Orders of Creation and Evolution Contradict!

[TRiG]

Originally Posted by jade84116

Orders of Creation and Evolution Contradict!

Oh, so you're saying the Bible is wrong, then, are you?

I'll agree.

TRiG.

[NoneOfTheAbove]

Originally Posted by TRiG

Oh, so you're saying the Bible is wrong, then, are you?

I'll agree.

TRiG.

I'd say it's no more "wrong" than Huckleberry Finn is "wrong". Neither of them is intended to inform about naturalistic phenomena. Both of them speak eloquently to the human condition.

[disciple]

Greetings,
The following was taken from a blog by Ray Comfort, I thought it raised a good question.

If Darwin’s theory was true, there should be buried within the soil, the skeletons of millions of animals changing from one species ("kind") into another. But Darwin admitted that they didn’t exist. There were none at all in the geological formation. He asks, "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology ***uredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

Unbelievably, instead of questioning his theory, he blames geological record! Yet he is forced to admit, "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great." If Charles Darwin was right, the amount of skeletal remains must have been inconceivably great, and yet in the same p***age he again admits to "not finding fossil remains of such infinitely numerous connecting links." They were infinitely numerous (millions upon millions) and they have all disappeared. All of them.

And after 150 years of desperate searching, they still can’t find any.

Notes:
[1] On Origin of Species, Chapter 9 "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record."
[2] Ibid

[sunofmysoul]

Originally Posted by disciple

Greetings,
The following was taken from a blog by Ray Comfort, I thought it raised a good question.

If Darwin’s theory was true, there should be buried within the soil, the skeletons of millions of animals changing from one species ("kind") into another. But Darwin admitted that they didn’t exist. There were none at all in the geological formation. He asks, "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology ***uredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

Unbelievably, instead of questioning his theory, he blames geological record! Yet he is forced to admit, "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great." If Charles Darwin was right, the amount of skeletal remains must have been inconceivably great, and yet in the same p***age he again admits to "not finding fossil remains of such infinitely numerous connecting links." They were infinitely numerous (millions upon millions) and they have all disappeared. All of them.

And after 150 years of desperate searching, they still can’t find any.

Notes:
[1] On Origin of Species, Chapter 9 "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record."
[2] Ibid

this might be worth a read....for those who are interested
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8285180.stm

[TRiG]

Originally Posted by disciple

If Darwin’s theory was true, there should be buried within the soil, the skeletons of millions of animals changing from one species ("kind") into another.

Why? Do you intend to die in a flash flood and be buried in an alluvial deposit? It's pretty unusual for dead animals to fossilise, you know.

Originally Posted by disciple

But Darwin admitted that they didn’t exist. There were none at all in the geological formation.

They're rare enough, but many more have been found since Darwin's day.

Originally Posted by disciple

The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

And he was, of course, completely correct. See my previous two points.

Originally Posted by disciple

Unbelievably, instead of questioning his theory, he blames geological record! ... They were infinitely numerous (millions upon millions) and they have all disappeared. All of them.

All too believably, creationists are lying. Again.

Originally Posted by disciple

And after 150 years of desperate searching, they still cant find any.

This is complete and utter nonsense. Ray Comfort is off the wall. Outright lies.

TRiG.

[disciple]

Originally Posted by TRiG

Why? Do you intend to die in a flash flood and be buried in an alluvial deposit? It's pretty unusual for dead animals to fossilise, you know.

They're rare enough, but many more have been found since Darwin's day.

And he was, of course, completely correct. See my previous two points.

All too believably, creationists are lying. Again.

This is complete and utter nonsense. Ray Comfort is off the wall. Outright lies.

TRiG.

Really Trig, can you ever make a point without calling people who don't agree with you liars?

[disciple]

"The Department of Paleobiology at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History is one of the leading centers for paleontological research in the world…The world-cl*** collections include 40 million to 50 million fossil plants, animals and geologic specimens. Also included in the collections are more than 1,500 cataloged specimens of dinosaurs."[1]

So let me understand this. The Smithsonian has millions of fossils, but they have no undisputed transitional forms that clearly prove Darwin was right. They don’t exist. Millions of fossils survived because their conditions were suitable, but transitional forms didn’t survive because their conditions weren’t conducive. Millions of others did, but they didn’t. Why is that? I believe it’s because they didn’t exist in the first place. Darwin was onto something when he said, "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy."[2].

Notes:
[1] "Dinosaur Discoveries in Montana," Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History News, August 20, 2002 .

[2] Charles Darwin, Life and Letters (London: John Murray: 1887), Vol. 2, p. 229 .

[TRiG]

Originally Posted by disciple

Millions of fossils survived because their conditions were suitable, but transitional forms didn’t survive because their conditions weren’t conducive. Millions of others did, but they didn’t.

I just said that you weren't a liar, you were just misinformed. If you continue on this line, I'll take that back. I think I may be repeating myself here, but it's worth saying again: All forms are transitional forms. The claimed paucity of "transitional forms" is simply made up by creationists. There is no such gap.

Start here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A670213
Make your next stop at http://talkorigins.org/
And then move onto http://books-by-isbn.com/059306173X

As PZ Myers said, This may not change your mind, but at least you'd be forced to develop less asinine arguments.

TRiG.

[HRG]

Originally Posted by disciple

"The Department of Paleobiology at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History is one of the leading centers for paleontological research in the world…The world-cl*** collections include 40 million to 50 million fossil plants, animals and geologic specimens. Also included in the collections are more than 1,500 cataloged specimens of dinosaurs."[1]

So let me understand this. The Smithsonian has millions of fossils, but they have no undisputed transitional forms that clearly prove Darwin was right.

That's like saying "It is not undisputed that the Earth is not flat".

Anything can be "disputed". However, the existence of transitionals cannot be rationally disputed.

[disciple]

Originally Posted by HRG

That's like saying "It is not undisputed that the Earth is not flat".

Anything can be "disputed". However, the existence of transitionals cannot be rationally disputed.

Hello HRG,
Are you saying that it is irrational to want to see real transitional fossils or is it just irrational to disagree with people who believe everything came from nothing.

[TRiG]

Originally Posted by disciple

Hello HRG,
Are you saying that it is irrational to want to see real transitional fossils or is it just irrational to disagree with people who believe everything came from nothing.

It's irrational to spout the nonsense that you're spouting.

TRiG.

[disciple]

Originally Posted by TRiG

It's irrational to spout the nonsense that you're spouting.

TRiG.

Hello Trig,
As to be expected, your comments are limited to insults or repeating the pseudo-intellectual statements made by those you believe in and trust.
Just so I'm clear Trig, if God didn't create everything where did everything come from?

[TRiG]

Sorry. Not in the best form today. I can do rational argument, but I'm not in the mood at the moment. So I'll just point and laugh at your deliberate misunderstandings.

I'll go away and do something productive for a while. I might feel better after.

TRiG.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by disciple

Hello Trig,
As to be expected, your comments are limited to insults ....

I will never do such things...

But I do not believe there are any real contradictions between Evolution and Genesis...

[TRiG]

You're not a liar, you're just sadly misinformed (misinformed enough to think that Ray Comfort is a credible source: the man's a laughingstock). It's the proffesional creationist organisations who are lying. They do it repeatedly, openly, and unashamedly. They simply make stuff up. All the time. I merely call it as I see it.

TRiG.