How Old Is The Earth?

[Boss]

Extremely unlikely but given 55 million years to work its magic it obviously has happened. If you choose to believe that God had a hand in setting up the situations that caused this to happen is fine with me. There is no evidence either way. But I feel you diminish your argument when you insist that I must believe that God had a hand in it. What you are arguing is faith. I have no problem with faith, but it is a mistake to attempt to wrap it up in science. The two can coexist quite nicely I think.

I am not making any argument for faith. I don't appreciate faith being passed off as science. If you have faith that magic happened over 55 million years, that's fine... it's just not science.

Whenever you have come to a conclusion on something... let's take for example, macro-evolution... and you believe that is the answer and you've seen enough evidence to make that determination in your mind... then you have abandoned science in favor of your faith-based belief. Science can't do anything with a conclusion. It can only explore and examine possibilities. Whenever you conclude, you've dismissed all other possibilities and science can do nothing else.

 

[Boss]

There are many transitional species...

I agree, there's just no transitional genera. Species within a genus are constantly transitioning into new species but they remain within the genus. What you have as evidence are various species which may have transitioned to a degree that appears to link to another genus taxon which also transitioned. But when you consider there were billions of life forms that are no longer here, this becomes quite tedious.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Not a single proven instance of a mammal evolving into a entirely different mammal and definitely no evidence a single mammal species somehow evolved into 2 distinctly different species.

 

[edthecynic]

I agree, there's just no transitional genera. Species within a genus are constantly transitioning into new species but they remain within the genus. What you have as evidence are various species which may have transitioned to a degree that appears to link to another genus taxon which also transitioned.

Do you mean like a venomous, egg laying, semi-aquatic mammal, with a duck's bill and webbed feet, beaver's tail and otter's body and fur transitional species????

 

[Boss]

I agree, there's just no transitional genera. Species within a genus are constantly transitioning into new species but they remain within the genus. What you have as evidence are various species which may have transitioned to a degree that appears to link to another genus taxon which also transitioned.

Do you mean like a venomous, egg laying, semi-aquatic mammal, with a duck's bill and webbed feet, beaver's tail and otter's body and fur transitional species????

Right now, you have a mammal. If and when it becomes an Anatidae, we will discuss it. But all you have here is an odd looking mammal. And, if you study this animal enough, you will discover that indeed, it does not have a duck's bill, an otter's body or beaver's tail. It has a platypus bill, body and tail.

You see, this is precisely why man invented science. It's so that we can continue asking questions and discover things as opposed to assuming things based on mere appearances.

 

[edthecynic]

I agree, there's just no transitional genera. Species within a genus are constantly transitioning into new species but they remain within the genus. What you have as evidence are various species which may have transitioned to a degree that appears to link to another genus taxon which also transitioned.

Do you mean like a venomous, egg laying, semi-aquatic mammal, with a duck's bill and webbed feet, beaver's tail and otter's body and fur transitional species????

Right now, you have a mammal. If and when it becomes an Anatidae, we will discuss it. But all you have here is an odd looking mammal. And, if you study this animal enough, you will discover that indeed, it does not have a duck's bill, an otter's body or beaver's tail. It has a platypus bill, body and tail.

You see, this is precisely why man invented science. It's so that we can continue asking questions and discover things as opposed to assuming things based on mere appearances.

And that is how Creationists do it, no matter what the transitional evidence is, they just ignore it.
Thank you.

 

[Boss]

And that is how Creationists do it, no matter what the transitional evidence is, they just ignore it.
Thank you.

Sorry, it's not "transitional" anything just because you have faith it is. It's not a matter of what I am or what I have faith in... that's just not science.

 

[edthecynic]

I agree, there's just no transitional genera. Species within a genus are constantly transitioning into new species but they remain within the genus. What you have as evidence are various species which may have transitioned to a degree that appears to link to another genus taxon which also transitioned.

Do you mean like a venomous, egg laying, semi-aquatic mammal, with a duck's bill and webbed feet, beaver's tail and otter's body and fur transitional species????

Right now, you have a mammal. If and when it becomes an Anatidae, we will discuss it. But all you have here is an odd looking mammal. And, if you study this animal enough, you will discover that indeed, it does not have a duck's bill, an otter's body or beaver's tail. It has a platypus bill, body and tail.

You see, this is precisely why man invented science. It's so that we can continue asking questions and discover things as opposed to assuming things based on mere appearances.

And that is how Creationists do it, no matter what the transitional evidence is, they just ignore it.
Thank you.

And that is how Creationists do it, no matter what the transitional evidence is, they just ignore it.
Thank you.

Sorry, it's not "transitional" anything just because you have faith it is. It's not a matter of what I am or what I have faith in... that's just not science.

Again, confronted with an obvious transitional species, a Creationist simply denies the obvious rather than give up their faith in their doctrine that no transitional species can ever be acknowledged.
Again, thank you.

 

[the_human_being]

I agree, there's just no transitional genera. Species within a genus are constantly transitioning into new species but they remain within the genus. What you have as evidence are various species which may have transitioned to a degree that appears to link to another genus taxon which also transitioned.

Do you mean like a venomous, egg laying, semi-aquatic mammal, with a duck's bill and webbed feet, beaver's tail and otter's body and fur transitional species????

Your problem here is that they have discovered a duckbill fossil well over ten thousand years old and it is exactly like those alive today. Ten thousand years with absolutely zero change. Do your research a little better.

 

[IsaacNewton]

This claim that there are no transitional examples is just ludicrous. Go talk to a Zoology or Paleontology PH.D at your local University. And anyone that utters the words "we can't trust them blah blah blah" don't bother, I have no time for derps who think they know more than the preeminent minds of the human race who have spent thousands of lifetimes collectively studying things that you have only tertiary information about.

Like so many other things that layman think there is a debate about, there is no debate. There is continual discussion about the details which are ever so slowly being filled in because we are talking about studying life that existed sometimes a billion years ago, but the basic concept of evolution is tantamount to accepted fact. 'It's just a theory', yeah so is relativity.

 

[Indeependent]

This claim that there are no transitional examples is just ludicrous. Go talk to a Zoology or Paleontology PH.D at your local University. And anyone that utters the words "we can't trust them blah blah blah" don't bother, I have no time for derps who think they know more than the preeminent minds of the human race who have spent thousands of lifetimes collectively studying things that you have only tertiary information about.

Like so many other things that layman think there is a debate about, there is no debate. There is continual discussion about the details which are ever so slowly being filled in because we are talking about studying life that existed sometimes a billion years ago, but the basic concept of evolution is tantamount to accepted fact. 'It's just a theory', yeah so is relativity.

Fortunately, University students are not driven by donor agendas.

 

[Hollie]

And that is how Creationists do it, no matter what the transitional evidence is, they just ignore it.
Thank you.

Sorry, it's not "transitional" anything just because you have faith it is. It's not a matter of what I am or what I have faith in... that's just not science.

There are many instances of transitional species. Creationists/ Supernaturalists choose to deny the evidence but denial doesn't change contingent history.


29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

 

[BreezeWood]

There are many transitional species, a search online will uncover myriad images of the progressions.

The natural mutation rate in nature is 1 every 1 million offspring. Thus the painfully slow march of evolution. From 3.5 billion years ago until about 1.2 billion years ago there were only one celled organisms. More than 2 billion years for multicellular organisms to evolve. Probably 500-600 million more years before complex organisms that were the distant forebears of today's species.

.

There are many transitional species ...


Being specific: they are stages demonstrating the Spiritual mechanism (for controlled change) which emerges eventually as a fully repeatable prototype for all the future specific same beings.

.

 

[edthecynic]

I agree, there's just no transitional genera. Species within a genus are constantly transitioning into new species but they remain within the genus. What you have as evidence are various species which may have transitioned to a degree that appears to link to another genus taxon which also transitioned.

Do you mean like a venomous, egg laying, semi-aquatic mammal, with a duck's bill and webbed feet, beaver's tail and otter's body and fur transitional species????

Your problem here is that they have discovered a duckbill fossil well over ten thousand years old and it is exactly like those alive today. Ten thousand years with absolutely zero change. Do your research a little better.

Maybe not any changes from such a short time ago, but different from the platypus from 5 million years ago which have teeth unlike any other mammalian teeth. The modern platypus has no teeth.

 

[edthecynic]

I agree, there's just no transitional genera. Species within a genus are constantly transitioning into new species but they remain within the genus. What you have as evidence are various species which may have transitioned to a degree that appears to link to another genus taxon which also transitioned.

Do you mean like a venomous, egg laying, semi-aquatic mammal, with a duck's bill and webbed feet, beaver's tail and otter's body and fur transitional species????

Right now, you have a mammal. If and when it becomes an Anatidae, we will discuss it. But all you have here is an odd looking mammal. And, if you study this animal enough, you will discover that indeed, it does not have a duck's bill, an otter's body or beaver's tail. It has a platypus bill, body and tail.

You see, this is precisely why man invented science. It's so that we can continue asking questions and discover things as opposed to assuming things based on mere appearances.

See now this is an example of the Creationist's Catch 22. No matter how many characteristics cross biological categories, and no matter how far apart those categories are, they can never be a transition species between classes because each transition species is always unique. So a platypus which has characteristics of different "classes," amphibian, reptile and mammal, it cannot represent a transition between classes because of its uniqueness.
Classes of biology are several steps above genus and species, the order is - Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and finally Species, and Creationists claim there can be no transitions as long as the Species is unique, which it always is. Catch 22. So a platypus which transitions several CLASSES can never be transitional.

 

[Boss]

See now this is an example of the Creationist's Catch 22. No matter how many characteristics cross biological categories, and no matter how far apart those categories are, they can never be a transition species between classes because each transition species is always unique. So a platypus which has characteristics of different "classes," amphibian, reptile and mammal, it cannot represent a transition between classes because of its uniqueness.
Classes of biology are several steps above genus and species, the order is - Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and finally Species, and Creationists claim there can be no transitions as long as the Species is unique, which it always is. Catch 22. So a platypus which transitions several CLASSES can never be transitional.

You have zero evidence that a platypus has ever been anything other than genus Ornithorhynchus. It doesn't transition several classes, it is a mammal and you have no evidence it was ever anything else. Shared characteristics mean absolutely NOTHING here. It looks odd... that's about it. And it's apparently on that basis you have decided to abandon science for your faith-based belief. I have no problem with your faith, I just don't like that you parade it around as if it's science when it's not.

 

[Boss]

Like so many other things that layman think there is a debate about, there is no debate.

If there is no debate, then there is no science. You've drawn a conclusion. You're now practicing faith in your conclusion and science is done. Science doesn't draw conclusions, it examines possibility. In science, possibilities are always debatable. So, again... if there is no debate, there is no science. Only faith in a belief.

 

[Hollie]

Like so many other things that layman think there is a debate about, there is no debate.

If there is no debate, then there is no science. You've drawn a conclusion. You're now practicing faith in your conclusion and science is done. Science doesn't draw conclusions, it examines possibility. In science, possibilities are always debatable. So, again... if there is no debate, there is no science. Only faith in a belief.

Quite obviously, there is debate within the science community. Its known as peer review. One of the purposes of peer review is to allow data to be studied by others, independent tests conducted and results challenged.

Creationists have no legitimate challenge to the methods of science. Why don't creationists submit their General Theory of Supernatural Creation in a form that we can submit for peer review?

 

[edthecynic]

See now this is an example of the Creationist's Catch 22. No matter how many characteristics cross biological categories, and no matter how far apart those categories are, they can never be a transition species between classes because each transition species is always unique. So a platypus which has characteristics of different "classes," amphibian, reptile and mammal, it cannot represent a transition between classes because of its uniqueness.
Classes of biology are several steps above genus and species, the order is - Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus and finally Species, and Creationists claim there can be no transitions as long as the Species is unique, which it always is. Catch 22. So a platypus which transitions several CLASSES can never be transitional.

You have zero evidence that a platypus has ever been anything other than genus Ornithorhynchus. It doesn't transition several classes, it is a mammal and you have no evidence it was ever anything else. Shared characteristics mean absolutely NOTHING here. It looks odd... that's about it. And it's apparently on that basis you have decided to abandon science for your faith-based belief. I have no problem with your faith, I just don't like that you parade it around as if it's science when it's not.

And there it is again, the Creationist's Catch 22. The platypus is a mammal that has venom and lays eggs like a reptile and lives both on land and in water like an amphibian, but by the Catch 22 rule it cannot be a transition between any other class it shares characteristics with, thus preserving the lie that there are no transition species no matter how obvious it is that they exist. Even though the platypus is part amphibian, part reptile and part mammal, because it is mostly mammal and therefore classified as Class Mammalia to the Creationist it must be ALL mammal no matter how much it varies from typical mammals.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Like so many other things that layman think there is a debate about, there is no debate.

If there is no debate, then there is no science. You've drawn a conclusion. You're now practicing faith in your conclusion and science is done. Science doesn't draw conclusions, it examines possibility. In science, possibilities are always debatable. So, again... if there is no debate, there is no science. Only faith in a belief.

I already said science continues to tease out the details but when it comes to evolution there is no debate on whether it is fact. Again, with finer details, yes. There is no 'faith' needed to look at the fossil record, see there are no multi-cellular organisms before about 1.2 billion years ago, and conclude there were no multi-cellular organisms before 1.2 billion years ago. When you look at the fossil record and see trilobites in the record for 300 million years and then there are none after the P/T boundary or the Great Dying extinction event, and conclude trilobites are no longer on Earth, it requires no 'faith'. We don't see them anymore.

The other side of that coin applies as well. When you see a very primitive form 540 million years ago, and then slow advancements of that form, i.e. a fish, then a fish with thick legs, then a fish with a lung-like organ, then an amphibian, then a wholly land creature that breathes air, with all the same characteristics except for the slow changes over hundreds of millions of years, you don't need faith. And when you can see the branches of evolution of one organism into various other forms so you know what the progenitor is and what various body types and forms came from it, which ones thrived and which ones died off, you don't need faith.

But you do. Some people do need faith and it wouldn't matter what evidence there was it wouldn't change their need for faith. So keep your faith.

But don't try to claim that everyone else just has 'faith' as you do. I go by evidence. Evidence gathered and studied ad nauseum by extremely intelligent people over the last 150 years.