Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just show us the facts. Either you have proof single celled amoebas morphed into fish or you don't. It is not a matter of me not understanding how evolution works. Rather, it is a matter of me understanding how evolutionists don't have any real proof. It is just their say-so. They say it is so and it is so.
Evolution does not say amoebas morphed into fish. It says amoebas and fish share a common ancestor. Until you understand the difference, you indeed do not understand evolution, and the evidence for the common ancestor has been repeatedly shown to you.
Evolution does not say amoebas morphed into fish. It says amoebas and fish share a common ancestor. Until you understand the difference, you indeed do not understand evolution, and the evidence for the common ancestor has been repeatedly shown to you.
Then why do evolutionists start their comic strip out with amoebas and then out of the slime pit a fish crawls out and then that fish morphs into a chimp which then morphs into a human.
You say I deny the evidence. Please show evidence in rocks PROVING fish evolved from single celled amoebas and show in rocks that chimps evolved from fish and humans from chimps.
Shouldn't be too hard to prove since you and everyone says the evidence is there!
Now get cracking mate and show me single celled amoebas morphing into fish in the fossil record.
And please don't say, "That's not how it works" or "You are asking for the impossible" or "It is not like that and you just don't understand how it works." You said it is in the fossil record so I am taking you to task on this. PROVE IT!
I have already explained the evidence or 'proof'. You can quite easily look up the geological age strata, the types of fossil found in them and draw your own conclusions.
I'd even take the time to set it out for you if I thought it would do any good, but I know I've done this in the past and not a scrap of it has penetrated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
I am sorry but the above links to not show single celled amoebas morphing into fish and fish morphing into chimps or chimps morphing into humans.
Well, there we are. We present evidence and you ignore it and ask for some fossil imprint of an amoeba turning into a fish.
Ok, I could show the fossils from superimposed strata showing a progression from groups of cells (sorry, can't do the single ones, but not even you could claim that one cell couldn't possibly get together with some others) through complex pre - cambrian structures (graptolites, for example) and then onto annelids and the first primitive fish with rudimentary backbones.
But then you'd still insist on some absurd fossil imprint of every damn' stage of it as it occurred.
Can't do that. We can only show the evidence we have the best explanation of which is evolutionary progression and not all created at once. If this is not good enough for you, that's your problem. It is sure good enough for a lot of others.
You are quite correct. Since no one makes that claim, it would be weird to show it.
Could you please define the word "morph"? And could you explain why it is that you think evolution means that these beings "morphed" into one another?
I think you know what "morph" means.
Just show me the facts. If humans are just **related** to single celled amoebas as one of the respondents in this thread stated,hHow are we related to single celled amoebas? Evolution states that single celled amoebas are what started everything. So if fish did not come from single celled amoebas where did they come from? Did they must magically poof themselves into existence without any single celled amoebas?
I have already explained the evidence or 'proof'. You can quite easily look up the geological age strata, the types of fossil found in them and draw your own conclusions.
I'd even take the time to set it out for you if I thought it would do any good, but I know I've done this in the past and not a scrap of it has penetrated.
Explaining and proving are two different matters. I thought you have proof we came from single celled amoebas. You never showed me any scientific proof which would hold up in any court of law.
As the old commercial used to say: Where's the beef?
If you don't have proof I understand. Really, I do. After all, how can you have proof of something that never happened in the first place?
Quote:
Well, there we are. We present evidence and you ignore it and ask for some fossil imprint of an amoeba turning into a fish.
Fact is, you didn't present evidence.
Quote:
Ok, I could show the fossils from superimposed strata showing a progression from groups of cells (sorry, can't do the single ones, but not even you could claim that one cell couldn't possibly get together with some others) through complex pre - cambrian structures (graptolites, for example) and then onto annelids and the first primitive fish with rudimentary backbones.
Just show me the fossil facts where humans evolved from single cells and it will suffice. Otherwise it is all make-believe.
Quote:
But then you'd still insist on some absurd fossil imprint of every damn' stage of it as it occurred.
I'd be happy to see a fossil of single celled amoebas turning into something wholly unlike a single celled amoeba, like a bed bug.
Quote:
Can't do that. We can only show the evidence we have the best explanation of which is evolutionary progression and not all created at once. If this is not good enough for you, that's your problem. It is sure good enough for a lot of others.
You have no evidence. It is just your word against mine.
Just show me the facts. If humans are just **related** to single celled amoebas as one of the respondents in this thread stated,hHow are we related to single celled amoebas? Evolution states that single celled amoebas are what started everything. So if fish did not come from single celled amoebas where did they come from? Did they must magically poof themselves into existence without any single celled amoebas?
Amoebas were not the first single celled organisms. You are working from a fallacy.
Explaining and proving are two different matters. I thought you have proof we came from single celled amoebas. You never showed me any scientific proof which would hold up in any court of law.
I'm afraid I am not responsible for what you thought. I know what you ask by way of evidence is whatever it is we can't wave in front of your eyes.
Court of law? You are like the barrister who claims that if the other side haven't got a film of his client sticking a kniife into the victim then there is no evidence and no proof. You would be laughed out of any court of law. Just as creationism is becoming a laughing stock.
Quote:
As the old commercial used to say: Where's the beef?
If you don't have proof I understand. Really, I do. After all, how can you have proof of something that never happened in the first place?
Of course, we knew what you were going to do, ignore all the evidence there is, insist on something either remote from evolution or what you thought we couldn't provide or if we did, demand something harder.
It is the old trick of demanding 100% proof, which the Believing fraternity always deny they ask for.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-27-2014 at 11:33 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
