Evolution Deceit?

[Arikay]

Whether a fossil had offspring or not doesn't matter, since populations evolve, not individuals, a fossil is a snap shot of a population at a certain time.

Personally I think there are no transitional fossils and if there were any then they cannot prove evolution. The reason why fossils can't prove evolution is because if you look at a fossil, you don't know if it had any offspring let alone different offspring, so fossils can't be used as proof. Fossils also could prove that there was a world wide flood. The problem with the evidence for both theories is that it depends what way you interpret the evidence and although its the same evidence both parties look at them differently.

 

[michabo]

Personally I think there are no transitional fossils and if there were any then they cannot prove evolution.

Ah, but would you recognize a transitional fossil if you saw one?

Fossils also could prove that there was a world wide flood.

They could, yes, but unfortunately they prove that there was not a flood.

The problem with the evidence for both theories is that it depends what way you interpret the evidence and although its the same evidence both parties look at them differently.

No matter how hard you squint, you can't support creationism. If you deny evidence (a lot of evidence) then I suppose you might be able to. The thing is, evolution is not threatened by reality, but creationism is. Evolution accepts and embraces all known observations, but creationism must reject them. The few observations which creationists accept don't actually support their position, it just doesn't refute it which is about the best they can manage.

 

[gluadys]

Personally I think there are no transitional fossils and if there were any then they cannot prove evolution. The reason why fossils can't prove evolution is because if you look at a fossil, you don't know if it had any offspring let alone different offspring, so fossils can't be used as proof.

There are only two situations I know of in which a species consists of one and only one organism. One is the biblical example of Adam before Eve was created. The other is the last individual to die as a species goes extinct.

There is an off-chance that a fossil we find is an example of the second case. But even if it is the last of its species, the fossil shows there was a species---many other animals of the same species as the fossil.

So even if you can't prove this particular fossil ever had offspring, is it logical to assume that none of the other members of the species did?

Fossils also could prove that there was a world wide flood. The problem with the evidence for both theories is that it depends what way you interpret the evidence and although its the same evidence both parties look at them differently.

They could, but they don't. The fossil record is one of the best proofs the flood was not a global event. The evidence cannot be interpreted in favour of a global flood.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Just to note something I didn't see mentioned about Kent Hovind's degree that some people here don't seem to be aware of: it has nothing to do with science. Having a pointless degree in an irrelevant subject does not lend to one's credibility. If anything, trying to pass it off as some sort of instant phony credibility just so you can call yourself "Doctor" ultimately decimates your credibility.

The problem with the evidence for both theories is that it depends what way you interpret the evidence and although its the same evidence both parties look at them differently.

This is another thing I thought I'd comment on because it hasn't been mentioned. Creationists do NOT use the same evidence as scientists. It's not a matter of two different, equally valid conclusions drawn from the same evidence.

It's about scientists using all available evidence to lead to their conclusions versus creationists using a small portion of that evidence to support a conclusion they had from the very beginning that they would never reject. Even groups like Answers in Genesis freely admit that they will ignore any evidence that contradicts young earth creationism. Obviously they use a smaller data set than real scientists.

 

[Jet Black]

Personally I think there are no transitional fossils

interesting. have you actually examined any of them?

and if there were any then they cannot prove evolution. The reason why fossils can't prove evolution is because if you look at a fossil, you don't know if it had any offspring let alone different offspring, so fossils can't be used as proof.

then you misunderstand the meaning of transitional. Remember that these fossils will come from populations of organisms which are broadly the same with come variations, so it does not matter whether a particular fossil is directly ancestral to later fossils, the features are enough.

Fossils also could prove that there was a world wide flood.

Fossils alone are not the whole evidence though. Also part of the evidence is the arrangement of the fossils throughout the geological record - something the flood cannot account for.

The problem with the evidence for both theories is that it depends what way you interpret the evidence and although its the same evidence both parties look at them differently.

not really. The majority of the evidence is ignored or passed over by creationist groups, or even they themselves are hopelessly confused by it. Look in the quiet thread, sticked at the top of the EC page and look for my thread on Java man/Turkana boy. Also worth a look is the comparison between Answers In Genesis' discussion of whale hind leg atavisms and a comparison to talkorigins' evidence.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/whale_leg.asp
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1

look at the evidence in the 2nd site then compare it to the fist. Why do AiG not address the evidence, and prefer to gloss over it by showing a picture of a whale with a spinal disease, rather than the four foot long atavistic hindlimb? They certainly are not looking at the same evidence. They are not even presenting the same evidence to their viewers. Even Sarfati (one of the leading members of AiG) when pressed on this avoids it like the plague.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Did you mean Nuclear Fusion? I think we have the fission stuff down pretty well.

I did actualy now you come to mention it. Sorry about that.

Ghost

 

[A4C]

Actually the fossil record does in fact proove the Flood rather than evolution. Both perhaps have reason why there is order in the column. From evolution point of view the order depended on the order they "evolved" whereas the Flood gives the order in which they perished. The problem comes in for the evolution model when a fossil is found in the "wrong" layer. It is impossible for it to be there unless it is aknowledged that the original precept was flawed. Many times geologists are reported to have found something that "wasn't supposed to be there". From the Flood point of view however a "misplaced" fossil is simply one that flounded outside of the norm- something that could be reasonably expected or had been relocated due to relayering of sediment due to receeding flood waters

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem comes in for the evolution model when a fossil is found in the "wrong" layer. It is impossible for it to be there unless it is aknowledged that the original precept was flawed. Many times geologists are reported to have found something that "wasn't supposed to be there". From the Flood point of view however a "misplaced" fossil is simply one that flounded outside of the norm- something that could be reasonably expected or had been relocated due to relayering of sediment due to receeding flood waters

Care to give us examples of fossils that are out of position? If you can't, then wouldn't this be deceit on the part of creationists in so claiming?

 

[Arikay]

Nope, sorry, Wrong.

1) Show us examples of these supposed "misplaced" fossils

2) Can you explain the order we do see? Why is there no intermixing between the supposably ancient and supposably modern animals? Why did the giant swimming dinosaurs all die before the giant swimming mammals, etc.

As they say, the devil (or in this case the truth) is in the details and the flood can't explain the details.

Actually the fossil record does in fact proove the Flood rather than evolution. Both perhaps have reason why there is order in the column. From evolution point of view the order depended on the order they "evolved" whereas the Flood gives the order in which they perished. The problem comes in for the evolution model when a fossil is found in the "wrong" layer. It is impossible for it to be there unless it is aknowledged that the original precept was flawed. Many times geologists are reported to have found something that "wasn't supposed to be there". From the Flood point of view however a "misplaced" fossil is simply one that flounded outside of the norm- something that could be reasonably expected or had been relocated due to relayering of sediment due to receeding flood waters

 

[A4C]

Care to give us examples of fossils that are out of position? If you can't, then wouldn't this be deceit on the part of creationists in so claiming?

I am surprised that as an evolutionist you want to open up this can of worms -however if you insist i will go get some for you

 

[Event Horizon]

I am surprised that as an evolutionist you want to open up this can of worms -however if you insist i will go get some for you

I can't wait for this. By the way, you didn't have any examples in mind when you made that post? Was that just another basless creationist claim? Does anyone else see a trend here with conclusion before evidence?

 

[A4C]

Here are a few to go on with
http://www.odsgc.net/~cornerst/biblestudies/misplacedfossils.htm
Please ask if you want me to show you any more

 

[Arikay]

Predictions,

A) We will see nothing.

B)
•Paluxy tracks
•Finger
•Sandals
•Hammer
•Upright whale
•Calaveras skull

C) Woodmorappe's 1982 list of "out of place" fossils, containing quite a few pollen spores and as far as I can find a lack of willingness to give detailed information about the individual finds.

I am surprised that as an evolutionist you want to open up this can of worms -however if you insist i will go get some for you

 

[Arikay]

Wahoo, I was right. And no, I didn't see this post before I made my predictions.

•Trilo bite (chomp)
It's not a real sandal print

•Polystrat fossils
Yep, they were burried quickly, but no one (except creationists putting words in their mouths) claim that the layers are seperated by a long period of time.

•Standing whale (Proof of evolution? )
The whale is not vertical but angled and it angled the same way the rocks are. The ground does move you know.

•Paluxy tracks
You have got to be kidding me. These things have been shown to be false and possible frauds so many times only the most dishonest of creationist groups will even touch them with a 10 foot pole. Some of the tracks are dinosaurs and others appear to be man made (as in carved).

I'm stopping there, but the rest are just as wrong. You have been here this long and didn't realize this?

Here are a few to go on with
http://www.odsgc.net/~cornerst/biblestudies/misplacedfossils.htm
Please ask if you want me to show you any more

 

[A4C]

Here are a few to go on with
http://www.odsgc.net/~cornerst/biblestudies/misplacedfossils.htm
Please ask if you want me to show you any more

Ok then I take it you were not satisfied . I will get some more then

 

[Arikay]

It might satisfy others but no, posting old false information that has been known to be false (and some possible frauds) for awhile now, does not satisfy me.

If the "more" is on the caliber of the last, don't bother (we have heard them before), if they are based around my C prediction, be prepared to explain each fossil in depth.

Ok then I take it you were not satisfied . I will get some more then

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok then I take it you were not satisfied . I will get some more then

Our contention is that you have not found any, so it would be more accurate if you look for ANY instead of more. What we are looking for is a modern mammal in the same layer of sediment as a dinosaur below the K/T boundary. Say a buffalo and a T. rex side by side, or at least in the same layer. If 20 inch dubious human footprints are the best you can come up with, who do you think is practicing deceit?

 

[A4C]

Here are more examples where evolution is flawed

Problems associated with the geological column - There are many problems associated with the traditional uniformitarion approach to the geological column and it is not intended to present all these in detail. However, the main objections are that (taken from Parker, 2001, please buy book to see original references):-

(a) Fossil specimens form very quickly. If a plant or animal just dies and falls to the ground it rapidly decomposes or is eaten. Evolutionists and creationists agree that the best conditions for forming fossils are flood conditions (Parker, 2001). However, the uniformitarian concept of rock layers being laid down slowly over millions of years does not correlate with the vast numbers of fossils found in some areas. For example in the Karoo beds of Africa contain the remains of perhaps 800 billion vertebrates. If sediments were laid down slowly, the animals would have rotted, not fossilised.

(b) Polystrate trees. These fossilised trees can be seen to extend though thousands or even millions of years of rock strata, which suggests that these trees were buried quickly and not by a slow process taking millions of years. Some fossilised animals can also be seen extending though supposedly millions of years of strata (Parker, 2001).

(c) Misplaced fossils. Evolutionist believe that land plants did not appear until over 100 million years after the Cambrian trilobites died out, yet over sixty genera of woody pant spores, pollen and wood itself have been recovered from the lowest "trilobite" rock from around the world (Parker, 2001).

(d) Missing or misplaced strata. There are numerous examples of strata of rock either missing or being misplaced (Parker, 2001). (Back to top).

This came from this site (which seems neutral) :
http://www.wasdarwinright.com/Geologicalcolumn.html

 

[Arikay]

Did you bother to read my post about polystrat or are you just copy and pasting?

 

[Event Horizon]

Here are a few to go on with
http://www.odsgc.net/~cornerst/biblestudies/misplacedfossils.htm

Let's see the claims. These seem to all be on PRATT lists. That makes it easy.

barefooted child, one of which contained a compressed trilobite:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4008_issue_06_volume_2_number_4__3_4_2003.asp#Tripping

several trilobites in the fossilized, sandaled footprint of a man.:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC102.html

Polystratic Trees:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

Pre-Cambrian limestone (supposedly 1 billion years old) is lying on top of a Cretaceous shale formation (supposedly 100 million years old).:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/lewis/

skeleton of a baleen whale:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html

75-foot trail of human footprints have been found in Tanzania in a layer of volcanic ash:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC052.html

Human footprints and been found in the same strata as dinosaur prints in the Paluxy River Bed in Glen Rose, Texas.:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html

Human skulls, gold chains, and an iron pot have been found in coal.:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part2.html

Two fossilized human skeletons have been found in Cretaceous sandstone at Moab, Utah.:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC110.html

Dinosaur fossils have been found 400 miles from the South Pole.:
This one doesn't seem to provide a misplaced fossil or any sort of problem.

Please ask if you want me to show you any more

You will need more than a couple lieing creationist sites. I know you will continue to use these creationist sites anyway, despite all their false data. You just don't seem to get all these sites are so easily refuted.