Two comets colliding could hardly cause life to form.

Are there transitional forms in the fossil record that confirm evolution? Namely, are there lots of fossils showing that all living and all fossilized plants, animals, people, and microbes are related to a single common ancestor, as Darwin and virtually all evolutionists today believe and dogmatically proclaim to the world? Are there, for example, creatures that are half-fish and half-amphibian or half-reptile and half-bird? Are there creatures that are 90% reptile and 10% bird? And then a little higher in the rock record, are there creatures that are 80% reptile and 20% bird, and then higher up creatures that are 70% reptile and 30% bird, and so on until we find 100% birds higher in the rocks? We should find thousands and thousands of transitional fossils if evolution and millions of years are true. So is there fossil evidence of transitional forms that strongly supports the theory of microbe-to-microbiologist evolution?

In his 1859 book, Origin of Species, Darwin devoted a whole chapter to the fact that the fossil record did not support his theory. He wrote:
“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”

Darwin predicted that more fossil research would one day supply the evidence to confirm his theory. In 1960, Carl O. Dunbar, then Professor Emeritus of Paleontology and Stratigraphy at Yale University, and former Assistant Editor of the American Journal of Science said, “Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms.”8

But we now have millions of fossils in the world’s natural history museums, and the transitional fossils are still missing.


This part of an article from Answers in Genesis. I would like to hear your thoughts on it.

If in 10,000 years someone digs up a fossil of a mule. Will they know it is a cross that shouldn't have happened between a donkey and a horse ?

If you can find a Water Hemp weed that is preserved from say 30 years ago that wasn't resistant to roundup, and now have the same weed 30 yrs later that is resistant to Roundup. Do you think you can tell when, or how the adaptation took place?

That is changes just over a few years, what could 1 billion years do? Yes, I know you only have 6,000 years to work with, that somebody miss interpreted as a thief in the night and you picked it up and ran with it !

If you are really into magic "The 7 Faces of Dr. Lao" movie is entertaining.

Where did this outer space thing come from? Comets and astroids?

How would you know that ? Do you know what could have been on those comets ?

Just curious if you have ever taken a true/false test ??? I would imagine so.
If i remember correctly, one of the earliest things we were taught about taking tests is that the use of the word "all" in a question was almost a guarantee that it was false. Also don't miss the bias in the statement above in the use of the pejorative word "dogmatically". I'd say your friends at "Answers" in Genesis are better described as propagandists.

The supposed question they, and you, are asking is something that no one in the scientific community is alleging.

There is abundant hard evidence in the fossil record that many species share genetic material in common. It does NOT mean that they all came from one common ancestor.

You may have a basic misunderstanding of what evolutionists actually believe.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/lines-of-evidence/transitional-features/

If remember correctly, Ohio Boy said that the material that the comets are made of is the same basic materials on the periodic chart. The materials are mostly gases, metals, and other solids. How would a collision of these materials cause life and everything as we know to exist?

I hear over and over that evolutionary theory means we came from monkeys. Pretty far off the mark.

There are several scientific problems with the big bang theory. For one, we are missing monopoles.

A “monopole” is a hypothetical massive particle that is just like a magnet but with only one pole. So a monopole would have either a “north” pole or a “south” pole, but not both. Particle physicists claim that the high temperature conditions of the big bang should have created magnetic monopoles.

Since monopoles are predicted to be stable, they should have lasted to this day. Yet, despite considerable searching, monopoles have not been found. The fact that we don’t find any monopoles strongly suggests that the universe never was that hot. This indicates that there never was a big bang. But the lack of monopoles is not problematic for the Bible’s account of creation because the universe did not start at extremely high temperatures.

A second scientific problem with the big bang is there is too little antimatter.

The big bang model proposes that matter (hydrogen and helium gas) was created from energy as the universe expanded. However, experimental physics tells us that whenever matter is created from energy, such a reaction also produces antimatter. Antimatter has similar properties to matter, except the charges of the particles are reversed.

The big bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Thus, if the big bang were true, there should be an equal amount of matter and antimatter in the universe today. But there is not. The visible universe is comprised almost entirely of matter—with only trace amounts of antimatter.

A third scientific problem with big bang cosmology is there are no ‘population III’ stars.

The big bang model by itself can account for the existence of only the three lightest elements (hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium). This leaves the other naturally occurring elements unexplained. Since the conditions in the big bang model are not right to form these heavier elements, secular astronomers believe that stars have produced the remaining elements by nuclear fusion in their cores, which then distribute the heavier elements into space when they exploded (went supernovae).

Second- and third-generation stars are thus “contaminated” with small amounts of these heavier elements. If this were true, then the first stars would be comprised of only the three lightest elements (since these would have been the only elements in existence initially). Some such stars should still be around today since their lifespans are supposed to exceed the 13.8 billion years that has elapsed since the big bang. Such stars would be called “population III” stars. Amazingly population III stars have not been found anywhere. All known stars have at least trace amounts of heavy elements in them.

The big bang model has proven to be quite pliable, morphing to adapt to each new problem. Are these changes true improvements or rescuing devices?

Have probabilities been discussed in this thread?

Probabilities of what?

For instance, with the big bang what is the probability that the earth was set at the right angle and the right distance from the sun to support life? Basically anything that has been discussed that has known data. I haven't read the whole thread so was just wondering.

Savell I don't reckon I'll have eternity to live in this body. The trumpet sounds for everyone when death comes calling. I'll put my faith in Jesus, no matter the time frame of creation, and others can put their faith in science. No sweat off my back.

That song reminds me of sittin' in church as a kid wishing they would stop singing and preachin' so I could get up out of there. Of course, growing up in the bible belt of the south you was expected to be at church whether you liked it or not. I guess it had some merit though because back in those days it kept the perverseness in check. Even the preacher men in those days would have stomped a mudhole in a perverts posterior.

Sometimes, ain't no place safe the wolf prowls everywhere...
Now if men were allowed to be men that kind of crap would get nipped in the bud real quick like.

J Staton, you make a very good point. No, probabilities have not been talked about yet, but we can make that our next point in the debate.

Probabilities makes one think of Vegas or winning the lottery. Now if one is talking about designing something from a plan then probability of success seems to be greater.
Just heard a toddler fell 15 stories and lived maybe a broken arm. What is the probability of that happening ?