What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

[Gary Childress]

How do you account for the apparent fact that the fossil record seems to show progress over time?

It doesn't, actually.

My understanding is that microorganisms predate other creatures by about a billion years in the fossil record, and humans and apes that have the ability to use tools didn't show up until much later, after many prior species that seemingly couldn't. Isn't that a kind of progress in the sense that simpler and less intelligent beings became more complex?

[Immanuel Can]

My understanding is that microorganisms predate other creatures by about a billion years in the fossil record...

Yes, that's what you've been told. And?

...and humans and apes that have the ability to use tools...

Ah, still buying into the old "monkey-to-man" theory? Even modern Evolutionists now admit that was wrong. Time to update.

Isn't that a kind of progress in the sense that simpler and less intelligent beings became more complex?

Show me that it happened.

[Gary Childress]

My understanding is that microorganisms predate other creatures by about a billion years in the fossil record...

Yes, that's what you've been told. And?

...and humans and apes that have the ability to use tools...

Ah, still buying into the old "monkey-to-man" theory? Even modern Evolutionists now admit that was wrong. Time to update.

https://chatgpt.com/share/67f313f4-a408 ... 85487d4719

Apparently, they have found many transitional fossils between apes and humans, showing some traits of both species, or so it is claimed. I mean, I will say that I can see fair grounds for your skepticism over evolution; however, unlike you, I also have skepticism over the Biblical account. I'm willing to say that I don't know which is the case with 100% certainty. Do you think Genesis is an accurate account of evolution, or are you skeptical about it also?

[Immanuel Can]

My understanding is that microorganisms predate other creatures by about a billion years in the fossil record...

Yes, that's what you've been told. And?

...and humans and apes that have the ability to use tools...

Ah, still buying into the old "monkey-to-man" theory? Even modern Evolutionists now admit that was wrong. Time to update.

Apparently, they have found many transitional fossils between apes and humans,

Your data is old. No credible Evolutionist believes in the monkey-to-man theory. It's now the "common ancestor" theory, and this supposed "common ancestor" may be as far back as the primordial soup...nobody knows for sure.

That's how it goes with myths...nobody knows a great number of things.

Do you think Genesis is an accurate account of evolution, or are you skeptical about it also?

You'll have to show me where you think Genesis argues for evolution.

[Ben JS]

EVERY thing was created by the coming together of at least two OTHER things.

ONCE AGAIN, EVERY thing, besides 'matter', 'space', and the Universe, Itself, was ONCE 'created', (from at least two other things, literally, coming-together)

Power to ya.

[Age]

EVERY thing was created by the coming together of at least two OTHER things.

ONCE AGAIN, EVERY thing, besides 'matter', 'space', and the Universe, Itself, was ONCE 'created', (from at least two other things, literally, coming-together)

Power to ya.

'I' AM A VERY SLOW Being.

Now, what does, 'Power to ya', here, MEAN, EXACTLY?

[Age]

Yes, that's what you've been told. And?
Ah, still buying into the old "monkey-to-man" theory? Even modern Evolutionists now admit that was wrong. Time to update.

Apparently, they have found many transitional fossils between apes and humans,

Your data is old. No credible Evolutionist believes in the monkey-to-man theory. It's now the "common ancestor" theory, and this supposed "common ancestor" may be as far back as the primordial soup...nobody knows for sure.

That's how it goes with myths...nobody knows a great number of things.

Like, for example, the MYTH that God has a penis, gonads, and a beard.

Do you think Genesis is an accurate account of evolution, or are you skeptical about it also?

You'll have to show me where you think Genesis argues for evolution.

"eve", 'woman', FROM 'man' "adam" = earth.

ALL things come FROM something ELSE, which, by the way, ALL CHANGE INTO something ELSE, (besides, OF COURSE, for 'matter', 'space', and the Universe, Itself).

[Gary Childress]

Yes, that's what you've been told. And?
Ah, still buying into the old "monkey-to-man" theory? Even modern Evolutionists now admit that was wrong. Time to update.

Apparently, they have found many transitional fossils between apes and humans,

Your data is old. No credible Evolutionist believes in the monkey-to-man theory. It's now the "common ancestor" theory, and this supposed "common ancestor" may be as far back as the primordial soup...nobody knows for sure.

That's how it goes with myths...nobody knows a great number of things.

Do you think Genesis is an accurate account of evolution, or are you skeptical about it also?

You'll have to show me where you think Genesis argues for evolution.

My bad. I mean do you think Genesis is as accurate an account as evolution of how everything began on Earth? Or do you think Genesis is more likely what happened?

[Immanuel Can]

Apparently, they have found many transitional fossils between apes and humans,

Your data is old. No credible Evolutionist believes in the monkey-to-man theory. It's now the "common ancestor" theory, and this supposed "common ancestor" may be as far back as the primordial soup...nobody knows for sure.

That's how it goes with myths...nobody knows a great number of things.

Do you think Genesis is an accurate account of evolution, or are you skeptical about it also?

You'll have to show me where you think Genesis argues for evolution.

My bad. I mean do you think Genesis is as accurate an account as evolution of how everything began on Earth? Or do you think Genesis is more likely what happened?

I think the important thing is to believe what Genesis says about the origin and character of human beings: namely, that they are not products of a cosmic accident-plus-time-plus-evolution, but the product of a deliberate act of creation and appointing by God.

[Impenitent]

The most important thing from Genesis is either Peter Gabriel or Phil Collins...

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

Your data is old. No credible Evolutionist believes in the monkey-to-man theory. It's now the "common ancestor" theory, and this supposed "common ancestor" may be as far back as the primordial soup...nobody knows for sure.

That's how it goes with myths...nobody knows a great number of things.


You'll have to show me where you think Genesis argues for evolution.

My bad. I mean do you think Genesis is as accurate an account as evolution of how everything began on Earth? Or do you think Genesis is more likely what happened?

I think the important thing is to believe what Genesis says about the origin and character of human beings: namely, that they are not products of a cosmic accident-plus-time-plus-evolution, but the product of a deliberate act of creation and appointing by God.

Fair enough.

[Ben JS]

'I' AM A VERY SLOW Being.

same

Now, what does, 'Power to ya', here, MEAN, EXACTLY?

'ya' is slang for the word 'you'.

And the phrase generally is an offer of support.
Wishing that the other is successful in their endeavours.
That they soar.

I liked the trajectory of your act, or what I perceived to be your act.
Thus, in my modest way, I say well done,
and if this is a metric for what can be expected of you in the future,
then I send my spiritual support.

-

Power to ya, Age.
Fly true.

[Age]

Your data is old. No credible Evolutionist believes in the monkey-to-man theory. It's now the "common ancestor" theory, and this supposed "common ancestor" may be as far back as the primordial soup...nobody knows for sure.

That's how it goes with myths...nobody knows a great number of things.


You'll have to show me where you think Genesis argues for evolution.

My bad. I mean do you think Genesis is as accurate an account as evolution of how everything began on Earth? Or do you think Genesis is more likely what happened?

I think the important thing is to believe what Genesis says about the origin and character of human beings: namely, that they are not products of a cosmic accident-plus-time-plus-evolution, but the product of a deliberate act of creation and appointing by God.

What A Truly bizarre thing to SAY and to TELL others TO DO.

IMAGINE being SO 'BLIND-SIDED' BY your very OWN VERY ABUSIVE and DISTORTED 'upbringing' that you ACTUALLY went around TELLING others that the IMPORTANT thing TO DO is to BELIEVE what is SAID and WRITTEN in A book, BECAUSE you "yourself" had been TOLD TO BELIEVE what is SAID and WRITTEN in the SAME book.

[Age]

'I' AM A VERY SLOW Being.

same

Now, what does, 'Power to ya', here, MEAN, EXACTLY?

'ya' is slang for the word 'you'.

And the phrase generally is an offer of support.
Wishing that the other is successful in their endeavours.
That they soar.

I liked the trajectory of your act, or what I perceived to be your act.
Thus, in my modest way, I say well done,
and if this is a metric for what can be expected of you in the future,
then I send my spiritual support.

-

Power to ya, Age.
Fly true.

THANK you SO MUCH FOR CLARIFYING, here, It happens very rarely but when it does occur it is very refreshing.

[Will Bouwman]

...we'd have multitudinous transitional forms...

As far as I can gather, you mean by "transitional forms" beings of this nature:

...chicken-to-man or banana-to-man...

To be clear: is that what you think evolution predicts?

I'm mocking, obviously.

Well, if you remember, part of the aim of this thread was to see if we can respect views other than our own. Clearly you can't. The irony is that you are mocking your own ignorance. As I have said, what you call "Evolutionism" is your own creation; it is a straw man.

But Evolutionism does logically require us to expect to find cross-species transitions, and lots and lots of such.

What your Evolutionism logically requires is not something anyone who understands evolution need care about.

So if not chicken-to-man, why is fish-to-frog-to-amphibian-to-humanoid-to-man, or ape-to-man, any better?

It's not about living organisms developing into others from a list of possibilities. There are very few genes which are unique to individual species; mostly genes code for particular features and functions, hence it is not one species turning into another, it is the introduction of a novel gene which, if it confers an advantage to better exploit an ecological niche, the carrier of that gene is more likely to breed successfully and pass that gene on. In a population that is isolated from other members of its own species, a gene can become established, making the isolated population genetically distinct, but not necessarily a distinct species. Over generations, other adaptations can accumulate until the isolated population can no longer breed with the population it is isolated from, and so becomes a distinct species. In Australia, for example, all the large mammals are marsupials. That is easy to explain in evolutionary terms. Part of your job is to explain why your God made the species in Australia so different.

All they've done to make the absurd and non-evident plausible to the naive and trusting is to stretch out the timeline.

The naive and trusting like me? This respect thing isn't working out too well.

The essence is still the same: given enough time, species are supposed to transition into each other.

According to your Evolutionism perhaps, but again, the theory of evolution is not about cats turning into dogs, or bananas for that matter.

Where's the evidence? We should be awash in it, even now, not just in the fossil record. There should be billions of transitional forms in different phases everywhere...why then do we have nothing but fixed species, instead?

We don't. You just don't understand evolution.