Ohhh Ohhh Professor Darwin, how will your Church of 'Evolution' explain creatures SUDDENLY appearing fully functional?

If he doesn't understand what that means, he doesn't understand English. DGN now accepts that transitional fossils exist. Progress.

Yessss, yesss they do and right here.

"which is what we see in the fossil record."
Yeah if you're wearing 3D theater glasses so you can see each creature turning into another one, because there's no record of that in the ground or in the tree.


Last Edited by DGN on 05/19/2017 08:11 PM

like this

Really, so why can't you present even one?

You already saw them on the page where you took that quote. You even highlighted part of the quote with bold text -indicating you agree with it- that says they exist.

You mean where it confessed this?
"Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms."


Last Edited by DGN on 05/20/2017 01:16 AM

You did it again. What you just posted states that transitional forms do exist. You must think the quote is valid, otherwise why would you post it.

I'm glad you finally accept that transitional fossils exist. You're about 100 years late, but hey, better late than never.

No. They know what a chromosome fusion looks like and its just what we see in the chromosome #2 in humans. Vestigial centromeres and telomeres in chromosome #2.

In the eyes of creationists, this must have occurred in one of Adam and Eve's children who we all descend from since everyone has it. Inlcuding neanderthals and denisovans. Which means neanderthals and denisovans must have evolved less than 6000 years ago. But neanderthals and denisovans did not evolve from humans we share a common ancestor. Which can only mean the mutation occurred in either Adam or Eve, but why would God create anyone with mutations? Oh of course he put the mutations there to trick us. That settles it.

But mutations weren't supposed to even exist at that point since creationists think we are all a product of incest but no mutations at that time existed.... (which means no blue eyes existed either, and other traits that are the result of mutations)

Why can't you present even one?

Another great thread DGN. Thanks.

Here's something to add to the mix: [link to www.independent.co.uk (secure)]

Here's the highly-credentialed Professor's book
[link to www.jstor.org]

Interesting to note that the doctrine of scientific materialism (whence Darwinism) is more and more under scrutiny and threat.

Why would God bother with an evolutionary process, when he could just wave his eternal hand and just create it? Through science and telescopes, we are realizing the size and scope of the universe, and God is bigger than it is.

It is what they see. Different types of animals come and go through the fossil record. Animals like carnivores change over time into what we see today.

Show me just one specific example.

Yes, indeed.

And note the superlative technical achievement...just to produce this synthetic copy.

I honestly don't know how we are expected to believe that 'nature' originally did all this by itself.

Not only that but, even with the simplest of life forms, at the same time created over half a million precisely complementary DNA base pairs, the mechanics to glue them together, the outer casing...

I continue to be staggered at the sheer hubris of scientists and their bizarre belief systems.

This is just to classic;
"Scienctists have already created a living cell and with no help from "God".
So this refutes life requires deliberate intelligent design?

Micadae evolved into the order carnivora. The genus Hesperocyon were one of the earliest dog-like genus's and are considered to be around 37-42 million years old. Hesperocyoninae descended from the genus Hesperocyon. Hesperocyoninae evolved to be the first of the 3 main dog groups, Hesperocyoninae, Borophaginae and Caninae.


Why so many different types of animals? I thought earth was supposed to only be 6000 years old? They would not all be able to live on earth at the same time and 6000 years is nothing.

No human history dates back 6,000 years to Adam, no further, the earth is thought to be billions pf years old.

I would call it vastly similar to the total void of any physical evidence for your own theories. A point you continue to conveniently ignore.

BTW, how do you know what actually happened? You're just spouting your own brand of unfounded bullshit.

Just because you believe your own horseshit doesn't make it real.

Minimum intelligence is required to recognize infinite intelligence.

So you think all the animals that are alive today were around since your god created the earth??? And you think they haven't changed at all in billions of years?? Then why don't we see all of modern animals through the entire fossil record? They change over time..

That's not my quote, computer glitch

The fossil record reveals each of the six creative days were of unspecified duration, some tens of thousands of years long, archeologists would have a better estimate.

Last Edited by DGN on 05/20/2017 05:03 PM

... or they don't change in those socalled billions of years and we call them living fossils.

The entire Coelacanth paradigm fell in the water and you just willfully ignore this. I know a lot of you believers take pride in scientific guesses and ofcourse the unknown, but when the scientific endeavour proves to you the guess was wrong and you just throw this out the window, along with your credibility, even if this is only glp.

You are being quite selective, a true cherrypicker as many other believers of evolution.

[link to www.talkorigins.org]

No one is ignoring Coelacanth. Can you explain why we don't see evidence of rabbits, puppies and goats living with T-rex and raptors?

They were created later or the Trex would have woofed them down.

ALL species would show up in the entire fossil record. Not just a select few. It is you being the cherry picker

And they don't even show up in the entire fossil record either. There is a time where they do show up and there is a time where they don't see them.

That doesn't explain anything. We should see fossils of domestic dogs in the entire fossil record if they have been around since the beginning of the earth.

Actually it' strange we see dogs at all since they evolved into whales and went extinct millions of years ago. See for yourself.

You can trust Professor Darwin, he was a scientist.

Last Edited by DGN on 05/21/2017 11:11 AM