Creation vs. Evolution

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian teases Mark about being afraid to answer the question:
So you're planning on dodging the question forever, or do you think you'll be able to find two groups lacking a transitional?

Mark tries to change the subject:

How old are the Fossils of those "Snails" Supposed to be, Barbie?

If you can't find even one case without a transitional, isn't that a clue for you?

Why not at least try?

 

[alwight]

I would think that a lot of trashy seaweed, unnecessary shells, dead fish, etc., and dirt would be left in the sandy beaches. We filter our in-ground pool using sand also.

I think the sea rather looks after itself Michael.

They are facts that are written in our Bible, which you can learn in any Sunday School when you are under the age of 12. Al, some are also plagues to happen yet. They are predicted in Our Bible. We shall know they are true by when they happen, which is soon. It's not by some excellent author knew it.

Not for me, words are just words and fantasy stories, while without supporting evidence.

Well, I believe it because I believe in God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost!

Yes, I sort of suspected that Michael.

Well, Jesus did it (didn't stay dead), but you don't believe in Him. It also happened to a girl and a friend also of Jesus', by Him doing it (raising them from the dead). Ask Barbarian. You will find out in the near future also that it will happen because you'll be seeing it with your own two eyes and saying, "Why didn't I listen to Michael?"

I can accept that a historical Jesus was probably true but people don't come back from the dead despite what a few non-eyewitness evangelists may have written years after Jesus' death, for dramatic effect.

Well, you aren't God, Alwight, or else you would know why God does it. He is a loving God and just like your parents loved you very much, they also had to spank you at times to help raise you correctly. That's why God does it. You don't have enough teaching of the Scriptures or Sunday schooling that most kids get when they are younger. I'm sorry about it. The Lord will explain it to you in due time. Just hang in there.


:sigh:

:help:

:shut:

I don't suppose that you are God either Michael. The cruelty that is sometimes bestowed upon some quite innocent people goes well beyond parental care imo. Clearly no loving, caring and involved god at least is running the show.

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Barbarian teases Mark about being afraid to answer the question:
So you're planning on dodging the question forever, or do you think you'll be able to find two groups lacking a transitional?

Mark tries to change the subject:


If you can't find even one case without a transitional, isn't that a clue for you?

Why not at least try?

LOL!!!

No. What I'm saying is that there is not one Single Transitional Fossil; I don't think that Transitional Fossils Exist.

I simply believe that Creatures were Created Containing all the Functional Modern Anatomy, that they have possessed since the Day they were first Created Originally.

Which is why If you believe that all Creatures descended from a Common ancestor, and that many of them appeared over a Long Time; What do you think our Common ancestor is Originally?

Was it a Trilobite, Plant, Mushroom, Starfish, Trilobite or Sponge?


What do you think, as an Evolutionist; What do you believe our Common Ancestor Was, during the Time you believe that the Trilobite was Still Living?

If all the Modern Animals Share a common ancestor, why are there starfish in the Same Layers as the Earliest Forms of Trilobite?



Thanks Barbie, I'm not avoiding a Question, if I'm giving you an Answer to your Question;

Kimberella was a protomollusk, with a shell, foot like a snail, and radula. But no eyes, like later clams snails and cephalopods. No arms like cepalopods.

Spriggina had a segmented body and a head shield like a trilobite, but no eyes, and no jointed appendages, just very simple, short appendages on each segment, which allowed it to crawl slowly on seafloors.

So you're planning on dodging the question forever, or do you think you'll be able to find two groups lacking a transitional?

I think Every Modern Animal lacks a Transitional Fossil which proves that all Modern Forms of Life Descended from a common Ancestor.

I don't believe that any Actual Transitional Fossils even Exist in the Fossil Record.

That's why I'm asking you to show me a Single Believable Transitional Fossil, between a Species of ancient form of animal, and a Modern one today; Because, I don't think they Exist.

Just show me One Example, Ol' Girl.

I also answered your Question more Clearly, Here;

The First animals that Appear in the Fossil Record, contained all the Modern Functional Anatomy that they Did the Entire time they Existed on this Planet (Trilobites, and Starfish)

That Proves Animals Contained Fully Functional Anatomy from the Time they First Appeared on the Earth, until present day ( Like the Starfish ), or Until they Went Extinct ( Like the Trilobite ).

If every Animal in the Fossil Record contains Fully Functional Anatomy, when they First Appeared on this Planet; That Proves Creation all on It's Own, with Observable Evidence in the Fossil Record, and in the Natural World.



=M=

 

[nodelink]

A. How many naturally occuring fossils do we have from the last few thousand years of earth's existence?

A. Not many if any. If seems like the only creatures whose remains remain are those who were artificially preserved via embalming, volcanic burial or other atypical or un-natural means of preservation. Every thing else returned to dirt and dust.

The existence of fossils at all is evidence of rapid deposition of sediments or other extra-ordinary means of preservation.

 

[MichaelCadry]

I think the sea rather looks after itself Michael.

Not for me, words are just words and fantasy stories, while without supporting evidence.

Yes, I sort of suspected that Michael.

I can accept that a historical Jesus was probably true but people don't come back from the dead despite what a few non-eyewitness evangelists may have written years after Jesus' death, for dramatic effect.

I don't suppose that you are God either Michael. The cruelty that is sometimes bestowed upon some quite innocent people goes well beyond parental care imo. Clearly no loving, caring and involved god at least is running the show.

Dear Alwight

No, I'm not God either, Alwight. Yes, there is a Wonderful Father taking good care of us, despite these are the days of Tribulation and we were told it would be bad. Someday, very soon, life will be really nice on Earth. Until then, we hope and we hate the ways of the devil. God's giving him a chance to take all the souls he can muster of us all. But the true ones that love Him dearly, they will stay yet. "And those who endure to the end shall be greater." or something to that effect. But God will separate the wheat from the chaff. Those who believe in Him and Jesus will go to Heaven. Those who go to sleep for 1,000 years shall inherit the Earth. They are the meek. And those who do not believe in God and Jesus will go to hell. I'm so sorry to tell you this. I know. You don't believe in Heaven or Hell, but ignorance will not matter. Because they blaspheme God never even believing He exists. It is God's Will that all make it to Heaven. But if that soul does not want it, then que sera, sera. Not good. But Jesus shall decide and he says, "No man comes to the Father, but by Me (Jesus)." Perhaps you shall make it with them who go to sleep for 1,000 years. But those fanatic Muslims and other murderers shall be in for a big surprise when they don't get their virgins when they die. Like I said, Al, I am no judge. God and Jesus are judgers, and they are kinder than me. I just let you know the odds.

God Be With You Alwight,

Michael

:sigh:

:shut:

:jawdrop:

 

[MichaelCadry]

A. How many naturally occuring fossils do we have from the last few thousand years of earth's existence?

A. Not many if any. If seems like the only creatures whose remains remain are those who were artificially preserved via embalming, volcanic burial or other atypical or un-natural means of preservation. Every thing else returned to dirt and dust.

The existence of fossils at all is evidence of rapid deposition of sediments or other extra-ordinary means of preservation.

Hi nodelink,

Yes, and some can be found in deep ice, like that on Mount Ararat. The ark could be buried there deep in the ice. It's like a thing that we can't get to in order to prove it is the ark. Would the atheists believe Christians then? I doubt it very much. Once the Evolutionist is silenced, he comes up again with some lies because talking evolution is all he knows. It will be boring for them.

God Be With You, Nodelink,

Michael



:juggle:

 

[alwight]

A. How many naturally occuring fossils do we have from the last few thousand years of earth's existence?

A. Not many if any. If seems like the only creatures whose remains remain are those who were artificially preserved via embalming, volcanic burial or other atypical or un-natural means of preservation. Every thing else returned to dirt and dust.

The existence of fossils at all is evidence of rapid deposition of sediments or other extra-ordinary means of preservation.

Oh well, there goes radiometric dating, palaeontology, geology and probably astrophysics, ...once again. :wave2:

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

AL;

Do you know what the First Fossils were that were "Radiometric Dated"?

What Evolved First, a Snail or a Strawberry Plant?


=M=


Why would Creationists have a Problem with Paleontology or Astrophysics?

Where do you think we get the Fossils to disprove the theories based around the Theory of Evolution from?

Astrophysicists help us understand that we can Observe that we live in a Fine-Tuned universe, full of Super-Conscious Art and Design.

I think Creationists can accept actual Observable truth, much easier than a Biased Evolutionist, that uses forms of Denial as a Debate Tactic.

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Like the One that is Here now, and Can't wait to get the Parking Spot; Right after Me!!!

LOL!!!


=M=

 

[The Barbarian]

Do you know what the First Fossils were that were "Radiometric Dated"?

Few fossils can be directly dated that way. Most are dated by dating igneous rock above and below the site.

What Evolved First, a Snail or a Strawberry Plant?

Snails. Gastropods first appeared in the Cambrian, and there were definitely true snails by the Silurian.

On the other hand, angiosperms (such as strawberries, grasses, and most trees) didn't appear until about 170 million years ago, in the Jurassic.

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Few fossils can be directly dated that way. Most are dated by dating igneous rock above and below the site.

Snails. Gastropods first appeared in the Cambrian, and there were definitely true snails by the Silurian.

On the other hand, angiosperms (such as strawberries, grasses, and most trees) didn't appear until about 170 million years ago, in the Jurassic.

:mock: Barbie Girl.

LOL!!!


=M=

 

[MichaelCadry]

:mock: Barbie Girl.

LOL!!!


=M=

Wow, Mark!!

I would have thought the strawberry plants were first. Didn't God make the plants first?? We just don't have proof of them to draw from? So these snails liked strawberries, eh?

What the heck happened to yesterday?!!

Much Love, In Christ,

Michael

:jawdrop:

:sigh:

:shut:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hey Y'All,

If God created the Universe 3 days before man, the Universe could still be very vast in that time period for sure. So I guess it is possible. I'm still YEC. Can't help it. It will interesting to find out that the Universe is 4.5 billion years old, or however much it is. I don't see why God would say the Universe was created 3 days before man and yet it is so very old. See what the future brings.

Christ's Love Be Upon You!!

Michael

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Wow, Mark!!

I would have thought the strawberry plants were first. Didn't God make the plants first?? We just don't have proof of them to draw from? So these snails liked strawberries, eh?

What the heck happened to yesterday?!!

Much Love, In Christ,

Michael

:jawdrop:

:sigh:

:shut:

That's what I think also.

: D


=M=


Yesterday?

Explain what you mean... about Yesterday. Yes, today is another day, and a Day only lasts around 24 Hours.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Mark,

Yesterday, we taught evolutionists that they were wrong. And now, today, they want us to forget it all?? Hopefully, they are just learning that they can't always go against believing in God and what He said happened. If the Universe was 3 days older than man, that's a lot of time for a vast Universe to come together. Especially as fast as some things can be. Life is interesting indeed. Eternal Life is going to be marvelous and excellent.

Michael

 

[alwight]

AL;

Do you know what the First Fossils were that were "Radiometric Dated"?

No

What Evolved First, a Snail or a Strawberry Plant?

No idea, so what? :idunno:

=M=


Why would Creationists have a Problem with Paleontology or Astrophysics?

Don't know, ask a creationist.
Natural sciences make unhelpful and inconvenient conclusions that creationists are told they must dogmatically reject if they contradict a literal Genesis, no matter how thorough and rigorous the science..

Where do you think we get the Fossils to disprove the theories based around the Theory of Evolution from?

You don't.

Astrophysicists help us understand that we can Observe that we live in a Fine-Tuned universe, full of Super-Conscious Art and Design.

You might learn from astrophysics that heavy elements were created in stars billions of years before we came along.

I think Creationists can accept actual Observable truth, much easier than a Biased Evolutionist, that uses forms of Denial as a Debate Tactic.

I'm sure that "Biased Evolutionists" everywhere will all be suitably impressed by your opinions and post formatting skills Mark.

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Natural sciences make unhelpful and inconvenient conclusions that creationists are told they must dogmatically reject if they contradict a literal Genesis, no matter how thorough and rigorous the science.. Continue, and Possibly Give an Example of One?

You don't ( Have Fossil Evidence that disproves Evolution, and Proves Creation? =M= ).

The First Trilobites on Record, contained every anatomical feature that they did the entire time they are supposed to have Existed on this Planet; and, they contained these advanced Functional Features Originally.

Evolutionists admit that Trilobites most likely did not Descend out of Worms.

Trilobites that did not have Eyes, descended from ones that Had Eyes.

Animals are Losing Anatomy, and not "Gaining New (Never Before Seen) Functional Anatomy"; Which is what I would expect to see happening, if All the Modern Animals Descended from a Common Ancestor.

The Fact that Trilobites Appear Suddenly, Containing all the Various Anatomy that they Contained until they Apparently became Extinct; Seems to me to seem to show that Trilobites "Did Not Descend from Anything but a Trilobite".

Also, Starfish that Contained all the Modern Functional Anatomy that Their Modern Descendants Currently Contain today; Lived with the First Trilobites, given they have been found in the Same Layers of Earth as the Trilobites.

If you believe Starfish have Contained Exactly the Same Functional Starfish Anatomy, for over 450 Million Years; Why would you believe that the Starfish has ever looked like anything but a Starfish?


=M=


If all Modern Animals, Descended from "Modern Animals"; in the Evolutionist's Phylogenetic Tree: Why do you believe in Evolution, AL?

 

[alwight]

The First Trilobites on Record, contained every anatomical feature that they did the entire time they are supposed to have Existed on this Planet Originally.

Evolutionists admit that Trilobites most likely did not Descend out of Worms.

Trilobites that did not have Eyes, descended from ones that Had Eyes.

Animals are Losing Anatomy, and not "Gaining New Functional Anatomy; Which is what I would expect to see happening, if All the Modern Animals Descended from a Common Ancestor.

The Fact that Trilobites Appear Suddenly, Containing all the Various Anatomy that they Contained until they Apparently became Extinct; Seems to me to seem to show that Trilobites "Did Not Descend from Anything but a Trilobite".

Also, Starfish that Contained all the Modern Functional Anatomy that Their Modern Descendants Currently Contain today; Lived with the First Trilobites, given they have been found in the Same Layers of Earth as the Trilobites.


=M=

If I ever thought that you were ever going to honestly answer questions and actual points raised, rather than going off on random assertions, accusations, wiz-bangs and other distractions, perhaps without all the pointless post formatting that has to be worked around, then we might get somewhere. lain:

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

I'm sorry, I'm not from france or whatever part of Europe you are from...

What is a "Wiz-Bang"?


=M=


Really Though, AL; What "Observable Truth", allows you to believe that Animals have Ever Given Birth to another Species of Animal, that could no Longer Interbreed with it's ancestral Line?

If you cannot think of, or Find an Example of this Ever Happening; Why do you think a Theory that States, "All Modern Animals Descended from a Common Ancestor", is Believable in any way Whatsoever?

 

[alwight]

Really Though, AL; What "Observable Truth", allows you to believe that Animals have Ever Given Birth to another Species of Animal, that could no Longer Interbreed with it's ancestral Line?

If you cannot think of, or Find an Example of this Ever Happening; Why do you think a Theory that States, "All Modern Animals Descended from a Common Ancestor", is Believable in any way Whatsoever?

Take a break Mark, you really don't want to understand Darwinian evolution. It really won't help at all if you are told once again that if one species ever gave birth to another then the ToE would be wrong. That is not what "evolutionists" are saying and never have, which you probably know anyway.