Why does evolution select against atheists?

Scientists have for the last 150 years or so taken on the Darwin stuff. To them some of the scientists this sounded pretty good. In other words we will bring the truth to people. Science embraced this idea without thinking it through. Scientists , felt that some of the question about dinosaurs and even life we see today,might be answered by this new thinking. ( though it wasn't totally new) But Darwin did popularized it. But even Darwin knew that there were holes in his ideas that he hoped science would discover later on. One of these was the transitional, fossil that need to be found for evolution to be correct. But these were not found, actually the more fossils found show that there are no transitional ones. Science now says everything is transitional, so if you can't find the evidence change the meaning of the words. Science doesn't know how life got started,, they don't know how evolution can happen in the real world what science has is theories, but nothing in the real world. So this is an emotional thing with scientist it is not based on facts or evidence, it is based on wanting to find that there was no creator. They are down this path now , they have got to prove sooner or later. That is why theories like abiogenesis has come about, Darwin's ideas don't cover everything, but abiogenesis is very much like creation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Reported for trolling.
Again.
Every single "point" in that creationist manifesto has already been explained to you and shown to be incorrect.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are some new people here, I was talking to them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Using exactly the same arguments that have already been shown to be incorrect.
In other you're regurgitating the same tired crap as you were weeks ago.
You've learnt nothing and insist on spouting the same rubbish time after time after time.
Trolling.

 

Incorrect - it is your beliefs concerning your utterly flawed version of evolution that are not based on facts or evidence - but evidently a tragically obliterated mind.

Unfortunately, no amount of work or effort on my part can fix what is clearly broken beyond any hope of repair. It's a shame certainly, but I have no desire to waste my time with someone that is, regretfully, a lost cause.

I bid you good day.

 

ok..

 

Yes, they have found all sorts of transitional fossils. In fact, they reason that certain transitional fossils must be out there in certain places in the geological record, and surprise, they actually find them.

Of course, it's impossible to say which fossils were direct ancestors or descendents of others, but the principle is well supported by the fossil record. This is exactly what one would expect if evolution were true, and what we would not expect to see if creationism were true.

Creationism states that animals were created fully formed, and do not change very much afterwards. The evidence contradicts this.

 

Not sure if this is correct but I was thinking about how many fossils would be required to follow just one evolutionary path in order to follow the changes. Suppose I went back 500 million years to the introduction of vertebrates and followed the line of a mouse or mouselike creature(not good with names) to let's say today's squirrel. If the mouse and descendants were capable of two generations a year on average over that span then would we not need 1 billion fossils(one from each successive litter) to successfully track the evolution from mouse to squirrel.

Seeing how there are only a handful of fossils for some dinosaurs and mammals I really don't expect scientists to actually come up with transitional fossils that amount to successive generations. It's absurd to think that there are several fossils of every thing that ever lived over the eons. Since the fossil record is very incomplete it provides the creationist with some sort of leverage, but any person respectful of the scientific method can see that fossils are evidence of evolution. Life is still life, it hasn't disappeared, but has merely inhabited a succession of ever changing forms on Earth.

 

Well science must be keeping it to themselves then. The reason there is not a direct line is there never was one.

 

This is what scientists say as to the reason why these fossils are not found. But these fossils should be millions compared to the fully developed ones. Any fossils found should be in the majority of these transitional ones. For these ones to reproduce they would survive long enough, and should be in the record.
The fossil record is against evolution. It does not support it. But in creation you would expect to to see completed life.

 

There is no such thing as a partially developed species.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm sorry, but this is a fallacy. There are several well-known transition series; horses, amphibians, various humans (NB: the minor whining over just how much cranial ridge an ape descendant ought to have is just absurd, compared to the massive phenotypic differences one sees in other taxa. Bloody anthropologists.) There's no need to go spouting propaganda.

 

That is exactly the point. Creation would make complete animals. Evolution would take many steps to make an animal.

 

Transitional life forms are the ones that 'evolution' says should be there , as it is trying to get all the parts an animal needs in in order to survive. So at some point legs had to come about with all the systems to make that leg work. Muscle is no good with out the bones to attach to or blood or veins or brain to control them. These all would have to be done in a trial and error way. Because 'evolution' doesn't know it making anything. Millions of these in all shapes and configurations , should be in the fossil record. But they are not there.

 

It does take many steps, and each one is complete in itself.

If creation makes "complete" animals of a specific type, then explain why the fossil record shows these types emerging from a common type.

 

Millions of configurations of legs are indeed there. All the parts evolved concurrently to make such structures work.

 

evolution developmental biology takes evolution to a new level

which is focused on the DNA of evolution rather than just fossil , physical , evidence

which is a whole new outlook of evolution

for instance how does creation explain " fossil genes " ?

 

Then that means that evolution knows where it is going what it is going to make and gets ready all the wiring etc. because in 20 steps from know i am going to make a completed leg. And then does this with no errors. This is creation. Planning and design.
'Evolution ' just makes some mutation any place and maybe this mutation is passed on, and it makes a bit of bone some place. It does know anything about muscles or blood or veins etc. So there would be millions of these errors in 'evolution'. But none are found.

 

Then get science to put a cell in a lab and see if it does this.

 

look into evolutionary developmental biology as I suggested

there you'll find your answers