Fossil Challenge for Evolutionists

[Kenny'sID]

I'm not interested in debating you over it.

Not sure if that's original enough to go down on my list of favorite cop outs, but I will consider it...Thanks for the effort.

 

[lifepsyop]

Uh... citations please.
But it is so cool how you want 'predictions' from theory alone regarding fossils, and when you get one you dismiss it because other fossils had been found in contemporary strata.

And you just keep blindly supporting my argument without even realizing it.

Anyways, I think we've established that Evolutionists never expected any particular order of fossils in the rock layers. They merely adapted an ad-hoc evolutionary narrative to the order that was found, and here we are today.

And now these evolutionists marvel at their ability to "predict" that a horse fossil will be found with other horse fossils, that a salamander fossil will be found in rock layers known for containing the remains of salamanders, etc. etc. which is little more than basic pattern-recognition.

Knowing this, it's funny that evolution-believers walk around telling each other that the fossils are arranged in a particularly "evolutionary" order. Nothing could be further from the truth. As has been demonstrated and conceded in this thread.

 

[GodsGrace101]

What is he an authority on? He has no publication record relevant to any of the things he rants about, he just writes books for layfolk like you and goes on clown shows like Shapiro's.

Have you noticed that I don't respond to you?
You might want to stop posting to me.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I think you misunderstood, I said that ridiculous argument was coming up, and yes it's beyond not true, it's laughable. That is exactly what science does, prove things, and they only discredit themselves terribly when they try to claim that as a reason they can't prove evolution. I personally would be embarrassed to try to pull that on people.

I don't believe evolution has been proven either. They manage to make some believe it because they use ridiculous nonsense like we are talking about now, but when it comes down to actually proving it, we get nothing but excuses.

If you've been reading my posts at all, you'll know that I don't see us getting anywhere on evolution.

I'm starting to worry that some DO have an agenda and cannot even fathom admitting that evolution is an old theory that cannot be "proven", or whatever scientists call it.

Creationists have an agenda too. But at least, I do believe, that they are on the side of saying that there is no proof,

so...where do we head from here?

I guess there's a great divide instead of working together?

 

[lasthero]

Well, I guess your questions took us down to the bottom line.

I either have to believe that one cell turned into everything eventually, OR I have to believe that a creator made each and every type of animal/plant.

Well, not exactly

Most creationists that I've come across don't accept that the Earth is billions of years old, and that organisms have been around for millions of years.

You, however, seem to accept this. So I'm trying to understand how you work with that.

Like, for instance, grass hasn't been around for all that long, relatively speaking. It shows up about 70 million years ago. Nowadays grass is all over the place.

You don't accept that grass evolved from previous forms, so where do you think it came from? Are you saying there were separate creation events?

 

[GodsGrace101]

Well, not exactly

Most creationists that I've come across don't accept that the Earth is billions of years old, and that organisms have been around for millions of years.

You, however, seem to accept this. So I'm trying to understand how you work with that.

Like, for instance, grass hasn't been around for all that long, relatively speaking. It shows up about 70 million years ago. Nowadays grass is all over the place.

You don't accept that grass evolved from previous forms, so where do you think it came from? Are you saying there were separate creation events?

How could it not be accepted that the earth is millions of years old? If you see how mountains corrode, it's obvious that it takes a long time...what about a river creating a valley? That must take millions of years.

I like to accept facts. I said way back that I'm Christian. God could have made things how He wanted to make them...I don't believe we come from a fish as those images show that teach children in school as if it were a fact. It's not a fact as far as I can tell.

All scientists agree that there's gravity.
Not all scientists believe in evolution....

So how do I work with what I've got?
IF you tell me, for sure, that grass began to be seen 70 million years ago,,,then I have to accept it as fact.

Maybe God thought we'd like the feel of it under our feet? I've always said that God made the first of everything...like, for instance, carpeting. LOL

I think persons that accept the story of Genesis as fact will run into problems. It tells us WHY things were made,,,not HOW. It just says that God created...did it take 6 days? Is a day worth a million years? Who knows. We weren't around then.

So are You seeking to know the truth like I am?
Does this affect your belief system?

 

[lasthero]

How could it not be accepted that the earth is millions of years old? If you see how mountains corrode, it's obvious that it takes a long time...what about a river creating a valley? That must take millions of years.

I mean, agree with you, but oh boy. You underestimate the ability of YEC's to deny things.

All scientists agree that there's gravity.

That's not true, exactly. Look up 'electric universe'.

So how do I work with what I've got?
IF you tell me, for sure, that grass began to be seen 70 million years ago,,,then I have to accept it as fact.

Maybe God thought we'd like the feel of it under our feet? I've always said that God made the first of everything...like, for instance, carpeting. LOL

Humans - well, what you would probably consider 'humans' - don't show up for tens of millions of years after grass appeared.

I think persons that accept the story of Genesis as fact will run into problems. It tells us WHY things were made,,,not HOW. It just says that God created...did it take 6 days? Is a day worth a million years? Who knows.

That'd be a question to ask a YEC. Though, I have to say, I find this way of looking at things rather odd. It seems like you're already halfway in the door when it comes to evolution, anyway. You seem to accept that new species show up through history, you just seem to think this happens because God brings them in through separate creation events.

If that's the case, he's doing it in such a way that it's indistinguishable from evolution. At that point, why can't you just accept that God uses evolution?

We weren't around then.

You don't have to be present at an event to know about it.

So are You seeking to know the truth like I am?
Does this affect your belief system?

To an extent. I will admit, while I find most creationist arguments weak, I'm open to having my mind changed. I'll also say that I'm on the same boat with you when it comes to the old age of the Earth - I can't fathom ever believing the Earth was young again. There's just too much evidence against it. In fact, I could almost see the old age of the Earth as a good argument for God - there's so much evidence for it and it's so blatant that it's almost like some intelligent being designed the Earth in such a way that only the thickest head could deny it.

 

[VirOptimus]

This constantly repeating the same nonsensical cop out is an obvious dodge because you cannot prove evolution, a classic to blame those that ask for the proof you are unable to provide. However you might want to make things a bit more interesting by changing over over to the "science proves nothing" lane for awhile, it serves the same purpose, and though I do like the "I'm not responsible for your education" ploy as well, it's getting a bit moldy at the moment.

The ToE is incredibly well-supported science. I dont have to support anything, education on it is freely available all over the world.

If you want to challange the ToE you need to write an article for peer-review. If you cant then your ”view” is irrelevant.

 

[Belk]

You said something about science not being able to prove anything.

This is just not true.

I just don't believe evolution has been proven.

Why do you think biologists accept that the theory of evolution is true and used it as the cornerstone of their science for the past 150+ years?

 

[GodsGrace101]

I mean, agree with you, but oh boy. You underestimate the ability of YEC's to deny things.

Is YEC Young Earth Creationist?
We should pray for them that YOU are not proven right,,or they'll have a total nervous breakdown!!
I truly don't know what the problem is.
The earth is OLD.

That's not true, exactly. Look up 'electric universe'.

I just did.
It's all very interesting.
Just goes to show that we know close to nothing.
We DO know that things fall down...what causes it is a mystery, even though we've given it a name --gravity.
Of course a problem we laypersons have is that we can't tell what is real science and what is science fiction. Maybe all science was science fiction at one point?

Humans - well, what you would probably consider 'humans' - don't show up for tens of millions of years after grass appeared.

Well, God got it ready for us!
And as to what I regard "human"...do you see a big change between one type of human and how we are today? Or do we still have missing links?

That'd be a question to ask a YEC. Though, I have to say, I find this way of looking at things rather odd. It seems like you're already halfway in the door when it comes to evolution, anyway. You seem to accept that new species show up through history, you just seem to think this happens because God brings them in through separate creation events.

Maybe. What I'm really saying is that we just can't know. But it's this search for knowledge that spurs us on to know more and more about ourselves and our environment.

If that's the case, he's doing it in such a way that it's indistinguishable from evolution. At that point, why can't you just accept that God uses evolution?

Oh. I could accept it. God could have created the universe with all the laws governing it,,,all the math and science laws etc....and then just have gone on for some more creating..this is a theological possibility (theology I know about) but not one Christians like, and just left us to figure it out and for evolution to happen.

IF this is true,,,you must admit that the coding (or whatever it's called) is already in the DNA and had to be put there somehow....

You don't have to be present at an event to know about it.

Oh yeah? You think snakes talk?
(I know what you mean)

click to expand

 

[GodsGrace101]

The ToE is incredibly well-supported science. I dont have to support anything, education on it is freely available all over the world.

If you want to challange the ToE you need to write an article for peer-review. If you cant then your ”view” is irrelevant.

You know...you're very arrogant.
A person is allowed to have a view even if they're NOT a scientist. We can think.

And no one here is asking YOU to be their teacher.
Far from it....

And usually, yes, it's the person that makes the claim that has to prove what he stated.

If YOU think evolution is true...YOU have to prove it...not me disprove it.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Why do you think biologists accept that the theory of evolution is true and used it as the cornerstone of their science for the past 150+ years?

Belk, if all scientists accepted evolution as true, why would this thread be happening?

 

[Belk]

Belk, if all scientists accepted evolution as true, why would this thread be happening?

That makes no sense. You can still disagree with something even if it is accepted as true. There are even people arguing for a flat earth. The point is that in the scientific community evolution is settled science. There are still questions and research happening on the specifics of evolution but there is no scientific research being done on opposing hypothesis.

 

[GodsGrace101]

That makes no sense. You can still disagree with something even if it is accepted as true. There are even people arguing for a flat earth. The point is that in the scientific community evolution is settled science. There are still questions and research happening on the specifics of evolution but there is no scientific research being done on opposing hypothesis.

How does one disagree with the truth?
Anyway,,,you're telling me it's accepted fact...
It sure doesn't sound like it to me....
I do appreciate your telling me this...

But how do you explain that life cannot be duplicated in a lab? This seems to be very important to me.

If we have everything necessary to create life....
shouldn't we be able to form some type of life?

 

[sfs]

I'm starting to worry that some DO have an agenda and cannot even fathom admitting that evolution is an old theory that cannot be "proven", or whatever scientists call it.

Creationists have an agenda too. But at least, I do believe, that they are on the side of saying that there is no proof,

so...where do we head from here?

Where we go . . . Scientists will go on using evolution to understand biology and the history of life, making predictions and making discoveries. Creationists will go on ignoring all of that.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Where we go . . . Scientists will go on using evolution to understand biology and the history of life, making predictions and making discoveries. Creationists will go on ignoring all of that.

Nice and concise.
But the creationists will be able to ignore it for just so long....

One side or the other will have to face the music and dance....

Reminds me of poor Galileo...
He got imprisoned for telling the truth.

 

[sfs]

Nice and concise.
But the creationists will be able to ignore it for just so long....

One side or the other will have to face the music and dance....

Why? As far as I can tell, the capacity of creationists to ignore science has no limit.

Reminds me of poor Galileo...
He got imprisoned for telling the truth.

Who's getting imprisoned here?

 

[Belk]

How does one disagree with the truth?

By being wrong. Humans do this all the time.

Anyway,,,you're telling me it's accepted fact...
It sure doesn't sound like it to me....
I do appreciate your telling me this...

But how do you explain that life cannot be duplicated in a lab? This seems to be very important to me.

Life is duplicated all over the planet. If you mean why do we not know the secrets of life then it is because we have not obtained that knowledge yet. However this is a problem for abiogenisis research, not evolution. Even if God created the first life form on the planet it was still evolution that created the diversity we see.

If we have everything necessary to create life....
shouldn't we be able to form some type of life?

We know all the processes needed for fusion but we still can't create stars. We are just starting our voyage of learning about our universe. It is not reasonable to expect us to have all knowledge when we are just starting out. Not being able to do something does not negate the knowledge we do have.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Why? As far as I can tell, the capacity of creationists to ignore science has no limit.

Who's getting imprisoned here?

So far, I think the evolutionists.
They better hurry up and come up with this "proof" that is not called proof.

I mean...it IS difficult for the normal person to think a fish could become a bird....

 

[GodsGrace101]

By being wrong. Humans do this all the time.




Life is duplicated all over the planet. If you mean why do we not know the secrets of life then it is because we have not obtained that knowledge yet. However this is a problem for abiogenisis research, not evolution. Even if God created the first life form on the planet it was still evolution that created the diversity we see.



We know all the processes needed for fusion but we still can't create stars. We are just starting our voyage of learning about our universe. It is not reasonable to expect us to have all knowledge when we are just starting out. Not being able to do something does not negate the knowledge we do have.

You're right.