Creation AND Evolution?

Originally posted by @suzianne
What "lack of evidence"? There are many examples of "transitional species" in the fossil record. Dinosaurs with feathers, for one.

I don't know about "many", but there are a few 'transitional' contenders found. Even so not nearly enough of these to confirm transition from reptile to bird. Examples of possible transitionals should outnumber or at least equal the known examples of species found in the fossil record. PE supposedly predicts gaps in the fossil record, and so the proof of PE's validity is not evidence but rather a lack of evidence.
Evolutionists knew this was a problem for E-theory, otherwise there would have been no need to come up with and embrace a supporting theory to explain what appears to be a failed prediction.

Originally posted by @suzianne
What "lack of evidence"? There are many examples of "transitional species" in the fossil record. Dinosaurs with feathers, for one.

How do you know those fossils had offspring let alone descendents that evolved into other life forms? Statements of faith are not empirical evidence, true? If what supports the theory is faith, what does that mean?

Originally posted by @suzianne
What "lack of evidence"? There are many examples of "transitional species" in the fossil record. Dinosaurs with feathers, for one.

How could you know that God didn't create Dinosaurs with feathers at the start?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
How do you know those fossils had offspring let alone descendents that evolved into other life forms? Statements of faith are not empirical evidence, true? If what supports the theory is faith, what does that mean?

It's untrue, first of all. The scientific method is anything but 'faith'.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
How could you know that God didn't create Dinosaurs with feathers at the start?

Because of the fossil record. Just like I've been saying.

Originally posted by @suzianne
Because of the fossil record. Just like I've been saying.

How exactly do you think the fossil record proves this? Would you disagree that there is confirmation bias involved when interpreting the fossil record?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
That would be something you have to explain! It isn’t obvious that it ever has happen, and I don’t believe it has. I not suggesting anything new can come from natural selection only that what is here can be altered.

Since it hasn’t been observed, documented, only suggested by the theory you ascribe to show your evidence! If you bring up fossils that wil ...[text shortened]... ed into anything!

We can observe what I believe, no one has observed what that theory claims.

How do you explain, for instance, homologous features without invoking common descent?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
How do you explain, for instance, homologous features without invoking common descent?

Ever heard of the common design theory?

Originally posted by @suzianne
It's untrue, first of all. The scientific method is anything but 'faith'.

Really what does it show you?

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
How do you explain, for instance, homologous features without invoking common descent?

Common design.

Originally posted by @suzianne
It's untrue, first of all. The scientific method is anything but 'faith'.

How do you know those fossils had offspring let alone descendents that evolved into other life forms?

Statements of faith are not empirical evidence, true?

If what supports the theory is faith, what does that mean?

I asked three question, and you gave me an "It's untrue...", so you know the fossils had
offspring how, you know they evolved due to fossils how?

Fossils don't come with name tags that date and time stamp themselves, neither do they
come equip with genealogies either showing us who were their kids. You are basically
looking at a rock, how would a rock show you anything about genealogies out side of
someone suggesting well this one was related to that one, only because they think they
are related nothing more? Without a family reunion picture you wouldn't know someone's
grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews, nieces from a stranger completely not
related. The fossil records isn't as clear cut as you seem to think it is.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
How do you explain, for instance, homologous features without invoking common descent?

To be clear, common design makes much more sense to me than common descent.
Think about the two sexes, simpler would have been keep it at one. Yet what we see
around us today is so much of life in completely different forms, completely different
environments all have two sexes. The theory for common descent seems to run counter
to me there in very strong ways.

If they all started off being asexual, the split that happen to all life for two sexes, did it
happen at various times down the evolutionary time line, or all at once? Males and
Females would all then have to remain in sync with each other as all the other changes
started occurring in life. Fish would have to acquire all their physical traits while remaining
in sync with males and females, so would rats, lions, eagles, boar, whales, and what
not.

If some random change ruins the ability of any male creature to mate with the female
and have offspring it’s over. Random changes don't look to protect or accomplish any
task, there isn't a direction attempting to do or not do anything.

Common design has a variety of life with male and female sexes, and completely different
bodies in completely different environments living out their lives doing completely different
things to survive and something/someone who could do that is quite beyond us.

Over coming all of the issues of a process that doesn't care one way or another about
how things work out, you are giving a ton of credit for some of the most difficult and
complex things there are as if it had the intuitions to create things that were not and
maintain them through time.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Common design.

The reason that this theory is not very popular among scientists is that there is no evidence for it, while there is a huge body of evidence in favour of common descent through evolution.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
The reason that this theory is not very popular among scientists is that there is no evidence for it, while there is a huge body of evidence in favour of common descent through evolution.

The main reason I think why scientists would reject common design is because they have no place for a designer within the frame of reference of their thought processes.

If a designer did in fact exist how would the scientific method pick up evidence for common design? I'm sure if you are looking for common design there is loads of evidence for it. Most scientists are only looking for evidence of common decent because of their preconceived ideas.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
The reason that this theory is not very popular among scientists is that there is no evidence for it, while there is a huge body of evidence in favour of common descent through evolution.

Design is one of those you know when you see it things.