Infinite monkey theorem vs first life

[Kenny'sID]

you keep saying there should be more fossils, if you expect the world to be covered in fossils why arn't they there from the flood?

And there you go again, where did I say the world (earth) should be covered with fossils?

They are there...think sea life found at high elevations. What fossils are you missing? Maybe I can help with any misunderstanding.

Why are so few dinosuars and other extant species fossils found if this flood can magickally turn bones into stone, and bury shells within and under feet of stone?

Flood turn things to stone? I don't know what any of that means, please rephrase.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It is not just the first and the last. Sometimes there are whole long strings of closely related fossils showing evolutionary development.

But OK, you think there are big gaps in parts of the fossil record, and that the gaps are large enough that some other developmental process may have gone on in them. Who knows? You may be right. But you have no evidence whatever of such a process and no proposed mechanism for it. Under those circumstances a good scientist would simply wait as the gaps in the fossil regard are gradually closed by new discoveries to see what turns up.

Again, the evidence is the fact they are not there.

A general idea how that works, "My money is not in the safe where I left it (is not there) is evidence the money was taken."

I'm thinking... are some really not understanding that or are they pretending they have no idea of what something so simple means?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Don't know much about bird evolution - but I am curious if you can explain - step by step, of course - how the Hebrew deity transformed silicates into the thousands of bio-organic molecules needed to created a man from dust.

I think it's pretty common knowledge we don't know how someone as superior as God did a lot of things...what does that mean to you? Oh, and where did he get the those silicates from? The questions go on.

What bearing does that have on the subject at hand?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Where are the remains of all of your ancestors from Adam to you?

Heck, that is only about 300 generations!

From dust to dust. you do realize everything doesn't fossilize? right?

So some are dust, and a few fossilized, and are still in the ground or found. And please think before you come back with your point.

 

[Speedwell]

From dust to dust. you do realize everything doesn't fossilize? right?

So some are dust, and a few fossilized, and are still in the ground or found. And please think before you come back with your point.

Except that somehow you deny it when it comes to confirming evolution.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Except that somehow you deny it when it comes to confirming evolution.

Details please on what exactly you are charging me with? And I hope you read the part about thinking before you reply.

 

[pitabread]

Except that somehow you deny it when it comes to confirming evolution.

Gotta love it when creationists blatantly contradict their own arguments but don't even realize it.

 

[Speedwell]

Details please on what exactly you are charging me with? And I hope you read the part about thinking before you reply.

So which is it?
Not every creature fossilizes; a few fossilize and some of those few are still in the ground?
Or
There should be more fossils if evolution s true?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Except that somehow you deny it when it comes to confirming evolution.

I suppose drawing conclusion before giving due process could be be perceived as fair, but only by the unfair, and in some cases, those who are a bit desperate for a leg up.

Makes perfect sense to me anyway.

 

[Speedwell]

I suppose drawing conclusion before giving due process could be be perceived as fair, but only by the unfair, and in some cases, those who are a bit desperate for a leg up.

Makes perfect sense to me anyway.

So you think something else besides evolution was going on in the fossil "gaps" why not just wait as the gaps close up through new discoveries?

 

[Kenny'sID]

So which is it?
Not every creature fossilizes; a few fossilize and some of those few are still in the ground?
Or
There should be more fossils if evolution s true?

Where did I make that specific claim, I need the exact quote before I'll go on. All I can do at the moment is assume that desperation I mentioned has has caused a claim I said something that I did not say, but instead there was much more too it. But since I hate to assume, I'll await your response.

 

[loveofourlord]

Except I did read that, was I complaining about that question being ignored?

You are creating problems out of nowhere...trying to make it appear I've done something wrong. Just like your false quote of me, the one I questioned you on but you chose not to answer. You still aren't answering all questions, but don't worry about it, just like the question I just mentioned, I'm going to assume you know you are wrong on any unanswered question.



You would need much more than that. First, do you agree with the following, and remember you said birds were dino's with no other explanation.

From the google search "Are dinosaurs birds"

Ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates and they will probably tell you that yes, birds (avians) are dinosaurs. Using proper terminology, birds are avian dinosaurs; other dinosaurs are non-avian dinosaurs, and (strange as it may sound) birds are technically considered reptiles.

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNToDPZ_ImBBsAH8sICmlFWugCWrtA:1572628296118&source=hp&ei=SGe8Xb7sBIKHggeCv7OICQ&q=are+dinosaurs+birds&oq=are+dinosaurs+birds&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0l3j0i22i30l7.1743.12879..21549...1.0..1.447.2231.15j4j4-1....2..0....1..gws-wiz.......0i131j35i39j0i22i10i30.U7RunQhC0KY

Then there is that pesky little problem I keep going on about, so if you would please show us some pictures of the set of fossils found that lead us to believe one evolved from the other, it would be helpful in making your point. Let me see what fossils you do have, and I will determine if it's enough to sway me, fair enough?

And remember you will also need to refute the fact animals share characteristics, as in man has hair but that doesn't prove we came from a bear/ape or whatever, not unless you can show us the proof of gradual change that seems to be missing with the excuse we just haven't found it yet. Of course I can wait till they do find it, but until then...meh.

Hopefully we are getting somewhere now.

ummm go read 183 where you were acting like we were ignoring the question.

wow you are dishonest, you asked how many generations from apes to humans, I answered, you havn't given the point of that question and acted like we ignored it, that is dishonest, make your point about why how many generations passed matters.

 

[loveofourlord]

And there you go again, where did I say the world (earth) should be covered with fossils?

They are there...think sea life found at high elevations. What fossils are you missing? Maybe I can help with any misunderstanding.



Flood turn things to stone? I don't know what any of that means, please rephrase.

THERE ARE NO SEA LIFE ON MOUNTAINS, for the last time, stop trying to be disingenuous about them.

THIS is not ON a mountain.

Nor THIS

 

[Kenny'sID]

So you think something else besides evolution was going on in the fossil "gaps" why not just wait as the gaps close up through new discoveries?

That isn't an answer to my question.

This needs to be taken step by step so we can show what you are actually doing here in order to get that leg up I went on about earlier, and also so I can give you answers to truthful and not made up questions/comments. IOW, when you ask me a question based on a misquote, it's not a fair question or a question based on the truth, but only something devised to work in your favor...understand? If not, I can't be any clearer.

 

[Speedwell]

That isn't an answer to my question.

This needs to be taken step by step so we can show what you are actually doing here in order to get that leg up I went on about earlier, and also so I can give you answers to truthful and not made up questions/comments. IOW, when you ask me a question based on a misquote, it's not a fair question or a question based on the truth, but only something devised to work in your favor...understand? If not, I can't be any clearer.

I think it is clear to everyone here that you believe that there are too many gaps in the fossil record for you to find evolution convincing. You have said it at various times and in various ways, so it is not a question of a "misquote."

 

[Kenny'sID]

THERE ARE NO SEA LIFE ON MOUNTAINS, for the last time, stop trying to be disingenuous about them.

Fossils were the subject and if you are saying there are no fossils of sea life at high elevations as it definitely appears you are, you may want to study up a bit on the basics.

ummm go read 183 where you were acting like we were ignoring the question.

I'm not acting, you are ignoring questions...end of story. And if you continue to misquote me, and insist on being clearly contrary, it will be the end of our conversation as well. A little of that is fine and doesn't necessarily equate to being contrary but your attitude is way beyond that line. Be happy to discuss this with you but We'll get nowhere without a reasonable point/counter point flow, and ours is taking up entirely too much time dealing with the misquotes and getting you to respond to questions/requests.

wow you are dishonest, you asked how many generations from apes to humans, I answered, you havn't given the point of that question and acted like we ignored it, that is dishonest, make your point about why how many generations passed matters.

Another question, how does that equate to dishonesty?

I answered that question before I even asked it. Was there some question I didn't answer or are you confusing the fact I already answered that but you didn't cath it as a problem/me being dishonest of all things?? "Wow" is right.

Remember my comment about you creating things against me that aren't there?

 

[Lobster Johnson]

Where did I make that specific claim, I need the exact quote before I'll go on. All I can do at the moment is assume that desperation I mentioned has has caused a claim I said something that I did not say, but instead there was much more too it. But since I hate to assume, I'll await your response.

Post 157.

Of course they're rare....thank you.

Problem with that is, as I already alluded, over the so-called slow process of evolution there would be hundreds or even thousands/millions or more (actually the numbers would be off the charts) in between creature that led up to what we have today, while instead, there are all but none. You are depending in the "bit's and pieces" that I already told you just won't work here (they only work against your claim) in order to make your point?

For example, let's take an ape or whatever it is you all think we evolved from, now where are the all but never ending amount of fossils that gradually turned into a man? IOW, if we find several ape fossils and several modern man fossils there would have to be tons of slowly evolving creatures fossils in between there, and for all intents and purposes, we might as well say there are none.

Again, where are they all?

You give the impression that you think if evolution is true, there should be millions+ more fossils in the world. You further give the impression that you think because there are not millions and millions of fossils found, evolution must not be true.

If you understand that fossilization rarely happens, why do you think there must be millions+ of fossils and only if evolution is true? If fossilization is rare, then you would not expect millions+ of fossils.

 

[pitabread]

If you understand that fossilization rarely happens, why do you think there must be millions+ of fossils and only if evolution is true? If fossilization is rare, then you would not expect millions+ of fossils.

The irony in all of this is there already are millions of fossils that have been found:
Digital museum' brings millions of fossils out of the dark

Museums including London's Natural History Museum and the Smithsonian in Washington DC are involved.

They have set out ambitious plans to digitise millions of specimens.

Digitally recording the 40 million fossils at the Smithsonian will take an estimated 50 years.​

The biggest problem is that most fossils haven't been properly analyzed and appropriately catalogued because there just aren't enough people devoted to doing that work. Just per that article, it's going to take 50 years to digitize the Smithsonian collection of 40 million. And that's just a single museum.

 

[Kenny'sID]

1

 

[Kenny'sID]

Post 157.

You need to quote it here so I don't have to try to pick it out, or to do away with any confusion...thanks.

If you understand that fossilization rarely happens, why do you think there must be millions+ of fossils and only if evolution is true? If fossilization is rare, then you would not expect millions+ of fossils.

Very good, and pertinent question.

Yes they are rare, however that doesn't mean they don't exist, and the fact takes nothing away from my claim. You all are only seeing a "gotcha" because of your need to see it. You basically refuse to understand the "odds" factor.

As I've said umpteen times, if we found fossils at each end of the spectrum there should be at least ample in between to prove the evolution point, if not many more than ample. If there are not, you have no business claiming evolution is a fact, but that it's only the theory it always was

Speedwell got close to seeing what I meant, but covered it with a "we haven't found them". I see that as a huge coincidence, when we find enough to call evolution a fact, but even with the odds in the favor of finding enough in between to actually prove it's a fact, those are nowhere to be found.... there is a reason for that.

At any rate, I little is fine, but this is the point I stop trying to deal with denial, and if you have questions fror me on it, see my prior posts on the subject in this thread..