How did God do it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well you are mistaken, which is perfectly understandable considering that you have not studied the subject too much. A lack of transitional species has never been a problem for evolutionists to contend with.
We do often find it interesting to look for 'transitional species' ie species that show characteristics that indicate it is related to two differen ...[text shortened]... t at no point is failing to find one of these interesting species a problem for evolutionists.

Of course not. Evolutionist accept that the proof isn't there. But we don't.

Originally posted by galveston75
Correct Manny. And not just those type of transitional fossils but there should be millions of them because of the amount of time it would have taken for a transition to happen. But they just dont exist....
Each fossil they find is a complete species that shows no signs of it being in some transitional stage. Where is at least one fossil that shows som ...[text shortened]... ish, then went to land with legs and then went back to the seas with fins? They don't exist....

"whale that started out as a fish, then went to land with legs and then went back to the seas with fins


there are plenty of examples of fish that spend time on land

the hippo is closely related to whales and it doesnt take a lot of imagination to see how a hippo like creature would evolve into a whale.

Originally posted by galveston75
Correct Manny. And not just those type of transitional fossils but there should be millions of them because of the amount of time it would have taken for a transition to happen. But they just dont exist....

Can you explain why there should be millions of them?
What formula did you use to work that out?
Roughly how long do you think it took? What percentage of species are fossilized?
What percentage of fossils do we find?
Did you actually base your claim on knowledge of the subject, or did you just make it up?

Each fossil they find is a complete species that shows no signs of it being in some transitional stage.
You are both correct that all fossils are a complete species, and wrong that they are not in some transitional stage. That is a result of the definition of 'species'. As life forms change they remain a species. All life forms are always both complete species and in some transitional stage.

Where is at least one fossil that shows some early human that still has a tail
They wouldn't be called 'early humans' but there are plenty of such fossils.

or the whale that started out as a fish, then went to land with legs and then went back to the seas with fins? They don't exist....
Again, there are plenty of such fossils.

Originally posted by galveston75
Of course not. Evolutionist accept that the proof isn't there. But we don't.

I don't understand what you are saying? Evolutionist accept that what proof isn't where?

Originally posted by galveston75
I'll try to comment on your other questions tomorrow. But I don't think any human can answer how he did it and even if one of us happened to be there to watch somehow, it would be so far from what we could possible understand it probaly would do no good. I know that many of us would love to have answers to things like that as well as many other things fr ...[text shortened]... g opened in the future. Maybe some of the questions that we all have will be answered then.

In short, you don't have the foggiest.

I also see you have failed to answer my question about what is taught on evolutionary biology degrees for the fourth time. I'll take it you don't have an answer.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe life changes, I just disagree with the starting point.
Kelly

Maybe you could elaborate a little for me please Kelly.

Originally posted by menace71
I'm not sure on this 100% but the argument for creationist is not so much on this so called missing link. The real dispute should be the transitional species in the fossil record or from what I understand is the lack there of. Example: Where is the swimming animal that then sprouted little buds that eventually became legs which then came out of the sea and ...[text shortened]... in the fossil record. These transitional species should be there if they exist right?

Manny

There are transitional fossils in the fossil record, i will give you an example of one. It's also an exmaple of how evolutionary theory can be tested (something RC likes to say is impossible).

Until fairly recently there was no 'transitional fossil' that occupied the space between fish and land dwelling-tetrapod. In short we were missing the stage between fin and early leg. In the fossil record we had an early lobe finned fish dated 385 million years ago called Eusthenopteron foordi, and a land-dwelling tetrapod called Acanthostega gunnari dated 365 million years ago.

The eminent evolutionary biologist Neil Shubin Ph.D, who specialises in the evolution of the fin, decided to go and find a transistional fossil between the two. He deduced that strata around 375 million years old would be the place to look. Using a geology textbook for a map he looked for exposed freshwater sediments of the correct age and zeroed in on Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic.

Five years later he had found what he set out for, Tiktaalik rosea. The fossil didn't have fins, and it didn't have legs it was a stage in between. It also had a whole range of other features which showed it was a stage between life in the water and life on land. It is a transitional fossil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik_roseae

Originally posted by galveston75
Correct Manny. And not just those type of transitional fossils but there should be millions of them because of the amount of time it would have taken for a transition to happen. But they just dont exist....
Each fossil they find is a complete species that shows no signs of it being in some transitional stage. Where is at least one fossil that shows som ...[text shortened]... ish, then went to land with legs and then went back to the seas with fins? They don't exist....

the whale that started out as a fish, then went to land with legs and then went back to the seas with fins?

They do.

I suggest reading some literature on evolution.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
[b]"whale that started out as a fish, then went to land with legs and then went back to the seas with fins


there are plenty of examples of fish that spend time on land

the hippo is closely related to whales and it doesnt take a lot of imagination to see how a hippo like creature would evolve into a whale.[/b]

No, an imagination doesn't qualify as any kind of proof. Hard fossils and thousands of them showing all the tens of thousands of years of transitions would be the proof. Again they don't exist... Where are they?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]the whale that started out as a fish, then went to land with legs and then went back to the seas with fins?

They do.

I suggest reading some literature on evolution.[/b]

Lol....why do you insist that I haven't? You assume that ones who don't believe in evolution know nothing about it? That is silly.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
There are transitional fossils in the fossil record, i will give you an example of one. It's also an exmaple of how evolutionary theory can be tested (something RC likes to say is impossible).

Until fairly recently there was no 'transitional fossil' that occupied the space between fish and land dwelling-tetrapod. In short we were missing the stage bet ...[text shortened]... life on land. It is a transitional fossil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik_roseae

Lol. A couple points here to notice. With only a skull and a few leg bones a clear picture of this animal now makes it a fact? Ok...... That's called streatching it a whole bunch I'd think.
And read thru the discription carefully and slowly. As usual the words "possibly, likelyhood, suggesting, probably, may have, while it may be that neither is ancestor to any living animal, perhaps, may have, we're making the hypothesis, and maybe occasionally".
Those words are all there.
So does this bring one to think this is fact? Seriously?
Let's put this into perspective for a minute. If you were about to get into a rocket going into space and your life was of course in question, and you are reading how the builder of this rocket ship describes the quality and safety of it with all these words in his discription in a folder he just handed to you to read. How exactly would you feel getting strapped into that thing? Confident, safe, secure, etc, etc?
Get the picture of the confidence level this wiki article as well as all the descriptions I've read in other articles promotes? None.........

Originally posted by galveston75
Lol....why do you insist that I haven't? You assume that ones who don't believe in evolution know nothing about it? That is silly.

Because all in our discussions on evolution you have yet to demonstrate you understand the basic concepts of what evolution theory is. Couple this with the fact that i've now caught you lying about your knowledge of evolutionary theory.

Even in this thread where you were given the chance to explain how your God worked his magic creating the diversity of life on Earth, you just resorted (again) to attacking evolution. Your answer to my questions can be summised as thus -

Dunno?!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Maybe you could elaborate a little for me please Kelly.

I believe the process to be true, given time life changes due to the forces applied
to it. The degree of change I have doubts about that many people just accept as
fact.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe the process to be true, given time life changes due to the forces applied
to it. The degree of change I have doubts about that many people just accept as
fact.
Kelly

Sorry i'm still not quite sure what you mean.

You accept evolution occurs? But only in small amounts?!

You going to have to give me more than two sentences here Kelly.

Originally posted by galveston75
Lol. A couple points here to notice. With only a skull and a few leg bones a clear picture of this animal now makes it a fact? Ok...... That's called streatching it a whole bunch I'd think.
And read thru the discription carefully and slowly. As usual the words "possibly, likelyhood, suggesting, probably, may have, while it may be that neither is ances ...[text shortened]... ticle as well as all the descriptions I've read in other articles promotes? None.........

Sorry i'm not quite sure what your disputing here.

We have fossils dated 385 million yrs old that have fins, fossils from 365 million years ago that had legs (tetrapods) and now we have a fossil dated 375 million years ago that has a fin/leg hybrid.

What's your point?