-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I honestly believe that every human is intelligent enough to understand something if it is explained properly, but you are making me want to reconsider that belief.
Evolution requires time. So lets apply the idea to a simple premise of chronology. If you imagine mixing blue and red food die, and you take a picture of that mixing process at every 10 millliseconds, then show those to a person, they see stills of a person mixing blue and red food die taken at every 10 milliseconds and recognize the progressive pattern.
Let us apply a metaphor. Each still is a fossil. This metaphor is adequate because fossils are organisms that existed in one moment of time. Now, if we find one fossil from two hundred thousand years ago, and another from four hundred thousand, and recognize lots of similarities, but some changes, we can see some kind of progression. A good example of such fossils are hominids.
We have found fossils from tens of thousands, right up to hundreds of thousands of years ago. And the older the fossil, the more significant the differences in biological characteristics compared to modern humans. At certain stages of evolution, the fossil becomes sufficiently different that we say 'okay, this fossil is very different from the fossil from a hundred thousand years before, it should be classified as a different species'. Just like the stills of the mixing process show different points of the journey of the mix, from blue and red to marble, to slight marble to purple, so fossils show different points on the evolutionary timeline of an organism.
Now, your issue is this: When you see a fossil classified 'homo erectus', for instance, against homo sapiens, you say to yourself, 'these are different organisms, there is no connection', and it is like seeing the blue and red, then the purple, and saying 'there is no connection.'
You second issue os that when we show you the marbling of the blue and red at specific intervals (for instance homo florensis, homo habilis), you say 'no, those are different species still! Show me a transitional fossil'. It doesn't matter hos many still we show you, you refus to see that the blue and red mix to purple over time; you refuse to recognize the continuous evolutionary process. We can, with time, find more fossils, and show you more frequent still pictures lf the evolutionary process, but there is a limit to the frame rate of our stills, dictated by how many fossils e have actually found. Just like the camera can only take so many pictures a second, we can only show you so many fossils. Yes, technology progresses and we continually find more fossils to bridge gaps in the fossil record, but if you refuse to recognize the progression and instead treat each fossil as unrelated to another, there will NEVER be a transitional fossil in your mind.
Most people recognize that blue and red mix to make purple, but you're in denial.
Evolution requires time. So lets apply the idea to a simple premise of chronology. If you imagine mixing blue and red food die, and you take a picture of that mixing process at every 10 millliseconds, then show those to a person, they see stills of a person mixing blue and red food die taken at every 10 milliseconds and recognize the progressive pattern.
Let us apply a metaphor. Each still is a fossil. This metaphor is adequate because fossils are organisms that existed in one moment of time. Now, if we find one fossil from two hundred thousand years ago, and another from four hundred thousand, and recognize lots of similarities, but some changes, we can see some kind of progression. A good example of such fossils are hominids.
We have found fossils from tens of thousands, right up to hundreds of thousands of years ago. And the older the fossil, the more significant the differences in biological characteristics compared to modern humans. At certain stages of evolution, the fossil becomes sufficiently different that we say 'okay, this fossil is very different from the fossil from a hundred thousand years before, it should be classified as a different species'. Just like the stills of the mixing process show different points of the journey of the mix, from blue and red to marble, to slight marble to purple, so fossils show different points on the evolutionary timeline of an organism.
Now, your issue is this: When you see a fossil classified 'homo erectus', for instance, against homo sapiens, you say to yourself, 'these are different organisms, there is no connection', and it is like seeing the blue and red, then the purple, and saying 'there is no connection.'
You second issue os that when we show you the marbling of the blue and red at specific intervals (for instance homo florensis, homo habilis), you say 'no, those are different species still! Show me a transitional fossil'. It doesn't matter hos many still we show you, you refus to see that the blue and red mix to purple over time; you refuse to recognize the continuous evolutionary process. We can, with time, find more fossils, and show you more frequent still pictures lf the evolutionary process, but there is a limit to the frame rate of our stills, dictated by how many fossils e have actually found. Just like the camera can only take so many pictures a second, we can only show you so many fossils. Yes, technology progresses and we continually find more fossils to bridge gaps in the fossil record, but if you refuse to recognize the progression and instead treat each fossil as unrelated to another, there will NEVER be a transitional fossil in your mind.
Most people recognize that blue and red mix to make purple, but you're in denial.
I disagree too. We are only the second most annoying after the 'cough'... 'sputter'... creationists. 
I must know T_Laurish, who are the most annoying in your view? Or are you too gentlemanly to say?
I must know T_Laurish, who are the most annoying in your view? Or are you too gentlemanly to say?
I take that back, the most annoying person is someone who will not admit they are wrong.
I don't find atheists annoying because I used to be one, I was not given all the facts and was brain washed... I find many atheists in my former position...