Fossil Challenge for Evolutionists

[GodsGrace101]

Why do you accept what he says over the other hundreds of thousands of scientists who actually work in biology, palaeontology etc? That doesn't suggest that you are using the "common sense" you're so proud of.

He....who's HE???
I used him as an example. I found it in one minute on the net. There are MANY who believe as HE does.

I don't follow any of these persons,,,I just know that they exist.

Who would YOU post?
Someone you DO NOT agree with???

 

[GodsGrace101]

....

Do you know anything at all about science? The ToE? Or indeed what a scientific theory entails?

Because everything you post is simply wrong.

I know nothing and never claimed to.
I just know that if there is NOTHING....
Something cannot come of it.
NOTHING IS NOTHING.

I also don't see any change happening in any significant way. Man has been around, at least 5 or 6,000 years and I don't see any change. Skeletons of man that have been found going back that far look the same as today.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the mechanics of evolution.

You're very sure of this.
Then why isn't it taught as fact and why do not all scientists agree?

If it's a fact,,,shouldn't they all agree?

 

[GodsGrace101]

Abiogenesis in not part of the ToE.

Abiogenesis...the beginning of something or other.
To me,,,,how we evolved...IF we did,,,is just as mysterious as HOW we began.

 

[Speedwell]

You're very sure of this.
Then why isn't it taught as fact and why do not all scientists agree?

If it's a fact,,,shouldn't they all agree?

You miss the point, I think.

Facts are facts, and scientific theories attempt to explain the facts.

For example, gravity is a fact we can all observe, right? We can agree that it's a fact.
Einstein's theory of gravitation is an explanation for that fact.

Likewise, evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is an explanation for that fact.

Scientists agree that evolution is a fact. As to the theory, most scientists agree that it is an adequate explanation for the fact of evolution, but there are a few with minor quibbles--as it should be with any scientific theory.

 

[VirOptimus]

I know nothing and never claimed to.
I just know that if there is NOTHING....
Something cannot come of it.
NOTHING IS NOTHING.

I also don't see any change happening in any significant way. Man has been around, at least 5 or 6,000 years and I don't see any change. Skeletons of man that have been found going back that far look the same as today.

How old is the earth?

 

[VirOptimus]

Abiogenesis...the beginning of something or other.
To me,,,,how we evolved...IF we did,,,is just as mysterious as HOW we began.

Thats because you are ignorant of the science. Knowledge cures mysteries.

 

[Jimmy D]

He....who's HE???

Dr James Tour, who do you think I was referring to?

I used him as an example.

Oh, so you did know who I was referring to.

I used him as an example. I found it in one minute on the net. There are MANY who believe as HE does.

Great, a tiny fraction of the world's biologists, so what? A rational person should probably be swayed by looking at evidence rather than listening to a fringe group who reject valid science because it clashes with their personal religious beliefs.

But this is a discussion I'm not interested in, the topic is about the fossil record, something you're yet to comment on.

 

[Sparagmos]

Many.....
Here's one:

I read that guy’s bio and he has NOT “abandoned the theory of evolution” by any means. He says he agrees that micro evolution occurs and questions macro evolution. He also states that he does not support intelligent design theories.

 

[Sparagmos]

I never claimed to know anything about science.
I don't even know what the YEC you mentioned is all about.

I like to use my common sense.
Science has been saying things to me all my life and many of those statement have proven incorrect.

My common sense tells me that even Einstein's theory of relativity was shown to be correct and that seem a lot more complicated (to me) than proving evolution.

I believe in micro evolution...changes within a species due to need. I do not believe an animal can change into a different animal. I do not believe single cell life in a pount could turn into a fish, and a fish into a human....no matter how many years it would take.

This thread sounds like conspiracies, which I'm not interested in.

If you're in the science field, maybe you could explain to me how something could come from nothing....

I think it’s cool that you are being honest about what you do and do not know. I also am not an expert on biology or evolution.

If you haven’t studied evolution and biology, how can you say you don’t believe it? Science does give an explanation for how species evolve, but you would have to study it to understand, and therefore “believe” it. Much of life and human technology seems impossible or magical until we study and learn the mechanics of it. That is why our ancestors attributed natural processes to “the gods,” they had no way of studying and understanding the mechanics of weather or reproduction or disease. It seems like magic the way a woman’s body can “grow” a baby, or the way a plane that weighs a ton can fly. But when one learns the science behind those things, they make sense and are no longer magical.

There are some fields of study I will never dive into. So I have no choice but to accept the scientific consensus developed by those who have spent their entire lives studying them. The fact of the matter is, you have to be a scientist to challenge accepted science. Millions of biologists have dedicated themselves to the pursuit of truth on the matter of evolution. Who am I, or you, to say their science is wrong?

 

[lifepsyop]

If nobody has been digging for fossils, how do we have any understanding of the geologic column?

Don't evolutionists claim that the fossil order has supposedly "confirmed" Evolution? If that is the case, then you should be able to demonstrate how Evolution theory would inform you of the expected fossil succession, without prior knowledge of it.

(e.g. we'll expect to find the higher mammals in only the upper rock layers because _______, and we'll expect to find hominids in only the highest rock layers because _______)

Evolutionists can't provide these reasons, because their theory does not inform them of where to expect such fossil groups without already knowing which rock layers contain those fossils. They can only attach an ad-hoc story to already-known fossil orders within the geologic column.

Yet at the same time evolutioists will deceptively claim the specific fossil order "confirmed" their theory.

 

[bhsmte]

Abiogenesis...the beginning of something or other.
To me,,,,how we evolved...IF we did,,,is just as mysterious as HOW we began.

Ok, that is your opinion.

 

[46AND2]

I know nothing and never claimed to.
I just know that if there is NOTHING....
Something cannot come of it.
NOTHING IS NOTHING.

Great. Now maybe you can provide some evidence that there has ever been a state of "nothingness."

Can you provide an example of this "nothing" from which nothing can come?

I also don't see any change happening in any significant way. Man has been around, at least 5 or 6,000 years and I don't see any change. Skeletons of man that have been found going back that far look the same as today.

Yes, but skeletons of man that have been around for 100,000 years don't look the same as today. Five or six thousand years is an extremely short amount of time relative to how long life has been around.

 

[Jimmy D]

Don't evolutionists claim that the fossil order has supposedly "confirmed" Evolution? If that is the case, then you should be able to demonstrate how Evolution theory would inform you of the expected fossil succession, without prior knowledge of it.

(e.g. we'll expect to find the higher mammals in only the upper rock layers because _______, and we'll expect to find hominids in only the highest rock layers because _______)

Evolutionists can't provide these reasons, because their theory does not inform them of where to expect such fossil groups without already knowing which rock layers contain those fossils. They can only attach an ad-hoc story to already-known fossil orders within the geologic column.

Yet at the same time evolutioists will deceptively claim the specific fossil order "confirmed" their theory.

LOL

You are aware that we do actually have a fossil record? And that it is consistent with what one would expect to see if evolution were the case? You are aware that there are many other lines of evidence supporting the TOE?

 

[tas8831]

So what's the difference between his talking in the video or meeting with someone?

You should ask him.

You see, he 'challenged' a biologist to 'meet with him' and explain how he was wrong about evolution. Matzke accepted, but wanted to record it. Tour said no. Can you not make the connection?

He knows how life starts...it makes sense to me.

How doe she know that? It does not make sense to me.

Man cannot create life.

Who said otherwise?

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, its just my points went over your head.

The op is useless and not worth bothering with.

What points? If you are talking about the following quote, there was nothing there to "whoosh" over my head, lol. Assuming I didn't miss one of your posts directed at me personally, and the following is the post that supposedly made your "points" you essentially made a claim, nothing more, and you know better than that.

The ToE claims are very well backed up. If you dont know that then you are uneducated.

And best I can tell you have done nothing but make useless claims/short comments that mean virtually nothing. I have to comment again that is so out there to claim something is backed by someone else/the OP is just worthless, and expect anyone to just buy it, just like that. Evolutionists may be that easy, but many of us are not. Wow

Briefly, what would you say to my posting "God is definitely the maker of all things, and the claim is very well backed up in the bible". Well that's basically how your point comes off as evidence. Again, you know better.

On the other hand if you did actually post some real "points" towards me, and not just hear say, then by all means, direct me to them, else I'll just assume you got nothing now, never did, and you actually thought you could convince us by whispering sweet nothings into our ears..

 

[Kenny'sID]

How doe she know that? It does not make sense to me.

What does?

 

[lifepsyop]

I tried to explain the latter works to you in the other thread.
1. If we observe a derived population in the geological record before the basal population that will falsify evolution.

But you're using the geologic record to determine which populations are more basal or derived in the first place.

Generally speaking, animals found deeper down are assumed to be more "basal", and animals found only higher up are likewise assumed to be more "derived".


....Of course, sometimes the derived population show up deeper down than the basal population,(e.g. traces of advanced walkers found over 10 million years before the famous Tiktaalik who was supposedly just starting to evolve primitive walking abilities)

When something like this happens, evolutionists simply imagine that the basal population must be even deeper in the rocks and just hasn't been disocvered yet. (so-called "ghost lineages") ... getting off in the weeds here, but it just goes to show how much freedom Evolution theory has to fit a preferred narrative to the fossils, whatever their order of succession may be.

For example finding a mammal species, like a rabbit, in a strata laid down before the evolution of mammals, would falsify evolution.

Here you are doing the same thing again.

You're unable to make any claims about where rabbit fossils should be found, without first having prior knowledge of where mammal fossils are found generally.

And the same thing with mammals in general. Without already possessing knowledge of the mammal-containing strata, you're unable to demonstrate how Evolution theory itself expects them to be found there.

 

[tas8831]

Why is evolution a mystery?

Yeah.

Because it would answer a lot and it doesn't seem able to answer anything.

Depends on the questions you are asking. Maybe your questions are crap?

Man finds himself here on this earth.
How did we get here?
Are we some experiment by some advanced civilization in some other galaxy?

Cool questions, but irrelevant to evolution.

Are we a computer program?
Did God make us as a pass-time for His own entertainment?

HOW did we get here?
WHY are we here?

Again, not relevant to evolution. Do you ask those things of, say, Cell theory?

The bible has some answers....

No, the bible has some ancient middle eastern 'truisms' and tall tales.

Science does not.

Ok, so what does the bible say about us being a computer program?

IYO,,, shouldn't science have been able to absolutely prove evolution by now?

Shouldn't Jesus have returned by now?

The big bang seems to jive with Let There Be Light.
I have a bigger problem with evolution than the beginning.

I'll bet you do...

 

[tas8831]

He's not my authority T....

Sure he is, or you wouldn't have posted his silly video.

Many scientists are giving up on evolution.

Really?

Which ones? The ones your creationist pals tell you about?

Someone here asked for support,,,
I posted him.
There are more...but I'm not spending the rest of my day looking for them.

Ok..

Why? YOU believe EVERY SCIENTIST believes in evolution? How do YOU prove that??

No, I know that not every one does. But the real question is WHY?

Tour doesn't because he is a religious fanatic. In fact, ALL of the scientists that I am aware of that do not accept evolution is due to their religious programming. Even those that pretend to reject it based on science - further investigation shows that it is their religion. In every single case that I have looked into (and it has been a lot over the years), always religion, not science.

Here's an entire list of scientists that are trying to figure out different ways that we might have gotten to where we are today as humans:


List of scientists who think that a fresh look at evolution is needed | The Third Way of Evolution

An ENTIRE list. Cool.
You know that they are not anti-evolution, right?