Would it be best for evolutionists to just ignore creationsts?

[Tristesse]

This picture only validates that evolution is a scam and I will tell you why. Out of one side of the evolutionist’s mouth they say that this picture is evidence of common descent of humans and out of the other side of their mouths they say that no fossil can be shown to have any ancestry or descendant relationship with any other fossil.

Fossils are a very small picture of evolution. It's all of the combined evidence that gains a bigger picture on the issue.

 

[Photonic]

This picture only validates that evolution is a scam and I will tell you why. Out of one side of the evolutionist’s mouth they say that this picture is evidence of common descent of humans and out of the other side of their mouths they say that no fossil can be shown to have any ancestry or descendant relationship with any other fossil.

Richard Dawkins puts this better than I could.

Many of our legal and ethical principles depend on the separation between Homo sapiens and all other species. Of the people who regard abortion as a sin, including the minority who go to the lengths of assassinating doctors and blowing up abortion clinics, many are unthinking meat-eaters, and have no worries about chimpanzees being imprisoned in zoos and sacrificed in laboratories Would they think again, if we could lay out a living continuum of intermediates between ourselves and chimpanzees, linked in an unbroken chain of inter-breeders like the California salamanders? Surely they would. Yet it is the merest accident that the intermediates all happen to be dead. It is only because of this accident that we can comfortable and easily imagine a huge gulf between our two species - or between any two species, for that matter.
Richard Dawkins The Ancestor's Tale - Page 303 Paragraph 3

This is the problem of the discontinuous mind, as Richard Dawkins puts it. We only have snapshots of what would normally be considered intermediaries.
As he puts it, it is like saying "When you heat a kettle of cold water, there is no particular moment when the water ceases to be cold and becomes hot, therefore it is impossible to make a cup of tea."

We quantify species as separate entities but all they are is snapshots in a temporal line. Evolutionary biologists use these snapshots to name the species as it was at the time of the fossil. The problem here is you are assuming that there is no possibility that an entity may lay somewhere between, like halfway or a a tenth of the way between species A and B. (As RD puts it)

 

[camanintx]

This picture only validates that evolution is a scam and I will tell you why. Out of one side of the evolutionist’s mouth they say that this picture is evidence of common descent of humans and out of the other side of their mouths they say that no fossil can be shown to have any ancestry or descendant relationship with any other fossil.

No SINGLE fossil can tell the story of common descent. It is only when you view them all together like this that the picture becomes clear.

 

[johnhanks]

This picture only validates that evolution is a scam and I will tell you why. Out of one side of the evolutionist’s mouth they say that this picture is evidence of common descent of humans and out of the other side of their mouths they say that no fossil can be shown to have any ancestry or descendant relationship with any other fossil.

This is simply foolish. You stated in post #162 that

I'm trying to see the empirical evidence for the so called ape like creature that the ToE says that man came from.

To help you in this obviously sincere quest I have shown you empirical evidence for a whole bundle of partly ape-like, partly human-like creatures, and also explained that evolution does not proceed in linear fashion from one species to the next but is a process of continual branching and re-branching. What the fossils provide is abundant evidence of populations changing over some millions of years in the direction of larger cranial capacity, flatter faces, human-type teeth. Out of all the populations we have evidence of, which particular one(s) if any were ancestral to modern humans is a secondary matter: the process is well illustrated.

But you, of course, will not accept there was any such process, however eloquently the fossils speak of it. So tell me, MoF, if the skulls I've shown you aren't transitional fossils between ape-like ancestors and humans, what are they?

 

[Man of Faith]

Richard Dawkins puts this better than I could.



This is the problem of the discontinuous mind, as Richard Dawkins puts it. We only have snapshots of what would normally be considered intermediaries.
As he puts it, it is like saying "When you heat a kettle of cold water, there is no particular moment when the water ceases to be cold and becomes hot, therefore it is impossible to make a cup of tea."

We quantify species as separate entities but all they are is snapshots in a temporal line. Evolutionary biologists use these snapshots to name the species as it was at the time of the fossil. The problem here is you are assuming that there is no possibility that an entity may lay somewhere between, like halfway or a a tenth of the way between species A and B. (As RD puts it)

However we find fossils of animals that are still around today and they are unchanged. What makes us think that the fossils of animals that aren't around today would have changed into humans over time? The assumption of evolution is all.

 

[Man of Faith]

This is simply foolish. You stated in post #162 that
To help you in this obviously sincere quest I have shown you empirical evidence for a whole bundle of partly ape-like, partly human-like creatures, and also explained that evolution does not proceed in linear fashion from one species to the next but is a process of continual branching and re-branching. What the fossils provide is abundant evidence of populations changing over some millions of years in the direction of larger cranial capacity, flatter faces, human-type teeth. Out of all the populations we have evidence of, which particular one(s) if any were ancestral to modern humans is a secondary matter: the process is well illustrated.

But you, of course, will not accept there was any such process, however eloquently the fossils speak of it. So tell me, MoF, if the skulls I've shown you aren't transitional fossils between ape-like ancestors and humans, what are they?

What they are is fossils of non-human primates placed side by side of fossils of human primates and assuming evolution.

If you look at the definition for a transitional fossil it is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features of other fossils. So we assume evolution, look for fossils that look similar in homology and call them transitional if they seem to be extinct when nobody can verify it.

 

[Man of Faith]

Fossils are a very small picture of evolution.

From your lips to God's ears.

 

[Man of Faith]

Richard Dawkins puts this better than I could.



This is the problem of the discontinuous mind, as Richard Dawkins puts it. We only have snapshots of what would normally be considered intermediaries.
As he puts it, it is like saying "When you heat a kettle of cold water, there is no particular moment when the water ceases to be cold and becomes hot, therefore it is impossible to make a cup of tea."

We quantify species as separate entities but all they are is snapshots in a temporal line. Evolutionary biologists use these snapshots to name the species as it was at the time of the fossil. The problem here is you are assuming that there is no possibility that an entity may lay somewhere between, like halfway or a a tenth of the way between species A and B. (As RD puts it)

I read that to mean that there is no way to verify evolution, just trust us.

 

[Photonic]

However we find fossils of animals that are still around today and they are unchanged. What makes us think that the fossils of animals that aren't around today would have changed into humans over time? The assumption of evolution is all.

It's easy to make statements of ignorance when you know nothing about the subject.

 

[outhouse]

It's easy to make statements of ignorance when you know nothing about the subject.

he has been shown evidence and facts and flat refuses to accept any material that goes against his theology no matter how solid the evidence is.

 

[Photonic]

he has been shown evidence and facts and flat refuses to accept any material that goes against his theology no matter how solid the evidence is.

Yea. That's a surprise.

 

[Matthew78]

This picture only validates that evolution is a scam and I will tell you why. Out of one side of the evolutionist’s mouth they say that this picture is evidence of common descent of humans and out of the other side of their mouths they say that no fossil can be shown to have any ancestry or descendant relationship with any other fossil.

Who says "no fossil can be shown to have any ancestry or descendent relationship with any other fossil"? Can you back this up?

 

[Matthew78]

However we find fossils of animals that are still around today and they are unchanged. What makes us think that the fossils of animals that aren't around today would have changed into humans over time? The assumption of evolution is all.

We also find fossils of animals that aren't around today and have been extinct for many millions of years. The dinosaurs are an obvious example. In fact, most fossils are of organisms that have been extinct for many millions of years. No assumption of evolution is required.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I don't have a problem with people that believe in stuff with no evidence to back it up in the early phases; after all that is how many theories begin such as the Big Bang theory when it was first muted, and the opposing Steady State Theory which was later discredited or even debunked. But still persisting in the a belief when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary as creationism is I have a huge issue with and it is good reason IMO to ignore them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

However we find fossils of animals that are still around today and they are unchanged. What makes us think that the fossils of animals that aren't around today would have changed into humans over time? The assumption of evolution is all.

Evolution is a feedback system: species change over time in response to environmental pressures. It's not some inexorable march to progress; it's a give-and-take. As the environment pushes, the population adapts. If the environment doesn't push (and sometimes it doesn't), then no adaption is needed.

Not every environment is the same, so not every species will have the same evolutionary history. A well-adapted species with a large population in a constant environment will change very little; a small population in a changing environment will change drastically in a short amount of time.

Does the fact that you can find a stone in a field that's sat in one place for centuries mean that another stone on the beach couldn't have been washed there by the waves?

 

[Tristesse]

From your lips to God's ears.

It's too bad you didn't understand my bigger point...

 

[johnhanks]

What they are is fossils of non-human primates...

Of what taxonomic status, exactly? Homo erectus had a cranial capacity of 900 cm3, too small for a modern human but more than double that of any ape. So, by your theory, what kind of primate was it?

If you look at the definition for a transitional fossil it is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features of other fossils. So we assume evolution, look for fossils that look similar in homology and call them transitional if they seem to be extinct when nobody can verify it.

More to the point, a transitional fossil is one that shows a mosaic of features from two different taxonomic groups - in this case apes and hominids. Your theory of human origins has no way of accounting for fossils showing an amalgam of ape-like and humanoid features; they are an inconvenience to you, to be explained away however unconvincingly. Evolutionary theory, by contrast, not only accounts for them but predicts their existence.

 

[waitasec]

I read that to mean that there is no way to verify evolution, just trust us.

do you trust your doctor?
how about your mechanic,
the plumber
the dentist
the waitress
the baby sitter...?

can you verify their performance is up to par? how?

now if you trust medicine then you should trust what biology teaches and biology is supported by evolution...

 

[Photonic]

do you trust your doctor?
how about your mechanic,
the plumber
the dentist
the waitress
the baby sitter...?

can you verify their performance is up to par? how?

now if you trust medicine then you should trust what biology teaches and biology is supported by evolution...

You can also educate yourself on evolutionary biology and learn the facts directly.

That's what I did anyways.

 

[Man of Faith]

Who says "no fossil can be shown to have any ancestry or descendent relationship with any other fossil"? Can you back this up?

I would be happy to explain evolution to an evolutionist. What we see below is that there are no direct lineages between fossils. So when an evolutionists puts fossils side by side and says that is evidence of evolution, that is a lie, because there is no way to determine any direct descendant of one to the other.

CC200: Transitional fossils
"There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism."