
His Word tells us "in six days God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them". That seems to be "His way."The Barbarian said:
Barbarian observes:
Barbarian asks anyone to name two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, which lack a transitional form.
We had an assertion that there were no such transitionals. I'm just showing you that no one here can show us even one case where two major groups lack them.
C'mon. Everyone here knows better. If you think I missed one, put it up and I'll see what I can find for you. Do you really think this is going to work for you?
And I explained to you that while one trusts God, science has to provide evidence. If you want to rely on your spokesman Dawkins, feel free, but I think he's got a lot of flawed ideas and sometimes lets his religious concerns override his judgement. If you want to learn more about that, start a new thread and stop trying to avoid the question here.
Is what YE creationists constantly do. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. Did you ever stop to realize that you hate science, mostly because you don't know what it is? Your misconceptions about it are leading you away from Him. Science and God's Word exposes that as a lie.
Then it should be a simple matter to name one case and settle this. But you can't. The amusing thing is, there are still a few such groups for which a transitional has not been found. But they are declining rapidly, as new fossils are found.
As you learned, you don't "trust" science. You accept it or reject it on evidence. This is one reason you can't get your head around the issue.
It did show that scripture properly contradicts the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism.
The problem you are having is ...
* you confuse evolutionism with evolutionary theory.
* You confuse evidence with your beliefs.
* And you confuse your belief in the new doctrine of YE creationism and reject God's Word in the process.
God tells us, in Genesis 1:1 what was there at the beginning, and humanity wasn't there.
You reject His plain words because it doesn't fit your new doctrine of YE creationism. You were shown to be dishonest on this matter before. Everyone here has seen that no one can show us any two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, that lack a transition. There's no point in you trying to hide that.
I don't know if you are as stupid as you make yourself out to be. But I see you are once again dodging the question, and trying to find a way to derail the thread. So I'm guessing the truth is starting to sink in, but you don't want to accept it.
As Christians have always known, much of the Bible is figurative, not literal Are you confused when the weather girl on TV tells you that the sun rose at 6 AM and the temperature is 20 degree. Do you reject everything she says, since the sun does not really rise?
Do you suppose science denies miracles or the supernatural generally? As I said, if I thought science was like that, I'd hate it too.
Next time you read Genesis, remember that forecaster, and think about it.
Could be a revelation for you.
Barbarian asks anyone to name two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, which lack a transitional form.
We had an assertion that there were no such transitionals. I'm just showing you that no one here can show us even one case where two major groups lack them.
C'mon. Everyone here knows better. If you think I missed one, put it up and I'll see what I can find for you. Do you really think this is going to work for you?
And I explained to you that while one trusts God, science has to provide evidence. If you want to rely on your spokesman Dawkins, feel free, but I think he's got a lot of flawed ideas and sometimes lets his religious concerns override his judgement. If you want to learn more about that, start a new thread and stop trying to avoid the question here.
Is what YE creationists constantly do. Humans didn't evolve from monkeys. Did you ever stop to realize that you hate science, mostly because you don't know what it is? Your misconceptions about it are leading you away from Him. Science and God's Word exposes that as a lie.
Then it should be a simple matter to name one case and settle this. But you can't. The amusing thing is, there are still a few such groups for which a transitional has not been found. But they are declining rapidly, as new fossils are found.
As you learned, you don't "trust" science. You accept it or reject it on evidence. This is one reason you can't get your head around the issue.
It did show that scripture properly contradicts the "life ex nihilo" doctrine of YE creationism.
The problem you are having is ...
* you confuse evolutionism with evolutionary theory.
* You confuse evidence with your beliefs.
* And you confuse your belief in the new doctrine of YE creationism and reject God's Word in the process.
God tells us, in Genesis 1:1 what was there at the beginning, and humanity wasn't there.
You reject His plain words because it doesn't fit your new doctrine of YE creationism. You were shown to be dishonest on this matter before. Everyone here has seen that no one can show us any two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, that lack a transition. There's no point in you trying to hide that.
I don't know if you are as stupid as you make yourself out to be. But I see you are once again dodging the question, and trying to find a way to derail the thread. So I'm guessing the truth is starting to sink in, but you don't want to accept it.
As Christians have always known, much of the Bible is figurative, not literal Are you confused when the weather girl on TV tells you that the sun rose at 6 AM and the temperature is 20 degree. Do you reject everything she says, since the sun does not really rise?
Do you suppose science denies miracles or the supernatural generally? As I said, if I thought science was like that, I'd hate it too.
Next time you read Genesis, remember that forecaster, and think about it.
Could be a revelation for you.
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
...
CONCLUSION
Substantial supporting evidence of macroevolutionary theory can be found in the fossil record of stratomorphic intermediates. Additionally, the creation model is not well enough developed at present to properly evaluate this evidence or to develop an adequate alternative scenario or explanation. However, in the light of the creation model’s incomplete development, its non-inconsiderable success at explaining that record is exciting and promising indeed. There is little doubt in this author’s mind that with the maturity of the creation model will come an explanation of stratomorphic intermediates superior to that of macroevolutionary theory.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
Dr Kurt P. Wise has a B.A. from the University of Chicago, and an M.A. and a Ph.D. in palaeontology from Harvard University, Massachusetts, USA. He now serves as Associate Professor of Science and Director for Origins Research at Bryan College, Dayton, Tennessee. He is actively involved in various creationist organisations in North America.
...
CONCLUSION
Substantial supporting evidence of macroevolutionary theory can be found in the fossil record of stratomorphic intermediates. Additionally, the creation model is not well enough developed at present to properly evaluate this evidence or to develop an adequate alternative scenario or explanation. However, in the light of the creation model’s incomplete development, its non-inconsiderable success at explaining that record is exciting and promising indeed. There is little doubt in this author’s mind that with the maturity of the creation model will come an explanation of stratomorphic intermediates superior to that of macroevolutionary theory.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
Dr Kurt P. Wise has a B.A. from the University of Chicago, and an M.A. and a Ph.D. in palaeontology from Harvard University, Massachusetts, USA. He now serves as Associate Professor of Science and Director for Origins Research at Bryan College, Dayton, Tennessee. He is actively involved in various creationist organisations in North America.
To most people, yes. But you seem to have a private definition.
You're forgiven. Christians are used to creationists calling them atheists.
I have considerable differences with 6Days' guy, Richard Dawkins, over his ideas on evolution. If you think atheists believe that God created the universe, then we've found your problem.
I think so.
If you were less inclined to scream, and more inclined to offer some reasons why your beliefs are reasonable, you'd probably do better.
Grip Docility
New member
Not judging. I’m curious. Do you believe in macro evoloutulion, micro evolution, both, or only one?
Right Divider
Body part
Nope... I use the standard definitions.
Thanks... So you're a Christian? Please explain what that means.
Obviously you're confused about what I believe.
That doesn't make sense.
Please give me a simple outline of your belief so that I will not misunderstand you.
These are the essentials of our faith. I sometimes forget that not everyone knows.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary; suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.