Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Gods works are awesome

You're just picking on some of the finer details of evolution - they both supported facts of evolution

God is intolerant of questioning?

But the fossil record does not show that. Neither does molecular biology. You just gloss over the fossil record problem. Asserting what macro-evolution might be (or "is") is no proof whatsoever that it happened and in asserting that micro-evolution leads to macro you offer no evidence whatsoever. You assume as true that which must be proven without addressing any of the difficulties I spoke of. If macro-evolution occurred, why do leading paleontologists like Stephen J. Gould say the fossil record is "un-Darwinian"?

Christians will gladly be critical of other people's God.. even call them false!.. It only when you question their
God that it sends their mercury rising.

I don't gloss over anything. That is precisely what you appear to be doing when it comes to evidence for evolution. Nor is it my assertion that micro evolution accumulates change over long periods leading to new species forming, plus of course beneficial mutations, possible punctuated equilibrium events and so on.

These are not my personal claims or beliefs, it's just the science as it stands, there is a fossil strata that tells the story of evolution. Comparative anatomy, molecular evidence, Comparative Embryology, transitional fossils....the list goes on. It's all there.

And I think you may have misconstrued Gould's remark. You need to quote what he actually said in the context of his references.

Wow. Just wow. The fossil record is decidedly un-Darwinian. Don't believe it? As Stephen J. Gould (well he's dead now, but he's already answered the question. Transitional species? There are a few potential candidates but Darwinism predicts the transitionals would be "innumerable"---that there would be more transitionals than stable species, but there aren't. Where are they? The fossil strata? You mean like the Burgess shale, where species appear out of nowhere fully formed, with no evidence of ancestral forms? That's hardly Darwinian. I could go on and on too. The evidence just isn't there.

As Stephen J. Gould (well he's dead now, but he's already answered the question

[Sorry you feel that way....that only believers are allowed to have their say....that anyone who points out problems in the spirit of truth, the actual history and development of the bible, etc, is sheeting on the parade.

[
Some people don't like having their beliefs questioned. Defense mechanisms come into play quite quickly. That much is quite clear.

I wasn't sure which lengthy post you were referring to. I'm not on top of the details of the science and research but their findings that they have made so far make sense for evolution at a greater level. Given the long time periods involved and natural destruction of evidence over that time makes the fact finding mission hard, but no doubt there will be more evidence forthcoming.

How many times have I asked you to tell us how billions of fossils form without a world wide flood? Fossils don't prove evolution. They support a Flood.

By Joseph Castro - https://www.livescience.com/37781-how-do-fossils-form-rocks.html
When animals, plants and other organisms die, they typically decay completely. But sometimes, when the conditions are just right, they're preserved as fossils.
Several different physical and chemical processes create fossils, according to the New York State Geological Survey.
Freezing, drying and encasement, such as in tar or resin, can create whole-body fossils that preserve bodily tissues. These fossils represent the organisms as they were when living, but these types of fossils are very rare.
Most organisms become fossils when they're changed through various other means.
The heat and pressure from being buried in sediment can sometimes cause the tissues of organisms — including plant leaves and the soft body parts of fish, reptiles and marine invertebrates — to release hydrogen and oxygen, leaving behind a residue of carbon.
This process — which is called carbonization, or distillation — yields a detailed carbon impression of the dead organism in sedimentary rock.
The most common method of fossilization is called permineralization, or petrification. After an organism's soft tissues decay in sediment, the hard parts — particularly the bones — are left behind.
Water seeps into the remains, and minerals dissolved in the water seep into the spaces within the remains, where they form crystals. These crystallized minerals cause the remains to harden along with the encasing sedimentary rock.
In another fossilization process, called replacement, the minerals in groundwater replace the minerals that make up the bodily remains after the water completely dissolves the original hard parts of the organism.
Fossils also form from molds and casts. If an organism completely dissolves in sedimentary rock, it can leave an impression of its exterior in the rock, called an external mold. If that mold gets filled with other minerals, it becomes a cast.
An internal mold forms when sediments or minerals fill the internal cavity, such as a shell or skull, of an organism, and the remains dissolve.
Organic remnants
In recent years, researchers have discovered that some fossils aren't just made of minerals. Fossil analyses have shown, for instance, that some retain organic material dated to the Cretaceous, a period that lasted from 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago, and the Jurassic period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago
Tests suggest that these organic materials belong to dinosaurs because they match certain proteins from birds, which evolved from dinosaurs.
"It used to be that no one thought it was possible for any endogenous material — material that comes from the animal — could be left behind after the fossilization process," said Ken Lacovara, the dean of the School of Earth and Environment at Rowan University in New Jersey. "[But] that's not really the case."
It's unclear how the organic material is preserved, but iron might help the proteins become cross-linked and unrecognizable, or unavailable to the bacteria that would otherwise consume them, Lacovara said. (Formaldehyde works in a similar way, cross-linking the amino acids that make up proteins, making them more resistant to decay, Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist at North Carolina State University, told Live Science.)
Another idea is "microbial masonry," Lacovara said. "It's possible that the bacteria that initially chomped through the tissue are secreting minerals as a waste product that then hermetically [airtight] seal a little bit of what remains behind," almost like a stone mason sealing off a structure, he told Live Science.
Moreover, sandstone — rock made of sand-size grains of minerals, sediments or inorganic material — seems to be the best type of environment for preserving organic material in fossils.
"Sandstone is like a bunch of volleyballs sitting on top of each other with big interstitial [spaced] areas between them," Lacovara said. "So it seems like rapid decay might promote the preservation process. Maybe we need the bacteria to get through fast and to chomp through the sediment so that they can sequester some of [the surviving organic material] in the process."

DNA proves a Creator to any reasonable person.

Who is Click and what are his/her qualifications? Unless you provide the exact quote and the source of the quote we would be justified in thinking this another of your myriad unfounded assertions.
[quote=Ringman]Molecular evidence demands Intelligent Design. I hope you know the simplest cell in more complex than the whole city of New York.

The idea of transitional fossils is a joke.

The reason we know a dinosaur is a dinosaur is because they group; just like fossil cats, wolves, fish and everything else.

Your defenses are not working for thinking people.

That's why every year educated evolutionists become creationists.

But he and his other wicked rebel angels were spared
by God,... rather than destroying such evil
They were then given another task to fullfill by God.
and for that God must surely take responsibility.

Ringman, which of these processes require a world wide flood? Why would local floods, landslides, volcanic ash falls, or “it fell in the crick and drowned” not be adequate explanations? Explanations that have no necessity of an imaginary friend who did it by magic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdozVq81gog is from a middle-school primer on biology. Keep in mind that this video is five years old and research has undoubtedly advanced since then. At what stage was it necessary for DNA to be created by magic?

Intelligent Design demands a designer. Can you demonstrate the existence of a designer and tell us what mechanism was used to design cells?
What metric are you using to measure complexity? How many Complexity Units comprise the simplest cell? How many are in New York City? If you cannot measure complexity you are making another unfounded assertion.

Here a few more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils at the end of the list are links to about fifty peer-reviewed papers published in scientific journals.
Here are some more examples: http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Evolution/transitionalfossils.htm

Dinosaurs are recognized as a group, technically called a clade, because they share characteristics. The same goes with your other examples. What is your point?


A great deal of evidence has been supplied and ignored by you. Is it the mark of a thinking person ignore evidence?

Yet you have, despite repeated requests, failed to name any except the mysterious Crick. Please be so kind as to supply names of persons with relevant expertise (those with advanced degrees in Medieval Bulgarian Poetry will not count), and original sources where their statements can be found.
I might as well ask for a third time, since no reply was forthcoming:
Given the evidence presented in the Evolution Scientifically Debunked thread, do you now agree that a “half wing” can be useful? Do you agree that beneficial mutations exist and have been well documented?

You don't "point out problems in the spirit of truth". You read anti-God stuff which usually is not true and try to use that junk to prove God's Word wrong.