Printable View
Really? A book from 1944?
Also, the reason there are gaps in the fossil record is because FOSSILS FORM UNDER VERY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES. There would be trillions of fossils covering the planet if everything fossilized at death.
You cannot disprove god just like you cannot disprove a herd of microscopic beaver-frogs that orbit Pluto. Is that reason enough to believe in him?
Faith is for suckers. Believing something precisely BECAUSE there is no evidence for it is worthy of scorn. :wtf:
let us unleash some scorn then.
God is an obsolete concept, at best a place holder for gaps that have not yet been filled, and at worst and most often a simplistic justification for the evils of immoral people hiding under pretense of morality.
Like a worldwide flood?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chong Version 2.0
Nope. However, there is evidence based on facts proving He does exist. For example, when we set out to explain why and how something happens, we must use the evidence, facts and experience available to us if we are to arrive at a logical conclusion. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that the universe had a beginning and that before that beginning there was no universe and therefore there was nothing. We know this because of the Law of Causality (for every cause there is an effect and for every effect there is a cause). Based on this law, we can use the following logic:Quote:
You cannot disprove god just like you cannot disprove a herd of microscopic beaver-frogs that orbit Pluto. Is that reason enough to believe in him?
1. The universe exists.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Before the beginning of the universe, there was no universe.
4. Since there was no universe, there was nothing.
5. Since the universe does exist, it came from nothing.
6. Nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause.
7. Therefore the cause of the universe is supernatural.
8. Life exists.
9. Life always comes from pre-existing life of the same kind (the Law of Biogenesis).
10. Life cannot come from nonliving matter by any natural cause.
11. Since life does exist, the cause of life is supernatural.
Many people with a naturalistic worldview assume everything can be explained by natural causes. From the beginning, they reject the possibility of a supernatural cause. Because of this they are left with no scientifically valid answers to the question of how the universe could come from nothing, which is impossible by any natural cause of which we are aware. Many answers have been proposed that go beyond the realm of known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation and therefore enter the realm of fiction.
The same logic applies to life. Using available evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we know that life only comes from pre-existing life of the same kind.
??Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the Law of Biogenesis. Evolution conflicts with this scientific law by claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes? (From In the Beginning by Walt Brown, Ph.D. page 5). [http://www.creationscience.com/]
Life never comes from non-living matter by any natural cause of which we are aware.
Now that we have seen proof that God exists, using logic based on known evidence, experience, facts, observation and experimentation, we need to see if He has revealed Himself to us. In the Holy Bible there are hundreds of prophecies given by God who is speaking in the first person. In both Bible and secular history we find that those prophecies have been accurately fulfilled. No other writing on earth comes close to doing this! Only God can accurately reveal the future, ergo, He is the author of the Holy Bible. Within the pages of the Holy Bible He reveals His nature, our nature, His relationship to us, our need for salvation and His plan of salvation for us.
The reason the universe and life cannot come from nothing by any natural cause, but can come from a supernatural cause is because God is the self-existent creator of everything and everyone. He is not subject to His creation. He created it and sustains it. It is a mistake to judge God by human standards and human perspectives. God reveals that He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
If you are interested in more detailed proof, read, ??Evidence that Demands a Verdict? by Josh McDowell.
[From ??Reincarnation in the Bible?? http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/b...0-595-12387-2]
I agree. Faith must be based on evidence. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning because of the evidence of the past. I believe in creation rather than evolution because the evidence supports creation and disproves evolution.Quote:
Faith is for suckers. Believing something precisely BECAUSE there is no evidence for it is worthy of scorn. :wtf:
[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 6a
[/align]
??...there are about 25 major living subdivisions (phyla) of the animal kingdom alone, all with gaps between them that are not bridged by known intermediates.? Francisco J. Ayala and James W. Valentine, Evolving, The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution (Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Co., 1979), p. 258.
??Most orders, classes, and phyla appear abruptly, and commonly have already acquired all the characters that distinguish them.? Ibid., p. 266.
??All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.? Gould, ??The Return of Hopeful Monsters,? p. 23.
??The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils....We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life??s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.? Stephen Jay Gould, ??Evolution??s Erratic Pace,? Natural History, Vol. 86, May 1977, p. 14.
??New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.? Ibid., p. 12.
??The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.? Stephen Jay Gould, ??Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?? Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1980, p. 127.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps
Just because there is a gap in the record, does not mean a gap in the reality which the record exist for.
Dumbass
And it is not logical to attribute the origin of the universe to an old man in the clouds observing our every action, and supervising our every thought, and spurns us when we deviate from a plan he claims to have created billions of years before we entered existence.
All that is, is a very special kind of retardation. Known as faith.
Your special kind of retarded faith seems to be the faith that surely some day, somewhere, someone will finally find a transitional link in the fossil record to fill a gap.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
they already have, several in fact. Perhaps if you read something besides subjective drivel put out by fat ass, over the hill mechanical engineers, and actually read something written by someone who actually knows what it is their talking about, you'd know.
You like to quote Gould, but for all those quotes Gould still believed in evolution, and contributed significantly to our current understanding of the subject. Quit cherry picking your quotes and read something worth two shits you overgrown chimp.
No, but I think as I was trying to say this gap in the record prevents you from making a 100% correct judgement as much as I.Quote:
Originally Posted by 5thHorseMan
As we know science requires authenticatable proof of somekind and/or physical record to even be peer reviewed, a level of patience may be our own virtue for such matters. One thing is clear even science recognises it's a mistake to draw an eminent conclusion.
And furthermore just because there is no record of what happened does not mean we are correct in permissing ourselves to make assumptions of what a record could be and present that as fact. Such things have been a very important part in my spiritual growth anyway, :)Quote:
the mind is like a parachute, it operates best when open.
Peace,
Denial
PS:no but it is enough information for me to realise it would be foolhardy to make a decision without all the information required to make an accurate decision..Quote:
You cannot disprove god just like you cannot disprove a herd of microscopic beaver-frogs that orbit Pluto. Is that reason enough to believe in him?
[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 7a
[/align]
In a published interview, Dr. Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, stated:
??But the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is...not borne out by the facts. The search for ??missing links? between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless...because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory.? ??Missing, Believed Nonexistent,? Manchester Guardian (The Washington Post Weekly), Vol. 119, No. 22, 26 November 1978, p. 1.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps
yet another quote from 30 years ago, from a guy, who despite your cherry picked little quotation, still believes in evolution.
in fact Eldredge makes a pretty strong argument against your baseless nonsense.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...50COA9629C8B63
[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 8a
[/align]
Gould and Eldredge claimed transitional fossils are missing because relatively rapid evolutionary jumps (which they called punctuated equilibria) occurred over these gaps. They did not explain how this could happen.
Many geneticists are shocked by the proposal of Gould and Eldredge. Why would they propose something so contradictory to genetics? Gould and Eldredge were forced to say that evolution must proceed in jumps. Never explained, in genetic and mathematical terms, is how such large jumps could occur. To some, this desperation is justified.
??...the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing.? David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), ??The Gaps in the Fossil Record,? Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.
??Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ??seeing?? evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of ??gaps?? in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.? David B. Kitts (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma), ??Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,? Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467.
??In spite of the immense amount of the paleontological material and the existence of long series of intact stratigraphic sequences with perfect records for the lower categories, transitions between the higher categories are missing.? Goldschmidt, p. 98.
??When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions.? Ibid., p. 97.
??There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships among phyla.? Katherine G. Field et al., ??Molecular Phylogeny of the Animal Kingdom,? Science, Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps
I love this debate. Christians that argue against evolution fail to realize that their "God's word" says man was made out of dirt. That in and of itself has been disproved, as we know through a lot of evidence (fossil, DNA, endogenous retrovirii, etc.) that mankind shares a common ancestor with the great apes and was certainly not created out of dirt. You can try to disprove evolution all you want with your cut and paste garbage from sites like AnswersInGenesis.com, but the fact remains that "God's word" is wrong, and we were definitely not made of dirt. So if God's word is wrong, its probably not God's word after all.
Peace! :jointsmile::thumbsup:
rapid changes in evolution occur during rapid enviromental changes. The ebb and flow of the multiple ice age periods being a good example of rapid enviromental change, as well as the permian and cambrian extinctions
hmm dejayou, long time no see :) ! hullo! some good points there, but isn't the planet and all life on the planet itself made from dust (planet formation??)..Quote:
Originally Posted by dejayou30
the debate continues..
Peace,
Denial
that dust in silicate though, and we are carbon based, carbon being an organic molecule, therefore, we are not made of clay.
[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 1b
[/align]
At the most fundamental level, a big gap exists between forms of life whose cells have nuclei (eukaryotes, such as plants, animals, and fungi) and those that don??t (prokaryotes such as bacteria and blue-green algae) (b).
b. ??The prokaryotes came first; eukaryotes (all plants, animals, fungi and protists) evolved from them, and to this day biologists hotly debate how this transition took place, with about 20 different theories on the go.... [What was thought to be an intermediate between prokaryotes and eukaryotes] is no longer tenable.? Katrin Henze and William Martin, ??Essence of Mitochondria,? Nature, Vol. 426, 13 November 2003, p. 127.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps
[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 1c
[/align]
Fossil links are also missing between large groupings of plants (c), between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates (animals without backbones), among insects (d), between invertebrates and vertebrates (animals with backbones) (e), between fish and amphibians (f), between amphibians and reptiles (g), between reptiles and mammals (h), between reptiles and birds (i), between primates and other mammals (j), and between apes and other primates (k).
c. If evolution happened, nonvascular plants should have preceded vascular plants. However, fossils of nonvascular plants are not found in strata evolutionists believe were deposited before the earliest vascular plants appeared.
??The bryophytes [nonvascular plants] are presumed to have evolved before the appearance and stabilization of vascular tissue??that is, before the appearance of these tracheophytes [vascular plants] ??although there is no early bryophyte [nonvascular plant] fossil record.? Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, p. 250.
??The actual steps that led to the origin of seeds and fruits are not known...? Ibid.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps
The first fossils or living things. Evolution marches on, proving itself daily. :jointsmile:
Stromatolites
Stromatolite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How does the information in the two links you provide prove evolution. I noticed many unsupported assumptions and assertions.Quote:
Originally Posted by gypski
The Galapagos Islands experiments clearly proves evolution, I don't see the point in being willfully ignorant and denying it. And God isn't even real, so I don't see how he is relevant in this conversation.
How?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thathighkid
What makes you think the Galapagos Islands experiments clearly proves evolution?Quote:
I don't see the point in being willfully ignorant and denying it.
Since the subject is scientific discovery, research, etc. it is true that discussing God is somewhat off-subject. However, since science does disprove evolution, that does suggest creation, which requires a Creator.Quote:
And God isn't even real, so I don't see how he is relevant in this conversation.
How do you know God isn??t real? Could you provide evidence supporting your assertion? Using the facts of science, the existence of God can be proved.
[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 2c
[/align]
??It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existing groups have passed during the course of their development, but it must be freely admitted that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one hundred years. As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present.? Chester A. Arnold, An Introduction to Paleobotany (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1947), p. 7.
??... to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy of classification, it would be the knell [the death signal] of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink.? E. J. H. Corner, ??Evolution,? Contemporary Botanical Thought, editors Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences27.html#wp1049019
[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 3c
[/align]
??The absence of any known series of such intermediates imposes severe restrictions on morphologists interested in the ancestral source of angiosperms [flowering plants] and leads to speculation and interpretation of homologies and relationships on the basis of the most meager circumstantial evidence.? Charles B. Beck, Origin and Early Evolution of Angiosperms (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), p. 5.
??The origin of angiosperms, an ??abominable mystery?? to Charles Darwin, remained so 100 years later and is little better today.? Colin Patterson et al., ??Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies,? Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 24, 1993, p. 170.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps
[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 1d-f
[/align]
d. ??The insect fossil record has many gaps.? ??Insects: Insect Fossil Record,? Britannica CD, Version 97 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1997).
e. Speaking of the lack of transitional fossils between the invertebrates and vertebrates, Smith admits:
??As our present information stands, however, the gap remains unbridged, and the best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is in the imagination.? Homer W. Smith, From Fish to Philosopher (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1953), p. 26.
??How this earliest chordate stock evolved, what stages of development it went through to eventually give rise to truly fishlike creatures we do not know. Between the Cambrian when it probably originated, and the Ordovician when the first fossils of animals with really fishlike characteristics appeared, there is a gap of perhaps 100 million years which we will probably never be able to fill.? Francis Downes Ommanney, The Fishes, Life Nature Library (New York: Time, Inc., 1963), p. 60.
??Origin of the vertebrates is obscure??there is no fossil record preceding the occurrence of fishes in the late Ordovician time.? Arthur N. Strahler, Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1987), p. 316.
f. ??...there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world.? Taylor, p. 60.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps
I never understood this logic. If something had do bring the universe into existence, than by the same logic, someone had to bring this superior being who created it into existence. You are dealing with an infinity regardless. I fail to see how believing in an infinite powerful being is any different than believing in an infinite universe...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
Your logic conveniently ends when you came to the conclusion something had to create the universe, but it still leaves the illogical assumption that nothing created the being. It simply doesn't make sense to me.
Remember in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, where Indie had to take a "blind leap of faith" as his last challenge before finding the Holy Grail? I think this is what they were referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaggedEdge
Blind leaps of faith work very well for some people, but not everyone... to each his own :)
Your confusion may be the result of equating the infinite Creator with the finite universe. The universe cannot be infinitely old or all useable energy would have been lost already (entropy). This has not occurred. Therefore, the universe is not infinitely old. It??s a simple matter of physics.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaggedEdge
All things that came into existence were caused to exist. You cannot have an infinite regression of causes (otherwise an infinity of time has been crossed which is impossible because an infinity cannot be crossed). Therefore, logically, there must be a single uncaused cause that did not come into existence.
I can??t explain how God can exist without a beginning. There are some things we cannot understand because of our limited perspective. This is one of them. Here is another example:Quote:
Your logic conveniently ends when you came to the conclusion something had to create the universe, but it still leaves the illogical assumption that nothing created the being. It simply doesn't make sense to me.
Join me on an imaginary trip into the past??way back into the past. Let??s go all the way back to the very beginning of the universe. There are some who believe the universe had no beginning; that it has always existed. I think most scientists disagree with such a belief. One reason they give is the existence of radioactivity. Radioactive materials still exist, and are still in the process of breaking down into stable materials. The stars are a good example of this process. There are still stars out there burning with radioactive energy including our own sun. If the universe has always existed, everything would be in equilibrium. The whole universe would be stable. There would be no movement and no difference in temperature. Since that is not the state of the universe, it must have had a beginning.
So imagine we are standing at the very beginning of the universe. Since it did have a beginning, then there must have been a time before the beginning. Now, let??s take another step into the past. Let??s go back before the beginning. What will we be likely to find here? Well, we should expect to find nothing, shouldn??t we? Absolutely nothing! Not even a single atom. Not even a single electron. Nothing! In every direction from where we are standing, there is nothing but totally empty space.
But what is space? Where did it come from? Where does it begin? Where does it end? Space is the absence of everything. But how is this possible? How can it extend in all directions from our imaginary position without ending? It can??t end, can it? What would lie on the other side of the end? On the other hand, how can it not end? These seem to be the only two possibilities, and yet neither of them is possible, are they? Using logic and experience, we have arrived at a point that we are unable to understand or explain.
As if that were not enough of a problem, consider the fact that out of this absolute nothingness, the universe appears. But how is that possible? All of our experience and logic tells us nothing comes from nothing. And yet there it is. Sane people cannot deny that the universe does exist, can they? Using our experience and logic, we would have to conclude that the existence of the universe is impossible, and yet it does exist.
Have you ever thought about these things? Would you agree with me that we cannot answer these questions using observation, experience, experiment, and logic? These questions seem to be beyond our ability to answer. If there is an answer, I??ve never seen one that is based on observation, experience, experiment, facts and logic. We will have to admit that there are some facts that we simply do not have the ability to understand or explain.
[from ??Reincarnation in the Bible?? http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/b...0-595-12387-2]
In my opinion I see believing god as the easy way out. Humans can't even comprehend a thing so large with no beginning or end. It's a big mystery that I doubt we will ever figure out. I can??t even imagine the universe never being born or how big it is.... It scares me.
Well... almost 200 posts after, and this debate still goes on and on... i think this debate only will be definitively answered if some day mankind create a time-machine, travel to the past, and do see the evolution actually happening (or God creating the live beings Himself).
Until this happens, all we have are theories. Some are more "logical", more "rational" than others, but all of them are just theories, just creations of human's minds. The universe has absolutely NO need to behave in a "logical" and "rational" way, and so the mere rationality of a theory does NOT prove its validity.
And if we are actually descendants of primitive monkeys, its even worst... cause, after all, we are just smarter monkeys. But as we completly dismiss the cosmological theories of the gorillas, apes, etc (in fact we dont even consider the fact this primates may have thoughts, much less thoughts about their origins), why our own theories shouldnt be dismissed too? Only because we are the "smarter" ones doesnt mean that we are the smartest monkeys in the universe, and the sole knowers of the truth.
(BTW, who knows what the other primates think about us? I think watching Planet of the Apes may be a very enlightening experience...)
--------------------
Other thing that hasnt much to do with the paragraphs above: as relativity says, time is just another universe's dimension, like space, and thus it only exists for those who are "inside" the universe, "inside" the 4d-spacetime. Outside the spacetime there isnt time as we know it, so talking about "before" the "creation" of the universe doesnt make any physical sense, because time (and also space) started to exist only when the universe itself started to exist.
What we do have are facts of physics, from which we can and do draw logical conclusions. Nearly everything we enjoy is the result of those conclusions: electricity, cars, planes, computers, etc., etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coelho
If the universe was inconsistent, and didn??t behave in a "logical" and "rational" way, none of the above would be possible, would it? It is the rationality of a theory that does prove its validity.
We are far more than just smarter monkeys. There are physical similarities, but there is no comparison with the output. While monkeys are still swinging from branches, we are going to the moon and beyond. Does DNA or genes account for this difference? I don??t think so. So what does this vast difference suggest? I believe it suggests a spiritual component that is lacking in all other life forms. We have a physical brain like the chimps, but we have a spiritual mind that they lack. This is in harmony with the Bible revelation that we were created in the image of God, who is spirit.Quote:
And if we are actually descendants of primitive monkeys, its even worst... cause, after all, we are just smarter monkeys.
You say it is a fact that monkeys may have thoughts. I would think if it were a fact, you would follow that with ??since? rather than ??may?. Actually, it isn??t a fact, is it? It is just your unsupported opinion.Quote:
But as we completly dismiss the cosmological theories of the gorillas, apes, etc (in fact we dont even consider the fact this primates may have thoughts, much less thoughts about their origins), why our own theories shouldnt be dismissed too? Only because we are the "smarter" ones doesnt mean that we are the smartest monkeys in the universe, and the sole knowers of the truth.
All the evidence shows we are indeed smarter than the apes. To doubt that is to admit ignorance of those facts.
Planet of the Apes was a good science fiction show, except for the one unnecessary profanity at the end. But is it wise to substitute science fiction for science? That is what evolutionists do to attempt to validate their myth.Quote:
(BTW, who knows what the other primates think about us? I think watching Planet of the Apes may be a very enlightening experience...)
We think in terms of time for convenience. It is true that time and the universe came into existence at the same time. Space is something else.Quote:
Other thing that hasnt much to do with the paragraphs above: as relativity says, time is just another universe's dimension, like space, and thus it only exists for those who are "inside" the universe, "inside" the 4d-spacetime. Outside the spacetime there isnt time as we know it, so talking about "before" the "creation" of the universe doesnt make any physical sense, because time (and also space) started to exist only when the universe itself started to exist.
Since the definition of ??universe? is everything that exists, before the universe nothing existed, did it? If nothing existed, there must have been nothing. We don??t really have to use the word ??space?. If nothing existed, there was nothing. It has been observed that nothing comes from nothing by any natural cause. Since the universe came from nothing, the cause must be supernatural.
[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 1g
[/align]
g. Evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved into reptiles, with either Diadectes or Seymouria as the transition. By the evolutionists?? own time scale, this ??transition? occurs 35 million years (m.y.) after the earliest reptile, Hylonomus (a cotylosaur). A parent cannot appear 35 million years after its child! The scattered locations of these fossils also present problems for the evolutionist.
[See Steven M. Stanley, Earth and Life Through Time (New York: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1986), pp. 411??415. See also Robert H. Dott Jr. and Roger L. Batten, Evolution of the Earth, 3rd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981), p. 356.]
It is true that skeletal features of some amphibians and some reptiles are similar. However, huge differences exist in their soft internal organs, such as their circulatory and reproductive systems. For example, no evolutionary scheme has ever been given for the development of the many unique innovations of the reptile??s egg. [See Denton, pp. 218??219 and Pitman, pp. 199??200.]
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps
Cant mix science with religon... Two diffrent topics
[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 1h-i
[/align]
h. ??Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal-like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another.? Thomas S. Kemp, Mammal-Like Reptiles and the Origin of Mammals (New York: Academic Press, 1982), p. 319.
i. ??The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.? W. E. Swinton, ??The Origin of Birds,? Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, editor A. J. Marshall (New York: Academic Press, 1960), Vol. 1, Chapter 1, p. 1.
Some have claimed birds evolved from a two-legged dinosaur known as a theropod. However, several problems exist.
A theropod dinosaur fossil found in China showed a lung mechanism completely incompatible with that of birds. [See John A. Ruben et al., ??Lung Structure and Ventilation in Theropod Dinosaurs and Early Birds,? Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, pp. 1267??1270.] In that report, ??Ruben argues that a transition from a crocodilian to a bird lung would be impossible, because the transitional animal would have a life-threatening hernia or hole in its diaphragm.? [Ann Gibbons, ??Lung Fossils Suggest Dinos Breathed in Cold Blood,? Science, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997, p. 1230.]
Bird and theropod ??hands? differ. Theropods have ??fingers? I, II, and III (having lost the ??ring finger? and little finger), while birds have fingers II, III, and IV. ??The developmental evidence of homology is problematic for the hypothesized theropod origin of birds.? [Ann C. Burke and Alan Feduccia, ??Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand,? Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, pp. 666??668.] ??...this important developmental evidence that birds have a II-III-IV digital formula, unlike the dinosaur I-II-III, is the most important barrier to belief in the dinosaur origin [for birds] orthodoxy.? [Richard Hinchliffe, ??The Forward March of the Bird-Dinosaurs Halted?? Science, Vol. 278, 24 October 1997, p. 597.]
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps
Fossils do get destroyed in the rock record (Unconformities), just becuase we dont find them doesn't mean they dont exist.
True, but the fact remains that after finding millions of fossils of perfectly functioning life forms, not one transition has been found from one species to a different species as evolution requires. Doesn't that seem odd, if they really exist?Quote:
Originally Posted by funiman111
Well that's an age-old creationist lie, one of the most blatant and persistant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
You mean transitions that don't exist like this list:
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^^There are even nice little paintings to help you understand
or maybe these:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
I could go on.
The only place that they don't exist is in your own mind
Don't even get me started on the retroviral evidence - it'll make a monkey's uncle out of you!
More creationist double-think.
I read the article and found that it speaks of similarities, not transitions from one species to a different species. The pictures confirm this fact. That is why it can make the assertion that ??Since all species are in transition due to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception.?Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta9 UK
Since ??transition? is being substituted for ??similarities,? (??An ideal list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, i.e. those forms morphologically similar to the ancestors of the monophyletic group containing the derived relative, and not intermediate forms.?) that assertion is valid since all life forms share similarities.
This is what some scientists say on the subject:
??The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.? [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.? [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
??Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.? [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
??At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the ??official? position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).? [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
??The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ??fully formed.??? [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
Or, the only place where transitional fossils exist is in your imagination. If you are interested in the truth, you will find a thorough rebuttal of ??29 Evidences For Macroevolution? here: - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 1 -Quote:
or maybe these:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
I could go on.
The only place that they don't exist is in your own mind
Don't even get me started on the retroviral evidence - it'll make a monkey's uncle out of you!
More creationist double-think.
The research is 30 years old. Got anything recent??? Species change to adapt to the environment, hence evolution.
[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 2i-k
[/align]
Theropod ??arms? (relative to body size) are tiny, compared with the wings of supposedly early birds.
??...most theropod dinosaurs and in particular the birdlike dromaeosaurs are all very much later in the fossil record than Archaeopteryx [the supposed first bird].? Hinchliffe, p. 597.
Birds have many unique features difficult to explain from any evolutionary perspective, such as feathers, tongues, and egg shell designs.
j. ??When and where the first Primates made their appearance is also conjectural....It is clear, therefore, that the earliest Primates are not yet known...? William Charles Osman Hill, Primates (New York: Interscience Publishers, Inc., 1953), Vol. 1, pp. 25??26.
??The transition from insectivore to primate is not clearly documented in the fossil record.? A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 2nd edition (New York: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1974), p. 141.
??Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans??of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings??is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.? Lyall Watson, ??The Water People,? Science Digest, May 1982, p. 44.
k. ??At any rate, modern gorillas, orangs and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere, as it were. They are here today; they have no yesterday, unless one is able to find faint foreshadowings of it in the dryopithecids.? Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981; reprint, New York: Warner Books, 1982), p. 363.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps