Another Fossil Transitional Species that shouldn't exist ... Meet Pappochelys

[AV1611VET]

According to the bible there should be no such things as fossils, they should all be bones, a lot with recoverable DNA.

Mount St. Helens says otherwise.

 

[Loudmouth]

Mount St. Helens says otherwise.

How so? Where are the permineralized fossils that Mt. St. Helens produced?

 

[AV1611VET]

How so? Where are the permineralized fossils that Mt. St. Helens produced?

I hear ya.

 

[Loudmouth]

I hear ya.

Then you agree that a recent global flood nor a young Earth is not capable of producing the permineralized fossils that we find in the fossil record?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then you agree that a recent global flood nor a young Earth is not capable of producing the permineralized fossils that we find in the fossil record?

I hear ya.

 

[Loudmouth]

I hear ya.

Why did you mention Mt. St. Helens if it doesn't support anything you are saying?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why did you mention Mt. St. Helens if it doesn't support anything you are saying?

I hear ya.

 

[Loudmouth]

I hear ya.

No, you don't.

 

[99terabytes]

From what I have observed on earth, this creatures existence was most likely influenced by evolution. Evolution as in survival of the fittest. The evolution that every single man woman and child thought so basic and clear, as to have no need to even make a word "evolution" for it. I have no way at all of even considering whether this is speciation or not, besides the fact speciation had never been observed, yet dogs show a greater variety of characteristics than 2 sets of different species might! From observable facts I see that it is possible this is a transitionary look of this turtle, and it may of evolved from link x to link z,(whatever the species quoted here are) without changing species.

It takes leaps and bounds of faith to be certain this is evolution, (as in speciation.)

You try to be smart, but remember... he who is certain in the least, is also wrong in the least. Knowledge is lessened far more by where you are wrong, than it is heightened by when you are right.

 

[Loudmouth]

From what I have observed on earth, this creatures existence was most likely influenced by evolution. Evolution as in survival of the fittest. The evolution that every single man woman and child thought so basic and clear, as to have no need to even make a word "evolution" for it. I have no way at all of even considering whether this is speciation or not, besides the fact speciation had never been observed,

Speciation has been observed:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

From observable facts I see that it is possible this is a transitionary look of this turtle, and it may of evolved from link x to link z,(whatever the species quoted here are) without changing species.

No one expects an individual animal to change species. Everyone expects that individual to be a part of a species. A transitional fossil should be a part of a distinct species. That is what we would expect to see with evolution.

It takes leaps and bounds of faith to be certain this is evolution, (as in speciation.)

It takes zero faith to recognize that this fossil has a mixture of features between earlier reptiles and turtles that appear later in the fossil record. It is a transitional fossil, by definition. It is evidence for evolution since evolution was able to predict which transitional fossils we should see and not see.

You try to be smart, but remember... he who is certain in the least, is also wrong in the least. Knowledge is lessened far more by where you are wrong, than it is heightened by when you are right.

I would like to hear from people who claim that there are no transitional fossils. I would like them to describe what features this fossil is missing that a real transitional would have.

The real problem is that some people will never accept any fossil as evidence of evolution, no matter what it looks like.

 

[gordonhooker]

So this Papadopoulos Monster or whatever is some sort of German turtle? And this is supposed to prove that EVILution is true? Not hardly!!!!

I don't believe SplitRock said it proves anything I believe she said show a link between the species. What does EVILution mean anyway?

 

[crjmurray]

I don't believe SplitRock said it proves anything I believe she said show a link between the species. What does EVILution mean anyway?

That's the true name of the AntiChrist THEORY that satanist-atheist Darwin dreamed up to disprove CREATION!!!!!

 

[[serious]]

I hear ya.

Does this translate to "Oh, i just realized that what i said undermines my intended point"?

Geologically recent burial by Mt St Helens not producing permineralized fossils supports the idea that recent burial does not produce permineralized fossils since, ya know, recent burial did not produce permineralized fossils

 

[MikeEnders]

Speciation has been observed:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

it is pretty laughable that even on a Christian site agnostics and atheist think they can dismiss creationists sites just because they are creationist sites but think that talk origins should be accepted as any objective unbiased source.

BTW aren't you guys tired of making claims of links that never actually pan out as such? You are always presenting these alleged knockout proofs that end up never being such and then saying OKay but THIS is a knockout punch now but then that goes the same way as well

Its like musicals chairs

 

[MikeEnders]

I understand also that, in theorising about common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees, it was predicted that there must have been some form of 'adjustment' in the chromosomal structure.

I'd love a link to that one - before the fact. We are all very well aware of claims that Darwinism predicted something - after it was discovered

 

[MikeEnders]

Not as big as the gaps in the bible. According to the bible there should be no such things as fossils, they should all be bones, a lot with recoverable DNA.
.

Soft tissue and proteins anyone?

Nice straw by the way. Grade A that Elsie (my cow) will love. Bible precludes fossils where? chapter and verse please or is it necessity is the mother of invention?

 

[SteveB28]

I'd love a link to that one - before the fact. We are all very well aware of claims that Darwinism predicted something - after it was discovered

Always happy to oblige a genuine enquiry.....

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/3/l_073_47.html

Here is the key section:


"A fundamental part of the process by which science is done involves developing a testable prediction, also known as a hypothesis. Scientists offered two possible explanations for the discrepancy: Either the common ancestor had 24 pairs, and humans carry a fused chromosome; or the ancestor had 23 pairs, and apes carry a split chromosome. Their focused research led them to find a mutation on one human chromosome that explained what had happened.

In 2005, a peer-reviewed scientific journal published results of the tests. It turns out that chromosome 2, which is unique to the human lineage of evolution, emerged as a result of the head-to-head fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that remain separate in other primates. "

 

[Open Heart]

So this Papadopoulos Monster or whatever is some sort of German turtle?

I think that's the point... is it a turtle or not? There just isn't a clear answer. That's the thing about transitional forms.

 

[Open Heart]

Just a breed of lizard.

Lizards have the beginnings of a breastplate? I don't think so. This is more than a lizard and less than a turtle.

 

[In situ]

Gaps so big you can stick anything in them.

AV again with his denial...

While saying that you just ignoring the fact that every fossil ever found fits perfectly well into the nested sets of life, as well in time and space, as predicted by the theory of evolutiuon.

Where is your cambrian rabbit AV? Give us one of those and you might have some credit with your denial.

I mean, if this fossil record is supposed to be so complete & accurate and all, it seems to me they could do something with it, rather than use it to play connect-the-dots.

For most people the evidence is sufficient, but how complete does it need before you admit there is a transition chain? I guess you want to see every single born offspring before you are happy - but even then you will deny it with "where you there?", wont you?

And as you very well know it is a little bit more complex than your simplified "connect the dots" game. It is based on biology and what we know about inheritance and unique structures - unique structures that have a clear history and path that can be traced and connect related organisms. Unique structures, which are modified version of parent generations. These structures are what make us able to say if something is a mammal or a reptile, a cat or a dog. These unique structures cannot be explain in other ways than inherent changes feed down the generations and if you trace these changes back in time all life focus back at one point - one tree. The Tree of Life.

It is the same principles behind this which you use to determine who and who not is in your family. But all this you already know, but still deny... and you have nothing to say against it. Instead you just troll and spam with your same old rhetoric - denial.