Fossil Challenge for Evolutionists

[USincognito]

Because it has been accepted as is, however, there is new evidence that they may have grossly miscalculated so that some estimates based on carbon may have erred by thousands of years.

If you think radiocarbon dating is used to determine deep time, then we need to have a bit of a discussion before we continue.

Given the exponential rates of decay the further you go back the potential for old earth, young creation is even more plausible than single evolution.

1. You're conflating evolution with geophysics.
2. There is zero evidence for exponential decay. I suggest you read this blog entry about the Oklo natural nuclear reactor in Gabon.
Nature's Nuclear Reactors: The 2-Billion-Year-Old Natural Fission Reactors in Gabon, Western Africa

Once again, evolution assumes time and decay are constant and without error as they are essential to the mechanism of biological advances..., IF they are correct. New information is beginning to knock the ideas which are still very young theories.

The only thing evolution assumes is extant life on an extant earth that passes on genetic material to offspring. The fact that you are conflating evolution with physics suggests you have been fed more propaganda than you have actually studied the subject yourself. And no one thinks radiometric dating methods are "without error", but we are positive that it's not so riddled with error that it's off by a factor of 750,000.

 

[USincognito]

Considering that the YEC is a fee-based organization, by invitation only, and must be under 45 y.o.a., I don't know of any mature Christian who has achieved a walk with the Lord that would be impressed by those credentials. But, if they impress you with the idea that they understand creation in the first place, all I can say is, enjoy.

What in the world are you talking about? YEC is an abbreviation for Young Earth Creationism/ist. There are YEC membership based organizations, but YEC itself, is not such an organization. It is merely an abbreviation of a descriptive phrase.

 

[USincognito]

If a thing "is consistent with" what you expected according to your theory, then you should have, in principle, been able to predict it beforehand.{snip}

Tiktaalik and human Chromosome 2 were both predictions that were verified. If you look at Dr. Theobald's 29 Evidences essays, you'll see that each of them are rooted in a prediction of evolution and provide both a potential falsification and a verification.

 

[USincognito]

My whole life Evolutionists have been screaming incessantly that the order of fossils in the geologic column is direct evidence of evolution ... One of the most popular memes is that "the fossils prove evolution" ... What is with this giant backpedal all of the sudden?

You appear to be confusing the observation of faunal succession (which evolution does predict) with a singular, particular evolutionary progression (which evolution does not predict) and confusing both of them with out of place fossils which would falsify evolution.

I tried to explain the latter works to you in the other thread.
1. If we observe a derived population in the geological record before the basal population that will falsify evolution. For example finding a mammal species, like a rabbit, in a strata laid down before the evolution of mammals, would falsify evolution.
2. If we observe a species that has survived what was thought to be an extinction, that is not a problem for evolution because it's not an example of 1.

 

[Jimmy D]

My whole life Evolutionists have been screaming incessantly that the order of fossils in the geologic column is direct evidence of evolution ... One of the most popular memes is that "the fossils prove evolution" ... What is with this giant backpedal all of the sudden?

You're letting your bias show with this pejorative language, no one has "screamed" anything, I suggest a more adult tone if you really want a constructive discussion.

Evidence from fossil record does, of course, support the Theory of Evolution. There is no back-pedaling, just posters pointing out your straw man claims.

I'll repeat:
You can't claim that the specific order of fossils is direct evidence of Evolution, without also claiming that Evolution theory expected that specific order of fossils. It's either both or neither.

Yeah, we heard you the first time.

The specific order of fossils is evidence of evolution.
The general order of fossils is what was predicted by the TOE.
The location of specific fossils can be predicted by the TOE.

However, you original post asked if the "specific" order of fossils could be "predicted" with "zero prior knowledge of fossil appearances in the rock record".

Whether such a thing is possible is unlikely, I don't know. However, that does not change the fact that...

The specific order of fossils is evidence of evolution.
The general order of fossils is what was predicted by the TOE.
The location of specific fossils can be predicted by the TOE.

If it's neither, then you're just writing evolution stories based on the fossil order that was discovered, (i.e. ad-hoc.)

The specific order of fossils is evidence of evolution.
The general order of fossils is what was predicted by the TOE.
The location of specific fossils can be predicted by the TOE.

But it sounds like you've already conceded this, which I'm happy to see....

No, he's saying that your willfully misrepresenting the science.

So the fossil order is not evidence of Evolution.... If only you guys admitted stuff like that in the popular science magazines!

No one has said that. Do you think you're achieving anything with this garbage? Embarrassing is what it is. Do you really think that an ill-concieved "thought experiment" trumps actual evidence?

A general glance at the fossil record...

A slightly more specific example....

What can you deduce from the fossils in those images?

Do they confirm what evolutionary theory suggests?

 

[marineimaging]

Absolutely... but it wasn't us who brought up the Coelacanths as evidence against geology, paleontology or evolution.

I think it's very dishonest to make an argument using evidence you neither understand nor care about the details of.

The fact was that our internet continuously dropped last night AND I realized that I was hijacking the OP's comment. When I got to work this morning I decided to correct my errors. The truth is there are reasons that you don't have the privilege of understanding so you might want to consider not making up something, such as calling people dishonest. Have a blessed day and say a prayer for a lost person.

 

[GodsGrace101]

You cant support it because its a lie.

LOL
How could what I said be a lie??

SOME scientists are beginning to abandon the theory of evolution.

So you think EVERY scientist that ever tried to prove evolution, STILL believes in it after years of failure?

Is there solid PROOF for evolution?
Can you post it?

No?

Then you must accept the fact that it MAY NOT be a correct theory.

 

[GodsGrace101]

There is no intelligent questions in the OP.

Sure there is.

Since evolution has not been proven since Darwin's
Evolution of the Species from about 150 years ago,,,,I'd say the scientific community is starting to accept that it may not be a sustainable theory.

 

[Jimmy D]

SOME scientists are beginning to abandon the theory of evolution.

Which ones? Not the handful who work for YEC organizations by any chance?

 

[GodsGrace101]

That's just creationist propaganda. It's not actually true.

Of course it could be true....
This thread is going to turn into creationist propoganda and whatever the alternative is.

In that case I'll leave immediately, if not sooner.

What I'm saying is that all the early theories of science were proven within this amount of time because they were TRUE....WHY isn't evolution being proven?

Perhaps because it's not possible for one animal to change into a different animal?

And while we're at it,,,how did LIFE start?
Rhetorical of course. Nobody knows.

 

[Jimmy D]

Sure there is.

How so?

Since evolution has not been proven since Darwin's Evolution of the Species from about 150 years ago,,,,I'd say the scientific community is starting to accept that it may not be a sustainable theory.

Another poster who needs the concept of a scientific theory explaining to them yet still feels knowledgeable enough to tell the scientific community that they're all wrong.

I'm shocked!

 

[GodsGrace101]

People will believe what they want to believe. That is the priceless value of God giving us each choice because it makes my belief in Jesus even more valuable. Once a person experiences an encounter with the Holy Spirit and begins to walk with Christ then it is nearly impossible to not want to make the rest of your walk through life at His side. I have had many experiences with our Lord and try as I might, I cannot fully express the pure joy at not having to waste another moment wondering which is true.

I think both sides of the fence have a problem....

We that believe God created everything have the problem of not understanding where GOD got started.
We say He's the first cause....but how did HE get here?

Those that believe everything got started on its own have a problem too because any scientist will tell you that you cannot get something from nothing. Although there is one scientist who is trying to prove that something COULD come from nothing...

Look to what lengths some scientists will go !

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, it's easier to believe in a god that created everything...so that's where I'll stay.

When science can go beyond the big bang to see what was there....and when they can create something from nothing...

I MIGHT start to take notice.
Not till then.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Which ones? Not the handful who work for YEC organizations by any chance?

Many.....
Here's one:

 

[Shemjaza]

The fact was that our internet continuously dropped last night AND I realized that I was hijacking the OP's comment. When I got to work this morning I decided to correct my errors. The truth is there are reasons that you don't have the privilege of understanding so you might want to consider not making up something, such as calling people dishonest. Have a blessed day and say a prayer for a lost person.

You presented the Coelacanths as a one word argument argument against science... then stated you didn't care about any details about the fish.

If you didn't know or didn't care about those details, then you didn't in fact have any evidence to present... that is what i characterised as being dishonest.

I've often said that if Creationists want to believe in some variety of Biblical special creation that's completely up to them, that in no way makes mischaracterisations of science or the people who accept it reasonable or moral.

 

[Shemjaza]

Many.....
Here's one:

I notice he doesn't have any training or history working in biology or genetics.

 

[GodsGrace101]

How so?



Another poster who needs the concept of a scientific theory explaining to them yet still feels knowledgeable enough to tell the scientific community that they're all wrong.

I'm shocked!

I never claimed to know anything about science.
I don't even know what the YEC you mentioned is all about.

I like to use my common sense.
Science has been saying things to me all my life and many of those statement have proven incorrect.

My common sense tells me that even Einstein's theory of relativity was shown to be correct and that seem a lot more complicated (to me) than proving evolution.

I believe in micro evolution...changes within a species due to need. I do not believe an animal can change into a different animal. I do not believe single cell life in a pount could turn into a fish, and a fish into a human....no matter how many years it would take.

This thread sounds like conspiracies, which I'm not interested in.

If you're in the science field, maybe you could explain to me how something could come from nothing....

 

[GodsGrace101]

I notice he doesn't have any training or history working in biology or genetics.

He's saying that it's impossible to create life.
He knows about what is needed to create life.
He understands that it's impossible.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Many.....
Here's one:

A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism - Wikipedia

 

[tas8831]

The level of disingenuosuness in this one ranks pretty high on the Dunning-Kruger meter.

So the evolutionist predicted he would find an amphibious fishapod type fossil within rock layers well known for containing amphibious fishapod type fossils.

Hmmm...

Are you saying Shubin knew ahead of time that he would find what he did because other similar fossils had been found there?

Wow - did you act as advisor for crazy Jack Cazzo when he claimed that the evolution police were shooting at him when he was looking at some Neanderthal skulls in a museum? Because you sure seem to like dreaming up dopey scenarios to prop up your losing cause.


Because in real life, Shubin first deduced the timeframe, then looked for accessible rocks of that age.

This is actually an example of how Evolution theory was useless without prior knowledge of the specific order of fossils in the geologic column.

So, you ask for predictions, get one, distort it and dismiss it all for your deity's glory. You must be so proud of yourself.

You didn't need Evolution at all to make such a prediction.

Well, then why didn't you make it?

Why didn't your creationist masters? What - are the lot of you incompetent hacks or something, merely sitting back waiting for others to make discoveries so you can then pounce and denigrate and make thing sup to feed your sad egos? Praise be to Yahweh, of course...

Pity that all available evidence demolishes your bible tales, but hey - you and your ilk just find a way to equivocate and employ your sad apologetics because bible must be true at all costs...

 

[USincognito]

LOL
How could what I said be a lie??

SOME scientists are beginning to abandon the theory of evolution.

So you think EVERY scientist that ever tried to prove evolution, STILL believes in it after years of failure?

Is there solid PROOF for evolution?
Can you post it?

No?

Then you must accept the fact that it MAY NOT be a correct theory.

Oh great. We've got another one who thinks science proves things.