Still no fossils

vibise said:
You missed the point. Feet, heart and mouth were formed for the good of the species in which they evolved, and are now found in branches of the tree from that ancestral species.
Darwin was saying it would not be possible to evolve a feature in one species that did not benefit that species, but benefited some other species.
Click to expand...
You just proved my point that the mouth and so on benefited most species
 
Nathan P said:
No I did not misunderstand because feet are similar on a lot of species, in that they were made to walk on.
Click to expand...
You are assuming your conclusion here. Feet evolved, as the evidence shows. They were not "made", unless you have evidence to support your claim.

It is clear that you have no way to falsify ID, since you have not given us a falsification. If you cannot provide a potential falsification to your theory, then it is lacking as science.

What possible evidence would show that ID is wrong?
 
Cisco Qid said:
Another short 14 minute video:
Click to expand...
Worth noting that the video is based on the usual creationist trick of quote-mining Darwin. Darwin noted the issue with the fossil record, then explained why it is so. Creationists, of course, only quote the former.

The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palæontologists, for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick— as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life .. at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection. For the development of a group of forms, all of which have descended from some one progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the progenitors must have lived long ages before their modified descendants. But we continually overrate the perfection of the geological record, and falsely infer, because certain genera or families have not been found beneath a certain stage, that they did not exist before that stage. In all cases positive palæontological evidence may be implicitly trusted; negative evidence is worthless, as experience has so often shown. We continually forget how large the world is, compared with the area over which our geological formations have been carefully examined; we forget that groups of species may elsewhere have long existed, and have slowly multiplied, before they invaded the ancient archipelagoes of Europe and .. the United States. We do not make due allowance for the enormous intervals of time which have .. elapsed between our consecutive formations,— longer perhaps in many cases than the time required for the accumulation of each formation. These intervals will have given time for the multiplication of species from some one or some few parent-forms; and in the succeeding formation such groups of species will appear as if suddenly created.​
 
Nathan P said:
Again fossils with similarities to them is not evidence for evolution. The current fossils point to them being designed or created because there is too much complexity to them.
Click to expand...
Again you ignore context. Again you rely on beeging the question fallacy and mere assertion.
Provide evidence for Design that does NOT consist entirely of mere assertions, personal incredulity that evolution occurred, and logical fallacies.
 
evoguy313 said:
Why are there no remains of biblical characters? Since they died mere thousands of years ago, should the ground be littered with the bones of the bible characters?
Click to expand...
And all those people drowned in Da Fludde? Where are their bones? Creationists had better get digging!
 
rossum said:
And all those people drowned in Da Fludde? Where are their bones? Creationists had better get digging!
Click to expand...
Should there not be a stratum within which we find ALL creatures intermingled - humans, pterodactyls, ponies, crocodiles, etc? Especially those living in similar habitats and exhibiting similar body mass/volume relationships and the like?
 
evoguy313 said:
Especially those living in similar habitats and exhibiting similar body mass/volume relationships and the like?
Click to expand...
One of the problems with the idea of hydraulic sorting is that, if it happened, we would expect to find large land animals in a different layer to their smaller young. We don't see that.
 
evoguy313 said:
Why are there no remains of biblical characters? Since they died mere thousands of years ago, should the ground be littered with the bones of the bible characters?
Click to expand...
This ignores the time scales involved here. You don't expect fossils every thousand years but rather hundreds of thousands of years over billions of years. A thousand centuries is but a blink of the eye in fossil record time. That would be 10,000 blinks representing one billion years. For this reason we don't have the remains of Julius Caesar or Socrates or any Hebrews during this time period.
 
evoguy313 said:
Again you ignore context. Again you rely on beeging the question fallacy and mere assertion.
Provide evidence for Design that does NOT consist entirely of mere assertions, personal incredulity that evolution occurred, and logical fallacies.
Click to expand...
So far the current reliable evidence says the evidence says everything was too complex to have just happened. Instead some design was needed.
 
Nathan P said:
So far the current reliable evidence says the evidence says everything was too complex to have just happened. Instead some design was needed.
Click to expand...
How complex is the designer? An intelligent designer is, obviously, intelligent. How complex is intelligence? How did that complexity arise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top