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.
Ah, how cute. Personal attacks. Usually these come when people don't have an argument. Just another data point in favor of that idea here...
And since you're not paying attention, the link you keep ignoring showed multiple different skulls. If you can't remember the evidence that you've looked at already, the person to blame is yourself, not others.
You mean like the series of fossilized skulls I posted that show a transition from a non-human to human? You admitted that some of the skulls are non-humans, so I guess that those skulls satisfy what you're looking for.
And yet another lie. None of the data I've posted has been from National Geographic.
If the best you can come up with to support your faith is lies about the evidence and the people supporting it, I guess nothing anyone can say will change your mind.
Your skull arguement is based on personal belief and cannot be used to (demonstrate) Evolution. The hard evidence should be found in the stone fossil record, and it should be found in abundance. So now because the stone fossil record is bankrupted, you have turn to imagninary transionals. A single skull cannot prove anything. And often when they show such fossils they are eventually proven to be wrong. Such as the Ramapithecus fossil found in India in 1932. This fossil was said to be the first split between man and ape.
American evolutionist Dr. Elwyn Simons wrote in Scientific America of May 1977 that Ramaptheus is the earliest hominid, and was distinctively manlike, and a member of man's family tree. As it turned out, Ramaptheus was an extinct gorilla. And had no human tree connection at all. But who cares, there will be other fossils they can claim had a human connection down the road. And this has been going on for over one hundred years with no end in sight. And that is the real story of Evolution. The wealth of evidence for Evolution does not exist, yet every new claim has a shelf life of ten or twenty years, so this will go on for many years to come. And people have forgot about most of Evolutions past failed claims. So most will believe any new nonsense they are told, at least until they find out the new discoveries are bogus as well. So, where are those hundreds of thousands of stone fossils showing us those (two) species that are in their evolution of transition? Don't worry, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them.
The other hundreds of fossils do not show transitionals??? What on earth do you mean Campbell? Please, I'd love to hear this explanation. I also suggest you look at Panterra's post on the previous page from this and have fun at explaining away the myriad of transitional fossils he just posted. It seems you like to ignore what's blaring you right in the face. Talk about evidence? Campbell, do you really think and suspect that there is some international concerted effort to blot out Christianity through scientific endeavor with the theory of evolution? Or, for that matter, with any other branch of science you don't adhere to?
Fine, Campbell, let's talk about evidence. Let's see what you've got. What scientific, empirical evidence do you have to suggest that everything we know about science is wrong? Because you're not just disputing JUST evolution, Campbell. You're disputing everything from physics to glaciology here. So, I welcome you to convince me with empirical scientific methods that evolution is just the massive farce that you claim it to be. I'm not asking for "reinterpretations", I'm not asking for quotes from the Bible, I'm asking for scientific analysis based on constructive empiricism. If you can provide that for me with every piece of evidence that you refute then we're getting somewhere. Until that point, which I suspect will be never, you're just going to make bogus claims because it suits your own personal belief. Do you not feel in even the slightest of ways that perhaps you don't know what the heck you're talking about?
I mean, if you want to argue evolution that's fine. We can argue gradualism over punctuated equilibrium or something to that effect but you come on here and make wide claims with no supporting evidence just because it suits your way of belief. You should really think twice about how you approach the situation because you're making yourself look rather foolish and trollish. Have you no shame at all??
My approach is quite simple. If Evolution is true, then I like Darwin before me believed that in the (stone) fossil record we should see an abundance of transional fossils. Now let me point out here, I am not talking about a skull that some one calls a transional. I'm talking about a fossil showing us two species that are evoloving from one to another. Now since this would take such a great deal of time for this evolution to occur, then there should be an abundance of these fossils. Darwin believed that, and if Evolution were true these fossils should be very common. Yet, only a handful of such (stone) transional fossils have ever been found, and they are believed to be fakes. Can you show me a picture of a (stone) fossil showing me two species that are evoloving into one?
Remember, there should be millions of such fossils if evolution is true. Because it really makes little sense that we would have an abundance of stone fossils from every time period, but never have even one (stone) fossil showing us the evolution of change. We have fossils showing us as things are, or were, but never the change in between. Why is that?
Way to go Campbell!
What a genius!
have a battle of wits with the fossils that are right under your nose?
In a battle between mineralzed stone and your brain, well, I suspect you will not coming out looking like roses.
I usually can face rocks and trees, and in a battle between wits and ignorance, I usually come out ahead.
You know, a few hundred years ago, we burned witches at the stake,
I have seen is a number of skulls some say are transionals. Do you really think that counts as evidence? And when you consider how many times Evolutionist have been proven wrong, do you really think any sane man is going to accept such evidence at face value? And don't you think it's kind of strange that we have so many fossils from every time period, yet we never see a fossil in the (stone) record that shows the change in any species that would give us a clear view of Evolution at work. I believe you guys have so bought into the Evolution Theory, that you don't even question why such evidence is not found. Some will say that Darwin did not believe we would find completeness in the fossil record. Yet it is not about completeness, it's about the total absense of (stone) transional fossils that should disturb all of you.
Why do we have fossils of every kind, yet not one fossil in the (stone) record showing us two different species evoloving into one? This is such an obvious question that begs an answer.
The Bible states that "In the Beginning God"...sounds quite clear and revealing when thought of this way. Evolution is a theory that makes absolutely no sense..."Big Bang"...what in life comes from big bangs and explosions?...not order but disorder comes...not sense of being but confusion and shambles...How about the "big Blob" theory....only life can give life and I find nothing today that is defined as a "blob" that is life giving....Intelligence comes from an intelligent being and life can only be sustained by someone who currently has life! If evolution was the beginning then why have we ceased to continue in evolving? If we all came from monkeys then why have conception between and man and a woman....just let the monkeys keep populating the earth! Crazey isn't it....Seek God my friends, He is your creator and one day you will realize this but hopefully not too late!
The Bible states that "In the Beginning God"...sounds quite clear and revealing when thought of this way. Evolution is a theory that makes absolutely no sense..."Big Bang"...what in life comes from big bangs and explosions?...not order but disorder comes...not sense of being but confusion and shambles...How about the "big Blob" theory....only life can give life and I find nothing today that is defined as a "blob" that is life giving....Intelligence comes from an intelligent being and life can only be sustained by someone who currently has life! If evolution was the beginning then why have we ceased to continue in evolving? If we all came from monkeys then why have conception between and man and a woman....just let the monkeys keep populating the earth! Crazey isn't it....Seek God my friends, He is your creator and one day you will realize this but hopefully not too late!
Someone need a little primer on the "Big Bang." Someone should not be so quick to dismiss is with the back of their hand without reeeeaaally understanding what it is.
Toward the end of the 19th century, evidence against the infinite universe model was accumulating but receiving hardly any attention. Einstein's special relativity, precursor to his general relativity, demonstrated that the universe is expanding. This implies that the universe is finite, has an origin, a beginning, which in turn suggests causal agent, or a Creator. He was not too thrilled with these results so he introduced "a cosmological constant" —a fudge factor — to cancel out this effect leaving an infinite universe in a steady-state. This was later disproved.
Einstein did admit even as early as 1919, that his cosmological constant was gravely detrimental to the formal beauty of the theory. In 1931, he finally discarded the constant from his field equations and conceded that its introduction was the greatest mistake of his life. Einstein gave grudging acceptance to “the necessity for a beginning” and eventually to “the presence of a superior reasoning power,” but never did he accept the doctrine of a personal God.
Two obstacles blocked his way. Einstein wrestled with a deeply felt bitterness with the clergy, especially priests, and the inability to resolve the apparent paradox of God’s omnipotence and man’s responsibility for his choices. Seeing no solution to the paradox, he, like many other powerful intellects through the centuries ruled out the existence of a personal God.
Through scientific discovery, several implications in Einstein’s work became the precursor to fundamental truths that have been observed over the years. They have been recently confirmed with direct and repeated instrumental measurements. In 1929, the American astronomer, Edwin Hubble (namesake of the space telescope) without knowing of Relativity’s prediction, discovered that the universe is indeed expanding. Einstein and Hubble met in California in 1931 and celebrated Hubble’s finding what the mind of Einstein had conceived.
This point in time and space in the beginning has been called by the scientific community as the Big Bang Singularity. Fred Hoyle, the English astrophysicist, coined the term in 1950. Hoyle, who championed a rival cosmological theory, meant the "Big Bang" to be a term of derision, but the name was so catchy that it stuck. Though the Big Bang suggests a colossal explosion, it wasn't really an "explosion" in the sense that we understand it. Space itself exploded.
While Einstein’s general relativity implies an age for the universe vastly beyond 6,000 years, it also implies that there is, indeed a creation date. Expansion of the universe indicates a universe that is expanding outward from a point. In fact, through equations of general relativity, we can trace that expansion backward to its origin, an instant when the entire physical universe burst forth from a single point of infinite density. That instant when the universe originated from a point of no size at all is called the singularity. The singularity is not really some point in space. It is the whole of three dimensional space compressed to zero size. This infinitely shrunken space actually represents a boundary at which space and time, as well as all the physical laws cease to exist.
It is not as if the universe and the galaxies are expanding into a space that is already there, space itself is expanding, carrying the galaxies with it. The expansion creates the space, like a dimensional manifold. One can conceptualize this as the two-dimensional analog, as the surface of a balloon. Mark a bunch of dots on the balloon and blow it up and then imagine yourself on any of the dots. You seem to be in the center, and all of the dots are moving away from you. Now, take the air out of the balloon and look what dots do. All the dots come toward every other dot. If you could take all the air out of a perfect balloon, the surface itself would go to zero. All the dots would be back at one place at on time, every place is the center of the expansion. When I talk about this, the question that always comes up is, “Well, can you find the center of the expansion?” Every place is the center of the expansion, there is no one center to the beginning, every thing was back at one place and every place and every time was identical, in the beginning.
From Einstein’s work on general relativity came the recognition that there must be an origin for matter and energy. Likewise, there must be an origin for space and time. With the knowledge that time, has a beginning, at all, all age-lengthening attempts to push away the creation event, and thus the Creator, become absurd. Moreover, the common origin of matter, energy, space and time proves that the act(s) of creation must transcend the dimensions and substance of the universe — a powerful argument for the biblical doctrine of a transcendent Creator.
The Big Bang is one of the most if not the most important scientific discoveries that can be used as evidence for a transcendent creator. However, some Christians don’t understand it and feel that it contradicts a belief in God. These Christians may not understand it nor comprehend its implications, as well. However, the scientific community does. Many are very uncomfortable with it. Back in April of 1992, national headlines and telecasts splashed news about a breakthrough by an American research team. The fuss was over the latest findings of the COBE satellite, and touted as the greatest discovery of the century, if not of all time. The discovery was an incredible confirmation of the Big Bang creation event. As Michael Turner, astrophysicist at University of Chicago and Fermi Lab said, “this is unbelievably important, the significance can not be overstated. They have found the ‘Holy Grail’ of cosmology.” George Smoot, University of California, Berkeley, astronomer and project leader COBE Satellite, said, “What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe.” He added, “it’s like looking at God.” According to science historian, Frederic B. Burnham, said “The community of scientists was prepared to consider the idea of God creating the Universe, a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last hundred years.”
This remarkable change in perspectives is helping inspire a warming trend between scientific and spiritual disciplines. A conference in June of 1998 in Berkeley, Calif., at which cosmologists discussed the theological implications of their work, made this quite evident. Allan Sandage, one of the world's leading astronomers, told the gathering that contemplating the majesty of the big bang helped make him a believer in God, willing to accept that creation could only be explained as a "miracle."
Not that long ago, such a comment from an establishment scientist would have been shocking. The mere existence of the organization that sponsored the Berkeley event, a well-regarded academic group called the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, might have been snickered at. Today, "intellectuals are beginning to find it respectable" to talk about how physical law seems to favor life, notes Ian Barbour, a professor of both religion and physics at Carleton College, in Northfield, Minn.
My approach is quite simple. If Evolution is true, then I like Darwin before me believed that in the (stone) fossil record we should see an abundance of transional fossils. Now let me point out here, I am not talking about a skull that some one calls a transional. I'm talking about a fossil showing us two species that are evoloving from one to another. Now since this would take such a great deal of time for this evolution to occur, then there should be an abundance of these fossils. Darwin believed that, and if Evolution were true these fossils should be very common. Yet, only a handful of such (stone) transional fossils have ever been found, and they are believed to be fakes. Can you show me a picture of a (stone) fossil showing me two species that are evoloving into one?
Remember, there should be millions of such fossils if evolution is true. Because it really makes little sense that we would have an abundance of stone fossils from every time period, but never have even one (stone) fossil showing us the evolution of change. We have fossils showing us as things are, or were, but never the change in between. Why is that?
Oh this is delightful, Campbell. Could you be a doll and point out to me the Darwin quote without misrepresenting it? I'm interested, not saying he didn't say it.
Second of all, your cannard of "transitional" is a false one and many wouldn't see through it. However, I see where you're going with it and it's a ridiculous absurdity to claim what you claim. I see that you want two already existent species to start to converge and form one "mixture" of species. Campbell, that's NOT what Darwin ever said, that's not what evolutionary theory proposes, and that's just some IDiot literature that is either made up by you or by the jolly good fellows at Bibles-R-Us.
Let's get this straight. There is a thing called convergent and divergent evolution but there is not a thing called "convergent species" as you suggest. Convergent evolution would be something akin to creatures first developing legs on Earth. Although if we go far enough back, they do come from one common ancestor, it's not to say that a deer and a frog were starting to converge by mutating with legs. Rather, it is possible, due to the nature of each organisms embryological carrying capacity that they may or may not bear the first likings of legs. That is convergent evolution (where two different species take on similar - but almost never - the same traits). In other words, deer and frogs may both have legs, but that doesn't mean that they came from the same creature with "nubs". Now, if deer and frogs had the EXACT same legs, it might give us a little cause for concern.
So, that leads us to divergent evolution. Obviously, if we go back far enough (and Campbell, by the way, we should be entirely worried if there weren't "gaps" in the fossil record) we should find that our ancestors and the ancestors to them all fittingly had a common point of origin. Mitochondrial DNA supports this theory because even in single-celled bacterium of today we find DNA strands of the exact same caricature that we find in any living organism. That, in itself, should be a simply overwhelming thing to think about. Anyway, with divergent evolution, when we talk about a common ancestor, we talk about the point in which the common ancestor started to "branch".
Let's put it this way... Let's go to the very base of a tree (just for aesthetic reasons, let's ignore the roots), and follow it up. We can call the base of the tree the "common ancestor". As we follow the common ancestor up we come to our first branch. The common ancestor continues upwards but the branch goes outwards. This branch may just be nothing more than a twig with a few "sub-twigs" on it but nonetheless, it is still related to the common ancestor (or base of the tree). We can travel upwards and look at each individial branch on this wonderfully massive tree of life and we find that no matter how far we get from the base, no matter how complex each branch is, and no matter how separated it is from that very first little twig or nub, we can see that it's all inter-related. That's the way evolution works, Campbell.
Things may diverge from the base of the tree, and some branches may appear similar, but no two branches will ever converge together in growth (as you suggest) to take on a new branch. You're once again supplying falsities to a science you really know nothing about. My suggestion to you is to actually learn what evolution "really" states and not what Creation science says it states because the two are wholly different.
You've done nothing but supply false arguments and bad credentials for your arguments. Are you actually willing to read a book like "Origin of Species" or "The Blind Watchmaker" in order to not sound like a third-grader? Or are we going to sit here day in and day out playing mental gymnastics over your ridiculously ludicrous arguments??
Come on, Campbell. I know you have it in you. Give me a real, solid, good argument in regards to how evolution REALLY works. I don't want any of this crap you're talking about from Bibles-R-Us. I want you to ask me about something Darwin or Evolutionary Theory actually says and not some cannard that you made up.
So, have I sufficiently answered your question as to why we will not find two transitional creatures in the format you suggest? I would like to also point out that I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Johanson (the man who discovered Lucy) and let me tell you... Lucy is about as real as it gets in terms of transitional and she's got a tremendous amount of evidence to support her "reality". I just think you don't know enough about the subject to really posit a good argument.
Seriously, I suggest you present some real arguments at some point and not some made up scarcity that you've been taught from the pulpit.
The other hundreds of fossils do not show transitionals??? What on earth do you mean Campbell? Please, I'd love to hear this explanation. I also suggest you look at Panterra's post on the previous page from this and have fun at explaining away the myriad of transitional fossils he just posted. It seems you like to ignore what's blaring you right in the face. Talk about evidence? Campbell, do you really think and suspect that there is some international concerted effort to blot out Christianity through scientific endeavor with the theory of evolution? Or, for that matter, with any other branch of science you don't adhere to?
Fine, Campbell, let's talk about evidence. Let's see what you've got. What scientific, empirical evidence do you have to suggest that everything we know about science is wrong? Because you're not just disputing JUST evolution, Campbell. You're disputing everything from physics to glaciology here. So, I welcome you to convince me with empirical scientific methods that evolution is just the massive farce that you claim it to be. I'm not asking for "reinterpretations", I'm not asking for quotes from the Bible, I'm asking for scientific analysis based on constructive empiricism. If you can provide that for me with every piece of evidence that you refute then we're getting somewhere. Until that point, which I suspect will be never, you're just going to make bogus claims because it suits your own personal belief. Do you not feel in even the slightest of ways that perhaps you don't know what the heck you're talking about?
I mean, if you want to argue evolution that's fine. We can argue gradualism over punctuated equilibrium or something to that effect but you come on here and make wide claims with no supporting evidence just because it suits your way of belief. You should really think twice about how you approach the situation because you're making yourself look rather foolish and trollish. Have you no shame at all??
If someone questions evolution, it is not by implication questioning all sciences. This is faulty reasoning, and should be avoided.
I personally love science. I think that humans can learn alot from nature. But the kind of science I am refering to is applied sciences. This is where something can be tested over and over to get the same results. This is how we put man on the moon or microwaves in our kitchen. This type of science is however different than historical science. Historical science is where we project back into the past how things were. Historical science is where evolution lives. It is a guess at how things found in the present came be be how they are.
Physics does not owe an ouce of it's merrit to evolution. Physics did not evolve. The same is true for math. Even though evolutionary scientist use physics or math they are using them to point to a possibility in the past. We have no one who experienced the past with us to confirm it, and we cannot go back and test it. We make all of our tests in the present under present conditions.
The problem with the fossil reccord is that it is a mess. From an evolutionary point of view no fossils line up to show a continuous evolutionary transition. And what fragments we have are questionable. From a creationists point of view no matter what skull you find as trasition for humans, they will either fit into the category of Orangutang, Ape, or Human.
So, we cannot ask a creationist to put down his bible because this is his source for his belief system. It is the history he uses to determine what events took place for the present to look the way it is. But, the same holds true for the adherent to evolution, we cannot expect them to put down the history created by the evolutionary scientist who have come before because this is the foundation for their belief system.
So, the evolutionist and the creationist are not arguing that there are fossils. We can weigh, measure them. Document what layer of rock they came out of. But it is the explanation of how they got there is the difference.
So, the evolutionist and the creationist are not arguing that there are fossils. We can weigh, measure them. Document what layer of rock they came out of. But it is the explanation of how they got there is the difference.
The obvious reason that certain fossils appear in particular layers of rock is because that's when they died and their remains were preserved as a fossil. It's just a matter of common sense to realize that the entire fossil record proves conclusively that all species have never existed together at one time in history and that we have a very long record of extinctions, new plants and animals appearing that are not found in older layers and changes in organisms that clearly show that they're changing over very long periods of time. The problem is not that we have so few fossils that we can't put together a clear record of evolutionary lineage, the problem is that we have so many that it sometimes becomes difficult to determine which ones went extinct and which ones evolved into modern species. None of this supports the concept of creationism, in fact it clearly proves it to be false.
There are not enough facts to prove or disprove any theory on how the earth or man came to be. It is a matter of faith. You either have faith in evolution or faith in creationism/intelligent design. Or you just don't know and keep your options open.
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.
