Why I am an "Evolutionist"

What nonsense. Can you tell us what a fossil of an animal that is not fully formed would look like? What does your version of a series of transitional fossils need to consist of to be accepted by you?
More than a couple of fossils of Archy....For example there are no fossils leading up to or away from Archy
The Cambrian fossils may have appeared "suddenly", but that doesn't mean that the animals that formed them did so. The so-called Cambrian explosion is a product of two things. Firstly, the development of hard body parts which fossilise much more readily than the soft bodies of precursors, and secondly an exceptional area of deposition in the Burgess Shales, giving superb fossils in great numbers.
You problem is you don't have the fossils but claim they were.
What do you mean by a "stand alone animal"? Every organism, including yourself, is a stand alone individual, showing elements of similarity with both its ancestors and its descendents. Archaeopteryx is not claimed to be the ancestor of all birds. It may have no extant descendants at all. What it shows, in conjunction with other fossils, is that animals with the characteristics of both dinosaurs and modern birds existed. There's a clear link in the fossil record and in anatomical comparisons between dinosaurs and birds. There's no doubt whatsoever that birds are
descendents of dinosaurs, and can be legitimately described as surviving dinosaurs.
Legitimatly described? No, all you have is a fossil of Archy. Nothing more and nothing less. Nothing before and nothing after.....
 
Ahhhh, errrr, clears throat....you do knowwwww that the flood waters of Noahs flood didn't deposit and bury the animals in the order they were created????? Right??? You do know that???
Ahhhh, errrr, clears throat....you do knowwwww that death entered the world after the Fall and that birds would have been dying between the Fall and the Flood. Some of those birds would have been fossilised. They would have been in the ground long before Noah's Flood.

When the abiogenesis occurred...God formed life directly from the dust. The bible speaks of man as an example.
No, man is the exception in Genesis. "Let the waters bring forth..." and "Let the earth bring forth..." covers all life on earth except man. Those are indirect methods, not direct. Don't you read your Bible?
 
Ahhhh, errrr, clears throat....you do knowwwww that death entered the world after the Fall and that birds would have been dying between the Fall and the Flood. Some of those birds would have been fossilised. They would have been in the ground long before Noah's Flood.
Are you saying a bird dies...falls to the underbrush...and would then fossilize?
No, man is the exception in Genesis. "Let the waters bring forth..." and "Let the earth bring forth..." covers all life on earth except man. Those are indirect methods, not direct. Don't you read your Bible?
Yes, I have read Genesis...numerous times...and it doen't speak of evolutionism (descent with modification) as God method for bringing about animals.

Your claim is that women evolved along side of man...in fact you claim man was once a photo-human....swinging from the trees....but without a female how did people evolve?

The bible tells us Eve was the mother of all...made from Adams rib (side)...after Adam was formed from the dust.
1 Tim 2:13 confirms this....For Adam was formed first, then Eve.

Now, you might not believe in the bible....but, it doesn't say God used evo-ism.
 
More than a couple of fossils of Archy....For example there are no fossils leading up to or away from Archy

You problem is you don't have the fossils but claim they were.

Legitimatly described? No, all you have is a fossil of Archy. Nothing more and nothing less. Nothing before and nothing after.....
You are relying on the God of the Gaps argument. Archaeopteryx is a fossil leading from dinosaurs to birds. If we had no Archaeopteryx fossil, you would complain that there was nothing to indicate transition between dinosaurs and birds.
Now you complain that there's nothing indicating transition between dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx.
When such a fossil is uncovered, you will complain that it is a "stand alone" animal with no transition to dinosaurs before or Archaeopteryx after. All of which is quite unnecessary. The relationship between birds and dinosaurs does not rest solely on Archaeopteryx, or any other fossil. It is obvious from the anatomy of birds and of dinosaurs and from genetics. Even domestic chickens are just one mutation away from bearing teeth.

Fossils are but one part of the evidence for evolution. The fossil record is extensive, but patchy for obvious reasons. Only a tiny proportion of all species, let alone individual organisms, are represented in the fossil record. But even if there were no fossils at all, the fact of evolution would be obvious from the genetic record of extant organisms, from the geological record of deep time and changing ecological conditions and from the observations available of evolution in the short term.
 
And just how are you right? Care to tell us?
Sure. Your position is that the universe has to exist and not exist at the same time, which would be a contradiction. The more likely scenario is that the universe did not exist at all, then spontaneously happened, and from that point on did exist. Therefore there was never a point where it both existed and did not exist, and so no contradiction.
 
Miracle are supernatural...They do happen.
I've never seen a miracle aside from the miracle of people believing in miracles.
I'm not wrong.
And neither am I! But seriously, I think it's honest and sensible to admit error and correct it. I know I do.
That's a hopeless "reality".
In a sense reality is hopeless. I accept that truth. In a way I like the fact that the cosmos will die a heat death.
I'll stick with the God of the truth.
I will too.
You, on the other hand can continue pretending. That's your right.
I've been civil with you. Please show me the same courtesy.
 
You are relying on the God of the Gaps argument. Archaeopteryx is a fossil leading from dinosaurs to birds. If we had no Archaeopteryx fossil, you would complain that there was nothing to indicate transition between dinosaurs and birds.
Now you complain that there's nothing indicating transition between dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx.
When such a fossil is uncovered, you will complain that it is a "stand alone" animal with no transition to dinosaurs before or Archaeopteryx after. All of which is quite unnecessary. The relationship between birds and dinosaurs does not rest solely on Archaeopteryx, or any other fossil. It is obvious from the anatomy of birds and of dinosaurs and from genetics. Even domestic chickens are just one mutation away from bearing teeth.

Fossils are but one part of the evidence for evolution. The fossil record is extensive, but patchy for obvious reasons. Only a tiny proportion of all species, let alone individual organisms, are represented in the fossil record. But even if there were no fossils at all, the fact of evolution would be obvious from the genetic record of extant organisms, from the geological record of deep time and changing ecological conditions and from the observations available of evolution in the short term.
LOL....not quite. You said "
Archaeopteryx is a fossil leading from dinosaurs to birds."
Where are the fossils leading from dino to Archy then Archy to birds?

The answer is ....MISSING...because they never existed.
 
Are you saying a bird dies...falls to the underbrush...and would then fossilize?
No, it would be scavenged by predators. How about, bird dies, falls into a lake and sinks into the mud at the bottom of the lake and gets fossilised. That is what happened to Archaeopteryx in the Solnhofen Lagerstätte.
Yes, I have read Genesis...numerous times...and it doe(s)n't speak of evolutionism (descent with modification) as God method for bringing about animals.
So, children look exactly like their parents? Or else children are not descended from their parents? Descent with modification is exactly God's method for making animals, and plants. You and I are descended from our respective parents (that is descent), and neither of us are identical to our parents (that is modification). Observably, the world that God made uses descent with modification. Are you saying that the world that God made is deceptive?

... after Adam was formed from the dust.
Dust is non-living chemicals. Just another example of a living organism forming from non-living chemicals.

There is more than one way of interpreting the Bible, as I am sure you are aware. Unless you are called Francis, and are posting from Rome, there is no guarantee that your interpretation is infallible.
 
LOL....not quite. You said "

Where are the fossils leading from dino to Archy then Archy to birds?

The answer is ....MISSING...because they never existed.
Even if true, so what? Missing fossils, even never existing fossils do not indicate that the organism indicated via other means never existed. Fossilisation is very rare.
 
Yes, I personally don't have that evidence. However, I see no reason why organisms with fins cannot evolve into organisms with legs. In fact, some fish alive today like the mudskipper can walk. We also have tadpoles that swim like fish when young and walk on land as mature frogs.
I meant to reply to this yesterday....because the mudskipper is alive today....like the coelacanth is....it doesn't mean it evolved but rather a similiar creature existed in the past.
But that's beside the point I was making. You challenged the view that fins can evolve into legs (or was it vice versa?), and I made a very good case for the plausibility of that kind of evolution. You don't even need fossils for it because we have living creatures that show their evolutionary traits.
The amazing thing about the tadpole...as well as other metamorphic creatures....is the ability to have the genetic DNA code program for such a change.....How does that happen via a process of random mutations and chance?
You're leaving out natural selection. Frogs with advantageous traits are more likely to be "selected by nature" to pass down their DNA to offspring. After millions of years the "good" DNA lasts this selection process while the "bad" DNA perishes.

It's very simple and easy to understand.
 
I've never seen a miracle aside from the miracle of people believing in miracles.

Why would you expect to see a miracle?
And neither am I! But seriously, I think it's honest and sensible to admit error and correct it. I know I do.
LOL.
In a sense reality is hopeless. I accept that truth. In a way I like the fact that the cosmos will die a heat death.
It will be rolled up like a scroll.
I will too.

I've been civil with you. Please show me the same courtesy.
me pointing out you're pretending...isn't a not showing courtesy.

You have nor shown courtesy by answering my questions
 
Even if true, so what? Missing fossils, even never existing fossils do not indicate that the organism indicated via other means never existed. Fossilisation is very rare.
So rare you don't have any intermediates....Imagine that.
 
Where are the fossils leading from dino to Archy then Archy to birds?

The answer is ....MISSING...because they never existed.
They are only "MISSING" because you didn't bother to look.

Leading up to Archaeopteryx we have feathered dinosaurs, such as: Jinfengopteryx elegans, Juravenator starki and Sinocalliopteryx gigas.

Following Archaeopteryx we have toothed early birds, such as: Osteodontornis orri, Janavis finalidens and Icthyornis dispar.

All of those, and others, existed. They aren't mentioned in the Bible, just as Armadillos and Penguins aren't mentioned in the Bible. A great many species, living and extinct are not mentioned in the Bible. You need to look around a bit more. You are missing (or 'MISSING') a lot.
 
So rare you don't have any intermediates....Imagine that.
Oh there are intermediates. That's what Archaeopteryx is. We also have numpties who declare that being a "stand alone animal" is incompatible with being an intermediate.
 
But that's beside the point I was making. You challenged the view that fins can evolve into legs (or was it vice versa?), and I made a very good case for the plausibility of that kind of evolution. You don't even need fossils for it because we have living creatures that show their evolutionary traits.
really? Do you seriously believe that? You seem to be a fan of embrionic recapitulation.
You're leaving out natural selection. Frogs with advantageous traits are more likely to be "selected by nature" to pass down their DNA to offspring. After millions of years the "good" DNA lasts this selection process while the "bad" DNA perishes.

It's very simple and easy to understand.
As I said....all you have is coloring book explanation.

i tried to go deeper with you but you refused.
 
They are only "MISSING" because you didn't bother to look.

Leading up to Archaeopteryx we have feathered dinosaurs, such as: Jinfengopteryx elegans, Juravenator starki and Sinocalliopteryx gigas.

Following Archaeopteryx we have toothed early birds, such as: Osteodontornis orri, Janavis finalidens and Icthyornis dispar.

All of those, and others, existed. They aren't mentioned in the Bible, just as Armadillos and Penguins aren't mentioned in the Bible. A great many species, living and extinct are not mentioned in the Bible. You need to look around a bit more. You are missing (or 'MISSING') a lot.
All that means is these animals exist or once existed....you apply assumptions.
A new find is forcing evolutionists to sideline Archaeopteryx and change their story. Chinese scientists recently discovered another creature with “feathers,” named Xiaotingia zhengi, which evolutionists view as older than Archaeopteryx, based on their old-age dating assumptions. After comparing both of these creatures with modern birds and dinosaurs, the researchers concluded that neither is directly related to modern birds. In fact, they propose classifying both Archaeopteryx and Xiaotingia zhengi in the dinosaur group of Velociraptor (Deinonychosauria).
 
Back
Top