Originally posted by galveston75Nobody with any sense would propose that a horse turns into a whale.
You are the one that believes in evolution not me, so who's foolish and can't simply show the proof I ask for? And yes it was a typo.....
However you will be delighted to know that the whale's closest land
cousin is the hippopotamus (river horse). It doesn't take much imagination
to see that over generations something like a hippo could evolve into a sea dweller.
How do you explain sea mammals?
They certainly are not designed as well as fish are they?
Did Satan make them?
Originally posted by wolfgang59If we are using imagination then just about anything could have turned into a unicorn.
Nobody with any sense would propose that a horse turns into a whale.
However you will be delighted to know that the whale's closest land
cousin is the hippopotamus (river horse). It doesn't take much imagination
to see that over generations something like a hippo could evolve into a sea dweller.
How do you explain sea mammals?
They certainly are not designed as well as fish are they?
Did Satan make them?
Originally posted by Pianoman1"2. The fossil record.
I repeat my last post since you didn't respond first time.
Five Proofs of Evolution
by Richard Peacock
1. The universal genetic code.
All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a commo ...[text shortened]... The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another. "
No it doesn't. You need to stop taking the words of others and look for yourself.
Originally posted by wolfgang59Lol. I know that is not the supposed transition that evolutionist claim. It doesn't matter what animal or fish or whale or hippo did as it never happened and there is NOTHING in the fossil records to show that step by step process as I'm asking for.
Nobody with any sense would propose that a horse turns into a whale.
However you will be delighted to know that the whale's closest land
cousin is the hippopotamus (river horse). It doesn't take much imagination
to see that over generations something like a hippo could evolve into a sea dweller.
How do you explain sea mammals?
They certainly are not designed as well as fish are they?
Did Satan make them?
Originally posted by galveston75Yes, it does. You need to research more. The fossil record is proven. The American Geological Institute:
"2. The fossil record.
The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another. "
No it doesn't. You need to stop taking the words of others and look for yourself.
"The fossil record contains many well-documented examples of the transition from one species into another, as well as the origin of new physical features. Evidence from the fossil record is unique, because it provides a time perspective for understanding the evolution of life on Earth. This perspective is not available from other branches of science or in the other databases that support the study of evolution."
Originally posted by galveston75Actually, if you read that book you keep refusing to read at my expense, there is one section where they show the fossils of various species changing over time, bit by bit.
"2. The fossil record.
The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another. "
No it doesn't. You need to stop taking the words of others and look for yourself.
Do you remember an old schoolboy game of taking a white pad and then drawing a slightly different picture on each page? You then flick through it to make a sort of home made 'cartoon'. Nowadays kids would just do something on a computer.
It looks just like that, as each species keeps bits from the previous one, enhances some, reduces others, in some cases leaving vestigial traits and in others beneficial adaptations.
Simple, predictable, testable, logical and breathtakingly wonderful.
A supposed typical explination:
"Fossils, trapped in rocks that can be accurately dates, show evolutionary progression
Millions of fossils, found in well-dated sequences of rocks, show evolution of forms through time and show many transitions among species. The fossil record is unequivocal on the progression of life from simple beginnings to complex organisms. Animals without backbones predate vertebrates. Amphibians appear after fish, mammals appear after reptiles, and no complex life occurs in rocks nearly as old as those containing the oldest fossil bacteria."
Notice this says how amphibians "appear", mammals "appear". reptiles "appear".
Does he not know he kills the intended meaning which should be "it proves by showing the graduale changes between kinds with fossil proof"?
If I appeared from around the corner, what does that mean in every languge on this planet?
Did it take me centuries or decades or years or months or weeks or days to appear? Not hardly. Nope not there one minute and then suddenly and clearly there, just as the KINDS all suddenly appear in the fossil record with NO fossils that look like one KIND and then over millions of years clearly phase into another KIND by a clear chain or link of fossils. It does not exist.
If it is..prove it!
Originally posted by Pianoman1It says so, but show me the proof. Have you seen this with your own eyes?
Yes, it does. You need to research more. The fossil record is proven. The American Geological Institute:
"The fossil record contains many well-documented examples of the transition from one species into another, as well as the origin of new physical features. Evidence from the fossil record is unique, because it provides a time perspective for understan ...[text shortened]... e from other branches of science or in the other databases that support the study of evolution."
Originally posted by Rank outsiderIf this is fact then show me a link where I can actually see one KIND changing to another KIND. I'm not speaking of adapting but being of one species and a gradual and complete change from one species to another completely different species.
Actually, if you read that book you keep refusing to read at my expense, there is one section where they show the fossils of various species changing over time, bit by bit.
Do you remember an old schoolboy game of taking a white pad and then drawing a slightly different picture on each page? You then flick through it to make a sort of home made 'ca ...[text shortened]... beneficial adaptations.
Simple, predictable, testable, logical and breathtakingly wonderful.
"Henry Gee is the chief science writer at Nature (or was, when his book was written), a highly regarded peer-reviewed science journal. He wrote a book called In Search of Deep Time, published by the Free Press in 1999."
"...disconnection and isolation of events worsens further as centuries turn into millennia, tens of millennia, and finally into millions of years: intervals so vast that they dwarf the events within them. Events become disconnected, separated like stars by gulfs of space measurable not in miles but in light years. This is geological time, far beyond everyday human experience.
This is Deep Time.
Deep Time is like an endless, dark corridor, with no landmarks to give it scale. This darkness is occasionally pierced by a shaft of light from an open door. Peering into the lighted room, we see a tableau of unfamilair characters from the lost past, but we are unable to connect the scene before us with that encountered in any other room in the corridor of time, or with our own time. Deep Time is fragmented, something qualitatively different from the richly interwoven tapestry of time afforded by our everyday experience, what I call 'everyday time' or 'ordinary time.'
A fossil can be thought of as an event in DeepTime. compared with the immensity of time in which it is found, a fossil is a point in time of zero extent: a fossil either exists or it doesn't. By itself, a fossil is a punctuation mark, an interjection, an exclamation, even, but it is not a word, or even a sentence, let alone a whole story. Fossils are the tableaux that are illuminated by the occasional shafts of light that punctuate the corridor of Deep Time. You cannot connect one fossil with any other to form a narrative.
...The events of Deep Time -- fossils -- are so sparse, because an animal, once dead, only rarely becomes a fossil. A million years passed between one fossil of Pseudocivetta ingens and the next. The process of fossilization and discovery is a concatentation of chance built upon chance. It's amazing that anything becomes a fossil at all.
...The quest to interpret fossils in terms of modern models rests on the assumption that all life in Earth has a common ancestry, because we can interpret past life only in terms of other living organisms. If this were not possible, we would not recognize the fossils of animals as animals at all.
...In the end, we never see fossils as they are, but only imperfectly, in the light of models that are more or less approximate. Given this constraint, it is surely hard enough to make progress understanding the evidence we have without leaping way beyond it, with presuppositions about chains of ancestry and descent, and about missing links. Such presuppositions are exposed as vacuous once the evidence finally catches up."
pp 26-27, 82, 85
Seems fitting which in fact explains how incredibly impossible it is to connect fossils at all to prove evolution.
Originally posted by galveston75D'oh!
A supposed typical explination:
"Fossils, trapped in rocks that can be accurately dates, show evolutionary progression
Millions of fossils, found in well-dated sequences of rocks, show evolution of forms through time and show many transitions among species. The fossil record is unequivocal on the progression of life from simple beginnings to complex ...[text shortened]... nto another KIND by a clear chain or link of fossils. It does not exist.
If it is..prove it!
The question 'Where does my poem 'appear' in this anthology of verse?' is perfectly normal English usage.
If the answer was page 98, would you say that the poem miraculously came into existence when you turned to page 98, or would you say it was always present on that page?
Originally posted by galveston75No, of course not. Are you doubting the veracity of the American Geological Institute? Can't you just get it? Virtually the whole of the scientific community is united against YEC because it simply does not stack up; it is a deceipt propagated by jaw-droppingly inflexible died-in the-wool fundamentalists who are trying to take the moral high ground whilst standing in shifting quicksand!
It says so, but show me the proof. Have you seen this with your own eyes?
Originally posted by galveston75How do you know this? What research have you done? You are after all a grown man who refuses to read any books on the topic? You're essentially walking round with your hands over your ears, your eyes shut shouting 'la la la la la la'.
A supposed typical explination:
"Fossils, trapped in rocks that can be accurately dates, show evolutionary progression
Millions of fossils, found in well-dated sequences of rocks, show evolution of forms through time and show many transitions among species. The fossil record is unequivocal on the progression of life from simple beginnings to complex ...[text shortened]... nto another KIND by a clear chain or link of fossils. It does not exist.
If it is..prove it!