Creation vs Evolution

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Evolution is not a fact.

You don't even know what evolution is.

In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
When confronted with the truth, the fool hides.

👆

Let's assume that what you have posted is a single fossil out of the millions (at least) that should exist if evolutionary theory is true (which it is not), what exactly does your purported fossil prove? Is it supposed to be evidence of an intermediary species? Because it doesn't look like one. That is what my initial statement conveyed.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Missing links (i.e. intermediary fossils showing the link between any two species). There isn't even [B]one that does this. [/B]

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You don't even know what evolution is.

My statement concerned fossils that show evidence of an intermediate species. Does your picture show this?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Missing links (i.e. intermediary fossils showing the link between any two species). There isn't even onethat does this.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Let's assume that what you have posted is a single fossil out of the millions (at least) that should exist if evolutionary theory is true (which it is not), what exactly does your purported fossil prove? Is it supposed to be evidence of an intermediary species? Because it doesn't look like one. That is what my initial statement conveyed.

You and I are "missing links". Long ago, our ancestors looked far different then we do today. We know this because we have found fossilized remains. In the future, our descendants will continue to change. Evolution is a gradual curve of change and there is no real "missing link". The term "missing link" is used by people who do not understand evolution.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You and I are "missing links". Long ago, our ancestors looked far different then we do today. We know this because we have found fossilized remains. In the future, our descendants will continue to change. Evolution is a gradual curve of change and there is no real "missing link". The term "missing link" is used by people who do not understand evolution.

All I ask for is "proof" of what you say that is all. You have failed to show what I asked for that is why I was fascetious about you showing arts and crafts: to locate you.

😕

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
All I ask for is "proof" of what you say that is all.

😕

You have to know what I am talking about before you can understand. Also, I don't care about your demand for proof. There is more then enough proof on many levels out there, and even here on this forum. However, a blind man cannot know what color the sky is.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You have to know what I am talking about before you can understand. Also, I don't care about your demand for proof. There is more then enough proof on many levels out there, and even here on this forum. However, a blind man cannot know what color the sky is.

You went from attempting to refute my statement that there are no intermediary fossils that show a link between two species (just any two--why is this so problematic and difficult for you if evolution is true, it must not be true) to philosophizing about a blind man not being able to see the sky.

Not to mention you cast aside my simple, reasonable request for evidence (I simply asked for one fossil showing the link between any two species not one million). Many people in the scientific community pride theselves on their ability to produce evidence for what they claim, but you have not done so. It appears that when asked to do so you fail to do so in keeping with my simple criteria or you become flustered and transform into a philosopher.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Missing links (i.e. intermediary fossils showing the link between any two species). There isn't even one that does this.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You went from attempting to refute my statement that there are no intermediary fossils that show a link between two species [b](just any two--why is this so problematic and difficult for you if evolution is true, it must not be true) to philosophizing about a blind man not being able to see the sky.

Not to mention you cast aside my simple, reasonable request for evidence (I simply asked for one fossil showing the link between any two species not one million). Many people in the scientific community pride theselves on their ability to produce evidence for what they claim, but you have not done so. It appears that when asked to do so you fail to do so in keeping with my simple criteria or you become flustered and transform into a philosopher. [/B]

So, you did not understand my comparing you to a blind man? You are a blind man asking for proof that the sky is blue.

Here is your one proof of a "missing link":

http://www.livescience.com/animals/051116_missing_link.html

However, you are a "missing link". Did you not read that part of my last post, also?

You have to know something about evolution, or you will simply look like a fool, and you don't know what evolution is.

.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
.

Again you simply ignore the evidence I give, and next you will claim that I never gave any evidence.

Go read the article...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Again you simply ignore the evidence I give, and next you will claim that I never gave any evidence.

Go read the article...

I did read the article, but I don't have time to refute it.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I did read the article, but I don't have time to refute it.

Translation: Since I cannot refute the information in the article, I am going to disappear from the thread and when I return, I will not acknowledge that you even posted the article at all.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Translation: Since I cannot refute the information in the article, I am going to disappear from the thread and when I return, I will not acknowledge that you even posted the article at all.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Evolution is not a fact.

No. You are correct. Evolution isn't a fact. Its a whole stinkin ton of facts gathered up into a conclusion. A darn convincing one, I think. And disproving a conclusion backed up by a whole stinkin ton of facts requires more then one or two puny little facts that are completely absent of any conclusion.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I did read the article, but I don't have time to refute it.

Head still up your arse then? isnt it starting to stink?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I did read the article, but I don't have time to refute it.

Why would I care about your rebuttal. Keep your refuting to yourself; I don't think I will read it.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Evolution is not a fact.

Correct, it's a scientific theory 💃

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Correct, it's a scientific theory 💃

The theory of evolution is how evolution works, but evolution is a fact because things do change over time. I realize that I'm splitting hairs over this.

I like how I'm just a bystander observing this trainwreck of a thread, and already I've done a better job of supporting creationism than JIA has.

of course noting that "better" does not equal "sufficient"