Fossil Challenge for Evolutionists

[tas8831]

I don see that he is asking for anyone to educate him and also see validity in his question. It only finds assumed confirmation based on time. And if the time is proven wrong then the order can be wrong too.

Then perhaps you can find an example of anyone doing what is implied and 'prediciting' a specific order of fossils.

 

[tas8831]

Ignorance is when one is too dumb to even ask a question.

No, it is when one thinks they are correct when they are not.

Asking a question shows a person is not ignorant.

Really?

Asking an intelligent question shows a person does more thinking than most....

So what in the OP is premised on intelligence?

Here's a question - the author of the OP dismissed some evidence I posted for her elsewhere because she could not understand the "jargon" in the scientific papers. Does that indicate intelligence (re: evolution) or ignorance?

 

[tas8831]

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.

SHOW US.

By the way - you must know that carbon dating is but one of dozens of different dating methods, right? And that since carbon dating is only good for about 50, maybe 75000 years max anyway, what impact do you really think a few thousand years error will actually have on anything?

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. 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.

Wow, cool evidence-free and unwarranted extrapolation-filled story!

 

[tas8831]

As I said, people will believe what they want to believe. I cannot fully express how much I enjoy not having to waste another moment wondering. I know God and enjoy knowing that I am eternal through the sacrifice made by Jesus, His only begotten son. It stopped being a question of belief and became a matter of fact a few years ago. I pray it happens to you as well.

So, you've got nothing but wishful thinking and bliss.

Bye.

 

[tas8831]

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.

In other words, you cannot claim "we expected that" without also claiming that you could have predicted it to some degree of specificity beforehand. The two go hand in hand. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

In any case, your point is only semantic and avoiding the substance of the OP. I await your thoughts on the subject.

Cool series of assertions premised on your personal desires and ignorance of science.

Not as cool as how you avoid threads asking for evidence for creation.

Funny how that works.

 

[marineimaging]

Wait, are you actually suggesting fossils were planted by Satan?

I apologize for having hijacked the OP's original intent. Have a blessed day.

 

[marineimaging]

So, you've got nothing but wishful thinking and bliss.

Bye.

Have a blessed day.

 

[marineimaging]

So, you've got nothing but wishful thinking and bliss.

Bye.

Have a blessed day.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'll keep my bliss and raise you two .Coelacanths

Did you know that modern Coelacanths are so different from the ancient fossils that they aren't even classified as the same genus?

 

[tas8831]

Don't trip over your ego on the way out the door.

I'm not the one pretending to have all the answers while admitting that I can't provide any evidence!
LOL!
Thanks for the laugh - projection is so funny.

 

[tas8831]

Did you know that modern Coelacanths are so different from the ancient fossils that they aren't even classified as the same genus?

Of course not.

 

[tas8831]

Looks like our thread starter is just here to feed his ego. Looked through his previously started threads, and I see a lot of the same.

"The more you study the claims of Evolutionists, the more you realize they are based on simple ignorance of the data, or willing exaggeration/fabrication of it."

That is from 2015, when our expert on all science and logic and religion decided to come down from the Mount to demolish ERVs.... Most ironic, seeing as how supergenius dismissed papers because they had too much jargon in them for him to understand...

 

[lasthero]

How did God create a fully formed man from dust? What process was used?
WHEN did this dust go from being dust to being a fully formed adult human male?



Cool myth, bro!

That reminds me. There was this site with a list of quotes from creationists claiming that evolution was on its deathbed from the past two centuries. Anyone have the link to it?

 

[tas8831]

That reminds me. There was this site with a list of quotes from creationists claiming that evolution was on its deathbed from the past two centuries. Anyone have the link to it?

No, but I think I've seen it. They are nothing if not predictable.

 

[lifepsyop]

Here is a better thing to remember - nobody ever claimed to be able to predict a specific order of fossils.

Actually evolutionists the world over claim that very thing, that the fossil record is in a specifically "evolutionary order", that if the order of fossils in the rock record were significantly different, then it would falsify evolution. I bet I could find thousands of posts from evolutionists on this very board essentially claiming that very thing.

But now you've admitted that Evolution theory makes no such predictions. I bet that's news to many evos on these boards.

"Predictions" about fossils are now, when made, premised on a combined knowledge of the current fossil record

Exactly, we know where to expect certain types of fossils, simply because of where we've found those same types of fossils.

and how evolution works.

You just admitted Evolution theory doesn't predict the specific order of fossils, and now you backpedal and say it does? Which is it? Don't equivocate.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Actually evolutionists the world over claim that very thing, that the fossil record is in a specifically "evolutionary order", that if the order of fossils in the rock record were significantly different, then it would falsify evolution. I bet I could find thousands of posts from evolutionists on this very board essentially claiming that very thing.

But now you've admitted that Evolution theory makes no such predictions. I bet that's news to many evos on these boards.



Exactly, we know where to expect certain types of fossils, simply because of where we've found those same types of fossils.



You just admitted Evolution theory doesn't predict the specific order of fossils, and now you backpedal and say it does? Which is it? Don't equivocate.

• Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).
• Theory predicted that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have higher mutation rates. This has been found in the case of bacteria infecting the lungs of chronic cystic fibrosis patients (Oliver et al. 2000).
• Predator-prey dynamics are altered in predictable ways by evolution of the prey (Yoshida et al. 2003).
• Ernst Mayr predicted in 1954 that speciation should be accompanied with faster genetic evolution. A phylogenetic analysis has supported this prediction (Webster et al. 2003).
• Several authors predicted characteristics of the ancestor of craniates. On the basis of a detailed study, they found the fossil Haikouella "fit these predictions closely" (Mallatt and Chen 2003).
• Evolution predicts that different sets of character data should still give the same phylogenetic trees. This has been confirmed informally myriad times and quantitatively, with different protein sequences, by Penny et al. (1982).
• Insect wings evolved from gills, with an intermediate stage of skimming on the water surface. Since the primitive surface-skimming condition is widespread among stoneflies, J. H. Marden predicted that stoneflies would likely retain other primitive traits, too. This prediction led to the discovery in stoneflies of functional hemocyanin, used for oxygen transport in other arthropods but never before found in insects (Hagner-Holler et al. 2004; Marden 2005).

CA210: Evolution predictions

 

[tas8831]

Here is a better thing to remember - nobody ever claimed to be able to predict a specific order of fossils.

Actually evolutionists the world over claim that very thing, that the fossil record is in a specifically "evolutionary order", that if the order of fossils in the rock record were significantly different, then it would falsify evolution.

That is not the same thing as "predicts" a specific order of fossils."

I bet I could find thousands of posts from evolutionists on this very board essentially claiming that very thing.

So precious - you're not even trying to hide your bait and switch.

I have been reading your old threads. You are not as... informed... as you clearly think you are.

And your blog? What blog? Exactly...

Maybe more tomorrow - off to recruit members for the grand conspiracy to... do something...

 

[VirOptimus]

So, those who make certain claims aren't responsible for backing them up? Meaning also, an evolutionist can make any claim, and if they were asked to prove it, it's perfecly acceptable for the evolutionists to simply tell them they aren't responsible for their education?



Oh, really? And what a detailed explanation as to why it's ignorant. I guess it's just easier to expect someone to believe you without you educating them/telling them why they should. Guess what...they won't

Of course it's yours/their responsibility to explain why what they claim to be a fact is a fact, or in short..."for their education". That is if they expect anyone to take them seriously.

Jim says: "I just UPS'd a man to mars and am the first to ever do so!" Joe replies: "I didn't think that was possible, can you please show us how?" Jim responds, "I'm not responsible for your education".

The ToE claims are very well backed up. If you dont know that then you are uneducated.

 

[lifepsyop]

The "predictions" you talk about are based on knowledge of the fossil record, for example the discovery of Tiktaalik.

A clear cut example is Shubin's prediction about the timeframe within which we should expect to find a fish-tetrapod transition.

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

This is actually an example of how Evolution theory was useless without prior knowledge of the specific order of fossils in the geologic column. You didn't need Evolution at all to make such a prediction.

In a similar way, I can predict right now, that the most likely place to find a fossil variation of Velociraptor is in the upper Cretaceous rock layers.

I don't need to spin fantastic yarns about stardust blindly organizing itself into dinosaurs over time. I can simply look at the known fossil record and base my prediction off of it.

 

[46AND2]

In fact, although some may not have fully abandoned the idea of evolution they are questioning the validity of the data. If two labs half way around the world can received samples of the same base material and yet arrive at entirely different time periods (and they were certified) then something is wrong, somewhere. And one place is the method of determining how time is gauged. In this case the OP is asking a valid question when it comes to applying science. If the process were absolute and true, then it would be valid without having to know the outcome. At least it makes a lot of sense to me.

But that doesn't happen. They do these kinds of tests ROUTINELY in order to calibrate and check their labs. Using material of KNOWN age, and sending them to different labs. Guess what? It works.