Fossil Challenge for Evolutionists

[tas8831]

Something could NOT come from nothing.

Yet you believe it did, right?

So how did that first cell develop?

Don't know. How did Jehovah do it?

 

[tas8831]

Don't evolutionists claim that the fossil order has supposedly "confirmed" Evolution?

Confirmed or lends direct support or was a prediction or...? Make up you mind, please.

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.

I still cannot understand what you actually mean by this line - how could a theory, premised in part on fossil discoveries, in turn inform anyone of expected fossil succession without prior knowledge of the fossils?

Let us engage in a thought experiment - nah, that is stupid.
Let us look at, say, Cell Theory.

Surely, a scholar of biology such as yourself (who is apparently also a scholar of geology and bible studies and an advocate of geocentrism) knows of Cell Theory, yes? How do you suppose Cell Theory came about? Did Cell Theory inform its originators of the existence of cells? Did Schlieden and Schwann come up with Cell Theory and then look through microscopes to see what their Theory predicted?
According to your treatment of evolution and your implicit 'knowledge' of science.... yes.

(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.

Right, so Cell Theory came first, then seeing cells. Got it.

They can only attach an ad-hoc story to already-known fossil orders within the geologic column.

It is not ad hoc if it can be generally applied universally.

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

Yup. And when I look at cells I say "Cell Theory confirmed!".

 

[tas8831]

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?

Come on now - we all know that Cell Theory came FIRST, then came observations of cells....

 

[tas8831]

What does?

That James Tour knows how "life starts".

 

[tas8831]

....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)

Yes, you used that claim when you brought this up in 2015, too.
Such logic - tell us, when you were born, did all of your pre-existing relatives drop dead?

I do like how you embrace the evolution science when you think it helps you, but then dismiss it other times - a rather comically typical geocentrist tactic.

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.

"Imagine", or infer? Tell us all what should be done? Abandon the whole enterprise and embrace your geocentric YECism? Because, sure, that is the obvious logical step...

Funny thing - what happens to YECism when we realize that there are OECs? Do you suggest abandoning the bible altogether? Strangely, I'm guessing not.

 

[GodsGrace101]

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.

I don't know him as well as you do.
I also agree with micro evolution.
He IS a Christian...so it SEEMS like he should support intelligent design, but I really don't know him well enough.

 

[GodsGrace101]

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?

My point all along is that IF evolution is how we evolved then it seems to me that we should know this for a fact by now.

Think of all the scientific progress in the last 100 years...and it's still a theory?

Think of the eye,,,,HOW does an eye evolve? It started out that there were no eyes, and then after millions of years they appear? Or do they evolve slowly over that time....did our ancestors see only shadows at one point?

I can decide to not trust scientists.
I was told not to drink coffee when I had a problem with my heart....my grandson was told he could drink coffee. Which is it?

When I got married the big discovery was margarine. Butter was poison. NOW, margarine is poison and it's better to have butter.

I only trust science when it's sure of what it's proclaiming...otherwise I don't.

I posted a link with many scientist that are beginning to look of other methods of our getting to here. This can only mean that they don't have a solution yet.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Ok, that is your opinion.

How is it my opinion?

Do YOU know how we got here?
You're an atheist,,,
I'm Christian.

We both have a problem....
my solution just seems better to me.

You have to explain to me how all this came from nothing and what was JUST BEFORE the big bang.
Then you have to explain how this much energy didn't just collapse on itself like it was supposed to but started to expand instead.

I have to explain to you how a big and powerful force that calls itself the first cause came about with a previous cause and created what we see around us.

It's just a decision one has to make.
I opt for the powerful first cause.

 

[tas8831]

So, evolutionists, this challenge begins with a thought experiment:

Of course it does.

Imagine that scientists have thoroughly studied all living things, but nobody has ever gone digging for fossils. So, you know everything about human,mammal,bird,reptile,amphibian,etc. anatomy, but no fossils have been dug up yet.

Now, since you love to claim that Evolution "predicts" the order of the fossil record in the geologic column.

Is this part of the 'thought experiment'?
I don't recall ever reading or hearing any evolutionary biologist making such a claim. So it must be part of the 'experiment.' Unless you can provide actual examples. We can, of course, 'predict' what sorts of features we might expect to see in a particular group of organisms in a particular time frame, like the predictions about what we might see in wasp/ant ancestor, but I am personally unaware of any 'prediction' regarding a specific fossil order.

... tell us where you expect to find different types of fossilized animal groups, and provide specific arguments for your predictions.

What do you mean "where"? Where as in location, or where as in time frame? Or both? If Noah's flood had actually happened, for example, I would predict, given their relative size and thus density and their general shape and thus hydrodynamic properties that we should find fossils of large modern mammals such as rhinos in the same stratum that we find juvenile triceratops in. Or modern horses and Camelops. But I digress.

Keep in mind our thought experiment: You know all about living animal anatomy, but have zero prior knowledge of fossil appearances in the rock record. Therefore, these should be true predictions of the fossil record, supported with well-reasoned arguments.

Great thought experiment.

Pity that it is premised on an essentially backwards understanding of how scientific theories are developed and used.
Having extant anatomy knowledge tells us nothing about rates of change, biogeography, etc.

You fail to recognize or understand that such things do not exist in a vacuum. It is like you want us to describe the best way to win a game of chess using only the chess board and no actual knowledge of how the game pieces move. The Theory of Evolution, even in its original formulation, did not rely on a single type of knowledge. It relied on, among other things, embryology, artificial selection (as a model, of sorts), biogeography, etc.

So in reality, this is NOT a 'thought experiment' in which we take a Theory of Evolution and use it to make predictions based solely on anatomy, it is a scam - for the ToE's formulation knowledge of anatomy along with knowledge of fossils (and many other things) was used.

It would be like asking you to explain YEC cultism without referencing Noah's flood myth.

It is disingenuous.

Is this sort of thing your "mission" or something?

That is, it is a set up, and one, I think is obvious, premised on your rather shallow grasp of science - which may be a product of your past psychedelic drug use, but who knows. I will point out more flaws as time allows, but that is good for today.

Off to tell impressionable youngsters not to trust YEC fanatics.

 

[bhsmte]

How is it my opinion?

Do YOU know how we got here?
You're an atheist,,,
I'm Christian.

We both have a problem....
my solution just seems better to me.

You have to explain to me how all this came from nothing and what was JUST BEFORE the big bang.
Then you have to explain how this much energy didn't just collapse on itself like it was supposed to but started to expand instead.

I have to explain to you how a big and powerful force that calls itself the first cause came about with a previous cause and created what we see around us.

It's just a decision one has to make.
I opt for the powerful first cause.

If you cant back it up with objective/independent and reliable evidence, it is opinion.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[GodsGrace101]

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?

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.

Scientists believed that the universe always existed.

NOW they believe that it did not always exist and that somehow it came into being.

They have a bigger problem now than they did before because NOW they have to explain how one gets all this that we have around us if before there was nothing.

I hope you know that there are some scientists that are now trying to prove that something could come of nothing. Something THEY said was impossible just some years ago.

The skeletons of man from 100,000 years ago may or may not be human. That's another thing we're not sure of.

What is known is that a sudden change took place somewhere along the line and the skeletons changed to what we have today.

All we know for sure is that all mankind came from one ancestor.

 

[GodsGrace101]

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?


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

Who said otherwise?

Can YOU make connections?

If man cannot create life with all the necessary elements that are required to create it....

HOW did it get created all by itself millions of years ago with no help from anyone or anything?

Speak of primordial soup...
We can't even do it with necessary ingredients!

 

[GodsGrace101]

Yeah.

Depends on the questions you are asking. Maybe your questions are crap?
Cool questions, but irrelevant to evolution.

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

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



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

Shouldn't Jesus have returned by now?

I'll bet you do...

Just to let you know that our conversation is over.

First of all when you split up what I say you can make it sound like I've said ANYTHING you wish.

Second of all, you just want to argue...
I don't like to argue.

 

[GodsGrace101]

If you cant back it up with objective/independent and reliable evidence, it is opinion.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

YOU back up what YOU believe with objective/independent and reliable evidence
OR
evolution is just YOUR opinion.

 

[bhsmte]

YOU back up what YOU believe with objective/independent and reliable evidence
OR
evolution is just YOUR opinion.

LOL

The TOE, is one of the most well evidenced theories in science. Ever hear of francis collins? He is a devoted christian, scientist physician and former head of the human genome project.

Maybe you will give credibility to a fellow christian, with impeccable science credentials and read up on his strong opinion, on the reality of evolution.

Beyond that, i dont play pigeon chess with folks who deny such strong reality.

 

[lifepsyop]

I still cannot understand what you actually mean by this line - how could a theory, premised in part on fossil discoveries, in turn inform anyone of expected fossil succession without prior knowledge of the fossils?

It couldn't and that's the point.

Evolution theory is largely silent on an expected order of fossils in the geologic column.

For a simple example, if early paleontologists had found a pattern of mammal fossils underneath dinosaur layers then evolutionists would conclude that mammals evolved first. Why not?

If birds had instead been found in rock layers underneath dinosaurs, then the conclusion might be that dinosaurs and birds share a common ancestor (instead of birds evolving from dinosaurs), or perhaps that dinosaurs convergently evolved similar morphological structures as birds. Why not?

The list of examples could go on forever.

Let us look at, say, Cell Theory.

It's hard to draw comparisons between the evolution story and science. I'm willing to play along but in this comparison, what would be the analog to the idea of common ancestry? Common ancestry is a loose idea that can be pulled and plied and written a million different ways in order to accomodate the data. So what is that with regards to Cell Theory?

It is not ad hoc if it can be generally applied universally.

With regards to the fossil order, the story of universal common ancestry is largely ad-hoc. This is because a common ancestry narrative could be written around so many different fossil orders, as I have explained.

So the big question is, why do evolutionists champion the actual fossil order as if it were evidence for Evolution?

 

[Sparagmos]

Think of all the scientific progress in the last 100 years...and it's still a theory?

Think of the eye,,,,HOW does an eye evolve? It started out that there were no eyes, and then after millions of years they appear? Or do they evolve slowly over that time....did our ancestors see only shadows at one point?

I can decide to not trust scientists.
I was told not to drink coffee when I had a problem with my heart....my grandson was told he could drink coffee. Which is it?

When I got married the big discovery was margarine. Butter was poison. NOW, margarine is poison and it's better to have butter.

I only trust science when it's sure of what it's proclaiming...otherwise I don't.

I posted a link with many scientist that are beginning to look of other methods of our getting to here. This can only mean that they don't have a solution yet.

Well, I think I can clear that up for you. From wikupedia’s article on “scientific theory”:
“The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4]whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.”

You see, the theory of evolution has been tested and proven. We still refer to the theory of relativity too.

This is simply a misunderstanding of the scientific use of the word theory, which is different than the non-scientific use of the word.

If you are willing, please read the article on scientific theories and let me know if that explains things:
Scientific theory - Wikipedia

 

[GodsGrace101]

LOL

The TOE, is one of the most well evidenced theories in science. Ever hear of francis collins? He is a devoted christian, scientist physician and former head of the human genome project.

Maybe you will give credibility to a fellow christian, with impeccable science credentials and read up on his strong opinion, on the reality of evolution.

Beyond that, i dont play pigeon chess with folks who deny such strong reality.

Really b, I don't care if the scientist is Atheist or Christian or how important he is in this field of science....

I DO NOT accept evolution UNLESS it could be proven beyond any doubt...and that will not happen,,,
IMHO.

I don't know what pigeon chess is....
So I'm removing myself from this thread in any case...

 

[GodsGrace101]

Well, I think I can clear that up for you. From wikupedia’s article on “scientific theory”:
“The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory.[4][Note 1] In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess,[4]whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of prediction in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope.”

You see, the theory of evolution has been tested and proven. We still refer to the theory of relativity too.

This is simply a misunderstanding of the scientific use of the word theory, which is different than the non-scientific use of the word.

If you are willing, please read the article on scientific theories and let me know if that explains things:
Scientific theory - Wikipedia

I did read through the article, rather quickly I'll admit. I doubt I'll understand this anymore than I already do.

Here is one important aspect of the article for me:

Typically for any theory to be accepted within most academia there is one simple criterion. The essential criterion is that the theory must be observable and repeatable. The aforementioned criterion is essential to prevent fraud and perpetuate science itself.

Of course evolution cannot be observable or repeated. So the best we can do is attempt to create life...even a one-cell life form and even this cannot be done.

IOW, Einstein had a theory. The theory of relativity.
As far as we can tell right now...his theory was correct. As far as we can tell right now...we still don't know if evolution is correct.

Some fish have no eyes because they live deep in the ocean and do not need too see because it's totally dark there. So how did the fish up on top get eyes?
Did they develop as the fish got closer and closer to the surface? Did they see better and better? HOW LONG did this take considering the complexity of the eye?

I've thought this over very well and have not brought my faith into this. I'm waiting for this to be confirmed....

Am I wrong in saying that evolution has NOT been confirmed?

 

[bhsmte]

Really b, I don't care if the scientist is Atheist or Christian or how important he is in this field of science....

I DO NOT accept evolution UNLESS it could be proven beyond any doubt...and that will not happen,,,
IMHO.

I don't know what pigeon chess is....
So I'm removing myself from this thread in any case...

Whatever floats your boat.