[_ Old Earth _] The fallacy of evolution

[Solo]

Pray to God for truth, wisdom, understanding and you will be led to the truth. God is able to save you, to teach you, to guide and direct you in your path while you serve him. If you do not want to repent, believe, and follow Jesus, you will never understand what I understand, nor will you see the kingdom of God, let alone enter it.

 

[noblej6]

Hi solo,

So tell me, what does this sentence mean?

1Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.

Or this....

32"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

I gather you didn't bother to take the trip to the Smithsonian Institute and look at that skull. Anyway there are some thirty skulls found n one area which were very slanted back from above the eye sockets, much different than what our skulls look like today. Heidi boldly stated that I wouldn't notice any change in mankind in all recorded history so when did the skull straighten out?

And for once answer a question. People are starting to think you're playing games. Don't worry about my relationship with God, Him and I will be dealing with that.

noble6

 

[Solo]

Hi solo,

So tell me, what does this sentence mean?

1Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.

If you read the preceding verses of scripture you will notice that Paul is telling believers that when the earthly tabernacle has died it will be lifted up just as Jesus was.


14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. 15 For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. 16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. 17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. 2 Corinthians 4:14-18

Note that in 2 Corinthians 5:1-5 Paul explains that the new body that was made without hands will be with God for eternity, and mortality of the former earthly body is done away with replaced with an immortal body.

Or this....

32"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

The scripture where Jesus says, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" refers to the generation that sees all of the things happen in the previous verses of scripture which will preface the return of Jesus Christ to redeem his elect believers.


4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. 5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. 6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. 8 All these are the beginning of sorrows. 9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. 10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. 11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. 12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. 13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. 15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. 23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together. 29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with F46 a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. 32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Matthew 24:4-34

I gather you didn't bother to take the trip to the Smithsonian Institute and look at that skull. Anyway there are some thirty skulls found n one area which were very slanted back from above the eye sockets, much different than what our skulls look like today. Heidi boldly stated that I wouldn't notice any change in mankind in all recorded history so when did the skull straighten out?

It is very likely that the offspring of Adam that became violent and rebellious against God may have developed genetically into different shaped and sized skulls. I suspect that a DNA analysis will show whether they are the same kind of creature as man or not.

It is also possible that some families of man could have genetics that were giants as is written in the Word of God. I saw a documentary on Andre the Giant the other night. He was 7'4" tall and weighed 500 pounds with a size 22 shoe. Andre was diagnosed with a growth hormone disease called acromegaly. Over 20,000 adults in the United States have acromegaly, but it is currently treatable when diagnosed. Andre's entire skeletal frame was different than any man today, and yet he lived in our lifetime. The Goliath that David killed with a slingshot had 6 fingers on each hand and was a Giant at 9' 6" tall.

My confidence in the Word of God tells me that God does not lie, and the skulls that you allude to do not prove evolution from one kind to another.

And for once answer a question. People are starting to think you're playing games. Don't worry about my relationship with God, Him and I will be dealing with that.

noble6

I am not playing games. I am giving you information that your scientific observations are faulty if they contradict the truth of God's Word. I am not worried about your relationship with God, that is your business. I am warning you about denying the truth of God because it will lead you to an eternity of condemnation or a life of building wood, hay, and stubble upon the foundation that was laid for your salvation. I have warned you, and prayed for truth for you.

Solo

 

[Hacksaw]

Pray to God for truth, wisdom, understanding and you will be led to the truth. God is able to save you, to teach you, to guide and direct you in your path while you serve him. If you do not want to repent, believe, and follow Jesus, you will never understand what I understand, nor will you see the kingdom of God, let alone enter it.

You didn't answer his question.

Edited: by bibleberean

Rule 2 - No Flaming:
You will not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. This will include misquoting another member out of context. You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal attacks on the member himself or herself.
*Amended to include* .... Any person(s) who comes to these forums to attack Christianity or Christians personally will be banned based on the discretion of the Admins & Mods.

Don't go here... 8-)

 

[Guest]

With a belief that the heavens and the earth just ended up existing all by themselves, a perfect combination of environment and chemical reactions produced life, and this life evolved into all of the lifeforms on earth today takes more faith, than does believing that almighty God exists and is the creator. The only "tangible" evidence that you have concerning these theories is the words written in a book. Graphically enhanced drawings of dinosaurs and man from fossilized skeletal remains do not give adequate information to build an entire hypothesis into the origins of life and the life of man.

It takes faith to believe that there is an invisible entity in the sky when there is no evidence of such an entity outside of altered words written in a book.

It doesn't take faith to believe in scientific theories because they are not based on words in books or drawings. They came to be as a result of work that resulted in evidence and thorough review of that evidence.

How do you explain away how humans and other modern apes have many similar physical characteristics? Can you explain away evidence for evolution such as ring species or retroviruses?

If God placed the stars in the sky with the light visable on the earth at creation, the billion light year myth is out the window. That is why an eye witness is necessary to believe the various theories of evolution over creation. Science can only see the creation as it is today, and guess how it came to be.

Yes if God did it that way and made it look billions of years away in order to deceive people. However outside of the alleged word of the direct participant there is no evidence that he did it that way. The requirement of an eyewitness to evolution is an illogical requirement and unnecessary with all of the evidence already observed.

You are attacking the Word of God as being written by fallible man, but you have totally discounted the spiritual realm in God's ability to keep his Word throughout all the generations. The authors of the Bible were inspired of God to write the words they wrote. The writers of evolution books are not inspired by God; in fact a majority of the evolution writers are atheists and agnostics. The book of Isaiah found with the other dead sea scrolls is all but identical to the book of Isaiah today after 2000 years. Do a study on how the scribes meticulously copied the scriptures so that mistakes were guaranteed to be thwarted. Also do a study of the Greek language and its preciseness in meaning. The Greek language has many more verb conjugations than any other language available. Not only was the Word of God divinely inspired at its authorship, it is interpreted to those who are believers by the Holy Spirit. The spiritual realm is completely ignored by those of the one-sided study of science.

If the scribes and transcribers did such a good job why are there so many versions of the Bible?

Was the Book of Enoch inspired by God or, how about the Gospels of Mary, or Phillip or any of the others taken out? If so why were they taken out? If not why were other books inspired and those not? And how can someone tell the difference between an inspired religious text and one that isn't?
Maybe other parts were tossed out at other times. The people who removed the books were still fallible.

Were the people who told and retold the stories over thousands of years before they were first written inspired by God to not change the stories as they told them? In school we did an exercise in class where the teacher told one student something and each student told it to the next until it got to the end in which it was completely different from the original statement. How do people know the God inspired stories weren't changed? The people who passed on the stories were still fallible.

Were the people who morphed Christian beliefs and those of other religious traditions inspired by God? As part of an apparent marketing strategy Christians linked the birth of Christ and the death of Christ with Pagan holidays or made the Pagan cross of Tammuz a Christian symbol. The people who morphed these and other religious aspects were fallible.

How do you know the majority of scientists (or writers as you call them) who study evolution are atheists and agnostics? There are many TE scientists who are inspired by God to study his creation.

Science does not concern itself with the spiritual realm because it would first require evidence that it exists.

The lake of fire where hell, death, satan, satan's angels will be cast was created for satan and his angels. God does not send unbelievers to hell, God provided a way for all men and women to escape this condemnation. Those that end up going to the lake of fire have chosen not to serve God through their unbelief. They would rather live their short physical life on earth with their temporary fleshly pleasures in darkness than to walk to the light of God and be saved as he provided. God is not vain or he would have already wiped out his creation. Man is vain thinking that his own darkness is better than God's light.

Your inability to understand God and his love, is because the enemy has duped you into believing a lie. You are following the path that the enemy has set up to deceive you and others with, and it sounds like you are walking on that path fully decieved by the lies. Seek God's truth and you will understand the love of God instead of the lies of satan.

It is cruel and vain for God to send people to hell for choosing unbelief. It is immoral for God to punish people for enjoying their short lives through victimless pleasures.

According to the Word of God, God cruelly already wiped out his creation except for a few.

I have not been duped or deceived. I simply see no reason to support the biblical God when I see no evidence that he is anymore real than any other religious figure. I see no reason to support the biblical God when many things attributed to him are cruel and/or otherwise immoral. I see no evidence that such a God was not created in the mind of a man and went on to be believed by fallible men as real.

 

[bibleberean]

Evolution is an unproven theory and is not a science but a religion.

Man did not evolve he was created and has been producing other human beings.

There is no evidence that man evolved from a "lower form" of life into a higher.

This is a belief that takes faith.

Cut and dry and plain and simple.

Romans 3:4 ... yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

 

[Heidi]

With a belief that the heavens and the earth just ended up existing all by themselves, a perfect combination of environment and chemical reactions produced life, and this life evolved into all of the lifeforms on earth today takes more faith, than does believing that almighty God exists and is the creator. The only "tangible" evidence that you have concerning these theories is the words written in a book. Graphically enhanced drawings of dinosaurs and man from fossilized skeletal remains do not give adequate information to build an entire hypothesis into the origins of life and the life of man.

It takes faith to believe that there is an invisible entity in the sky when there is no evidence of such an entity outside of altered words written in a book.

It doesn't take faith to believe in scientific theories because they are not based on words in books or drawings. They came to be as a result of work that resulted in evidence and thorough review of that evidence.

How do you explain away how humans and other modern apes have many similar physical characteristics? Can you explain away evidence for evolution such as ring species or retroviruses?

If God placed the stars in the sky with the light visable on the earth at creation, the billion light year myth is out the window. That is why an eye witness is necessary to believe the various theories of evolution over creation. Science can only see the creation as it is today, and guess how it came to be.

Yes if God did it that way and made it look billions of years away in order to deceive people. However outside of the alleged word of the direct participant there is no evidence that he did it that way. The requirement of an eyewitness to evolution is an illogical requirement and unnecessary with all of the evidence already observed.

You are attacking the Word of God as being written by fallible man, but you have totally discounted the spiritual realm in God's ability to keep his Word throughout all the generations. The authors of the Bible were inspired of God to write the words they wrote. The writers of evolution books are not inspired by God; in fact a majority of the evolution writers are atheists and agnostics. The book of Isaiah found with the other dead sea scrolls is all but identical to the book of Isaiah today after 2000 years. Do a study on how the scribes meticulously copied the scriptures so that mistakes were guaranteed to be thwarted. Also do a study of the Greek language and its preciseness in meaning. The Greek language has many more verb conjugations than any other language available. Not only was the Word of God divinely inspired at its authorship, it is interpreted to those who are believers by the Holy Spirit. The spiritual realm is completely ignored by those of the one-sided study of science.

If the scribes and transcribers did such a good job why are there so many versions of the Bible?

Was the Book of Enoch inspired by God or, how about the Gospels of Mary, or Phillip or any of the others taken out? If so why were they taken out? If not why were other books inspired and those not? And how can someone tell the difference between an inspired religious text and one that isn't?
Maybe other parts were tossed out at other times. The people who removed the books were still fallible.

Were the people who told and retold the stories over thousands of years before they were first written inspired by God to not change the stories as they told them? In school we did an exercise in class where the teacher told one student something and each student told it to the next until it got to the end in which it was completely different from the original statement. How do people know the God inspired stories weren't changed? The people who passed on the stories were still fallible.

Were the people who morphed Christian beliefs and those of other religious traditions inspired by God? As part of an apparent marketing strategy Christians linked the birth of Christ and the death of Christ with Pagan holidays or made the Pagan cross of Tammuz a Christian symbol. The people who morphed these and other religious aspects were fallible.

How do you know the majority of scientists (or writers as you call them) who study evolution are atheists and agnostics? There are many TE scientists who are inspired by God to study his creation.

Science does not concern itself with the spiritual realm because it would first require evidence that it exists.

The lake of fire where hell, death, satan, satan's angels will be cast was created for satan and his angels. God does not send unbelievers to hell, God provided a way for all men and women to escape this condemnation. Those that end up going to the lake of fire have chosen not to serve God through their unbelief. They would rather live their short physical life on earth with their temporary fleshly pleasures in darkness than to walk to the light of God and be saved as he provided. God is not vain or he would have already wiped out his creation. Man is vain thinking that his own darkness is better than God's light.

Your inability to understand God and his love, is because the enemy has duped you into believing a lie. You are following the path that the enemy has set up to deceive you and others with, and it sounds like you are walking on that path fully decieved by the lies. Seek God's truth and you will understand the love of God instead of the lies of satan.

It is cruel and vain for God to send people to hell for choosing unbelief. It is immoral for God to punish people for enjoying their short lives through victimless pleasures.

According to the Word of God, God cruelly already wiped out his creation except for a few.

I have not been duped or deceived. I simply see no reason to support the biblical God when I see no evidence that he is anymore real than any other religious figure. I see no reason to support the biblical God when many things attributed to him are cruel and/or otherwise immoral. I see no evidence that such a God was not created in the mind of a man and went on to be believed by fallible men as real.

Acutally, I disagree with you. The evidence for God can be seen by His creation which Romans 1:18-20 tells us. It is no less apparent than the drawings of scientists. Yet people reject the evidence that the creation is a miracle and exchange it for a non-miraculous explanation which is discarded every generation! One would wonder why then people still believe in scientists who keep admitting their previous theories were false! Not a very good track record or any rational reason to believe them whatsoever. The only time scientists are right is when they agree with God and the laws of nature that He created. Yet people go right on believing people who are not credible! But that's how Satan (the father of lies) easily deceives many people. He brings people to believe in lies because that's what he is. :wink:

 

[Guest]

Evolution is an unproven theory and is not a science but a religion.

Man did not evolve he was created and has been producing other human beings.

There is no evidence that man evolved from a "lower form" of life into a higher.

This is a belief that takes faith.

Cut and dry and plain and simple.

Romans 3:4 ... yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Science doesn't deal with proofs (proof is for math and alcohol); Science doesn't deal with faith.

Science deals with evidence and follows where the evidence leads so it is not a religion.

There are many lines of evidence that support the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Universal Common Descent.

How do you explain away similarity in DNA? Or how about ring species and retroviruses? These are just a few examples of evidence for the theories.

People can deny the evidence that exists all they want, but that doesn't make the evidence go away.

 

[Guest]

Acutally, I disagree with you. The evidence for God can be seen by His creation which Romans 1:18-20 tells us. It is no less apparent than the drawings of scientists. Yet people reject the evidence that the creation is a miracle and exchange it for a non-miraculous explanation which is discarded every generation! One would wonder why then people still believe in scientists who keep admitting their previous theories were false! Not a very good track record or any rational reason to believe them whatsoever. The only time scientists are right is when they agree with God and the laws of nature that He created. Yet people go right on believing people who are not credible! But that's how Satan (the father of lies) easily deceives many people. He brings people to believe in lies because that's what he is.

Does the biblical creation story have any more evidence than other creation stories? If so, what is it?

That scientists are open to change gives them credibility. As I said above, scientists follow the evidence and if the evidence leads them to new discoveries that may change previous ideas, that is good.

That they do the work, gather evidence and put the evidence out to be reviewed gives them credibility.

I don't trust stories that are told as absolute truths (particularly when there is little or no evidence to support them) and refuse to move forward when better information comes along.

If Satan is so great at lying how do you know he didn't manage to get some of his lies in the Bible as truths? It wouldn't be too difficult since it is fallible man that was responsible for telling, editing and transcribing what is in the Bible.

 

[bibleberean]

"Science deals with evidence and follows where the evidence leads so it is not a religion."

Evolution does not deal with evidence. No one saw life formed and no one has ever witnessed life evolve it is nonsense to call evolution anything more than a faith based religion.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... -life.html

Where did life come from?
Is evolution the best scientific answer?

Is evolutionism correct? Could time, chance and natural chemical processes have created life in the beginning?
Many modern scientists are materialists. That is, they believe physical matter is the only ultimate reality. They suppose that everything in the cosmos, including life, can be explained in terms of interacting matter. Materialists do not accept the existence of spiritual or supernatural forces.

Biologists who believe in materialism are particularly concerned with: (a) proving a purely materialistic origin of life, and (b) proving that life can be created in the laboratory.

Most scientists are not strict materialists. Biochemist Dr. Arthur Wilder-Smith:

 

[Fencingsax]

"Science deals with evidence and follows where the evidence leads so it is not a religion."

Evolution does not deal with evidence. No one saw life formed and no one has ever witnessed life evolve it is nonsense to call evolution anything more than a faith based religion.

Unfortunately, Evolution does not deal with the formation of life. It deals with life once it has formed. The formation of life is another argument entirely, and deals with how amino acids react to to one another, how protobionts form, and such related topics.

 

[bibleberean]

Evolution has a beginning. Part of it's theory is how life was first formed.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... -life.html

"Is evolutionism correct? Could time, chance and natural chemical processes have created life in the beginning?

Many modern scientists are materialists. That is, they believe physical matter is the only ultimate reality. They suppose that everything in the cosmos, including life, can be explained in terms of interacting matter. Materialists do not accept the existence of spiritual or supernatural forces."

Most scientists are not strict materialists. Biochemist Dr. Arthur Wilder-Smith:

 

[Guest]

"Science deals with evidence and follows where the evidence leads so it is not a religion."

Evolution does not deal with evidence. No one saw life formed and no one has ever witnessed life evolve it is nonsense to call evolution anything more than a faith based religion.

Eyewitnesses is not the only type of evidence that there is and is notoriously unreliable.

Evolution is supported by mountains of credible evidence. This evidence includes fossils, DNA, taxonomy, ring species and retroviruses. So the illogical requirement for there to be a witness to evolution is unnecessary.

Since evolution has evidence it is not religion.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ ... -life.html

Where did life come from?
Is evolution the best scientific answer?

Is evolutionism correct? Could time, chance and natural chemical processes have created life in the beginning?
Many modern scientists are materialists. That is, they believe physical matter is the only ultimate reality. They suppose that everything in the cosmos, including life, can be explained in terms of interacting matter. Materialists do not accept the existence of spiritual or supernatural forces.

Biologists who believe in materialism are particularly concerned with: (a) proving a purely materialistic origin of life, and (b) proving that life can be created in the laboratory.

Most scientists are not strict materialists. Biochemist Dr. Arthur Wilder-Smith:

Evolution and abiogenesis are different subjects. Evolution deals with life after it began and abiogenesis deals with how life began.

Since there is no credible evidence of any spiritual or supernatural forces all scientists have to work with is the physical realm.

 

[bibleberean]

There are no mountains of evidence such as fossils that prove evolution.

That is not true.

Evolutionists can not produce transitional forms of one species evolving into another.

Those fossils are a problem

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... ossils.asp

Are there any Transitional Fossils?

None of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.

Dr Eldredge [curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum] said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup [curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago] said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book’s contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:


‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?

 

[Wertbag]

Perhaps you should read the "Archaeopteryx?" thread for a good example of a transistional fossil?
I'm pretty sure I've seen discussions on the humanoid fossils and the horse fossils at different times too.

 

[bibleberean]

Perhaps you should read the "Archaeopteryx?" thread for a good example of a transistional fossil?
I'm pretty sure I've seen discussions on the humanoid fossils and the horse fossils at different times too.

There are no transitional human fossils and Archaeoptyrx was a true bird not a transitional fossil.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4 ... 4-2000.asp

Jonathan Sarfati

Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoaxâ€â€it is a true bird, not a “missing linkâ€Â

Bird evolution flies out the window, the creationist anatomist Dr David Menton shows that Archaeopteryx is a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional formâ€â€and certainly not a feathered dinosaur. And Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself (see Feduccia v Creationists), says:

“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is ging to change that.â€Â2

 

[army_of_juan]

Perhaps you should read the "Archaeopteryx?" thread for a good example of a transistional fossil?
I'm pretty sure I've seen discussions on the humanoid fossils and the horse fossils at different times too.

There are no transitional human fossils and Archaeoptyrx was a true bird not a transitional fossil.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4 ... 4-2000.asp

Jonathan Sarfati

Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoaxâ€â€it is a true bird, not a “missing linkâ€Â

Bird evolution flies out the window, the creationist anatomist Dr David Menton shows that Archaeopteryx is a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional formâ€â€and certainly not a feathered dinosaur. And Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself (see Feduccia v Creationists), says:

“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.â€Â2

Archaeopteryx in not a true bird and AiG is not a reliable source for scientific information since they ignore evidence that contradicts their beliefs. (They post this on their site even).

Lost the link to this but this in itself shows they are not true birds:

Features of Archaeopteryx shared with reptiles (diapsids plus turtles) in general but not with other birds

* Long bony tail. Modern birds have fused caudal bones for the attachment of the feathers that form the tail.8
* Digits have claws. Juvenile ostriches have clawed digits.8
* Vertebrae are reptilian in structure and lack the spiny, stemmed appearance of birds.8
* Stomach ribs (gastralia) are present, as in plesiosaurs, crocodilians and dinosaurs.9
* Presence of interdental plates.10
* Carpals in the wrist are unfused with the exception of the third carpal. Birds have fused carpals and metacarpals.8
* Tarsals in the ankle are free with the exception of the fused third tarsal. Birds have fused tarsals.8
* The bones are solid and lack pneumaticity, with the exception of the cervical and anterior vertebrae.11
* The sternum was not bony or keeled, leaving no attachment point for flight muscles. Birds have a bony sternum, but some birds lack a keel.8
* The coracoid is rounded; in birds it is much elongated.

Not to mention the recent findings showing that they had Dino feet.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/sci ... 330693.ece


Also, thier are many human transitional fossils so who ever told you there weren't was lying to you.

 

[bibleberean]

Just saying a website isn't reliable does not make it so.

Why would a Christian find the beliefs of evolutionist missionaries credible?

What else would preachers of evolution be doing in a Christian site?

They are trying to convert the "unsaved" Christians into evolutionists.

Many evolutionists despise the bible and Christianity. They accuse Christians of trying to "shove our beliefs down their throats".

Evolutionists say, "fine you can believe in Creation if you want but don't bring these beliefs into public forums". Yet here they are trying to push their religion down our throats in a Christian forum.

I find that rather amusing. :D

1 Peter 4:3-5 For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.

 

[bibleberean]

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c029.html

Is there fossil evidence of 'missing links' between humans and apes? Did ancient humans live millions of years ago?

Many times we hear about the 'missing links', especially the ones between apes or ape-like creatures and humans. Often we hear claims that various fossils are of ancient humans that lived millions of years ago. What evidence do we have of these claims? Below, Dr. Lubenow examines these claims in detail and distinguishes between fact and evolutionary speculation.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

 

[Guest]

There are no mountains of evidence such as fossils that prove evolution.

That is not true.

Evolutionists can not produce transitional forms of one species evolving into another.

There are many examples of transitional fossils

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

However even if there were no transitional forms there would still be plenty of evidence to support evolution like ring species and Endogenous retroviruses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?

This is what is known as quote mining. It is not exactly an honest practice used by creationist Web sites.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html