Who can explain soft tissue found in fossils?

If they are 2 distinct species of sheep and the result is a new species, then yes it does.

And I do understand what I am talking about. You simply can not comprehend because you believe it is all magic. And by definition magic is incomprehensible.

 

I will state this once again, v--e--r--y-- s--l--o--w--l--y for you. A-d-a-p-t-a-t-i-o-n w-i-t-h-i-n t-h-e s-p-e-c-i-e-s i-s N--O--T i-n c-o-n-t-e-n-t-i-o-n

That is called microevolution by Neo-Darwinists, prove macroevolution, the change of one kind of animal into another, a mouse into a bat, a dog into a cat, a crocodile into a duck.

Last chance!

 

Nobody claims that at all, that is your fail. That you are simply making claims that nobody else does, only you.

That is your fail, that is why you will always fail. You do not understand evolution, nor do you want to understand it. You make stupid claims and then scream that proves you are right.

This is why I hate fanatics of any type, they are so stupid and locked into their tiny limited mindset that they can't understand anything else.

And it is because of this that this entire thread belongs in the Conspiracy Theory section, or Religion. Or maybe make an entirely new thread called Junk Science.

 

Yet, you as well as everyone else can only stick out your tongue and childishly say, "Nuuhh uuhhh".

STILL no scientific evidence from your side of the debate. Speculation, opinion, etc. NEVER once has anyone been able to debate with any real science, (HINT: there isn't any for evolution.)

 

Plentiful evidence, you simply refuse to accept anything that does not agree with your beliefs.

To you there obviously is no science. No medicine either, I guess you just prey if you get sick.

 

All of you keep stating there is plenty of evidence but you refuse to show any. Name ONE, just ONE piece of conclusive fragment of evidence for the fairy tale of evolution. Just ONE.

 

What is science? It is man's attempt using observation and thought, in order to understand what we call reality. But it has of course changed from its inception when one idea was proven to be incapable of explaining a particular thing, generally when a new insight or discovery was made. And so, some science has been tentative, but a particular theory was changed, or done away with, but before that, everyone in science believed it to be valid. Einstein ran into great resistance until it was finally proven that he was correct. So the human element in science can never be discounted. People will hang onto old beliefs, even scientists, to the very last minute. If academia has accepted such beliefs, it sometime takes quite awhile to bring that on board, due to human nature. No one likes being utterly wrong about something especially if it was his theory. LOL. And especially if it was an entrenched paradigm in scientific thinking.

 

Perhaps its like those monkeys in that Kipling novel. When asked how the monkeys knew something, the reply was, "we all say so, so it must be true". Lots of that in Neo Darwinism.

I am still waiting and watching for one species to turn into another species. Shouldn't we at least see some signs of that happening, given we have had a few thousand years of man watching animals? Wonder what our species will eventually turn into? A two legged new species? That will look nothing like man? Why are we not seeing brand new single cell lifeforms, forming in the goo? Did all of that just stop?

 

Heck, I'd love to have a tail again [sic].

 

Evolution does not say that a mouse can change into a bat, or a dog can change into a cat, or a crocodile can change into a duck. Please stop getting your information from Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, they are not biologists.

Evolution is nothing more than the change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations. The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is time. There is no physical process which prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution.

 

NaturalBorn read up on logical fallacies and didn't know what fallacies meant.

 

Use Google and scare the pants off yourself.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

 

I have no problem with acknowledging that anything carried out by humans will be subject to human behaviour. I watched a very interesting documentary on Dan Everett and the crap heaped on him by Chomsky and his followers. So, yes, science is extremely conservative, but that probably means they avoid a lot of bandwaggons.

http://www.essential-media.com/node/119 - very, very interesting if you are interested in language.

 

This will be at least the third time you have requested the data that you will ignore...and the third time I have posted it. I request that you reply to this information and explain how it came about without using the theory of Evolution?



The data is conclusive and well documented, the information supporting what you refer to as "Macro" evolution is quite extensive and plentiful. It is very likely you will again refuse to address this and instead go on asking for the same thing provided to you by many here....rather pathetic and indicative of a closed mind.

 

The evidence indicates that the Earth is approximately 47 years old.

 

To my knowledge science never says "could not" about anything. Even Einstein's proposition that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is still open to scientific debate. Science often says "highly improbable" and "no evidence of" but science doesn't say something "could not" happen.

 

Dayum...I'm 2 yrs. older than the Earth?

There it is folks...absolute and undeniable proof that I AM GOD!

I'll supply my birth certificate upon request.

 

I've always wondered what God's birth certificate would look like.

I'm requesting, please show the forum.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBcFjNUzFJ0

 

Okay....it's a bit faded, and I had one of my children do some touch up. Still, you can just make out the details.

 

A wall of links is not evidence, find one that is not a supposition, opinion, assumption, hypothesis and post that in your own words to porove you understand it and are not simply parroting what you have been indoctrinated to believe.

 

A drawing is your evidence to prove your fairy tale?

- - - Updated - - -

Including Creation by God. Finally an honest answer.

 

Believe it or not, Drawings of things that no longer exists are often used to represent Data....take a look at your Bible(s), or the Sistine chapel. In this case it is the fleshing out of fossilized remains and extrapolation of data to create images that explain the details of theory based on scientific findings, rather than a paining of a bearded old man floating in the sky.

At least this time you managed to reply, though you did so very poorly and did not answer the question. Would you care to try again?

 

Drawings are someone's imagination and is not science. Yes, just as the video 'drawings' depicted, a nanoscale environment unseen by us, drawings can be helpful, but the drawing you presented is fantasy and nothing more than speculative.

How about answering the OP?

 

I already have in post #23....you did not reply to that one either. I will kindly resubmit it to save you the effort:

Basically, unless someone can somehow avoid using links, present you with physical fossilized remains, is a professional Paleontologist/Archeologist/Geneticist/and has a time machine to transport you back in time there is no way to convince you of things most already know.

There is no point in trying anymore...believe what you will, you are not worth the effort.