Are there transitional fossils?

[RickG]

We are both looking at the same evidence but we are interpreting it differently. Now which interpretation is consistent with the physical laws in reality and made testable through the sciences?

Over the years I have read quite a bit of creation science literature where claims are made that both look at the same evidence but interpret it differently. I have yet to see the same evidence presented.

Lets look at the evidence through your lens and the problems with it:

You believe that the sediment layers represent ages.
As I pointed out before to which you still have not provided an adequate answer, was if these layers represent ages then why was one age just one particular kind of dirt? Does that mean that age only consisted of clay? Or Limestone? Or an age of coal? It doesn't make any logical sense.

Different layers of sediment represent different ages because they can be dated through a number of different independent processes.

The Grand Canyon picture you provided earlier, we know that limestone is made up of marine organisms, if these layers represented "ages" why is limestone an "age layer" throughout this picture? Why is there limestone on top? Was there numerous ages of floods big enough to cover the Grand Canyon? Even Shale is a sediment rock also known as mudstone, and to get mud you need water obviously. This picture is a clear evidence of hydrology. How is this evidence for slow and gradual vertical accumulation?

Marine Limestone does not form in flood environments of any kind. It is a result of deposition of marine organisms and/or precipitants of calcium carbonate over very long periods. Nor does shale form entirely from floods. Shale forms in lakes and lagoonal deposits, in river deltas, floodplains, and sedimentary basins on the continental shelf from very minute particles, typically in very slow moving water. You also have to consider compaction which takes very long periods of time.

Looking back on the "same data different interpretation" comment, I had a thread a couple of years ago that asked for specific examples of "same data different interpretation". There were numerous examples posted of different data but none with the same data.

 

[AV1611VET]

Looking back on the "same data different interpretation" comment, I had a thread a couple of years ago that asked for specific examples of "same data different interpretation". There were numerous examples posted of different data but none with the same data.

Didn't higher academia at one time teach that stalactites used to take quintillions of years to form?

 

[RickG]

Didn't higher academia at one time teach that stalactites used to take quintillions of years to form?

No. Natural stalactite formation is dependent upon the calcium carbonate concentrate in solution and the drip rate and source. The average growth rate is around 0.13 mm a year. They are also excellent climate proxies similar to ice cores. By chance are you referring to the non-natural "concrete" stalactites (calthemites)? That's a different chemistry outside a cave environment.

 

[AV1611VET]

Didn't higher academia at one time teach that stalactites used to take quintillions of years to form?

No.

Uh-huh.

And I'm Outer Mongolia.

 

[doubtingmerle]

evolution doesnt predict this. if we will find a reptile with a mammal jaw it will called "convergent evolution".

You keep going back to hypothetical finds as though they contradict evolution.

Your hypothetical finds are like "alternate facts".

Let's go with actual facts.

And the actual facts are that no fossil with the mammal ear and jaw bone design are found in layers over 300 million years old. Then after a long period in which fossils with jaw and ear bones progressively closer to mammals are found, we finally find placental mammal fossils about 80 million years old. All that is consistent with evolution.

Them's the facts.

Will you respond again by talking about alternative facts?

 

[RickG]

Uh-huh.

And I'm Outer Mongolia.

I've never been to Outer Mongolia, but just what is it that you specifically disagree with in my previous reply to you concerning stalactites and quintillions of years?

 

[Barry Desborough]

Yes. All organisms were or are potentially transitional.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've never been to Outer Mongolia, but just what is it that you specifically disagree with in my previous reply to you concerning stalactites and quintillions of years?

QV please:

Although these fantastic features are commonly thought to represent perhaps tens of thousands of years or more of groundwater action, there is much evidence that they can form rapidly under certain conditions.

SOURCE

 

[Skreeper]

SOURCE

Creation.com....

 

[AV1611VET]

Creation.com....

Once upon a time, the Bible was the richest source of information about the universe (still is).

But then something happened.

A book named SCIENCE showed up and started teaching this, that, and the other thing contrary to what the Bible taught.

Man came from monkeys, stalactites & stalagmites were proof of deep time, the starlight we are observing took tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of years to reach us, etc.

The common man got discouraged and abandoned the Bible for science.

But the Bible people fought back.

They challenged scientists to demonstrate their claims, and to their (scientists) horror, they couldn't.

So they did some major housecleaning: jettisoning abiogenesis from evolution; changing stalactites to speleothems and calthemites; no long accepting ice cores from outer edges of an area as valid; claiming monkeys are now man's cousin, not his grandfather, by way of inventing the "common ancestor;" etc.

Scientists started winning debates with creationists again.

Today, the Bible people still make their claims as they did in the past, but now scientists laugh at them, saying their information is now outdated.

But it does show one thing:

It shows how scientists used to think, and how they were pwned in days gone by.

Instead of thanking the Bible people for forcing them to tweak their information, they now ridicule them.

But they aren't going to live happily ever after.

God is going to literally burn up all their evidence, and they won't have a book to stand on.

 

[Skreeper]

Once upon a time, the Bible was the richest source of information about the universe (still is)

I disagree.

A book named SCIENCE showed up and started teaching this, that, and the other thing contrary to what the Bible taught.

Correction: People started to be more skeptical of claims. They started investigating the world and found that most of the claims in the Bible cannot be supported or are just incorrect.

Man came from monkeys

No one says that except creationists.

The common man got discouraged and abandoned the Bible for science.

As it should be when new information shows something to be false.

They challenged scientists to demonstrate their claims, and to their (scientists) horror, they couldn't.

Correction: They demonstrated the claims with sufficient evidence but the Bible people either could not understand the science behind it or didn't want to because they want the Bible to be true.

Scientists started winning debates with creationists again.

Scientists never lost a debate with creationists.

Today, the Bible people still make their claims as they did in the past, but now scientists laugh at them, saying their information is now outdated.

That is a correct assessment.

God is going to literally burn up all their evidence, and they won't have a book to stand on.

Only in your own La La Land.

 

[AV1611VET]

I disagree.

That's because you're too young to experience most of what I said in real life.

No one says that except creationists.

Is that why it was called the Scope's Monkey Trial?

Scientists never lost a debate with creationists.

See my first comment.

Only in your own La La Land.

Don't you think it's a little disingenuous to call it "La La Land," when educated people work so hard and spend so much of their money to get things changed?

Things such as the Ten Commandments removed from public domain, prayer and the Bible taken out of school, etc.?

No ... the educated elite take the Bible very seriously ... very seriously.

And no scientist would sit on the witness stand in a courtroom and say It speaks of "La La Land," or the defense attorney would tear him apart.

 

[Skreeper]

That's because you're too young to experience most of what I said in real life.

Are you seriously playing the age card? You might as well admit defeat.

Is that why it was called the Scope's Monkey Trial?

What has the name of a random trial got to do with anything? We're talking science here.

Things such as the Ten Commandments removed from public domain, prayer and the Bible taken out of school, etc.?

You do know the US constitution, right? Here's a hint: Separation of church and state.

No ... the educated elite take the Bible very seriously ... very seriously.

No, no they don't.

 

[xianghua]

And the actual facts are that no fossil with the mammal ear and jaw bone design are found in layers over 300 million years old. Then after a long period in which fossils with jaw and ear bones progressively closer to mammals are found, we finally find placental mammal fossils about 80 million years old. All that is consistent with evolution.

you have claimed that evolution predict those fossils. but its wrong, because in many cases we dont find such hierarchy. and in those cases scientists claiming for convergent evolution. so its not an evolutionery prediction at all. period.

 

[doubtingmerle]

you have claimed that evolution predict those fossils. but its wrong, because in many cases we dont find such hierarchy. and in those cases scientists claiming for convergent evolution. so its not an evolutionery prediction at all. period.

None of that in any way challenges the clear finding that there are no mammal fossil below the mammal-like reptiles, and then a hundred million years of mammal-like reptiles getting progressively closer to mammals, and then mammals. That is what is down there. You simply cover your ears and shout that you don't hear me.

 

[xianghua]

None of that in any way challenges the clear finding that there are no mammal fossil below the mammal-like reptiles, and then a hundred million years of mammal-like reptiles getting progressively closer to mammals, and then mammals. That is what is down there. You simply cover your ears and shout that you don't hear me.

i never said otherwise. i just said that its not an evolutioney prediction like you said. do you agree or disagree with this claim?

 

[doubtingmerle]

i never said otherwise. i just said that its not an evolutioney prediction like you said. do you agree or disagree with this claim?

Evolution predicts that transitional fossils will be found, yes.

As there was nothing close to a mammal 300 million years ago, and many mammals after 100 million years ago, and as the reptiles living 300 million years ago show signs of being related to mammals, then evolution would predict that there were many transitional animals between reptiles and mammals, and that fossils of them would likely be found in layers 300 million to 100 million years ago. Sure enough, not only do we find hundreds such fossils, but we find a progression of the jaw and earbone in these fossils leading up to mammals. All of that is something evolution would predict.

Just look at all the genera of synapsids found in that time frame: List of pelycosaurs - Wikipedia .

But creationism would not predict that we would find this long list of intermediates in a time range expected by evolution.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And igneous rocks are layed down by volcanic processes. Since much of the rock down there is igneous, how do you explain that in a global flood?

73% of the earth's surface is sedimentary rock.

Nope. Thousands of local floods. That is what the record shows.

you dont expect me to believe that thousands of local floods deposited the same layers worldwide do you?

I have observed the opposite. Can you name one piece of evidence that evolutionists ignore?

I can name many things that young earthers ignore: Isochrons, varves, ice cores, etc.

finches DNA that was tested and showed they had been interbreeding from the start and so were never reproductively isolated and so speciation never occurred.

As for young earthers the universe is continuing to accelerate. Acceleration causes clocks to slow. Therefore clocks ticked faster in the past and decay rates happened faster in the past. But since you use the slower rate of today's clocks to calculate what occurred faster in the past, you of course get the wrong answer of billions of years because you have not applied time dilation corrections.

I expect you might ignore ice core data yourself since it shows man has nothing to do with global warming.

your assuming incorrectly that glacial layering has been the same over vast eons of time. But then youll ignore the ice core data here too which shows that the earth has gone through many both hot and cold eras. Therefore the amount of snowfall would increase per year with the increased cold and decrease per year with the increased heat.

as for the mathmatical fudgery, you don't even know what the initial conditions were like. We get a new theory of that about every 10 years. Is that sort of like their claim about the heliosphere, and then when we sent a probe and got actual data every single theoretical model they had was falsified.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you have any actual evidence that the geological layers were lain down quickly apart from "Well I said so"?

IF, sedimentary layers were laid down over eons, then there would be many stirations in the layers as one layer dried before another was deposited. The fact that they form one vast sheet shows that indeed they were laid down quickly.

Got more evidence than you do besides your "well I said so."

Go ahead, test it, lay a layer down, let it dry, add another layer, let it dry. When your done you will have a layer with many fine graduations in it, not one continuous sheet. We both know this, so why deny the inevitable?

You dont have to test it, all you got to do is go look any place a flood has occurred even on a small scale and you will see continuous layering. Your claims of eons dont match observations.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

IF, sedimentary layers were laid down over eons, then there would be many stirations in the layers as one layer dried before another was deposited. The fact that they form one vast sheet shows that indeed they were laid down quickly.

Got more evidence than you do besides your "well I said so."

Go ahead, test it, lay a layer down, let it dry, add another layer, let it dry. When your done you will have a layer with many fine graduations in it, not one continuous sheet. We both know this, so why deny the inevitable?

But are those 'layers' that you're laying down combinations of prehistoric marine life compressed together (limestone) or clay, quartz and calcite compressed together (shale)?
No they aren't. You experiment is just completely idiotic, and the only one acting with the "well I said so" attitude is you, since you have NEVER posted any evidence for ANYTHING you have claimed.