Originally posted by FabianFnas As long you get to believe in the science of fossils, you have taken a step towards the truth. The next step will be easier. You are progressing! Good boy!
All this fossil evidence disproves evolution and proves creation.
The fossil remains that are dated 380 million years of age or greater have not changed from remains of the same animals we have today. That indicates the evolution does not take place. An alligator fossil from the past is still easily identified today as looking like a modern alligator, because there has been no change over time as the theory of evolution claims.
The abrupt appearance in the fossil record without any transitional fossils as Darwin had expected is proof that his theory of evolution has broken down according to his own words.
Originally posted by RJHinds All this fossil evidence disproves evolution and proves creation.
So you don't believe in fossils anymore? So the creation supported by fossils is just fake? Some bones evilutionists has buried in the dirt to fool scientists?
Originally posted by RJHinds The fossil remains that are dated 380 million years of age or greater have not changed from remains of the same animals we have today. That indicates the evolution does not take place. An alligator fossil from the past is still easily identified today as looking like a modern alligator, because there has been no change over time as the theory of evolution ...[text shortened]... n had expected is proof that his theory of evolution has broken down according to his own words.
I will not be dragged into a "debate" with you again, because you simply don't accept when
your sources are proven wrong. It is a meaningless endevour to engage you intellectually.
Instead, I will simply point out when you're wrong, just for the record.
Originally posted by C Hess I will not be dragged into a "debate" with you again, because you simply don't accept when
your sources are proven wrong. It is a meaningless endevour to engage you intellectually.
Instead, I will simply point out when you're wrong, just for the record.
Originally posted by RJHinds When did you prove any of my sources wrong?
Not only he, but numerous others who have banged their head to a stone wall, trying to showing your the faults in your argumentaton. And every time you lose the debate, you forget about about it and you haven't learned a thing.
Originally posted by RJHinds When did you prove any of my sources wrong?
I showed you how "information" was added to DNA under observed conditions, and you
replied something to the effect that it's not confirmed by your creationist "scientists".
RJH: "The fossil remains that are dated 380 million years of age or greater have not changed from remains of the same animals we have today. That indicates the evolution does not take place. An alligator fossil from the past is still easily identified today as looking like a modern alligator, because there has been no change over time as the theory of evolution claims. "
The fact that _some_ animals (such as crocodiles and sea turtles) have not changed over long stretches of time does not show that _none_ have. What it shows is that _those particular_ animals were very well adapted to their particular environments very early _and_ that those environments have not changed in the meantime.
There are other animals for which there is overwhelming evidence that natural selection is operating over periods of just a few generations, and this has been very well documented. The Peppered Moth is one such.
And DO please read the ENTIRE story, if you are inclined to do so at all; don't just stop when when you get to the part about Kettlewell’s experimental flaws--his flaws have been corrected.
There are dozens of other cases of natural selection in action which show that evolution is happening even now. Species are evolving to meet environmental changes. Evolution theory does not claim that species MUST be evolving continuously; they do so only in response to environmental pressures. Where the environment does not change, species do not evolve.
Do not assume that this explains how moths (or any other form of life) got started in the first place; that is a separate issue.
PS to RJH: the position which you have so often and so cogently refuted is not evolution, but a ridiculous caricature of it. If you took the trouble to find out what evolution theory actually claims, instead of what Creationists erroneously attribute to it, you'd save yourself (and this forum) a lot of wasted breath.
Originally posted by moonbus RJH: "The fossil remains that are dated 380 million years of age or greater have not changed from remains of the same animals we have today. That indicates the evolution does not take place. An alligator fossil from the past is still easily identified today as looking like a modern alligator, because there has been no change over time as the theory of evolut ...[text shortened]... how moths (or any other form of life) got started in the first place; that is a separate issue.
I agree, with a couple of minor tweaks.
Creatures like crocodiles and sea turtles may not have outwardly changed [much]
in hundreds of millions of years.
However they will have been in evolutionary arms races with bacteria and viruses
that whole time, as well as needing to adapt to changing atmospheric content..
So they will have changed and evolved over that period... just not in ways captured
in the fossil record.
Point taken. If one could somehow (time machine?) transplant an ancient crocodile into a modern swamp, it might not survive, though the boney structures look identical, for exactly the reason you point out.
Originally posted by moonbus PS to RJH: the position which you have so often and so cogently refuted is not evolution, but a ridiculous caricature of it. If you took the trouble to find out what evolution theory actually claims, instead of what Creationists erroneously attribute to it, you'd save yourself (and this forum) a lot of wasted breath.
The term "evilutionism" is coined by creationists. It's a good term describing creationists view how evolution should be in order to be able to refute it.
However, evilution is not science (other than in the domain of psycology), and should be treated that way.
Originally posted by FabianFnas The term "evilutionism" is coined by creationists. It's a good term describing creationists view how evolution should be in order to be able to refute it.
However, evilution is not science (other than in the domain of psycology), and should be treated that way.
Evilution as it is told by creationists is political in nature, they wish to convert weak minded individuals easily swayed by smooth talking preachers who make points not easily refuted by the uneducated.
This is a deliberate scam to build up political pressure making it easier to bring law suits in the US and elsewhere.
28 Apr '14 19:52
Fossil record supports creation
Back to Top