Transitional Fossil Questions

[Critias]

Stop being studiously stupid.

Probably not the best way to get someone to respond when you start off insulting them. Really now, isn't this a Christian section of the Christian forums? And aren't we show grace and mercy?

Honestly, do you like to be insulted and do you think Jesus advocates insulting people?

 

[Critias]

First, let me preface this with I am not a scientists, just your normal average joe who believes in Jesus Christ.

These questions are for the YECs.

1. How would you define "transitional fossil".

A fossil that is in a transitional state.

2. How would you identify one if found?

I don't honestly believe that we could say something is in transition unless we know for a fact all life that has ever existed. If anyone is bold enough to say that they have God's level of knowledge of all life that has existed, then I'd have to confess I would not believe them.

So, whether you say it is transitional or whether it was actually a species that once existed and did not evolve, no one can prove such a thing but rather only hypothesize. Reminds me when I was a kid and made up my own world. That's a joke by the way.

3a. How many intermediate forms would have to be found between 2 other vastly different forms (such as the whale and it's terrestrial ancestor, or reptiles and birds) before you would accept that they did evolve?

I have yet to see anything that has evolved or anything that is in the process of evolving. I see no half man, half ape (or prehistoric ape) living. All I hear about is people saying this bone is obviously from a species that evolved. Should I take everyones word without question, just because a group (no matter how large) says so? For me, no. Perhaps different for others - so be it.

3b. Why that many?

Why must there be evolution. Why must there be a fight for it? Why must we argue against brothers in Christ? Why must be insult in each other?

Your questions have been answered, perhaps not to your satisfaction, but answered nonetheless.

 

[KokoTheGorilla2]

I see no half man, half ape (or prehistoric ape) living.

If you expect to see a half man or half ape as proof of evolution, you don't understand evolution at all.

And you will never see such a creature.

I should know, I'm an ape.

 

[Mallon]

Why are not other YECs responding to the OP? The questions are simple aren't they?

Critias' reply aside (nice try, Critias ), I've noticed a similar lack in YEC activity lately... ever since archie showed up, in fact. I'm waiting for a few replies to my threads, too.

 

[Critias]

If you expect to see a half man or half ape as proof of evolution, you don't understand evolution at all.

And you will never see such a creature.

I should know, I'm an ape.

I know I'll never see such a creature.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Critias' reply aside (nice try, Critias ), I've noticed a similar lack in YEC activity lately... ever since archie showed up, in fact. I'm waiting for a few replies to my threads, too.

As am I.

 

[Critias]

Critias' reply aside (nice try, Critias ), I've noticed a similar lack in YEC activity lately... ever since archie showed up, in fact. I'm waiting for a few replies to my threads, too.

Well, thank you.

You'd have to see it from the other side to understand why YEC's aren't as prevalent on these forums. There is so much bashing of each other (from both sides) that doesn't build up faith for anyone and doesn't do any good for non-Christians reading.

Secondly, YEC's are easily out numbered and always hit with a barrage of questions for many TE's. If I put you in an argument with 10 people and you are all alone and you know you cannot influence anyone, how long would you stay? Years? I doubt it, it gets tiresome - for anyone.

 

[archaeologist]

Although you ended with this, I felt I should respond to it first. You seem to have created a false dilema where you must choose either the divine or evolution. But that is not the case. Evolution is no more or less divine in origin then any other process we see in the world today. (volcanoes, rain, hurricanes, a flower blooming, etc.)

that is where you are wrong. evolution is clearly a secular construct based upon the imagination of one man, though not original with him. there is no divine origin for evolution, it does not exist.

It wouldn't need to, but it did. They weren't there and now they are. I don't know what you're getting at.

that attitude removes the specialness of procreation and makes it an act of the basest form. i have noticed over the years how people who reject God's way also demean everything that He made special .

There's no specific point in time. It was the accumulation of many gradual changes over a long period of time.

that its undoing. also how could evolution, which canot think, comprehend and so on, even be able to concieve the idea that rproduction organs would be needed?

Darwin's theory is being expanded on by new discoveries in molecular biology, cell biology, and many other fields of science. I don't think you've followed it very closely if that's what you think. In the last 30 years have you read any books on evolution? cause you don't seem to know what it is.

this is the typical elitest, arrogan, superiority reply that all evolutionists state as if they are the only ones privlaged enough to understand what is going on.

you are wrong and do not comprehend how much you are fooling yourselves and how much you are being deceived.

why is God needed for natural processes? what makes Him "missing" from the theory? why don't you try to include God in other fields of science like physics, meteorology (weather), etc.

1. we are not talking about those other fields and the same criteria would apply to them.

2. because no matter how you slice it, without God, natural processes do not work. but it must be said that God did not use natural processes, such an idea comes from those who like what secular science has to say.

quit saying "proof". That is something for mathmatics

sorry NO. unless you can prove it don't preach it. God is about the truth not theories. saying that that providing proof is only for mathematics is providing yourself with an excuse for not proving what you are preaching.

Showing that hybrids don't survive is favorable to the theory of evolution, because hybrids aren't a driving force of evolution.

sorry but you are wrong again. hybrids show that natural processes do not work.

Since they are found in a nested hierarchy, then yes, the fossils are evidence of evolution

who created the heirarchies? scientists. sorry but that is circular reasoning and stretching what one has found to provide 'evidence' for a non-existent theory. there are other options available than the declared position of secular scientists.

How does mankind mate with other primates? How do reptiles mate with birds? How do whales mate with terrestrial mammals? There are forms that seem to be combinations of these

based upon whose examination? an evolutionists? he declares what it is without scientific proof. one of the biggest laughs i got was when the late stephen jay gould, declared a fossil a tranistory species without one iota of evidence to back him up. he just said it and expected everyoine to take his word for it.

That doesn't define it. If someone asks me to tell them what Santa Clause is, I don't just say "He doesn't exist, that the definition". I can still define what he is even though he's fictitious. Please explain what characteristics a fossil must have to be transitional.

you can't define what doesn't exist.

this is the whole joke about the evolutionists using the 'fossil record' all they are are pieces of stone and some scientist declared a process created each and every one and many people jumped on the bandwagon yet at no time has any verification of such declarations every been shown, discovered, observed or tested to see if true, has been offered.

evolutionists extropolate back in time and try to use modern day genetic defects as there evidence but it doesn't work because no fossil has been discovered that has been formed in the last 2,500 years thus they have no modern observation or evidence to back up their claims or verify what they say is true.

the question evolutionists must ask themselves is: why are the fossil only ancient?

how does the time frame undermine the arguments?

because no one will live long enough to see it proved true and this is the deception. many, many people will die in their sins, because evolutionary scientist have led them astray.

that is another reason why God did not use natural processes, He provides answers in one's lifetime so they can be saved from sin and not in a milion years or two.

wow are we ever getting off topic now

not really for evolutionists will not tell the public that a lot of outside manipulation is needed to provide 'evidence' for their theories. if evolution were true, we wouldn't need scientists we would observe it and know it within ourselves that it would be true.

If a "kind" is something that can't mate outside itself, then by your own definition, a hybrid couldn't possibly be made by 2 different "kinds"

when they have occurred in the wild the offspring is sterile and the mating stops thus hybrid fossils are a possibility but not as a species indicator.

 

[CaptPorridge]

that its undoing. also how could evolution, which canot think, comprehend and so on, even be able to concieve the idea that rproduction organs would be needed?

Archie, that's about the fifth time I've seen you write something like that. I'm still confused as to the point you think you're making.

What do you mean "how could evolution.... convieve of the idea that reproductive organs would be needed?"

Why don't you try to write it another way.

There is no need to state that evolution cannot think or comprehend, no one has ever suggested it does, and anyone who did would be a fool.

 

[archaeologist]

There is no need to state that evolution cannot think or comprehend, no one has ever suggested it does, and anyone who did would be a fool.

every known process needs an outside force to program it and make it work. that is why theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists and others have added God to the mix.

evolution on its own cannot do the job but then if you add God to the theory then you say God lied in the Bible and you are still in a jam as that doesn't work either.

 

[ExpatChristian]

Archie you are confused and that long post is incoherent. People can't respond to stuff that doesn't make sense. And CP is right. You still don't grasp the very basics of what evolution actually is. You talk as though evolution has agency and I have mentioned this on other threads to. It does not. But I think you are floored by my response and can't answer.

 

[philadiddle]

that is where you are wrong. evolution is clearly a secular construct based upon the imagination of one man, though not original with him. there is no divine origin for evolution, it does not exist.

the study of quantum physics was thought of by men too, no divine origin there. The same applys to, well, pretty much every science.

that its undoing. also how could evolution, which canot think, comprehend and so on, even be able to concieve the idea that rproduction organs would be needed?

Who suggested evolution can think? Do you understand the processes that drive evolution? Everything that drives evolution is observable in the world today. We've seen new protiens, new enzyms, and there there have been many observed cases of speciation. I said earlier that I don't think you know anything about evolution because you continually make statements like "evolution can't think". Do you know what genetic drift is? Do you know what the frequency of alleles in a population has to do with evolution?

this is the typical elitest, arrogan, superiority reply that all evolutionists state as if they are the only ones privlaged enough to understand what is going on.

you can know what's going on too. You just have to read up on evolution. It's good to read both sides and learn from each. I often visit the ICR or AiG sites to get their latest info.

you are wrong and do not comprehend how much you are fooling yourselves and how much you are being deceived.

If I'm wrong fine, but it's God that's fooling me with His creation. His creation screams with evidence to support my point of view. Over many debates to come you'll hear more and more of it.

1. we are not talking about those other fields and the same criteria would apply to them.

2. because no matter how you slice it, without God, natural processes do not work. but it must be said that God did not use natural processes, such an idea comes from those who like what secular science has to say.

Is #2 talking about creation or all sciences?

sorry NO. unless you can prove it don't preach it. God is about the truth not theories. saying that that providing proof is only for mathematics is providing yourself with an excuse for not proving what you are preaching.

It's not an excuse, and i'm not making it up. Did you watch that short video clip? Read these two articles to understand that scientific theories are built on facts. Example, when someone studies atomic theory, that will never become atomic fact, because that's not how science works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

sorry but you are wrong again. hybrids show that natural processes do not work.

the natural process required for evolution like gene duplication, mutation, speciation, genetic drift, chromosone shuffling, etc are all natural processes that work and are observed in nature. Hybrids have nothing to do with evolution.

who created the heirarchies? scientists. sorry but that is circular reasoning and stretching what one has found to provide 'evidence' for a non-existent theory. there are other options available than the declared position of secular scientists.

the nested heirarchies aren't made up, that's how we find the fossils. They are groups within groups, which is best explained by branching evolution. Please read this to undertand more. If you don't want to agree fine, but at least read it so you know what I'm talking about.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

based upon whose examination? an evolutionists? he declares what it is without scientific proof. one of the biggest laughs i got was when the late stephen jay gould, declared a fossil a tranistory species without one iota of evidence to back him up. he just said it and expected everyoine to take his word for it.

declares it without scientific proof? So you are saying that a scientist, using the scientific method to study a fossil, having it peer reviewed, and ruthlessly cross examined by many other scientists who would love to have their names published as being to one to prove the first scientist wrong, isn't scientific proof?

this is the whole joke about the evolutionists using the 'fossil record' all they are are pieces of stone and some scientist declared a process created each and every one and many people jumped on the bandwagon yet at no time has any verification of such declarations every been shown, discovered, observed or tested to see if true, has been offered.

You couldn't be any farther from the truth. Back in the day of Darwin there was an emergence of fossils (because more ppl were looking for them), and many new species that had never been seen before. There was a pattern emerging but no explanation for it other then divine creation. There were different models of evolution put forth, some even included divine creation. Many scientists with opposing views did studies to support their ideas over the other ideas. Darwin provided the mechanism, natural selection, which has withstood the test of time as the best explanation for the origin of species. The fossil record fits well with that theory.

the question evolutionists must ask themselves is: why are the fossil only ancient?

it's not only ancient

because no one will live long enough to see it proved true and this is the deception.

no one will live to see the theory of relativity proven, or atomic theory proven, because that's not how science works.

many, many people will die in their sins, because evolutionary scientist have led them astray.

I honestly think it's the creationists who lead ppl astray. To say that God created the earth 6k years ago and that we didn't evolve is so contrary to the evidence, that of course many ppl will reject that religious view. By continually saying that evolution is a theory contrary to the bible, many athiests will continue to reject the bible.

that is another reason why God did not use natural processes, He provides answers in one's lifetime so they can be saved from sin and not in a milion years or two.

but we know from looking at the world around us that God is a God who uses natural processes. Why are you trying to take that attribute away from Him?

not really for evolutionists will not tell the public that a lot of outside manipulation is needed to provide 'evidence' for their theories. if evolution were true, we wouldn't need scientists we would observe it and know it within ourselves that it would be true.

could you provide examples of evidence that has been manipulated?

 

[philadiddle]

every known process needs an outside force to program it and make it work. that is why theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists and others have added God to the mix.

evolution on its own cannot do the job

So rain can't be produced by natural processes? The rain doesn't make itself, but it's still all natural processes as best as "secular" science can figure it out. Or, is God continually manipulation our weather?

 

[philadiddle]

Thanks for responding Critias. I'm asking questions not to shoot you down, but so that we can both look into things more and learn a bit.

A fossil that is in a transitional state.

So if I find fossils that appear to be in a transitional state between a whale and a land mammal you would accept that?

I don't honestly believe that we could say something is in transition unless we know for a fact all life that has ever existed. If anyone is bold enough to say that they have God's level of knowledge of all life that has existed, then I'd have to confess I would not believe them.

Of course we don't know every single organism to have lived but we have found fossils of many different extinct species. The transitions would be between species we know about, not something made up.

So, whether you say it is transitional or whether it was actually a species that once existed and did not evolve, no one can prove such a thing but rather only hypothesize.

Transitional forms are still species. And everything we see in nature is still evolving.

I have yet to see anything that has evolved or anything that is in the process of evolving. I see no half man, half ape (or prehistoric ape) living. All I hear about is people saying this bone is obviously from a species that evolved. Should I take everyones word without question, just because a group (no matter how large) says so? For me, no. Perhaps different for others - so be it.

So do you reject other scientific theories or is evolution the only one you reject soley on personal beliefs? Do you reject atomic theory or the theory of relativity? Or are you familiar with those enough that you could accept them?

Your questions have been answered, perhaps not to your satisfaction, but answered nonetheless.

thanks again

 

[archaeologist]

the study of quantum physics was thought of by men too, no divine origin there. The same applys to, well, pretty much every science

not allscience just the secular which leads away from God. there is nothing wrong with investigating something but once one discovers itis leading away from the truth, offers confusion, does not provide answers, denies God and what He said and so on then it shuld be vacated and one needs to return to God's direction.

Who suggested evolution can think? Do you understand the processes that drive evolution

yep. nothing. it does not exist.

Everything that drives evolution is observable in the world today

not really because you are crediting evolution with those results doesn't prove evolution is resposnible or that it exists.

I said earlier that I don't think you know anything about evolution because you continually make statements like "evolution can't think". Do you know what genetic drift is? Do you know what the frequency of alleles in a population has to do with evolution?

the point is, you credit a process for things a process cannot do, or even produce without outside help from someone who contains thought, attributes, morality and so on. a process can only do what it is programmed to do, and cannot initiate anything on its own, it can't for it has no capibility to start itself along a given path.

the idea that out of nothing a process suddenly appears and begins life is more than a fairy tale, and leads to unanswerable questions: i.e. why did it hit only earth?; what was its purpose? why are we here?, what is our purpose?

with creation we have all those answers and they satisfy the soul.

You just have to read up on evolution. It's good to read both sides and learn from each

i do not need to read up on evolution, it doesn't remain the same and always changes. it isn't truth as the truth never changes. what can i learn from it? that people who follow it prove the biblical passage that in the end times many will believe a false philosophy/theory/idea (i forget the word used in the Bible and turn away from God. that is sad for the truth is right in front of them

If I'm wrong fine, but it's God that's fooling me with His creation

NO. God does not do that. until you accept the fact that the evil one is the deceiver you will always blame God for what He has not done.

God hasnot said the earth is billions of years old, or that the fossil record portrays a natural process and so on. the only people who have stated that have been those who do not believe God. Darwin lost his faith, why would you accept his word over God's?

Is #2 talking about creation or all sciences

what i amsaying is that a process cannot work without some outside force manipulating the process. you see this in scientific experiments all the time. as much as scientists say they are observers, the conditions and results often have humans involved directing the process.

that doesn't mean they are directly doing it but the mere fact that experiments take place in an unatural setting already disproves evolution.

Example, when someone studies atomic theory, that will never become atomic fact, because that's not how science works.

again, i say that is an excuse for atomic research has produced an atomic bomb. kind of proves that splitting the atom causes a lot of trouble for mankind.

i already know that scientists once they get 'proof' immediately start asking questions again but that is all a waste of time and energy. i do not need science to continually ask questions to know something is true.

the natural process required for evolution like gene duplication, mutation, speciation, genetic drift, chromosone shuffling, etc are all natural processes that work and are observed in nature. Hybrids have nothing to do with evolution

now again you attribute those actions to evolution without proving evolution exists. this is the circular reasoning that evolutionists like to use. you have yet to consider the other options that fit intheir and explain these actions a lot clearer and faster.

the nested heirarchies aren't made up, that's how we find the fossils. They are groups within groups, which is best explained by branching evolution

they are made up because no one was present when the fossils were laid down and there is no way to verify what is being proclaimed. there are no ancient records to corroborrate scientific studty and contrary to popular belief, science cannot look into the past and say this is what happened.

declares it without scientific proof? So you are saying that a scientist, using the scientific method to study a fossil, having it peer reviewed, and ruthlessly cross examined by many other scientists who would love to have their names published as being to one to prove the first scientist wrong, isn't scientific proof?

athiest upon athiest has told me that going to other theologians to prove the Bible is not proof, even though theologians have other theologians & books to critique their work, and make suggestions and so on. just like scientists.

so when you have independent corroborration then let me know and i will examine the 'evidence' but when you go to other scientists who hold to the same beliefs, then sorry, dosen't fly.

There was a pattern emerging but no explanation for it other then divine creation

what that paragraph tells me is that people did not want to believe the divine explanation and looked for alternatives they could believe.

God requires peopel to have faith we can't have faith if we turn to science to provide alternatives. why is it that the concept of the fossils being created by the flood is not explored? because non-believers do not believe the Bible; thus they take their beliefs, an action in opposition to scientific principles, and search for an alternative.

not believing is not objective and dismissing apossible conclusion and looking for another is not objective. but here is the problem, God requires people to believe HIm on faith thus no matter how hard scientists try, they will not get all the data they need to make a proper determination for God will not allow faith to be destroyed. at some point one must use faith and science is just out of luck.

no one will live to see the theory of relativity proven, or atomic theory proven, because that's not how science works.

then secular science is leading everyone who believes init down the garden path and allowing people to die for nothing.

I honestly think it's the creationists who lead ppl astray. To say that God created the earth 6k years ago and that we didn't evolve is so contrary to the evidence, that of course many ppl will reject that religious view

forget the 6,000 year figure, we do not know if it was that soon. contrary to what evidence? secular science's? that evidence may be misinterpretated yet you believe it without question or discernment. you forget that their is a being who hates God and will deceive many yet many here lookto science as immune to such evil actions. that is a mistake that is fatal.

the same evidence you use to 'prove' evolution can also be taken and prove creation, the fall of man, the flood, and so on. the evidence is not what is leading people away, but the interpretation and what people want to believe.

with God you have a choice--by faith you believe Him and His words or you don't and go and seek alternatives. you cannot escape the faith factor.

but we know from looking at the world around us that God is a God who uses natural processes. Why are you trying to take that attribute away from Him?

i am not taking that factor away from you, what evolutionists do is take away God's power and supremacy away from Him, limiting Him to natural processes only. God establishes that He alone could do something and if you look throughout scripture not one verse on creation refers to a natural process but a direct act of God, plus you will see that He acts in a manner that everyone can see He is responsible. evolution does not do that.

could you provide examples of evidence that has been manipulated?

yes but i would have to do some research to get some examples and i do not have the time right now. Now i am not saying all scientists do this so do't jump down my throat as their are various forms of manipulation.

 

[archaeologist]

So rain can't be produced by natural processes? The rain doesn't make itself, but it's still all natural processes as best as "secular" science can figure it out. Or, is God continually manipulation our weather

prime example of manipulation. you take something God has created and twist its meaning to try and 'prove' that evolution is alive and well.

sorry not going to work.

 

[Atlantians]

then how can scientists be sure evolution created the fossils?

Enough Said.

 

[Atlantians]

So if I showed you dozens of examples of fossils that appeared to have traits of different "kinds" of animals (as if they were transitional) then you would choose to be willfully ignorant and just say "nuh uh"? Or would you be able to observe the evidence and explain it?

Put a link to this thread. I want to take a shot at it.

 

[archaeologist]

Enough Said.

nice o fyou to take a bit of what i said and then make such a remark. science cannot prove the existenceof the evolutionary process. it declares or infers or conjextures that there is such a process, coupled with natural selectionbut at no time do their experiments show that such a process exists.

it is as silent & invisible as nothing yet intelligent men would rather believe in that than God, whom we know is not silent, acts in creation, answers prayers, heals today, directs people's lives and so on.

i have yet to meet someone on this board and a few others who actually uses discernment when it comes to science and can differentiate between what is of God and what is not. they all assume that what secular science has proposed is correct and over rules the Bible.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

....

i have yet to meet someone on this board and a few others who actually uses discernment when it comes to science and can differentiate between what is of God and what is not. they all assume that what secular science has proposed is correct and over rules the Bible.

What do you mean by secular science Archie? Is that the science of all who are not Christians? Does it exclude, for example, the fine contributions of Jewish scientists?

Of course, if there is such a thing as secular science one can only assume that non-secular science exists also. In this vein, do you know how many of the scientists in US are non-secular? And the corollary is do you know how many secular scientists there are? Do you reject that great majority?