Fossil discovery...

[YardleyLabs]

As one article notes, micro-evolution + 3.8 billion years = macro-evolution.

Fossil records make it pretty clear that species appeared over an extended period of time. Of course, that's about when the creationists start telling us that the world is only a few thousand years old and that the fossil evidence is meaningless.

Evolution is seen routinely in viruses, but even there decades and even centuries are needed for the emergence of a new species. However, HIV-1 evolved from Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV) over the last century. Most pandemics are attributed to the evolution of new virus species. That, of course, is when creationists throw in words such as "a higher atomically different species or substance" as Keith does in his comments. Viruses, they argue, are not a "higher" form and therefore don't count.

As a consequence, the only tests available are those that use fossil records to span the millenia involved in the evolution of "higher" species. But that, of course, brings us back to the rejection of such studies out of hand.

Genomic studies evidence a degree of commonality in genomes across species that makes it clear that common ancestors are involved. Creationists reject this as simply another piece of evidence of the elegance of God's creations.

Ultimately, one is left understanding that there is no purpose in arguing "science" with those whose ideas of truth are defined by their notions of revelation. In The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare has Antonio say "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek." The same might be said of Creationists claiming to quote "science."

[road kill]

As one article notes, micro-evolution + 3.8 billion years = macro-evolution.

Fossil records make it pretty clear that species appeared over an extended period of time. Of course, that's about when the creationists start telling us that the world is only a few thousand years old and that the fossil evidence is meaningless.

Evolution is seen routinely in viruses, but even there decades and even centuries are needed for the emergence of a new species. However, HIV-1 evolved from Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV) over the last century. Most pandemics are attributed to the evolution of new virus species. That, of course, is when creationists throw in words such as "a higher atomically different species or substance" as Keith does in his comments. Viruses, they argue, are not a "higher" form and therefore don't count.

As a consequence, the only tests available are those that use fossil records to span the millenia involved in the evolution of "higher" species. But that, of course, brings us back to the rejection of such studies out of hand.

Genomic studies evidence a degree of commonality in genomes across species that makes it clear that common ancestors are involved. Creationists reject this as simply another piece of evidence of the elegance of God's creations.

Ultimately, one is left understanding that there is no purpose in arguing "science" with those whose ideas of truth are defined by their notions of revelation. In The Merchant of Venice, Shakespeare has Antonio say "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek." The same might be said of Creationists claiming to quote "science."

Or vice versa!!

[achiro]

Superstition has an agenda, science doesn't.

HAHAHA! If you believe that to be true, well you know the rest. (and I'm talking about all "science" not just regarding evolution)

Now back to regularly scheduled bickering...

[Pete]

[QUOTEWell science is making discoveries every day and just because it hasn't been found does not mean it does not exist][/quote]

I guess that means since people haven't found God doesn't mean God doesn't exist either.. Much of science now a days are religions anyway including the global warming god.

I don't believe such perfect order,,,,,, the math and physics,,,,, which hold our universe together can arrive out of chaos.

I have an incredible study on creation that would blow someone who believed away. The men of old could not know some of the things written without revalation or inspiration. Science is just figuring out things now that have been written since biblical times. Only science seems to want to take all the glory. As usual.
Pete

[Keith Farmer]

As one article notes, micro-evolution + 3.8 billion years = macro-evolution.

Still no evidence Jeff. All that time does is fool people like yourself who don't want to see the truth. By saying that over billions of years macro-evolution happens somehow makes it palatable to some folks. However, the truth is that the Earth is only several thousand years old, as is noted in scripture, and the fossil records scientifically dictate that.

If you truly have an open mind then read all of the material in the links posted below...should help you see some light.

Fossil records make it pretty clear that species appeared over an extended period of time.

That is not true. Fossil records show clearly a rapid and catastrophic burial: (see the links below)

http://www.icr.org/articles/view/1071/265/

&

http://www.icr.org/fossilization/

&

http://www.icr.org/invertebrates/

&

http://www.icr.org/living-fossils/

About millions or billions of years:

http://www.icr.org/articles/view/1182/267/

About carbon dating:

http://www.icr.org/articles/view/117/267/

Evidence for a young Earth:

http://www.icr.org/article/1842/

I could continue but that should be enough info for now. You really should spend a long time looking at the true data rather than the made up tales evolutionists proffer.


.

[YardleyLabs]

I've read all your cited sources and find them to be uniformly ridiculous in their pseudoscientific approach. His assertions are not backed up by any scientific research. He himself is an engineer with little relevant scientific background. John Morris' statements on dating fossils are at variance with the overwhelming bulk of all scientific analysis. His comments about the "lack of transitional" forms is at best an idiotic misunderstanding but more probably a manipulative play on words. Every form is complete unto itself by defintion. Any fossil based assessment is by definition interpretive based on characteristics found in related areas and geologic strata. Those routinely evidence an evolutionary development across multiple species (e.g. starfish). The closest thing Morris gets to a supporting citation are his quotes from the Bible which he considers to be evidentiary. In 1994, your hero John Morris said "From the neck down, certain clues suggested to Johanson that Lucy walked a little more erect than today's chimps. This conclusion, based on his interpretation of the partial hip bone and a knee bone, has been hotly contested by many paleoanthropologists." The "partial hip bone and knee bone" he references is actually a complete pelvis and leg (less the foot). The reference to "hotly contested by many paleoanthropologists" is unsupported by any references to that effect. In fact, the only issues of dispute have been whether or not Lucy was also arboreal. Of course, Morris may be best known for his claims that the craters on the moon are the result of battles between Satan and God -- another example of his fine scientific mind and research.

You ask for conclusive proof of something that can only be demonstrated -- by its inherent nature -- through a massive weight of circumstantial evidence since it occurs over a period of time that extends into prehistorical eras. And yet, you routinely cite translations of second and third and fourth hand documents written hundreds and even thousands of years after the events they describe and expect others to accept those citations as "evidence" and "proof".

Personally, I value the Bible and other religious texts because they wrestle with the moral issues that have faced humans since our earliest evolution into social beings. When the Bible tells me that male slaves must be freed within eight years but that female slaves need not be freed, I take that as reflective of the historical context and mores of the time.

When I read the stories of creation in the Bible and in other older and newer religious texts, I view them as efforts to explain a world about which little was known, as was also the case with those who believed the earth was flat. When believers use those historic texts to freeze knowledge, I can understand some of the reasons that might explain their behavior, but am no more willing to accept such restrictions than was Galileo.

[Pete]

Thats a good point Keith

Most fossils occured because of some type of catastropy here on earth,,,,earth quakes,volcanoes,ice ages,,,,, the bible follows the same patterns concerning these matters. Splitting of the continents and such.extremely interesting stuff . Oh by the way God invented the true sciences.
And none of them contradict his word. Pretty amazin

Also I still believe "everything after its kind",,,meaning a dog will always be a dog,,,nothin you or time can do about it.


No one disputes evolution with in there own species. God stuck alot of genetic diversity in stuff. We have black people,chinese, anglo,,, they are still all human and will alway be,,,,climate and geography choose the genes best suited for those environments. Original man had olive skin,,,,so its easy to see how one could get lights and darks especially since birds of a feather flock together.

God design is in about everthing ,,,as a matter of fact it says that some where

It boils down to weather you believe or not.. simple,,,,most dont but they develope other other forms of worship. Like carbon footprints or evolution.

Pete

[Pete]

Still no evidence Jeff. All that time does is fool people like yourself who don't want to see the truth. By saying that over billions of years macro-evolution happens somehow makes it palatable to some folks. However, the truth is that the Earth is only several thousand years old, as is noted in scripture, and the fossil records scientifically dictate that

Kieth
If you trace back all the begets and begats listed in the word ,,there are time frames listed with every section,,,some not evident but most are right there in Black and white.
it traces a little over 6000 years from the fall of man,,,it doesn't say how long it took God from genesis 1:1 to genesis 2:7 or so where he made formed and created man. There could be some time besides the 5 or 6 days God took to put things back in order. There is some figureatively speaking type stuff in there. There could possibly be millions and billions of years between genesis 1:1 and genesis 1:2 because there is no word "Was" in the old hebrew,,,its the word "became" and a record in Isaiaha will back up that study.
.

Anyway there could be room for it,,,,

Pete

[dnf777]

" Only science seems to want to take all the glory. As usual.
Pete"

Sorry, but that makes no sense whatsoever. Science is a method. It does not, and cannot have "wants".

I'm reading a book about Renee Descartes, and hearing of the arguments that "anyone trying to advance our understanding of our beings or natural world must be an athiest, as all science undermines God" from the early 1600s, made me think we've come along way. But some of the arguments here are exactly the same. The Earth is thousands of years old??? Does anyone REALLY believe that?? If it's only thousands of years old...does anyone still believe it's flat...and that if you sail west, you'll fall off the earth??

Most scientists are believers. Most scientists admit there is much we don't know. Just because we can't explain everything, doesn't mean there's NOT an explanation. I don't know how my tv works, but I don't believe there are little actors and actresses in there that change costumes each time I change the channel. I can accept that there are real-world explanations that I'm just now aware of. I also believe there's a God. Who is much to busy to worry about sabotaging scientists with bogus fossils and geologic evidence. And why would we have the hunger and ability to study the world and find answers if He just wanted us to follow the words of men in white robes without question?

[dnf777]

Thats a good point Keith



It boils down to weather you believe or not.. simple,,,,
Pete

Pete,
So all scientists are by your definition athiests? For that matter, anyone who believes in evolution? Where do you draw the line. If I think the earth is round, and revolves around the sun, does that make me an athiest? That's what people said not long ago. What changed? What convinced you that the earth is round...after all, those satellite images are probably bogus images put out by rocket scientists trying to take all the glory again.

I apologize if I am being too sarcastic, but I REALLY don't understand the unwillingness to look at facts with an open mind. I consider myself scientific, but remain very open to religion since it can't be proven or disproven.