[_ Old Earth _] Did God Use Evolution

[Barbarian]

Big statement, show me where one species is changing into another, not color, or hair, but actually changing from "monkey to man.

One of the oddest habits of creationists is making up bizarre ideas, and insisting that scientists believe them. Do you honestly think that's what evolutionary theory says?

 

[logical bob]

[quote="logical bob":2fzcvu2l][quote="Faith Hope Love":2fzcvu2l] Science can deal only with observables. Have you ever seen evolution take place? Has anyone else ever ruly seen evolution take place?

Yes. We see it in the emergence of MRSA, VRSA and other drug-resistant micro-organisms. It happens quickly enough to watch because bacteria reproduce quickly, they have a higher frequency of mutations than more complex organisms and the sudden application of antibiotics makes for a very extreme form of selection pressure.[/quote:2fzcvu2l]
lol. I figured out how to quote! lol anyways. I had to laugh when I read that. It was funny. You said you watched they watched bacteria reproduce. Reproducing bacteria is a whole lot different than planet earth evolving.[/quote:2fzcvu2l]
Planets don't evolve.

No, no one has seen apes evolve to form monkeys. No one was there when God first created the earth. Anyways your post sounds extremely scientific and very far off

It's very naive to think that science can't say anything about things humans can't see directly. Science makes a lot of predictions about millions/billions of years ago which are supported by our observations. It predicts that we won't find human and dinosaur remains in the same stratum, and we don't. It predicts that whale and dolphin genes should be more like those of other mammals than those of other marine species, and they are. It predicts the existence of transitional species and, as The Barbarian has been demostrating for a long time, we find their remains. It predicts the presence of retro-viruses incorportated into DNA, and there they are.

In cosmology black holes, cosmic background radiation and many other things were predicted in theory before they were observed. The fact that nobody was there when the cosmic background radiation originated is irrelevant.

ToE gives an account of how species develops that shows human descent from earlier primates is explained by the same factors we see at work in directly observable cases like the bacteria I mentioned and the peppered moth.

But if all this is too "extremely scientific" you can always post a and hope it goes away.

 

[jasoncran]

mr.barbarian i read this recently that darwin in his diaries denied that Lord even created this planet.

 

[logical bob]

mr.barbarian i read this recently that darwin in his diaries denied that Lord even created this planet.

The Barbarian will have his own answer to that I'm sure. But I'd say that a scientific theory stands or falls on the evidence. The beliefs of the scientist are of no relevance. Whether Darwin was the most devout Christian ever or a militant atheist doesn't change the validity of his theory at all.

If your doctor prescribed you a new treatment and you found out that the clinical trials for this treatment had been carried out by an atheist would you really think that made then less reliable?

 

[Barbarian]

mr.barbarian i read this recently that darwin in his diaries denied that Lord even created this planet.

That would be hard to reconcile with the last sentence in The Origin of Species:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, 1872 Edition

He did say, late in life, that he was "leaning toward agnosticism." But when he wrote The Origin of Species, he was a confirmed Christian.

 

[jasoncran]

mr.barbarian i read this recently that darwin in his diaries denied that Lord even created this planet.

That would be hard to reconcile with the last sentence in The Origin of Species:

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, 1872 Edition

He did say, late in life, that he was "leaning toward agnosticism." But when he wrote The Origin of Species, he was a confirmed Christian.

he died denying the lord, he also had had doubts even then, diary political correctness of the time!

 

[jasoncran]

mr.barbarian i read this recently that darwin in his diaries denied that Lord even created this planet.

The Barbarian will have his own answer to that I'm sure. But I'd say that a scientific theory stands or falls on the evidence. The beliefs of the scientist are of no relevance. Whether Darwin was the most devout Christian ever or a militant atheist doesn't change the validity of his theory at all.

If your doctor prescribed you a new treatment and you found out that the clinical trials for this treatment had been carried out by an atheist would you really think that made then less reliable?

would you see a doctor who as known nazi?or anti-semite. he wasnt looking for the lord.

athiests gotta love em. i was pointing out what a few athiest pointied me too. lol

so your world view doenst affect your search for evidence that you are soo neutral in thought that your never ever biased!, yeah right.

 

[jasoncran]

in 1838, this is written and told to him from his wife.

And this man, who had gone around the world once, and was going to marry Emma Wedgwood, did not believe a single word of the biblical story of creation. "Reason tells me that honest and conscientious doubts cannot be a sin," wrote the deeply religious Emma to her betrothed in a cautioning letter in November 1838. "But I felt that it would be a painful rift between us." Charles was supposed to find his way back to the right faith by reading the Bible: "I implore you to read the parting words of our Savior to his apostles, beginning at the end of the 13th chapter of the Gospel according to John," she wrote

from this site, and i read this a while ago.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... onfessions

it ends with him never changing his doubts.

 

[logical bob]

mr.barbarian i read this recently that darwin in his diaries denied that Lord even created this planet.

The Barbarian will have his own answer to that I'm sure. But I'd say that a scientific theory stands or falls on the evidence. The beliefs of the scientist are of no relevance. Whether Darwin was the most devout Christian ever or a militant atheist doesn't change the validity of his theory at all.

If your doctor prescribed you a new treatment and you found out that the clinical trials for this treatment had been carried out by an atheist would you really think that made then less reliable?

would you see a doctor who as known nazi?or anti-semite. he wasnt looking for the lord.

No, I would prefer not to have my appointment with a Nazi doctor. But someone isn't wrong about science purely because they're a Nazi. Case in point - some surgical techniques are based on the experiments of Josef Mengali in the concentration camps. The way this knowledge was obtained is absolutely morally repulsive, but it's not factually incorrect.

Incidentally, why are you comparing atheists to Nazis?

athiests gotta love em. i was pointing out what a few athiest pointied me too. lol

We don't have an atheist party line that we all have to stick to you know. If anyone told you that Darwin's personal religious beliefs affect the validity of his theory then I disagree with them.

so your world view doenst affect your search for evidence that you are soo neutral in thought that your never ever biased!, yeah right.

Nobody's perfect, but I try my best to avoid irrelevant bias.

 

[jasoncran]

he wanted to discredit the bible that's what i bringing up.

he wasnt a believer and probably never repented, that was point.

i used that as example, though nitzche , who influenced atheism then and hitler still does.

hmm that thread on darwinism, needs to be done. as that is real even to day.

evolutionary physolocology

 

[Faith Hope Love]

The whole premise of evolution is build upon the assumption that the earth is billions of years old.

Evidence, not assumption. Even most creationists now realize the Earth is very old. Even the ancient Christians knew that the "days" were not literal days, long before science as we know it.

Okay. Okay. First off, you can not tell what ancient old people thought. You can't even tell me what I am thinking about right now....and I'm not ancient. Seriously. Now why do you think the earth is old? You believe in the Bible. You just do things a interpate things a slight bit different than me. Well majorly. But with Bibical evidence and all,what makes you think the earth was that old? Is there a scientific forumla so we can know which days were literal and which were not? But then again...you believe I evolved from an ape. You would probably believe anything :P

 

[Faith Hope Love]

No, no one has seen apes evolve to form monkeys. No one was there when God first created the earth. Anyways your post sounds extremely scientific and very far off

It's very naive to think that science can't say anything about things humans can't see directly. Science makes a lot of predictions about millions/billions of years ago which are supported by our observations. It predicts that we won't find human and dinosaur remains in the same stratum, and we don't. It predicts that whale and dolphin genes should be more like those of other mammals than those of other marine species, and they are. It predicts the existence of transitional species and, as The Barbarian has been demostrating for a long time, we find their remains. It predicts the presence of retro-viruses incorportated into DNA, and there they are.

In cosmology black holes, cosmic background radiation and many other things were predicted in theory before they were observed. The fact that nobody was there when the cosmic background radiation originated is irrelevant.

ToE gives an account of how species develops that shows human descent from earlier primates is explained by the same factors we see at work in directly observable cases like the bacteria I mentioned and the peppered moth.
But if all this is too "extremely scientific" you can always post a and hope it goes away.[/quote]

lol...a smiley and then never come back again. But sorry to say I have a brain, and I feel a need to respond.

Now let me mention just because it sounds scientific doesn't mean it is. See if useing science vocab is your only deffence you don't really have one at all. Predict this predict that. I predict this thread is going to go on for a while. Have some proof other than someones prediction? Transitional species? There isn't any. Maybe you don't believe me but if you want to sit and admire your proof of scientific words, go right ahead. Next time have some evidence. Peppered moth lol. Both the light colored ones and the dark colored ones exsisted before the Industrial Revolution.

 

[Faith Hope Love]

Every biologist knows about Lamarck. His idea of evolution is no longer accepted, because the evidence shows that acquired traits are not inherited.

lol you just denied something that used to be proof for you evolutionary. It used ot be proof, then it wasn't

[quote:rb0hhpdi]So did Darwin; he thought God created life.

Just differently than how God said, right?

Odd then, that the men who established the theory were theists. You've been misled about that.

No I think you have been misled...or maybe you just are deny it because you don't want to accept it. Yes, you would never ever addmitt it. lol of course!

No. Huxley, Wallace, and many other scientists were the first to accept the theory. You've been misled about that, too.,

hmm. Nope you have. :P ANd yes I can say that because that is the amount of proof you give me here. Also I said one of, you said many other. There is room for Charles

By the time Darwin died, almost all scientists accepted it. The last great biologist who did not, Agassiz, died about 1900. Again, you've been misled on that.

You know what? You seem to accept everything everyone tells you execpt what you want to accept. But anyways, I don't think I will even go there lol. No comment :P I say youv'e been misled. And yes, we shall get no where agruing your opinion.

We can test that belief. Name two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find a transitional organism. I've yet to find a creationist with enough faith in creationism to do that. Will you be the first?

[/quote:rb0hhpdi]

lol..seems sneeky. I think you have some sort of trick in there and I would have to be the first to fall for it. Sigh* But I did that long ago, and since you never replied I figrued I had you on it. And you simnply couldn't reply. lol. Apperently you only notice what you want to notice. Hint hint*

 

[Faith Hope Love]

God is God. God knows everything. Don't put God in your little box. It doesn't work. Don't say something different than what God says and say that God did this that way therfore it is best in God's eyes. lol.

Just going with the evidence. And the discovery that evolutionary processes are more efficient than design is powerful evidence for His creation. Let God be God, and do it His way.

lol I just realised I have alot of post...and my quotes were not working. But I guess everyone figrued it out...How is it more efficient? See, evolution has people misled. I am going to post a big long post. Hopefully my last

There are four major symbols in evolution. They are the ones in the school text books, these are the examples scientist give to prove evolution. Before I start I am going to defiene evolution. I know some people say that its merely means a change over time. But if that were true than there wouldn't be a controversy over the whole thing.


Darwinism claims much more than that, it claims it’s the theory that all living creatures are modified descendents of a common ancestor. That lived long long ago. For example: we are descends of a ape and we share a common ancestor with fruit flies. (lovely)
So if these four ‘proofs’ are the most citeid then its no wonder why there important.

Jonathan Wells, PHD, PHD. He’s got an undergraduate degree form the University of California at Berkeley for geology and physics, with a minor in biology. At Yale he earned his doctorate in religious studies, whil specializing in the 19th century controversies surronding Darwin. Well also received a doctorate in molecual and cell biology form Berkely, where he foruced primarily on vertebrate embroyolgy and evolution. (This was just so you couldn’t say my source wasn’t qualified or whatever lol)
When he was asked “What did you find as you examined them one by one?†He simply answered, “That they’re either false of misleading.

Was he saying that science teachers were lying? No, he wasn’t saying that. They proably were not aware of the way they misrepesent the evidence. But the end result is alwas going to be the same. So to follow this logic…If this evidence is the most known citeid evidence for evolution because it’s the best out there…and if there either false or misleading. What does this say about the evolutionary theory itself?

#1 The Miller Experiment. It’s still featured in many biology text books. It is bases on whether the atmosphere the he used was accurate to early eath. Miller relied heavily on the atmospheric theories of his advisor.

Heres what Wells said, “Well, nobody knows for sure what the early atmosphere was like, but consensus is that the atmosphere was not at all like the one Miller used.â€

Miller choosea hydrogen rich mixture of methan, anmonia, and water vapor, which is what many scientist thought exsisted back then. But scientist don’t believe that anymore. Actually there is much evidence against what Miller thought it constited of. Klaus Dose, and Sidney Fox confirmed that Miller used the wrong gase mixture. Wells said, “The best Hypothesis now is that there was very little hydrogen in the atmosphere because it would have escaped into space. Instead, the atmoshere probably consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor.

Anyways you might wonder what if you do the expiriment over again with the correct atmosphere? Actually you don’t get amino acids. You get organic molecules.Formaldehyde, and cyanide. There so toxic you have a capped bottle of the stuff in a lab room. :P It’s true a good organic chemist can turn the chemicals into biological molecules. Wells said this,†But to suggest that formaldehyde and cyanide give you the right to subtrate for the origin of life. Well its just a joke.†He goes on to say, “Do you know what you get? Embalming fluid.â€

#2 Darwins tree of life (to the point this time) doesn’t match the fossil record.

#3Haeckel’s Embroys the early stage drawings were fake. Call them distorted, misleading, fudged, or whatever, but bottom line they are fake. We’ve actually known this since about 1860’s. One of his colleages accused him of fraud. There are other problems but this post is already so long….lol that’s just how much we have against evolution I guess :P

#4 Archaeoptperyx missing link isn’t half bird, half reptile. It’s simply a bird.A bird that has been there all along.

Now something that has problem after problem isn’t really more efficient than something that doesn’t have a simgle problem. Is it?

Hope this wasn’t to long

 

[Physicist]

[quote="The Barbarian":1zhtiv6q]

God is God. God knows everything. Don't put God in your little box. It doesn't work. Don't say something different than what God says and say that God did this that way therfore it is best in God's eyes. lol.

Just going with the evidence. And the discovery that evolutionary processes are more efficient than design is powerful evidence for His creation. Let God be God, and do it His way.

lol I just realised I have alot of post...and my quotes were not working. But I guess everyone figrued it out...How is it more efficient? See, evolution has people misled. I am going to post a big long post. Hopefully my last

There are four major symbols in evolution. They are the ones in the school text books, these are the examples scientist give to prove evolution. Before I start I am going to defiene evolution. I know some people say that its merely means a change over time. But if that were true than there wouldn't be a controversy over the whole thing.


Darwinism claims much more than that, it claims it’s the theory that all living creatures are modified descendents of a common ancestor. That lived long long ago. For example: we are descends of a ape and we share a common ancestor with fruit flies. (lovely)
So if these four ‘proofs’ are the most citeid then its no wonder why there important.

Jonathan Wells, PHD, PHD. He’s got an undergraduate degree form the University of California at Berkeley for geology and physics, with a minor in biology. At Yale he earned his doctorate in religious studies, whil specializing in the 19th century controversies surronding Darwin. Well also received a doctorate in molecual and cell biology form Berkely, where he foruced primarily on vertebrate embroyolgy and evolution. (This was just so you couldn’t say my source wasn’t qualified or whatever lol)
When he was asked “What did you find as you examined them one by one?†He simply answered, “That they’re either false of misleading.

Was he saying that science teachers were lying? No, he wasn’t saying that. They proably were not aware of the way they misrepesent the evidence. But the end result is alwas going to be the same. So to follow this logic…If this evidence is the most known citeid evidence for evolution because it’s the best out there…and if there either false or misleading. What does this say about the evolutionary theory itself?

#1 The Miller Experiment. It’s still featured in many biology text books. It is bases on whether the atmosphere the he used was accurate to early eath. Miller relied heavily on the atmospheric theories of his advisor.

Heres what Wells said, “Well, nobody knows for sure what the early atmosphere was like, but consensus is that the atmosphere was not at all like the one Miller used.â€

Miller choosea hydrogen rich mixture of methan, anmonia, and water vapor, which is what many scientist thought exsisted back then. But scientist don’t believe that anymore. Actually there is much evidence against what Miller thought it constited of. Klaus Dose, and Sidney Fox confirmed that Miller used the wrong gase mixture. Wells said, “The best Hypothesis now is that there was very little hydrogen in the atmosphere because it would have escaped into space. Instead, the atmoshere probably consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor.

Anyways you might wonder what if you do the expiriment over again with the correct atmosphere? Actually you don’t get amino acids. You get organic molecules.Formaldehyde, and cyanide. There so toxic you have a capped bottle of the stuff in a lab room. :P It’s true a good organic chemist can turn the chemicals into biological molecules. Wells said this,†But to suggest that formaldehyde and cyanide give you the right to subtrate for the origin of life. Well its just a joke.†He goes on to say, “Do you know what you get? Embalming fluid.â€

2 Darwins tree of life (to the point this time) doesn’t match the fossil record.

#3Haeckel’s Embroys the early stage drawings were fake. Call them distorted, misleading, fudged, or whatever, but bottom line they are fake. We’ve actually known this since about 1860’s. One of his colleages accused him of fraud. There are other problems but this post is already so long….lol that’s just how much we have against evolution I guess :P

#4 Archaeoptperyx missing link isn’t half bird, half reptile. It’s simply a bird.A bird that has been there all along.

Now something that has problem after problem isn’t really more efficient than something that doesn’t have a simgle problem. Is it?

Hope this wasn’t to long [/quote:1zhtiv6q]

I offer these comments with the best of intentions and my apologies if they seem to critical. However, as a practicing scientist, I feel compelled to correct statement that, IMO, are scientifically incorrect.

Your point 1 Miller experiment. First, his study dealt with an area of science called abiogenesis, not evolution. The latter only describes how life, already established, changes. Miller's experiment was decades ago and great scientific progress has been made in this field since then. Your library may have a series on this from the Teaching Company. The tapes are well worth listening to. Unfortunately, abiogenesis is still waiting for some future Darwin tofind the encompassing theory.

Your point 2- That the fossil record does not suppoort the Theory of Natural Selection. If you have such evidence, I suggest you send it to the Journal, 'Nature'. Such evidence would surely, if valid, win you the Nobel Prize. I am aware of no peer reviewed literature that claims that the fossil record contradict the main components of Darwin's Theory.

Your point 3 - This is relevant to disproving the theory in what way? Are you claiming that the majority of scientific evidence supporting Darwin's Theory is false? A while back a now disgraced nuclear physicist falsely claimed to have discovered a new element. Should we take his action as a disproof of atomic theory?

Your point 4 - Archaeoptperyx exhibits traits, such as teeth and claws on its wings, not found on modern birds. It is only one in a series of fossils that delineate the transition of reptiles and birds from a common ancestor.

 

[Faith Hope Love]

lol. I don't have alot of time to respond but I will....you said your'e a practicing scientist. I think you would like the book Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. Its super good As a practicing scientist I think it would be right up you alley :P

Now If you would just read it, I wouldn't have to add anything to this forum, because it sums up everything. And its a really good read.

Your point 1. Whatever.

Your point 2. What evidence do you have for the fossil record that proves evolution? As a practicing scientist, you probably read many sciene books. I'm assuming. Well you probably believe them to....so I really can't say much to the fact that they are fake. You know, the fact the evolutionist have searched many miles and many many years and haven't found a thing yet is very suspicious.

Your point 3. Idk. Were not discuusion him. I haven't heard of him. lol. It's not excatly a controvsialy topic. Yes, I am going to say a majority of the evidence is false, misleading, and misinterpated.


Your point 4. lol and were have you found all these transitional fossils? I personally think the only place they exsist is in peoples imagination. Where have you found any??? No one can answer because they haven't. Simple. Heres what Wells said, " Does it show Darwinian evolution? Well, no, for the same reason that the Corvettes don't illustrate Darwiniam evolution. We would need more tan an intermediate form to show that; we would need to know how you get from one ot the other. When asked if the archaeopteryx is half bird, half reptile. He said this, " No not even close. It's a bird with modern feathers, and birds are very different from reptiles in many important ways-thier breeding systems, their bone structure, thier lungs, their distribution of weitht and muscles. Its a bird, that's clear-not part bird part reptile. All you have to do is read Case for a Creator lol :P

 

[Physicist]

Challenge

lol. I don't have alot of time to respond but I will....you said your'e a practicing scientist. I think you would like the book Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. Its super good As a practicing scientist I think it would be right up you alley :P

Now If you would just read it, I wouldn't have to add anything to this forum, because it sums up everything. And its a really good read.

Your point 1. Whatever.

Your point 2. What evidence do you have for the fossil record that proves evolution? As a practicing scientist, you probably read many sciene books. I'm assuming. Well you probably believe them to....so I really can't say much to the fact that they are fake. You know, the fact the evolutionist have searched many miles and many many years and haven't found a thing yet is very suspicious.

Your point 3. Idk. Were not discuusion him. I haven't heard of him. lol. It's not excatly a controvsialy topic. Yes, I am going to say a majority of the evidence is false, misleading, and misinterpated.


Your point 4. lol and were have you found all these transitional fossils? I personally think the only place they exsist is in peoples imagination. Where have you found any??? No one can answer because they haven't. Simple. Heres what Wells said, " Does it show Darwinian evolution? Well, no, for the same reason that the Corvettes don't illustrate Darwiniam evolution. We would need more tan an intermediate form to show that; we would need to know how you get from one ot the other. When asked if the archaeopteryx is half bird, half reptile. He said this, " No not even close. It's a bird with modern feathers, and birds are very different from reptiles in many important ways-thier breeding systems, their bone structure, thier lungs, their distribution of weitht and muscles. Its a bird, that's clear-not part bird part reptile. All you have to do is read Case for a Creator lol :P

Actually, I have read Strobels, not the particular text that you cite but his "Case for Christ'. Mt Strobbel, who is a journalist, not a scientist, appears to assume his conclusion before he starts to write. He presents about as impartial view as Fox news. Most of his points are easily refuted by examing the actual scholarly consensus on them.

My challenge to you. Since I have read Strobels, why don't you read the newest book by Dawkins. Unlike Strobel, Dawkins is an actual expert in his field.

From above:

Point 2 Dawkins book, or even a good college introductory book on the subject will provide you with lots of examples from the fossil record. Yes, the fossil record supports evolution. For example, one never finds trilobyte fossils in the same rock strata as clam fossils, even though they occupied similar ecosystems

Point 3 I would suggest that you might want to do some self-examination here. Literally thousands of scientific studies have been done on evolution by scientists from various cultures with varying religious beliefs. Their studies are reviewed by other experts before they get published in the literature. Science rewards those who can show flaws in existing theories. That is how scientists become famous. Yet, all the peer reviewed literature supports the main tenants of Darwin's theory. As might be expected, there has been improvements and expansions on the theory in the last 150 years and minor details are sometimes disputed.This is true for all scientific theories.

If you are honest with yourself, can you really believe that all this is part of some giant conspiracy of the scientific community? What would be their motivation?

Point 4 - All species are transitional species. We all have ancestors and will all likely evolve into something else. However, some short-lived species are used a good example of transition. That book by Dawkins will give you plenty of examples.

Regards,

Physicist

 

[Physicist]

Slight correction

My biolgist friend says that ancient precursors to clams may have been in the Cambrian period. Substitute lobster for clam in my example in my previous post.

 

[Barbarian]

l

ol. I don't have alot of time to respond but I will....you said your'e a practicing scientist. I think you would like the book Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. Its super good

Strobel's book would be pretty pointless for me, since I already know there is a Creator. And his arguments seem to indicate he's not very orthodox in his understanding of God.

Your point 1. Whatever.

That's pretty much what all creationists do when they can't answer a point.

Your point 2. What evidence do you have for the fossil record that proves evolution?

We find in the fossil record, the predicted transistionals, but we don't find transitionals between groups that evolutionary theory says aren't closely related. And in some lucky cases, we have a large number, of very gradually-different fossils showing the evolutionary progression very clearly.

As a practicing scientist, you probably read many sciene books. I'm assuming. Well you probably believe them to....so I really can't say much to the fact that they are fake.

Comes down to evidence. Science has it. That's why it's accepted. Creationism doesn't. That's why people don't accept it.

Your point 4. lol and were have you found all these transitional fossils? I personally think the only place they exsist is in peoples imagination. Where have you found any???

Museums, university collections, places like that. Lots of them are on the web. What group would you like to see a transitional fossil for?

No one can answer because they haven't. Simple. Heres what Wells said, " Does it show Darwinian evolution? Well, no, for the same reason that the Corvettes don't illustrate Darwiniam evolution.

That won't work for you, either. Artifacts are not descended from one another, although there are certainly evolutionary changes in Corvettes. Would you like to learn about some of them?

We would need more tan an intermediate form to show that; we would need to know how you get from one ot the other.

If I could show you a long line of transitionals, each one different from the adjacent ones by less difference than you can find in many living mammalian species, would you agree we have done that?

When asked if the archaeopteryx is half bird, half reptile. He said this, " No not even close. It's a bird with modern feathers, and birds are very different from reptiles in many important ways-thier breeding systems, their bone structure, thier lungs, their distribution of weitht and muscles. Its a bird, that's clear-not part bird part reptile. All you have to do is read Case for a Creator lol

Well, let's take a look....

Archy has a head like a dinosaur, no beak, and dinosaur-like teeth. It has spin, hips, tail, and fingers like a dinosaur. It lacks the keel breastbone of the bird and fixed ribs found in birds, but it does have the modified shoulder joint and it has flight feathers.

The first one, found without feathers, was initially classified as a dinosaur or later a pterosaur, before the feathers were discovered. One prominent creationist actually argued that it was a dinosaur with faked feathers before that was ruled out.

So it looks like you've been misled about that, too.

 

[logical bob]

Re: Challenge

Actually, I have read Strobels, not the particular text that you cite but his "Case for Christ'. Mt Strobbel, who is a journalist, not a scientist, appears to assume his conclusion before he starts to write. He presents about as impartial view as Fox news. Most of his points are easily refuted by examing the actual scholarly consensus on them.

I have read Case for a Creator. It's very poor. Writing like a testimonial, Strobel sits uncritically at the feet of a series of "experts," Michael Behe and William Lane Craig among them.

Strobel seems to think that if there were any methodological flaws in the Miller-Urey experiment then any future discussion of abiogenesis would be dead in the water.

He sets great store by Lane Craig's cosmological argument, seemingly unaware that undergraduates shred it as a warm-up in Philosophy 101.

I gave up in disgust when Strobel dismissed the entire work of Stephen Hawking because he makes use of imaginary numbers, making his conclusions, erm... imaginary.