Tiktaalik ha ha

[Delphiki]

News Flash:

All Fossils Represent Transitional Forms. Repeat: All Fossils Represent Transitional Forms. Every Living Thing That Ever Lived Represents A Transition From One Species Into Another. That Is All. We Apologize For This Alert And Will Now Resume Your Scheduled Program.

 

[dad]

News Flash:

All Fossils Represent Transitional Forms. Repeat: All Fossils Represent Transitional Forms. Every Living Thing That Ever Lived Represents A Transition From One Species Into Another. That Is All. We Apologize For This Alert And Will Now Resume Your Scheduled Program.

Let's test that then, shall we? In Eden, let's say you were a trilobite. Anyhow, you were created 40 seconds ago. One fine day, some years in the future, you up and die. Somehow you get fossilized. So, you claim this fossil represents a transitional species. Seems like a stretch to me.

We resume the regular broadcast. Ho hum.

 

[dad]

The presence of tracks does not invalidate Tiktaalik, even tetrapod tracks. When tetrapods showed up, Tiktaalik didn't immediately disappear.

Inside your theory...maybe. In real life, they may have showed up at the same time. Who really knows? It is shameful to pretend to.

 

[Oafman]

Looks like we need this yet again:

 

[dad]

They are here, so they are not older than creation,

Exactly, so no same state past which took a coon's age to create them.

and by your own admission all of the evidence is consistent with them being millions of years old.

No, the factt they exist shows they are within the time frame of creation. How that looks to a twisted evo mind, that obsesses over coloring all evidence with fanatical beliefs, is another matter.

They aren't imaginary. They are supported by the evidence.

To be clear the mere existence of isotopes here and now does not mean they were created or produced in your claimed state. There is no evidence at all for that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's test that then, shall we? In Eden, let's say you were a trilobite. Anyhow, you were created 40 seconds ago. One fine day, some years in the future, you up and die. Somehow you get fossilized. So, you claim this fossil represents a transitional species. Seems like a stretch to me.

We resume the regular broadcast. Ho hum.

Let's look at your "model". Since death had to come after the fall according to you then all animals were able to die. Yet we do not find any mammals mixed in with the trilobites. Now that may be explained away since almost all mammals are land animals. So we will let that one be for now. You have no excuse why fishes, which were according to your model in existence at the same time as the trilobite, are never found with trilobites.

Why are fishes never found with trilobites dad? There are millions and millions of trilobite fossils. Why don't we find fish fossils until much higher in the geologic column?

 

[Queller]

Preaching about worms to giraffes is not evidence actually. One would need to show the basis at each branch of the tree.

So if I made the claim that a Mustang and F150 share a common ancestor in the Model T I have to show every vehicle Ford has ever made?

 

[dad]

Are you saying that all fish evolved gills after being created?

Have you some reason to claim fish had no gills at creation? Let's hope you are not trying to obfuscate by pretending that if fish were here, they would and should be in the fossil record. That would be religious twaddle. It seems that very few life forms could fossilize in the former state. This, of course has confused evos.

If you were trying to lead up to some other point, do tell though.

Designs are adapted all of the time.

Not before they are made. Now if you are claiming God was redesigning critters to be created, on some cosmic blackboard, so we can now call what He finally created 'adapted', I would suggest that is lame, and unworkable.

How do humans adapt designs?

Never met a human who adapted a design or did anything else at all until he was at least in his mom's womb. First we must exist, then we can do stuff. Get it?

 

[dad]

So if I made the claim that a Mustang and F150 share a common ancestor in the Model T I have to show every vehicle Ford has ever made?

I would think mankind would be the common factor between car designs. Not some rusty old models. Not like cars evolved themselves any more than we did! Thanks for that.

 

[Queller]

I would think mankind would be the common factor between car designs. Not some rusty old models. Not like cars evolved themselves any more than we did! Thanks for that.

That whooshing sound is my point going over your head after you ducked to avoid it.

 

[dad]

That whooshing sound is my point going over your head after you ducked to avoid it.

When I expose an ocean under the puddle on the deck of the ship you sail past us, it is not I that miss the big picture actually. Man designs cars. A model T designs squat. Neither does a model T have kids, or evolve. It is dead.

 

[Queller]

When I expose an ocean under the puddle on the deck of the ship you sail past us, it is not I that miss the big picture actually. Man designs cars. A model T designs squat. Neither does a model T have kids, or evolve. It is dead.

So you are claiming that the designs of a Mustang and a F150 didn't evolve from the Model T?

Here's a hint, in this example, who did the designing is not the point.

 

[Loudmouth]

Have you some reason to claim fish had no gills at creation?

You are the one claiming that they only developed adaptations after they were created. Gills are adaptations.

Never met a human who adapted a design or did anything else at all until he was at least in his mom's womb. First we must exist, then we can do stuff. Get it?

Here is a page discussing houses that were adapted by humans for areas under threat from hurricanes.

Climate Adapted Design: Buildings, Neighborhoods, and Rules | Harvard University Graduate School of Design Executive Education

Obviously, you are wrong.

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly, so no same state past which took a coon's age to create them.

Where did you show that there was no same state past? Oh, that's right. You didn't. However, I did supply evidence for a same state past. You lose.

To be clear the mere existence of isotopes here and now does not mean they were created or produced in your claimed state. There is no evidence at all for that.

Yes, there is evidence and I presented it. You didn't refute it. You lose.

 

[Delphiki]

Let's test that then, shall we? In Eden, let's say you were a trilobite. Anyhow, you were created 40 seconds ago. One fine day, some years in the future, you up and die. Somehow you get fossilized. So, you claim this fossil represents a transitional species. Seems like a stretch to me.

We resume the regular broadcast. Ho hum.

What part are you having difficulty understanding? The trilobite having ancestors, descendants, or both?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's test that then, shall we? In Eden, let's say you were a trilobite. Anyhow, you were created 40 seconds ago. One fine day, some years in the future, you up and die. Somehow you get fossilized. So, you claim this fossil represents a transitional species. Seems like a stretch to me.

We resume the regular broadcast. Ho hum.

Let's look at your "model". Since death had to come after the fall according to you then all animals were able to die. Yet we do not find any mammals mixed in with the trilobites. Now that may be explained away since almost all mammals are land animals. So we will let that one be for now. You have no excuse why fishes, which were according to your model in existence at the same time as the trilobite, are never found with trilobites.

Why are fishes never found with trilobites dad? There are millions and millions of trilobite fossils. Why don't we find fish fossils until much higher in the geologic column?

I have to ask this once again. If trilobites and fishes were created on the same day, and death did not start until after the fall, why do we never find trilobites and fish together in the fossil record?

 

[EternalDragon]

Let's look at your "model". Since death had to come after the fall according to you then all animals were able to die. Yet we do not find any mammals mixed in with the trilobites. Now that may be explained away since almost all mammals are land animals. So we will let that one be for now. You have no excuse why fishes, which were according to your model in existence at the same time as the trilobite, are never found with trilobites.

Why are fishes never found with trilobites dad? There are millions and millions of trilobite fossils. Why don't we find fish fossils until much higher in the geologic column?

I have to ask this once again. If trilobites and fishes were created on the same day, and death did not start until after the fall, why do we never find trilobites and fish together in the fossil record?

You've never heard of the Devonian period? "Age of fishes".

 

[Atheos canadensis]

You've never heard of the Devonian period? "Age of fishes".

Do you understand that trilobites and fish are just one of countless possible examples? The point is that there is no explanation using your model for why certain animals only show up in the record at certain times and why many of them don't ever overlap.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You've never heard of the Devonian period? "Age of fishes".

Yes, I have. The question is if all sea critters were created on the same day. And nothing began to die until after the "fall", why don't we find trilobites and fishes together?

Why can't creationists understand even the simplest of questions? Is it because merely understanding the question would debunk their beliefs?

 

[Loudmouth]

You've never heard of the Devonian period? "Age of fishes".

Do you understand that we don't find whales, dolphins, bears, dinosaurs, birds, frogs, turtles, or a whole host of large species groups in the Devonian? Why is that?