Fish finger fossils show the beginnings of hands

[essentialsaltes]

... to make a composite dog/cat skeleton ... and then present it to the evolutionary scientific community as the discovery of a new missing link! Do you think I would get away with it?

No. Even some expert composite makers could only fool a magazine for a few months, and the scientific community not at all, really. You wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[Paul James]

No. Even some expert composite makers could only fool a magazine for a few months, and the scientific community not at all, really. You wouldn't stand a chance.

If I was happy to be a liar and deceiver it would be fun to see how long it would take before I was rumbled! Hey, the National Enquirer might even pay me for the article! Hahaha!

 

[Jimmy D]

I read both articles and all I saw was the fossil of a fish. The picture of the complete fish coming out of the water is an artist's impression done from his imagination of he thinks the fish may have looked like. The other picture of a Jurassic flesh eating fish looks just like another version of our modern day piranha, found in the Amazon River. Very little difference, hence no appreciable evolution that fish at all.

So say that the fish depicted in the fossil evolved into more complex fish, leading to land animals and then to humans is pure conjecture. There is no actual proof that the fish ever evolved into anything else, and it could have been an earlier form of moray eel, which went extinct long ago, but the same fish family still exists in the form of the moray eel, fresh water eel, and other eel types. We don't even know whether it was actually green! That's just from the imagination of the artist.

I could buy a new home, and discover buried in the garden a collection of bones, have them examined and find dog and cat bones, and then speculate that it is the discovery of an unknown species of dog/cat, piece the bones together to make a composite dog/cat skeleton and get an artist to draw his impression of what the animal looked like, and then present it to the evolutionary scientific community as the discovery of a new missing link! Do you think I would get away with it?

What you wrote demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the amount of work, rigour, experience and knowledge that goes into studies like the article in the op describes.

Whether or not this misrepresentation is intentional I wouldn’t like to say.

 

[Shemjaza]

If I was happy to be a liar and deceiver it would be fun to see how long it would take before I was rumbled! Hey, the National Enquirer might even pay me for the article! Hahaha!

They pay for the dinosaur paintings, so why not?

 

[Ophiolite]

I read both articles and all I saw was the fossil of a fish.

You have, with some justification, complained about the lack of respect you have witnessed and received on this forum from evolutionists. I ask you to reflect on the lack of respect you have displayed, as in this instance here.

Vertebrate palaeontologists have spent years as undergraduates working towards their Bachelors degree in geology or palaeontology; three or four years, or more, of intensive field and laboratory work to acquire a Ph.D., all of this while their debts steadily mount. Then more years pursuing their research interest, fighting for meagre grants, struggling against the elements in the field, the work load lecturing at a university while finding the time to analyse the samples collected last season, the setting up of hypotheses and the disappointment when they fail the test, or the rarer satisfaction when they pass. Through all this building up a solid, comprehensive grasp of their chosen speciality, the evidence, the theories, the validations, the questions, the strengths, the weaknesses.

Set against that and the views that stem from it you say, based off of a casual acquaintance with a couple of facts, that all you "saw was a fossil of a fish". Yet you have the temerity to talk about lack of respect. Wow! Just wow!

 

[Paul James]

You have, with some justification, complained about the lack of respect you have witnessed and received on this forum from evolutionists. I ask you to reflect on the lack of respect you have displayed, as in this instance here.

Vertebrate palaeontologists have spent years as undergraduates working towards their Bachelors degree in geology or palaeontology; three or four years, or more, of intensive field and laboratory work to acquire a Ph.D., all of this while their debts steadily mount. Then more years pursuing their research interest, fighting for meagre grants, struggling against the elements in the field, the work load lecturing at a university while finding the time to analyse the samples collected last season, the setting up of hypotheses and the disappointment when they fail the test, or the rarer satisfaction when they pass. Through all this building up a solid, comprehensive grasp of their chosen speciality, the evidence, the theories, the validations, the questions, the strengths, the weaknesses.

Set against that and the views that stem from it you say, based off of a casual acquaintance with a couple of facts, that all you "saw was a fossil of a fish". Yet you have the temerity to talk about lack of respect. Wow! Just wow!

I disagree. Fair debate is not a sign of disrespect. I believe that, in the main, evolution scientists are sincere in their conclusions based on their interpretation of the evidence. I think that the accusation of "disrespect" comes from an intolerance toward anyone who puts a Christian creationist opinion forward as an alternative to the evolutionist view.

 

[MIDutch]

I disagree. Fair debate is not a sign of disrespect. I believe that, in the main, evolution scientists are sincere in their conclusions based on their interpretation of the evidence. I think that the accusation of "disrespect" comes from an intolerance toward anyone who puts a Christian creationist opinion forward as an alternative to the evolutionist view.

There is no creationist alternative. The creationist view was the rigidly enforced (sometimes upon penalty of imprisonment, torture and death) default view for almost 2000 years in the Western world. It wasn't evolution that forced people to abandon it. It was the accumulation of evidence, beginning with geology and astronomy, but for some reason biology REALLY gets under the skin of creationists.

 

[Paul James]

There is no creationist alternative. The creationist view was the rigidly enforced (sometimes upon penalty of imprisonment, torture and death) default view for almost 2000 years in the Western world. It wasn't evolution that forced people to abandon it. It was the accumulation of evidence, beginning with geology and astronomy, but for some reason biology REALLY gets under the skin of creationists.

You know, I am finding agnostics harder to discuss with than straight out atheists. Is it because you are putting on a dollar each way in saying you don't really know one way or the other concerning the existence of God and the truth of the Bible?

But seeing that you are tending more toward the atheist side of things, why not come out as a total atheist and be done with it?

 

[Speedwell]

You know, I am finding agnostics harder to discuss with than straight out atheists. Is it because you are putting on a dollar each way in saying you don't really know one way or the other concerning the existence of God and the truth of the Bible?

But seeing that you are tending more toward the atheist side of things, why not come out as a total atheist and be done with it?

Just be glad he's not a Christian--we're the hardest of all.

 

[MIDutch]

You know, I am finding agnostics harder to discuss with than straight out atheists. Is it because you are putting on a dollar each way in saying you don't really know one way or the other concerning the existence of God and the truth of the Bible?

But seeing that you are tending more toward the atheist side of things, why not come out as a total atheist and be done with it?

Because ... I'm not an atheist. Heck, even we agnostics think it's wrong to lie.

As for "leaning toward the atheist side". Well, the truth is I'm leaning towards the Buddhist side.

And the Hindu side.

And the Daoist side.

And the Confucianist side.

And the Shinto side.

And the Muslim side.

And the Jewish side.

And the Christian side.

You know, that side, no matter what religion you adhere to, that recognizes empirical evidence for what it is and accepts the biological Theory of Evolution as the best scientific answer we have for the diversity of life we see on planet Earth, past and present.

You seem to be under the misconception that you have to be an atheist to think that creationism is a load of bollocks.

 

[MIDutch]

You know, I am finding agnostics harder to discuss with than straight out atheists. Is it because you are putting on a dollar each way in saying you don't really know one way or the other concerning the existence of God and the truth of the Bible?

But seeing that you are tending more toward the atheist side of things, why not come out as a total atheist and be done with it?

Where in my post did I make a statement about the existence of God?

Here, I'll repost it for you so you can point out where I make my statement about the existence of God (one way or the other).

There is no creationist alternative. The creationist view was the rigidly enforced (sometimes upon penalty of imprisonment, torture and death) default view for almost 2000 years in the Western world. It wasn't evolution that forced people to abandon it. It was the accumulation of evidence, beginning with geology and astronomy, but for some reason biology REALLY gets under the skin of creationists.

 

[Paul James]

Because ... I'm not an atheist. Heck, even we agnostics think it's wrong to lie.

As for "leaning toward the atheist side". Well, the truth is I'm leaning towards the Buddhist side.

And the Hindu side.

And the Daoist side.

And the Confucianist side.

And the Shinto side.

And the Muslim side.

And the Jewish side.

And the Christian side.

You know, that side, no matter what religion you adhere to, that recognizes empirical evidence for what it is and accepts the biological Theory of Evolution as the best scientific answer we have for the diversity of life we see on planet Earth, past and present.

You seem to be under the misconception that you have to be an atheist to think that creationism is a load of bollocks.

Sounds like Baha'i. They are a lot like that. It's like taking a dollar bet on every horse in the race, because you know that you have to win what ever you do.

 

[Paul James]

Where in my post did I make a statement about the existence of God?

Here, I'll repost it for you so you can point out where I make my statement about the existence of God (one way or the other).

Oh. So you may acknowledge the existence of some kind of a god. That's fair enough. I guess the most attractive religion for you is the one you feel most comfortable with. That's quite natural.

 

[MIDutch]

Sounds like Baha'i. They are a lot like that. It's like taking a dollar bet on every horse in the race, because you know that you have to win what ever you do.

I'm not betting on any of the religious horses, because I have no idea which of their Gods is/are the real one(s).

What I AM betting on is the one thing the vast majority of them CAN agree on, the fact of biological evolution and the validity of the theory that explains it.

I'm sorry that my post wasn't clear enough and you missed that point.

 

[MIDutch]

Oh. So you may acknowledge the existence of some kind of a god. That's fair enough. I guess the most attractive religion for you is the one you feel most comfortable with. That's quite natural.

I don't have a religion. I was raised Roman Catholic, but am no longer a member of that religion.

In it's defense, the nuns at Sunday school never taught that the Bible had to be literal and inerrant for there to be truth to be found in it.

 

[MIDutch]

Oh. So you may acknowledge the existence of some kind of a god.

I have never claimed otherwise.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't have a religion. I was raised Roman Catholic, but am no longer a member of that religion.

In it's defense, the nuns at Sunday school never taught that the Bible had to be literal and inerrant for there to be truth to be found in it.

Me, too. I was raised (and still am) an Anglican and attended Catholic schools through college, and didn't come across literal inerrancy until well into adulthood. My response was, "They believe what??? about the Bible? Why?" I still don't know why.

 

[Paul James]

I'm not betting on any of the religious horses, because I have no idea which of their Gods is/are the real one(s).

What I AM betting on is the one thing the vast majority of them CAN agree on, the fact of biological evolution and the validity of the theory that explains it.

I'm sorry that my post wasn't clear enough and you missed that point.

Becoming familiar with ancient Greek religions would be informative too because they were evolutionist.

 

[Paul James]

I don't have a religion. I was raised Roman Catholic, but am no longer a member of that religion.

In it's defense, the nuns at Sunday school never taught that the Bible had to be literal and inerrant for there to be truth to be found in it.

That's the main reason why many young people have quit the church, because if their leaders don't acknowledge the authority of the Bible, why should they?

 

[Speedwell]

That's the main reason why many young people have quit the church, because if their leaders don't acknowledge the authority of the Bible, why should they?

There is no questioning of the authority of scripture in my church. But the authority of scripture derives from its divine inspiration, not from any particular literary genre imposed on it. Literal inerrancy doesn't add any authority to scripture. If anything, it makes it more difficult to sustain.