Dating Methods

[lasthero]

By the way, the frogamandar was gerobatrachus. Don't bother going on Evolution News and Views to look it up - I already did. Casey Luskin has one blog post on it, and it's already been refuted by an actual biologist.

The Human Fossil Record, Part 1. The Nature of Transitional Fossils | The BioLogos Forum

 

[Loudmouth]

And you are basing all that on sketchy details that have been assumed
by man. The snake evolution is still a mystery to scientists.

The same with turtles. They don't even know what the creature was that
led to modern turtles.

Is this a turtle?

You are believing in man's assumptions instead of God's word.

You are believing in man's assumption that God had anything to do with the Bible.

 

[Doveaman]

For instance, common ancestry requires that, since snakes and other lizards share a common ancestor, we should find evidence of snakes losing their legs over time. And that's exactly what we find.

Do you have a video of this experiment, or are you just speculating on some old bones?

 

[lasthero]

Do you have a video of this experiment, or are you just speculating on some old bones?

We have bones of snakes with legs.

I'd say a fossil of snakes with legs is pretty good evidence that snakes, at one time, had legs. Wouldn't you?

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you have a video of this experiment, or are you just speculating on some old bones?

Creationist: Evolution is false because there are no transitional fossils.

Evolutionist: Here is a transitional fossil.

Creationist: That doesn't count.

 

[Doveaman]

We have bones of snakes with legs.

I'd say a fossil of snakes with legs is pretty good evidence that snakes, at one time, had legs. Wouldn't you?

Perhaps. But that does not mean snakes evolved. It may simply mean that the newer species of snakes were designed without legs.

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps. But that does not mean snakes evolved. It may simply mean that the newer species of snakes were designed without legs.

Why would design look exactly like evolution? Why would we only see a combination of features from snakes and lizards but not snakes and birds or snakes and mammals? Why do we only see the intermediate species that evolution predicts we will see, and none of the species that common design could create outside of the predicted evolutionary intermediates?

It would seem to me that successful predictions are evidence for a theory.

 

[lasthero]

Perhaps. But that does not mean snakes evolved. It may simply mean that the newer species of snakes were designed without legs.

So God just so happened to make a new species of snakes without legs, and it just so happened that the old species died out, and it just so happens that the new snakes all have bones in their lower halves that look, suspciously, like a leg should be attached to them. Some of the new snakes just so happen to even have claws.

When was this second creation event?

 

[EternalDragon]

By the way, the frogamandar was gerobatrachus. Don't bother going on Evolution News and Views to look it up - I already did. Casey Luskin has one blog post on it, and it's already been refuted by an actual biologist.

The Human Fossil Record, Part 1. The Nature of Transitional Fossils | The BioLogos Forum

You still don't realize you are choosing to believe man's assumptions
about the past over God's truth.

And every single example of so called evolution has creatures with more
complexity and features going to what we have today...Less complexity
and lost features. Exactly what creation shows. Kinds created fully complex
with lots of diversity and after the flood evolving into different, lesser
forms (variety) within their kinds.

 

[Loudmouth]

You still don't realize you are choosing to believe man's assumptions
about the past over God's truth.

What assumptions?

And every single example of so called evolution has creatures with more
complexity and features going to what we have today...Less complexity
and lost features.

Are you saying that these jawless vetebrates with no bones, no limbs, and no lungs are more complex than human beings?

Kinds created fully complex
with lots of diversity and after the flood evolving into different, lesser
forms (variety) within their kinds.

If they were fully complex, then why doesn't that vertebrate above have legs or lungs? Why is it lacking complexity?

 

[Doveaman]

So God just so happened to make a new species of snakes without legs, and it just so happened that the old species died out, and it just so happens that the new snakes all have bones in their lower halves that look, suspciously, like a leg should be attached to them. Some of the new snakes just so happen to even have claws.

Yes, I too am puzzled by the way God does things sometimes.

When was this second creation event?

Genesis 1. Even though it may not have been the second creation event. They could have been many more creation events before. Genesis 1 is the most recent.

 

[EternalDragon]

What assumptions?



Are you saying that these jawless vetebrates with no bones, no limbs, and no lungs are more complex than human beings?

If they were fully complex, then why doesn't that vertebrate above have legs or lungs? Why is it lacking complexity?

What is that and why are you comparing it to humans?

 

[Loudmouth]

What is that and why are you comparing it to humans?

How do you know it isn't a human? You aren't comparing similarities, now are you?

Also, you said these species were created fully complex. How can it be fully complex when it is lacking complexity?

 

[Strathos]

Dinner and a movie is my favorite dating method, personally

 

[EternalDragon]

How do you know it isn't a human? You aren't comparing similarities, now are you?

Also, you said these species were created fully complex. How can it be fully complex when it is lacking complexity?

The simplest form of life is highly complex. Bacteria.

All life forms are highly complex. None show a step wise evolution. They
just appear in the fossil record fully functional and complex.

 

[lasthero]

The simplest form of life is highly complex. Bacteria.

The simplest form of modern life. The earliest lifeforms would have been much simpler than the ones we see today.

All life forms are highly complex. None show a step wise evolution.

Yes, they do, but what exactly do you mean by the word 'complex'? Like, if you had to figure out if, say, a dog or a cat was more complex, how would you go about figuring that out?

They
just appear in the fossil record fully functional and complex.

They don't 'just appear', there's a very clear progression. The deepest organism we've ever found in the column are quite simple things, especially compared to ones that come higher up.

And of course they're fully functional. Evolution doesn't predict otherwise, and if you think it does, I suspect the biology book you claimed to be reading requires crayons.

 

[EternalDragon]

The simplest form of modern life. The earliest lifeforms would have been much simpler than the ones we see today.

Any examples?

Yes, they do, but what exactly do you mean by the word 'complex'? Like, if you had to figure out if, say, a dog or a cat was more complex, how would you go about figuring that out?

If you can't understand that then you can't understand anything.

They don't 'just appear', there's a very clear progression. The deepest organism we've ever found in the column are quite simple things, especially compared to ones that come higher up

Sure, what they put on paper and you believe. Reality is different.
Those first creatures are very complex and fully formed.

And of course they're fully functional. Evolution doesn't predict otherwise, and if you think it does, I suspect the biology book you claimed to be reading requires crayons.

So nature wrote the DNA programs?

 

[lasthero]

Any examples?

Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you can't understand that then you can't understand anything.

Yeah, about what I thought. Creationists loved to blab about how complex things are, but when you ask one to actually SHOW how something is complex or give a rigid definition of what they mean by it, they tend to shut up.

Sure, what they put on paper and you believe. Reality is different.
Those first creatures are very complex and fully formed.

Again, no one said they wouldn't be fully formed. Evolution doesn't predict half-formed organisms, whatever that would be. That you seem to think it does just shows how little.

So nature wrote the DNA programs?

There is no 'DNA program'. They're chemicals.

 

[Loudmouth]

The simplest form of life is highly complex. Bacteria.

They aren't fully complex. They don't have tissues, organs, limbs, etc.

None show a step wise evolution.

Based on what criteria? How do you determine if a fossil species does or does not show a step wise process of evolution?

They
just appear in the fossil record fully functional and complex.

How do you determine if a fossil is fully functional and fully complex? What are the criteria you are using? From just the fossil, how do you determine who its ancestors and descendants are?

 

[EternalDragon]

Timeline of evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, apparently what you choose to put your faith in. Naturalistic philosophy.
On paper.