[_ Old Earth _] How well do you actually know The Theory of Evolution?

[Gary]

We actually provided a very detailed intermediate fossil, and we have plenty of evidence linking bats with the rest of the mammal branches. They don't just appear out of nowhere, they evolved over millions of years, and our fossil record is a very incomplete record of history as the conditions especially for finding small brittle boned creatures like bats is rare to find.

I can tell from your comment that you didn't watch the video. You should watch it because what you're saying here contradicts the evolutionists in the video.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Is this a necessary part of the conversation?

If you're becoming exasperated, you can simply withdraw.

I'm fine, I am just wondering where you gain your expertise on what is reasonable to find concerning different fossils. You can enlighten us if you would like to elaborate on your expertise on the matter.

So what you're basically saying is, every transitional fossil fossilized in conditions that destroyed the evidence of their existence. That has to be true because there is absolutely no evidence of transitional evolution.

I've given you evidence of transitional fossils in a number of instances, Giraffes (though of course you dismissed it without any basis), and the evolution of feathers concerning feathered Dinosaurs. We're just getting started.

Do you also have any credible sources to substantiate your assertion that there is zero evidence of your transitional evolution? Again, I didn't know you were a Paleontologist who has studied fossils so much! You've looked at all the possible evidence and can make this assertion? lol

I will ask for proof of transitional evolution. (of which there is none)

You keep asking me for things, and I keep providing them... and you basically go "nu uh... (repeats naked assertion that there is no evidence)."

Please do not assume that you know who I am.

I know who you're not, you're not a biologist or paleontologist who is equipped to make such contradictory judgments on the case of the fossils presented that people who have dedicated their lives to this have made differing judgments. I'm not saying they are infallible, but I'm just pointing out the rather obvious fact that you're completely unqualified to make the assertions you make.

I present evidence. You just keep asking questions.

The questions I'm asking you are the same questions I was asking in grade school. The language may have a bit more crude but the answers were all pretty much the same. "I don't know".

Modern science doesn't know everything, and when it comes to fossils our knowledge will be limited simply because of how rare fossils are, which as I have already stated is due to how rare the conditions are for fossilization. You of course continue to ignore these points, and don't even attempt to address them, but laud your claims that evolution has no evidence. Which of course is ironic, because your assertions have no evidence. Meanwhile I have been presenting evidence to answer your questions throughout this discussion. Hmm...

I don't believe in evolution because the evidence is simply not there.

You've analyzed all the evidence there is on the matter and dedicated your life to understanding the ins and outs of this Theory that is extremely well documented and studied?

You'll have to forgive me if I don't buy this naked assertion.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I can tell from your comment that you didn't watch the video. You should watch it because what you're saying here contradicts the evolutionists in the video.

I watched this video awhile ago when it was first posted on this forum.

You posted this on 11/3/14 in my thread "Simple Question for Non-Evolutionists"

I then posted a lengthy response and heard crickets from you. Now you are posting this video again and ask for more of a response, when this argument has already been refuted.

Ahh this argument. Many Creationists demand transitional fossils for any given species, and if that cannot be found then it's "score one for creationistm." This is clearly not so though.

Take for example the fossil below.

This is the earliest fossil we have that dates back to 52.5 million years ago, and you can see some more of the transitional features.

"The clawed bat part refers to one of the many intermediate features that makeOnychonycteris the most primitive bat species ever described. In all current and prior fossil species of bats, most of the digits in the wing lack the claws typical of mammalian digits. That's not the case here: all Onychonycteris digits end in claws. The hind limbs are also unusually long, as is the tail, but the limb contains a feature that suggests the presence of a skin flap between the hind limbs and the body.

The relatively short wings and long hindlimbs place Onychonycteris outside of all previous bat species in terms of the ratio between its limbs. In fact, a plot of this ratio puts the fossil species neatly between bats and long-armed creatures like sloths—exactly what would be expected from a species at the base of the bat lineage. The authors argue that the configuration of its limbs, combined with the claws, suggests that it would be powerful climber, able to easily scramble around trees when not flying.

The fossil's teeth indicate that Onychonycteris ate insects, but its ear is probably too small to support echolocation. This supports the "flight first" model of bat evolution, and suggests that it probably hunted visually. Unfortunately, the eye sockets of the sample aren't well preserved, so that remains conjecture. Beyond this one bit of damage, however, the find is stunning for what it tells us about the gradual evolution of the traits that have made the bats the exceptional mammals that they are."
Source: http://arstechnica.com/science/2008/02/earliest-bat-fossil-reveals-transition-to-flight/

There aren't billions of fossils out there of every transitional form, fossils are preserved under very specific and extreme circumstances that makes it very rare to find a fossil, especially of animals that have small brittle bones like the bat or it's ancestors. Given that this transitional fossil dates back to 52.5 million years ago, it is unlikely that we would even find earlier fossils of what it transitioned from as it was such a long time ago now. Nothing we have learned about bats though contradicts the theory of evolution, but we can see here from this fossil how many of the abilities that all modern bats now have, were not present with this early transitional species and evolved later. Unless you think these different bats and the modern bats both just popped out of no where, it makes much more sense to think they evolved from common ancestors.

 

[Gary]

II know who you're not, you're not a biologist or paleontologist who is equipped to make such contradictory judgments on the case of the fossils presented that people who have dedicated their lives to this have made differing judgments. I'm not saying they are infallible, but I'm just pointing out the rather obvious fact that you're completely unqualified to make the assertions you make.

I'm not making any assertions. Biologists and paleontologists are making them. I'm just the messenger.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I'm not making any assertions. Biologists and paleontologists are making them. I'm just the messenger.

You aren't making any assertions?

as·ser·tion
n.
1. The act of asserting.
2. Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.
Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/assertion

Now let's take a brief look at some of your assertions.

That has to be true because there is absolutely no evidence of transitional evolution.

Declared, but no support or attempt at proof.

I will ask for proof of transitional evolution. (of which there is none)

Declared, but no support or attempt at proof.

I don't believe in evolution because the evidence is simply not there.

Declared, but no support or attempt at proof.

Shall I go on.

I'm not making any assertions.

This is ironic, because it is an assertion. Declared, but no support or attempt at proof. lol

 

[Gary]

You keep asking me for things, and I keep providing them... and you basically go "nu uh... (repeats naked assertion that there is no evidence)."

You gave me leg bone and the skeleton of some animal you claim changes into a Giraffe. Show me the evidence of these changes. Show me some full body skeletons.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

There was some questions posted in a separate forum that I think would be valuable to address here:

Here's a question, if we supposedly came from singe-celled organisms, where are all the two-celled organisms?
Also, if I have plastic surgery to look like a dolphin, does that mean my children will look like dolphins?
Plus, who would my dolphin-children marry in order to make the whole human race "evolve" into dolphin people?

1. To the first question, there are single celled organisms known as slime molds that will assemble together as a multi-celled organism when food is scarce. This gives us some foundation for notion of single-cellular organisms transitioning into multi-cellular organisms.
2. No. Having plastic surgery does not change your DNA, people who have lots of plastic surgery do not pass on their botox'ed forehead to their children.
3. This question is invalid due to the second question being in the negative.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

You gave me leg bone and the skeleton of some animal you claim changes into a Giraffe. Show me the evidence of these changes. Show me some full body skeletons.

Let me reach into my magic hat and show you what hasn't been discovered yet...

Let's say you died in the desert, and someone came by and found only your leg bone. Do you think it would be difficult to identify many other things about you, such as your size, gender and age? This is something that can actually be done. Paleontologists do almost the same thing by studying the portions of the fossil we do have, to create a full picture of what the organism would have looked like.

Do you think the ground is just filled with copious amounts of complete fossils? It doesn't work that way, and you keep ignoring that fact.

 

[Gary]

Do you think the ground is just filled with copious amounts of complete fossils? It doesn't work that way, and you keep ignoring that fact.

You keep ignoring the fact that everything in the fossil record all appeared at once. There was nothing and all of a sudden there was this explosion of life. So yes, I do think the ground is filled with copious amounts of complete fossils. With over a billion fossils in the hands of the evolutionist, one would think something would have surfaced by now. Something other than just a leg bone or a tooth.

 

[Gary]

The truth is out there. All you need is a desire to know it.

 

[Edward]

Okay, so I'm just going to stop responding to this, as Fine Tuning is not an argument against evolution, but an argument for the existence of God, which I agree with.

For life to be able to evolve, it would have to be able to exist first, so it is very relevant to evolution. I can fill you up with this info if you're interested.

 

[Edward]

When did I say that Evolution is true because most scientists accept it? Please quote where I made this argument.

I was addressing a question regarding my statement about Scientists support for Evolution, and I responded with that post.

Oh, geez, I did misread that. Sorry brother.

I thought you did say once though something to the effect of, why do I resist believing in evolution, because most Christians accept it as fact...so it sort of still stands.

 

[Edward]

Hey Edward, your comment here brings one of many related/supportive bible verses to mind about most not finding the truth (and hence the majority being wrong/misguided). In fact spoken directly by Jesus himself...
"But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." (Matt 7:14).

True that brother. I remember that passage also. So...yeah, I tend to look at what most people say with much skepticism because of it. It doesn't make me popular, but, hey if I find the truth then I'm doing good. I pray quite a bit to not be deceived, or to deceive myself. If most people believe it then that's sort of a red flag right there, lol.

 

[Barbarian]

I notice that no creationist has yet been able to give us a decent description as to what evolutionary theory says. Seems to boil down to "I don't have any idea, but watch this video."

Can't even one person come up with some simple fundamentals of the theory?

 

[Barbarian]

I will ask for proof of transitional evolution. (of which there is none)

Let's test that belief. If I can show you a series of fossils that show great differences between the first and the last, and yet there is less difference between individual fossils than can be found in many species of mammals today, would you accept that there is such evidence?

 

[reba]

The theory of evolution is always evolving

 

[Gary]

I notice that no creationist has yet been able to give us a decent description as to what evolutionary theory says. Seems to boil down to "I don't have any idea, but watch this video."

Can't even one person come up with some simple fundamentals of the theory?

Yeah, isn't that something. 237 posts and not one decent description. What's this world coming to?
.

 

[Gary]

Let's test that belief. If I can show you a series of fossils that show great differences between the first and the last, and yet there is less difference between individual fossils than can be found in many species of mammals today, would you accept that there is such evidence?

Show me.

 

[Edward]

I notice that no creationist has yet been able to give us a decent description as to what evolutionary theory says. Seems to boil down to "I don't have any idea, but watch this video."

Can't even one person come up with some simple fundamentals of the theory?

That's a fairly reasonable point there Barbarian. My personal answer is thus; I believe scripture, 100%. I take the bible very literally. Why would I engross myself in spending time learning the details when I know it's not true? Scripture and evolution does not mesh in the least, and no evolutionist has been able to show me where it does.

How about you, Barbarian? You are a Christian, and believe in evolution. How can they both be true? I've heard you guys say that scripture supports evolution, but you've never posted any in support of it. Can you? will you?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The truth is out there. All you need is a desire to know it.

View attachment 5397