Tiktaalik ha ha

[Black Akuma]

Yet here we are on a Christian forum, not an evolution forum

To be more specific, you're on the Creation and Evolution section of Christian forums. So it might behoove you to actually know the basics of evolution before pontificating about it.

I use one word out of place and suddenly I don't understand anything.

It wouldn't have been such a big deal if you'd admitted your mistake from the outset instead of digging yourself deeper into the hole. You exacerbated it.

attacking the person for a minor slight rather than addressing the real issues.

Coming from you - a person who repeatedly IGNORES points and skips over issues constantly, outright abandoning topics, even ones that you start yourself - that's rich. That's so rich it's fattening.

So we should just move on now.

Okay.

You're claiming that Denovian is actually an environment. Can you explain, then why we don't find anything like whales, dolphins, manatees, pleisiosaurs...really, no aquatic animals besides fish at all...in this environment? Not to mention plant life?

And while you're at it, can you explain why we don't find any of these Denovian fish in the earliest layers? Why are the oldest fossils, deepest fossils we find always microscopic, simple organism?

 

[Loudmouth]

As expected, the fossil record can not be explained by ED. Supposedly, we have mammals, birds, dinosaurs, frogs, turtles, grasses, oaks, elms, and all of these other species that were created before the Devonian, and yet NONE of these massive groups of life are found in the fossil record. This isn't like the small gaps between genera that creationists like to harp on. This is entire orders and classes of life that are completely absent from the fossil record.

And they just happen to line up with what we would expect from evolution. Go figure.

 

[dad]

Why would one think that?

Because we see no dolphins early on. If some died and fossilized, we would see them if they could fossilize. There is NO reason to claim they could have! ONLY your belief in the present state having existed. Nothing more whatsoever.

 

[dad]

It changes with every new translation,not much,but it does change..but that is an entirely different topic

The original doesn't change, just the various attempts at making translations of it.

It tells us that it HAPPENED,not HOW.

I disagree.

That's spiritual,in the future..we are dealing with the past right now

The bible describes both, and the future and past are similar. The present is the odd man out.

 

[dad]

Do they have indirect evidence?

Does the same state past have any?

If so, what is it? How is that evidence not better explained by other theories?

Just name what you think you have for a same state past, and I will better explain it in a DSP light.

What is "a way to view evidence we do have?"

The belief in the same state past way.

Because I have no evidence to make me think that a different state existed in the past.[/quote]

 

[dad]

How can you possibly believe that? That timeline requires that time flowed back then exactly as it does now. That would be a same-state past.

False. We cannot say how spacetime was. Nor can we say how time away from earth at that time was! You can't even say what could fossilize..or how much time that took in the former time!

 

[dad]

A. is Correct. It is called speciation. That's why we have a variety of birds, rabbits, spiders and dogs.

Notice they are all over you like pigs on slop? That is because you have a position they know can be defeated. Be careful that when they win, your faith is not the loser.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Poor dad, he still cannot explain why some animals fossilized way before others.

All he has is a broken down "just so story" that he keeps scrambling to repair every time another of its ugly flaws are shown to him.

 

[EternalDragon]

Notice they are all over you like pigs on slop? That is because you have a position they know can be defeated. Be careful that when they win, your faith is not the loser.

You are quite right, sir.

None of us really knows much about the past, many thousands of years ago aside from God's word.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are quite right, sir.

None of us really knows much about the past, many thousands of years ago aside from God's word.

Too bad all of the evidence supports the side of evolution.

You guys can't even keep your stories straight.

 

[Black Akuma]

None of us really knows much about the past

Wrong. The only reason you even fall back to this is because the evidence is not on your side. You're perfectly fine speculating on the past when you think the evidence supports your beliefs, but the moment it doesn't? 'We can't know anything about the past!'

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I use one word out of place and suddenly I don't understand anything. What ticks me off is that almost every non-Christian posting here waits for a Christian to slip up and then jumps all over them, attacking the person for a minor slight rather than addressing the real issues.

I don't "lambaste" anyone like this and ask them to admit their mistake or ridicule them. I simply correct them and move on. So we should just move on now.

You guys seem way too sensitive.

I would agree if you had claimed once that mammals appeared in the Devonian and then admitted your mistake when it was pointed out to you that this was wrong and we had still gone after you. Instead you defended the position that mammals were in the Devonian. This isn't a "slip of a word" and pretending that you merely misspoke when you really just didn't understand the terminology and then defended your misunderstanding repeatedly is dishonest. And now playing the victim card (as usual) when we come down on you for insisting on something that is clearly not true. I don't think it is unreasonable of us to expect you to understand the topic you're discussing. And we weren't attacking you for a "minor slight rather than addressing the real issue". You made and defended the point that mammals appeared in the Devonian which was part of the argument that the fossil record doesn't support your model. That seems like the real issue to me. And I agree that it would have been better to correct you and move on, but you wouldn't allow that and insisted over several posts that you hadn't made a mistake.

Anyway, I have vented now and am content to move on with everyone else. So why is it that mammals don't show up in the Devonian?

Also, try to keep your story straight:

CabVet:No, you said creation week was before the Devonian, so there sure must have been cows there.


EternalDragon:No, I did not.

CabVet: Now, was creation week before or after the Devonian?


EternalDragon:Before

As has been pointed out, if Creation was before the Devonian, there should be all kinds of things in the Devonian that we simply don't see, cows being only one example. What is your explanation?

 

[Loudmouth]

Because we see no dolphins early on. If some died and fossilized, we would see them if they could fossilize. There is NO reason to claim they could have!

Yes, there is. We find cetacean fossils, so there is no reason to think that they wouldn't.

 

[Loudmouth]

None of us really knows much about the past, many thousands of years ago aside from God's word.

Speak for yourself. Your ignorance is not ours.

 

[EternalDragon]

Wrong. The only reason you even fall back to this is because the evidence is not on your side. You're perfectly fine speculating on the past when you think the evidence supports your beliefs, but the moment it doesn't? 'We can't know anything about the past!'

What evidence? The fancy stories about the past that scientists make up because they think they know something?

The evidence, as it is, does support the bible.

I disagree with the extra fiction added in by scientists and you guys ask me why. I tell you and you ask for more explanation. I give you plausible scenarios and you refuse to accept anything but an evolutionary explanation. Then accuse me of "falling back" on historical eyewitness information that says otherwise. I've always stated that there is operational science and historical science. Historical science can't be tested, repeated or observed. Especially a one time special effect like a world wide flood.

 

[CabVet]

What evidence? The fancy stories about the past that scientists make up because they think they know something?

No, the fossils.

The evidence, as it is, does support the bible.

No, evidence supports the observation that the sun was formed long before the earth.

I disagree with the extra fiction added in by scientists and you guys ask me why. I tell you and you ask for more explanation. I give you plausible scenarios and you refuse to accept anything but an evolutionary explanation. Then accuse me of "falling back" on historical eyewitness information that says otherwise. I've always stated that there is operational science and historical science. Historical science can't be tested, repeated or observed. Especially a one time special effect like a world wide flood.

Yes, go ahead and transform any scenario that doesn't agree with your conclusions in "fiction".

 

[Loudmouth]

What evidence? The fancy stories about the past that scientists make up because they think they know something?

This is rich, coming from someone who thought that there were mammals in the Devonian.

You are the last person to judge the knowledge that scientists have.

The evidence, as it is, does support the bible.

What evidence? How does the order of fossils in the fossil record support the bible?

I tell you and you ask for more explanation.

No, we ask for an explanation that isn't laughable.

 

[Black Akuma]

What evidence? The fancy stories about the past that scientists make up because they think they know something?

No. The mountains of cross-confirmatory data from fields like paleontology, biology and physics, among others.

I give you plausible scenarios and you refuse to accept anything but an evolutionary explanation.

Your scenarios are not plausible. They're inconsistent, untenable, and don't mirror reality. You change them at the drop of a hat, merely going with whatever you think will lead to the conclusion you want, but you're too lazy to actually study any of this stuff hard, so more often than not you just end up tripping over your own lack of education.

Historical science can't be tested, repeated or observed.

Of course it can. If it couldn't, it wouldn't be science.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

I disagree with the extra fiction added in by scientists and you guys ask me why. I tell you and you ask for more explanation. I give you plausible scenarios and you refuse to accept anything but an evolutionary explanation. Then accuse me of "falling back" on historical eyewitness information that says otherwise. I've always stated that there is operational science and historical science. Historical science can't be tested, repeated or observed. Especially a one time special effect like a world wide flood.

What plausible scenarios are you talking about exactly? Let's not get distracted here by your intentional vagueness. Remember we were talking about the organization of the fossil record and how it doesn't fit your model? What plausible explanation have you provided to explain that? You argued that mammals actually do show up at the same time as fish, but after a couple of pages we've ironed out that little wrinkle.

Even ignoring for the moment that it supports evolution, why is the fossil record inconsistent with your model? If death entered the world suddenly or the Flood buried everything, we should find all organisms in more or less one big jumble. Instead we find a strict zonation. No mammals in the Devonian, for instance.

Here's where you provide a "plausible scenario".

 

[EternalDragon]

Your scenarios are not plausible. They're inconsistent, untenable, and don't mirror reality. You change them at the drop of a hat, merely going with whatever you think will lead to the conclusion you want, but you're too lazy to actually study any of this stuff hard, so more often than not you just end up tripping over your own lack of education.

So you say. Perhaps the problem is that the current scientific view is inconsistent and untenable and that is why there is a whole forum dedicated to discussing it.

I've been quite consistent with what I accept or don't accept. Anyone should be free to question scientific conclusions. Some of it is correct and some is incorrect. Most is based on what we know today and prone to change down the road.