{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/5/2015 3:32:37 PM
4
Last bit of counterclaim on my part: creationists such as yourself tend to use the Bible as their only solid piece of evidence, while evolutionists like myself use embryology, the fossil record, and homologous structures to support the theory of evolution.
[spoiler]Goodbye now. I've given up on you.[/spoiler]
English
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 5/5/2015 10:29:45 PMThe fossil record shows evidence of only micro-evolution (variations of the same species), but it does not show either branches of at least one species or the high count of transitional fossils for even one species. If evolution does indeed operate over millions to billions of years, is their not supposed to be over at least a million (which there isn't) transitional fossil records per species? Evolutionists claim that the process of evolution is in fact very slow and very minuet, but all atheistic archeologists can find are only an acclaimed few and state, "These few (not many) transitional fossils tell us that [insert name of species] have evolved on planet Earth for over millions of millennia." Even Darwin doubted as to the origin of these small minuet changes that were acclaimed to be caused by the present environmental hazards he assumed to be affecting their biology, saying, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I confess, absurd in the highest degree...The difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection , though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered subversive of the theory" (On the Origin of Species, Chapter 6). The study of abiogenesis (the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.) doesn't even have a conclusion as to the manifestation of organic life from non-organic material, or even a conclusion as to the necessity and development of intelligence (for only one species) and complexity.[quote]...the theory of evolution.[/quote]I rest my case.
-
Micro and macro evolution are literally the same thing. I'm not an expert on fossils, but I think we have found a considerable amount. You didn't post the rest of that quote. After he said that, Darwin went into depth about how an organ as complex as an eye could be formed by evolutionary processes.
-
[quote]Micro and macro-evolution are literally the same thing.[/quote]Micro-evolution is May be evidenced evolutionary variation, but it's evidenced evolutionary variation of the [b]same[/b] species. Macro, as it has been explained to me, is just assumed combination of a lot of micro-evolution over millions to billions of years.[quote]I'm not an expert on fossils, but I think we have found a considerable amount.[/quote]...but not at least a thousand transitional forms for at least one species?[quote]You didn't post the rest of that quote. After he said that, Darwin went into depth about how an organ as complex as an eye could be formed by evolutionary processes.[/quote]By all means, please post.
-
Please look into Neil DeGrass Tyson and his thoughts on evolution, it's on Netflix.
