[_ Old Earth _] Evolution stopped after billions of years.

[spartakis]

Now take away all the arguments of the past on both sides. Let's think with an open mind for a moment. We do not know anybody that was in the past to document any proof of evolution. As a believer we know of the creator who was there and documented what happened for us, but lets say you don't believe that. Put away all the hypothesis for a moment. No one can prove what happened. So look around you, what do you see? All animals in their form. When was the last time you seen a horse with a neck almost grown to be a giraffe, an ape human, or any transitional animal. There is no present proof of evolution. Don't tell me you see any. Even the evolustionist faviorite stephen hawkins says we have entered a new phase of evolution. Basically coming up with an excuse of why we do not see what we should see if evolution was real. God told us we have no excuse.

 

[lordkalvan]

Now take away all the arguments of the past on both sides. Let's think with an open mind for a moment. We do not know anybody that was in the past to document any proof of evolution. As a believer we know of the creator who was there and documented what happened for us, but lets say you don't believe that. Put away all the hypothesis for a moment. No one can prove what happened. So look around you, what do you see? All animals in their form. When was the last time you seen a horse with a neck almost grown to be a giraffe, an ape human, or any transitional animal. There is no present proof of evolution. Don't tell me you see any. Even the evolustionist faviorite stephen hawkins says we have entered a new phase of evolution. Basically coming up with an excuse of why we do not see what we should see if evolution was real. God told us we have no excuse.

Well, one way to look at it would be to reflect on the possibility that all life forms currently living are transitional, even if that is only en route to extinction.

 

[Barbarian]

There is no present proof of evolution. Don't tell me you see any.

Barry Hall's experiment showed the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. Q.E.D.

Even the evolustionist faviorite stephen hawkins says we have entered a new phase of evolution.

He's a physicist, and he's talking about humans, not all living things. We've got the technology to take it our own way, now.

Basically coming up with an excuse of why we do not see what we should see if evolution was real.

If it was real, we should have seen what Hall saw.

God told us we have no excuse.

Read Romans again. It's actually about God's majesty in nature, that is obvious to all, even those who don't know Him.

 

[spartakis]

Creation of this world which many evolutionist deny
Romans 1:20 KJV

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

For Barry hall this will explain it better than me.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/analysis-of-barry-halls-research

So evolution stopped at men because we can do it ourselves?

And where are the transitional animals of today? I mean billions of years but nothing as of now in the process?
you see none. No apes turning into a ape like man, giraffes and so. We see nothing taking place. Everything is in its own animal species.

 

[lordkalvan]

Creation of this world which many evolutionist deny
Romans 1:20 KJV

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

For Barry hall this will explain it better than me.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/analysis-of-barry-halls-research

So evolution stopped at men because we can do it ourselves?

And where are the transitional animals of today? I mean billions of years but nothing as of now in the process?
you see none. No apes turning into a ape like man, giraffes and so. We see nothing taking place. Everything is in its own animal species.

What leads you to suppose that there are no transitional forms in existing species? What do you imagine is signified by vestigial features and atavisms? Why do you have the 'fur-fluffing' instinct in cold weather (goosebumps), ear-twitching muscles (which whales also have, despite having no external ears at all), a 'tailbone' (the coccyx), a broken vitamin C gene and a fused chromosome 2 where other apes have two chromosomes? What do you make of observed speciation events, of ring species and of the nested hierarchy of species?

 

[spartakis]

A polar bear and a black bear are still bears. And similarity does not prove anything.
Did you know evolutionist teach the whale came from a 4 legged animal like a hyena? As of now they changed it to some raccoon sized animal called Indohyus. This is what they call the missing link between whales and land animals. I can't help but to laugh. Why do they consider this a missing link, because of similarities. That is the same reason they consider the hippo a relative to a whale because of similarities in DNA.

The missing links in the fossil record for evolution are still like they were when Darwin stated they could not prove evolution. Out of over 200,000,000 fossils we have no missing links. No proofs. Fossils with similarities to other animals do not prove evolution. You should have millions of transitional fossil by now if evolution was a fact. The fact is they have none. There are lots of animals that show similarities to each other but nowhere close to related. Examples like birds and bats, sharks and dolphins, red panda and giant panda. The list could continue, but you get my point.

What animals in the present are in the process of evolution? Shouldn't we see apes still in the process of turning into a man and so on? WHERE ARE THE ANIMALS THAT ARE CHANGING FROM 1 SPECIES TO ANOTHER? Like half mice half bats. All this stopped after billions of years

 

[lordkalvan]

A polar bear and a black bear are still bears.

Yes. And? Are they related at all? What about the 250+ species of monkeys? Are they related?

And similarity does not prove anything.

Depends what you mean by similarity and what you regard as evidential.

Did you know evolutionist teach the whale came from a 4 legged animal like a hyena? As of now they changed it to some raccoon sized animal called Indohyus.

If whales are not descended from ancestral land-dwelling species, how do you expalin those features that suggest they are?

This is what they call the missing link between whales and land animals.

There is no single 'missing link'. This is an oversimplified popularisation.

I can't help but to laugh. Why do they consider this a missing link, because of similarities. That is the same reason they consider the hippo a relative to a whale because of similarities in DNA.

Well, that's one piece of evidence that points to the ancestral line from which whales descend. What do you think this evidence indicates and why?

The missing links in the fossil record for evolution are still like they were when Darwin stated they could not prove evolution.

Can you show us where Darwin stated that transitional features were not evidence for evolution?

Out of over 200,000,000 fossils we have no missing links. No proofs.

Plenty of evidence if teansitional features, though.

Fossils with similarities to other animals do not prove evolution.

No obe says that similarities alone prove any such thing.

You should have millions of transitional fossil by now if evolution was a fact.

In one sense, all fossils are transitional. However, it is transitional features that are important here and we have plenty of those.

The fact is they have none.

Not so. What do you make of archaeoptery and tiktaalik, for example?

There are lots of animals that show similarities to each other but nowhere close to related.

Are monkeys related to one another? They show similarities, after all.

Examples like birds and bats, sharks and dolphins, red panda and giant panda. The list could continue, but you get my point.

No, what is it? No one suggests that similarities alone are evidence for relatedness.

What animals in the present are in the process of evolution?

All of them.

Shouldn't we see apes still in the process of turning into a man and so on?

Why? By the way, Homo sapiens is a soecies of ape.

WHERE ARE THE ANIMALS THAT ARE CHANGING FROM 1 SPECIES TO ANOTHER?

Ring species appear to be evidence if speciation events in progress.

Like half mice half bats.

Evolutionary theory proposes no such thing.

All this stopped after billions of years

No, it didn't.

 

[stovebolts]

You should have millions of transitional fossil by now if evolution was a fact.

And there is the problem right there. It's called fact. Fact is, Evolution is a theory. That's all it is. Theory is not fact, yet this whole 4.5 billion years and evolution are touted as fact as they hide their assumptions under a rug. Simply put, evolution is nothing more than a theory.

 

[spartakis]

Yes. And? Are they related at all? What about the 250+ species of monkeys? Are they related?

Depends what you mean by similarity and what you regard as evidential.

If whales are not descended from ancestral land-dwelling species, how do you expalin those features that suggest they are?

There is no single 'missing link'. This is an oversimplified popularisation.

Well, that's one piece of evidence that points to the ancestral line from which whales descend. What do you think this evidence indicates and why?

Can you show us where Darwin stated that transitional features were not evidence for evolution?

Plenty of evidence if teansitional features, though.

No obe says that similarities alone prove any such thing.

In one sense, all fossils are transitional. However, it is transitional features that are important here and we have plenty of those.

Not so. What do you make of archaeoptery and tiktaalik, for example?

Are monkeys related to one another? They show similarities, after all.

No, what is it? No one suggests that similarities alone are evidence for relatedness.

All of them.

Why? By the way, Homo sapiens is a soecies of ape.

Ring species appear to be evidence if speciation events in progress.

Evolutionary theory proposes no such thing.

No, it didn't.

Ring species do not show any species transforming to another. Obviously there are different species of monkeys but have you seen one in transformation to another species or apes in transformation to homo sapient. And yes evolution teach bats came from mice. And the point is you can not use a similarity like many evolutionist use to prove evolution. For instance they claimed the red panda and giant panda was related because similarity in skull shape teeth jaw bone and extra thumb but DNA test proved it to be wrong. You can't use similarity so how can they say in a fossil record because of a small similarity this is where the whale came from. Same thing they use with ape and men because of similarity. But we do not see anything in this so called process. Like I said mice
in-between the transition to a bat. I have not seen any species in a transformation to another. It's just a hypothesis of what happened in the past by those that rejected God.

 

[wayseer]

Ring species do not show any species transforming to another. Obviously there are different species of monkeys but have you seen one in transformation to another species or apes in transformation to homo sapient. And yes evolution teach bats came from mice. And the point is you can not use a similarity like many evolutionist use to prove evolution. For instance they claimed the red panda and giant panda was related because similarity in skull shape teeth jaw bone and extra thumb but DNA test proved it to be wrong. You can't use similarity so how can they say in a fossil record because of a small similarity this is where the whale came from. Same thing they use with ape and men because of similarity. But we do not see anything in this so called process. Like I said mice
in-between the transition to a bat. I have not seen any species in a transformation to another. It's just a hypothesis of what happened in the past by those that rejected God.

Don't look now - but you and I are made of stardust - as is every living creature.

We, creation, evolved from the stars.

 

[Free]

Don't look now - but you and I are made of stardust - as is every living creature.

We, creation, evolved from the stars.

What exactly do you mean by this?

 

[wayseer]

What exactly do you mean by this?

We, humans, life, could only be produced from the activity of stars.

 

[Free]

We, humans, life, could only be produced from the activity of stars.

Is that what you really believe or are you being facetious and saying that that is what evolution states?

 

[Barbarian]

Creation of this world which many evolutionist deny
Romans 1:20 KJV

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

This explains natural law, to which all men are held accountable, even if they do not know Him. But it's perfectly consistent with evolution.

For Barry hall this will explain it better than me.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...halls-research

AIG cites the evidence that a new enzyme was produced by random mutations and natural selection. I wonder if they actually understand what they cited. Evolution always works that way.

So evolution stopped at men because we can do it ourselves?

No. For example, a recent mutation in Italy has given the lucky descendants of one man, resistance to coronary disease. Another in the Middle East/Horn of Africa produced a form of hemoglobin that provides resistance to malaria, but not the devastating disease that happens to homozygotes for the trait. We merely blunt the force of natural selection by medical intervention.

And where are the transitional animals of today?

Okapis. Transitional between pronghorns and giraffes.

Platypuses. Transitional between therapsid reptiles and mammals.

Lungfish. Transitional between fish and tetrapods

Primitive bombardier beetles. Transitional between Carabids and advanced bompardiers

Stuff like that. Want to learn about them?

I mean billions of years but nothing as of now in the process?

Quite a bit, as you see. How many would you like to see?

you see none. No apes turning into a ape like man, giraffes and so.

That happened a few million years ago. Ironic about the giraffes, um?

BTW, AIG is wrong about Blythe, also. He wrote to Darwin:

In a letter dated February 19, 1867, Blyth suggested to Darwin that humans descended from primates similar to gibbons (1867). Part of this letter follows:

The marked resemblance in facial expression of the Orangutan to the human Malay of its native region, as that of the Gorilla to the Negro, is most striking, & what does this mean? Unless a divergence of the anthropoid type prior to the specialization of the human peculiarities, which however would imply a parallel series of at least two primary lines of human descent which seems hardly probable; & moreover we must bear in mind the singular facial resemblance of the Lagothrix Humboldtii (a platyrrhine form) to the negro, wherein the resemblance can hardly be other than accidental. The accompanying diagram will illustrate what I suggest (rather than maintain); & about Hylobates or Gibbons, I am not sure that I place it right, for, upon the whole, the Gibbons approximate Chimpanzee more than they do the Orang-utan, notwithstanding geographical position. Aryan I believe to be improved Turánian or Mongol —

Blyth’s beliefs on human origins were obviously influenced by the widespread racism of mid–19thcentury Western culture. But this particular letter shows clearly that Blyth has accepted an evolutionary relationship between humans and other primates that would clearly be unacceptable to Answers in Genesis — or most young-earth creationists.
http://ncse.com/rncse/29/5/edward-blyth-creationist-just-another-misinterpreted-scienti

AIG is often hilariously wrong. And they've been caught in dishonesties as well. You'd be well advised to check everything they saw elsewhere to avoid embarrassment.

 

[wayseer]

Is that what you really believe or are you being facetious and saying that that is what evolution states?

It's what science says.

 

[Barbarian]

And there is the problem right there. It's called fact. Fact is, Evolution is a theory. That's all it is.

No. It's an observed fact, like gravity. There are theories of evolution and gravity that explain them. Evolutionary theory happens to be a bit more solid than gravitational theory.

 

[Barbarian]

A polar bear and a black bear are still bears. And similarity does not prove anything.

Actually, polar bears evolved from brown bears. And to say "a polar bear and a black bear are still bears" is like saying "a human and a gorilla are still anthropoid primates." We are more closely related to gorillas than polar bears are related to black bears.

Did you know evolutionist teach the whale came from a 4 legged animal like a hyena?

Well, not quite like a hyena. It was an ungulate, a hooved mammal. There is a long line of transitionals from the cursorial ungulate Pakicetus to the sort of whale we see today. Every now and then, an atavism will show up, and a whale will have hind limbs.

As of now they changed it to some raccoon sized animal called Indohyus.

Deer-like, actually. More evolved than Pakicetus, but probably no very close to the line that produced whales.

Why do they consider this a missing link

They found the skull of Pakicetus first, and it was that of a whale. Only later did they find one with the body, and then they realized it was still a running animal.

The missing links in the fossil record for evolution are still like they were when Darwin stated they could not prove evolution. Out of over 200,000,000 fossils we have no missing links.

Let's test that assumption. Give me any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if I can find one for you. Tell me what you'd like to see.

What animals in the present are in the process of evolution? Shouldn't we see apes still in the process of turning into a man and so on?

Why? The niche is already occupied by a primate that evolved into it.

WHERE ARE THE ANIMALS THAT ARE CHANGING FROM 1 SPECIES TO ANOTHER?

Spontaneous origin of an incipient species in the Drosophila paulistorum complex.
T Dobzhansky and O Pavlovsky
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC224220/

Like half mice half bats.

If we found that, evolutionary theory would be in trouble. The closest thing to that was the mostly ground-walking bats of New Zealand. The islands were far from other land, and bats were the only mammals to make it there, other than seals. There, and in Australia, the lack of other placental competition led some of them to evolve toward a ground-dwelling existence:
http://phys.org/news168083255.html

 

[spartakis]

Well Gods word does not give room for evolution you can twist it as much as you like. And all you have done is name species. If evolution happened and is happening you would find them species in the process of changing into what it is a so called transition to. And evolution does state bats came from the mouse so how would evolution be in trouble for finding a mouse half bat. And to say the apes stopped evolving because the spot is filled is pretty bad excuse. Once again different species with similarities do not prove they evolved from from anything. You should have animals still in the process of evolving unless the they all stopped. As you state you should see pronghorns evolving into a okapis and okapis into a giraffe. But you don't see the fossils you should or the living animals in process.

 

[Barbarian]

Well Gods word does not give room for evolution

The Bible has no conflicts with evolution.

And all you have done is name species.

And the transition. Pick one, and I'll show youi the details.

If evolution happened and is happening you would find them species in the process of changing into what it is a so called transition to.

That's what these transitionals are.

And evolution does state bats came from the mouse

Show us that. You've been misled on that.

so how would evolution be in trouble for finding a mouse half bat.

Mice aren't very much like bats. They are small mammals, but other than that, they are quite different.

And to say the apes stopped evolving because the spot is filled is pretty bad excuse.

Apes are still evolving. But only to open niches. If the niche is already filled by a well-adapted organism, then it's very unlikely that a new organism will evolve into it. This is why we see evolution of flies in Hawaii filling niches held by other insects in other places, and the evolution of grazing birds in New Zealand.

Once again different species with similarities do not prove they evolved from from anything.

Genetic, anatomical, and fossil evidence does that nicely. Would you like to learn about some of them?

You should have animals still in the process of evolving unless the they all stopped.

I mentioned some. Pick one and we'll take a closer look.

As you state you should see pronghorns evolving into a okapis

Only if pronghorns live were okapis could live. Pronghorns are rather well adapted for dry country and okapis for wet forests.

and okapis into a giraffe. But you don't see the fossils you should or the living animals in process.

As you know, okapis are intermediate between pronghorns and giraffes. But I'm guessing you don't know that fossil giraffes like Sivatherium are transitional between okapis and giraffes.

 

[lordkalvan]

And there is the problem right there. It's called fact. Fact is, Evolution is a theory. That's all it is. Theory is not fact, yet this whole 4.5 billion years and evolution are touted as fact as they hide their assumptions under a rug. Simply put, evolution is nothing more than a theory.

You are confusing the colloquial meaning of 'theory' in the sense of a tentative idea or supposition with the scientific one, which refers to an overarching explanation for a wide range of phenomena that is supported by extensive observation, multiple data, repeated experiment and fulfilled predictions. Evolution is, beyond all reasonable doubt, a fact and evolutionary theory is a coherent, consilient, consistent and robust explanation that accounts for that fact.