Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it is supportive of evolution. It is not. The fact is, evolution fails miserably and in this regard there is zero evidence for macroevolution, which is why evolutionists never present any. And they should not claim to be presenting evidence, when all they have is the claim that "many micro step lead to macro", which is a load of crap that they cannot prove and they know it!
Have you seen video #5 in this series yet?
I'd like to know how you can so casually dismiss all of this evidence.
The evolution THEORY is plagued with a primitive idea with no real evidence. Il give it to you guys for using your imagination...but the lack of credibility speaks for itself. I think the ape cartoon drawings are a testament to the inventiveness and primitive approach used. Believing in a creator that is in full control of everything including the steady expansion of the universe that science only figured out recently is far easier to digest using logic and reason. Evolutionists - in a fantasy.
I'm a Christian who believes in a "creator that is in full control of everything."
It seems to me that you're more interested in dismissing evolution as "fantasy" than actually discussing the evidence for it. That's too bad, because you might actually learn something new.
If you want to discuss the evidence of evolution from the fossil record, I'd be happy to do that.
If you'd rather simply dismiss the evidence and insult your fellow believers who accept evolution, then count me out.
Sorry,liberal Christianity hurts the real one.
Interestingly, militant atheists get much of their beliefs about "Christianity" from liberal Christians.They'll pejoratively label all Christians as "Fundies",then presumptively attack liberal theological concepts
they suppose us "Fundies" subscribe to. You do more harm to thr Bible than the God Haters could ever achieve with the best of their b.s.
It's interesting that you label me a "liberal Christian" without even knowing anything about my specific beliefs. It's much easier to label others than to put in the effort to understand them, isn't it?
Apparently, your real reason for rejecting evolution stems from the fact that it conflicts with how you choose to interpret the Bible. Otherwise, you'd be interested in discussing the scientific evidence, right?
If you'd like to discuss the fossil evidence of evolution, my offer still stands.
If the first Adam never existed, there would have been no need for Christ to come and qualify to rule earth. If there was not a first Adam, the reason for Christ's first coming would not be true! Again, there would be no need for a second Adam, because there would have never been a first.You are an apostate w/ no evidence to back up your anti-Biblical beliefs.
There you go again, calling me an "apostate" without even knowing anything about my beliefs. Nevertheless, I have not labeled you or your beliefs, even though you have disparaged mine.
Clearly, your reason for rejecting evolution is theological, not scientific. Otherwise, you'd jump at the chance to discuss the fossil evidence of evolution. That evidence will not go away, despite your desire to ignore it.
Apparently, you are too afraid to even discuss the scientific evidence. Why is that?
You're so sure of yourself, deliver the goods. Give us *the* answer and this thread will be over and you can get your nose back in joint. Every book, by evolutionists provides many embarrasing quotes that can be used as ammunition against the theory of evolution. I've studied this issue for over twenty-five years. How many of these quotes would you like to see me post? Believe me, some of these guys *are* real nutcases.
Who cares about quotes? Let's discuss evidence.
Earlier, you claimed that "evolution THEORY is plagued with a primitive idea with no real evidence." How do you dismiss the evidence presented in Evolution is REAL Science #5?
What about Gerobatrachus?
What about Odontochelys?
What about Najash?
What about Onychonycteris?
What about Amphistium?
What about Pezosiren?
Evolutionists predicted these fossils and their intermediate characteristics before they were discovered. How do you explain them?
Gerobatrachus is a specimen,and an incomplete one at that. However, shared features are not transitional features, Fossils do reveal some truth about Darwins theory they reveal that the same inconsistencies he noted between his theory and the fossil data persist, even after 150 years of frantic searches for elusive transitions.Not only is there no single, undisputed transition, but real fossils reveal that animals were fully formed from the beginning.
If you wanted me to read an ICR article
, you should have just pointed me to the article. Instead, you copy-n-pasted from it and dishonestly tried to pass it off as your own.
Apparently, you just typed in "Gerobatrachus" in the search bar on the ICR website and clicked on the only article that came up. That's not a very effective way to build a convincing argument. You don't come across as someone who has been studying this issue for 25 years.
Care to actually address the evidence?
Evolution is about as scientific as a rooster plucking ceremony in Haiti. Evolution has no labs and no testability. Evolution lacks supportive fossils and has more changes in it than Tyra Banks dressing room and a gazillion pissed off fruit flies haven't suggested it.Now let's talk real science.
I'm still waiting for you to actually offer a response to the fossil intermediates that I presented earlier. Those are each examples of the testability of evolution. Paleontologists used evolutionary theory to predict the existence of those fossils *before* they were actually discovered.
As it stands, all you have done is copy-n-paste material from a creationist website that does not answer my question.
You want to "talk real science?"
Address the evidence that I presented please.
Offer a response to what? You've yet to present anything that remotely helps you.The science behind evolution is not empirical, but forensic. Because evolution took place in history, its scientific investigations are after the fact-no testing, no observations, no repeatability, no falsification, nothing at all like physics. I think this is what the public discerns-that evolution is just a bunch of just-so stories disguised as legitimate science.Convoluted facts stirred into half-truths.
Another copy-n-paste from a creationist website
Is that really all you can come up with?
I wish I could say I was shocked by your continued dishonesty.
Evolution is testable and falsifiable. My videos demonstrate that.
You have no explanation for why paleontologists were able to use evolutionary theory to predict the existence of transitional fossil *before* they were discovered. This is evident from the fact that you have not even attempted to address the fossils that I presented.
I think I'll go back to ignoring comments from people who so obviously have no ability or interest in conducting an honest argument.