posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 01:39 PM
That does not show evolution since only evolutionists argue that all those are of the same lineage of bipeds. I see many who COULD be related but a
visual observation of skeletal remains is not enough to claim that they are in fact all derivative of one another.
Is there genetic evidence to support such claims? NO. Is there transitional fossils to prove such a claim of one leading into the other? NO. By yours
and evolutionary theorists logic, all primates alive today sharing our world with us if dug up in a thousand years would be stages leading into us.
The fact that there are and always have been many types of primates living side by side with us says that everyone of those examples could simply be a
separate species. In fact as new species of hominids are discovered the family tree of humanity is given MORE branches of separate "evolutionary"
directions. If evolution is correct then yes they are all separate evolutionary dead ends....or if common sense tells us anything, they are separate
species with SIMILAR characteristics which they adapted to survive in similar environments.
A quick google search with the term transitional fossils:
List of transitional fossils
A few selected transitional fossils
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
Transitional Forms (1 of 2)
I especially like this one since it addresses your very claim of no transitional fossils:
There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence
completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another.
However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of
evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.
Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless,
we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very
well filled out.
YET evolutionary theorists embrace this concept entirely. If not there would be no argument between creationists and evolutionists. It could be
peacefully said that GOD created life and evolution changed it.....YET they always incorporate it into their argument. Dont back pedal now. You mean
to tell me you have never argued this with a creationists before or after arguing evolution...? That would be a lie if you said NEVER....hence why I
simply include it. It is used to support evolutionary theory seamlessly.
No I have NEVER incorporated it into my pro-evolution argument. It is ALWAYS creationists who bring this point up first then the evolutionists have to
correct them. I think it is entirely possible for God and evolution to coexist and if God does exist, evolution is the answer to how not why. You seem
to think that evolutionists think that evolution is the answer to why. This isn't the case and is a trap that many Creationists fall for.
NO, if there is no proof or there is simply inconclusive evidence....to call it fact is faith. You dont know but choose to believe it is
so....very good at honoring the scientific process...
There is plenty of evidence to support evolution that you are choosing to ignore. Here another simple google search:
What is the evidence for evolution?
Human Evolution Evidence
Human Evolution Evidence
(different from above link)
Evidence for Evolution
I NEVER said I was a proponent of this idea. I have actually studied the bible and know that there are all sorts of issues as far as
translation errors and marginalia errors to simple read a king james version and think 10 thousand years is what was originally allotted. If you even
care the Hebrew words used over and over again mean a period of time....not a concrete notion of this or that amount of time. Af far as the order of
things being created...they werent that far off. The evidence actually agrees with the order of creation as proposed by the bible....FYI
The evidence that you fail to provide agrees with the order of creation as proposed by the bible? Which order by the way?
The two contradictory creation accounts.
like to keep an open mind...its how we learn.
You certainly aren't demonstrating that with this thread by continually ignoring evidence, making up lies about your opposition, and misrepresenting
Again, then why do evolutionists always use it when detracting from the arguments of creationists and to support their claim of a non
creationists view of life and its process.
Again, they don't. This is a tactic used by creationists who don't fully understand what evolution is.
Often brought up in the origins debate is how evolution does not explain the origin of life. Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis
and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the
processes which take place once life has started up. There may also be multiple pathways to producing naturally occurring "life". Depending, of
course, on the definition of life. This is something that Ben Stein is apparently willfully ignorant of.
An objection to the distinction is that it is goalpost moving but this would only be true if evolution at some point did try to explain the origin of
life and then people moved away from it. This is not the case at all. Evolutionary theory started with the observation of the mutability of species -
a property that only exists once life has begun, indeed later definitions of "life" have often used the ability to evolve as a key component. This,
of course, has been known for some time as animals and crops have been selectively bred for thousands of years. Later, the idea was refined by Charles
Darwin in the form of natural selection, where nature provides the selection criteria to drive evolution. At no point was evolution, nor natural
selection, about explaining the origin of life.