Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Time For Class Proving Evolution

The funny thing about my original post, and the way things stand at present, is that humans have a specific difference between themselves and animals. Yet, the evolutionary crowd still wants to ignore that difference and proclaim themselves the same as an animal. A mind, with understanding of right and wrong and things and events here, now, and overseas, and in the past, and in the future seprates humans from animals and it is nothing but lack of thinking and pure stupidity that has humans relegating themselves to a lower order. We could not become different from animals by an evolutional change. If one did, then subsequent births would revert to the original norm. That is the scientific method of things.

Like this?
Named Yanoconodon allini after the Yan Mountains in Hebei, the fossil was unearthed in the fossil-rich beds of the Yixian Formation and is the first Mesozoic mammal recovered from Hebei. The fossil site is about 300 kilometers outside of Beijing.
The researchers discovered that the skull of Yanoconodon revealed a middle ear structure that is an intermediate step between those of modern mammals and those of near relatives of mammals, also known as mammaliaforms.
"This new fossil offers a rare insight in the evolutionary origin of the mammalian ear structure," said Zhe-Xi Luo, a paleontologist at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History (CMNH) in Pittsburgh, Pa. "Evolution of the ear is important for understanding the origins of key mammalian adaptations. "http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070314195448.htm

Or this?

Discovery of a 160-Million-Year-Old Fossil Represents a New Milestone in Early Mammal Evolution
ScienceDaily (Aug. 24, 2011) � A remarkably well-preserved fossil discovered in northeast China provides new information about the earliest ancestors of most of today's mammal species -- the placental mammals. According to a paper published August 25 in the journal Nature, this fossil represents a new milestone in mammal evolution that was reached 35 million years earlier than previously thought, filling an important gap in the fossil record and helping to calibrate modern, DNA-based methods of dating the evolution.

I think it's your phone you hear schitbird.

Don't say that out loud. Your Mama's gonna hear you, come down in the basement, wash your mouth out with soap, and take away your Apple 2 for a week.

Indeed. And that is what macroevolution is: faith in a vacuum of an almost complete lack of evidence. In the famous words of Phillip Johnson: the evidence for macroevolution is somewhere between slim and none.

Of course Patterson, as the curator, could never agree with the fledgling (at the time) intelligent design gang, but he was intellectually honest enough not to make the blatantly false assertion that most of him comrades do.

What he did do, is a common debate tactic that shows his erudition. In logic this is called the infinite regress, often analogized as a "lengthening of the shadow". The arguement was ended by chasing a "rabbit" into a hole no one could follow. Smart guy, intent on not being ridiculed as a fool, unlike many of his compatriots.

Does your indictment of religion include the religion of Neo-darwinian evolution?

Darwin's theory predicts that the fossil record should be mostly transitionals---virtually dominated by it. At the time, the lack of transitionals was deemed a function of lack of excavation efforts. There have not been plenty of excavations and there are few if any transitionals.

I get to be a sinner, just like everyone else. In fact, I can't help but to be.

That's just flat wrong. Part of the problem is the definition of "transitional." If you accept that species evolve and naturally select, then virtually every fossil is somehow transitional. But to claim that there are "few if any transitionals" just isn't true. You could spend hours and hours reading about them... and not just on Wikipedia.

Sucks to be you.

But I sleep well. I have Him in my heart, He is peace, He is The Word, He is Jesus, He is everlasting, He is forgiveness, He is Eternal, He is the beginning, He is the End, He is All, and I didn't have Him, and I lived without Him, but He came into my heart and saved me and changed me and made me whole.

Well, with that "piece of paper hanging on the wall" it seems quite obvious - something went wrong in the process. Or, then, maybe this:

Not to offend any "non believers" but I would agree with many on here who see the folly of "evolution" and the "Big Bang" theories as the only "credible" explanations of life and the universe. To some, "random chance" resulted in all the complexities and organization of the universe, including everthing from DNA to the solar systems.
To me it's akin to believing a tornadoe blows through a junk yard and resuls in an Apple computer. Well, sure it wouldn't happen the first time, but given enough time, "certainly" it could be accomplished....not.
I think ART and SCIENCE themselves give evidence of a Creative and Onmiscient God.
Man's ability to create art comes from the fact that a creative God has put his immage in this particular creation. We create because we have been made by a creator who has given us this innate desire and capability.
SCIENCE and "the quest for knowledge" is simply man manifesting the characteristics of a God who has the ability "to know" and posesses all knowledge. Mans' pursuit of scientific knowledge, rather than, "explaining away" God, actually is evidence of Him put with in every mans soul.
I see absolutely no contradiction in "science" and Christianity. But as far as certain scientific theories go, they are only as valid as the "assumptions" they are based on. It is here where there is certainly plenty of room for debate.

Calling evolution a religion is a stupid play.

Not as clear cut as one might think. An article in 2007 pointed out some peculiarities suggesting that it is not a transitional fossil due to traits that were markedly different from it's purported ancestor and an inner ear that resembled monotremes. Prescribing to this as a transitional creature suggests that the inner ear evolved more than once.

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2007/03/20/yanoconodon_and_the_alleged_jaw_to_ear_t





This one is interesting. But, not sure how it is determined to be anything but a different creature that was created obviously differing significantly from the from what existed in the monotremes at what is believed to exist at 170 million yrs.

Recognize that these dates of 160 million years ago and such are predicated on the evolutionists faith in somewhat of a steady rate of change in the earth which is required for the theory of evolution. Evolution requires time in an attempt to validate that theory. This is in contrast to the faith held by Creationists of Noachian cataclysm. Based on the Creationist perspective, this Jurassic Mother is simply another species but created by intelligent design regardless, caught in the flood event, and buried quickly. Therefore, it cannot be proven to be a transitional creature to Creationists.

In your opinion simply because you prefer to have faith in the prospect that you are somehow superior?

No, because it's not a religion, and calling it one is disingenuous at best, and a lame play.

But actually it's true in the sense that you need to have faith in something that can't be proven to support your ultimate religion that man is god.