Fossils

[AureateDawn]

For the Theistic Evolutioninists - mine explaining why there are no half-this/half-that remains and fossils, and only remains of the "full" creatures? Surely we'd find a halffrog halffish thing somewhere...

 

[Poke]

For the Theistic Evolutioninists - mine explaining why there are no half-this/half-that remains and fossils, and only remains of the "full" creatures? Surely we'd find a halffrog halffish thing somewhere...

That's why Stephen J. Gould was pushing Punctuated Equalibrium. For some magical reason, when one kind of animal is transforming into another kind of animal, Evolution would go supersonic, and move so fast that the fossil record couldn't track it. And, then once the transformation was complete, Evolution would put on the breaks and drop a million fossils of a fixed species in the fossil record.

 

[XTE]

It doesn't happen like that at all.

For one, let's look at how fossils are made. It takes just short of a catastrophy(at least local) to put enough sediment over top a dead animal for it to even be able to fossilize. If an animal were to lay out dead in the dryest place imaginable even the Sun would cause it to decay before sediment could catch it. Even if particulate could cover it in time, it would have to be extremely fine particulate and would ruin the potential fossil as it sank in a....sand paper type way. That particulate would have to harden to rock and that takes vast amounts of time.

Fossils are not easy. If they were, you could dig up your backyard and land a couple.

Transitional Fossils is what you are looking for. At least that's what they are commonly called anyways. They do exist, unfortunately you're employing false logic when you "shift goalpost." Let's say I showed you archeoptryx and said here's a lizard with feathers. You could then ask what came before archeoptryx and then I showed you it's madeupitryx and then you ask what's before that and I tell you it's this the beforethatitryx and the chase the tail game continues into obliquity. It's what YEC almost need to feel comfortable with their assumption that Evolution is baseless. I don't blame you for feeling it.

When I tell you there are MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE, would you believe me or the YEC sites that tell you what you need to hear to feel good about yourself?

I hope I didn't come off too strong. I am a big proponent of even Evolutionary Psychology at the moment so I threw in some elements to potentially get you to think a bit.

Thank you and God Bless

 

[XTE]

That's why Stephen J. Gould was pushing Punctuated Equalibrium. For some magical reason, when one kind of animal is transforming into another kind of animal, Evolution would go supersonic, and move so fast that the fossil record couldn't track it. And, then once the transformation was complete, Evolution would put on the breaks and drop a million fossils of a fixed species in the fossil record.

He has the fossil record right and the "supersonic " wrong. It's explained in my post above.

Thank you and God Bless

 

[AureateDawn]

I need to learn morea bout Theistic Evolution... I don't know enough to come to a conclusion on which is right. I've always taken Genesis' Adam and Eve literally, myself, so that's an issue for me as well.

 

[XTE]

I need to learn morea bout Theistic Evolution... I don't know enough to come to a conclusion on which is right. I've always taken Genesis' Adam and Eve literally, myself, so that's an issue for me as well.

It's nice to hear you're open-minded. In my book open-mindedness isn't a curse word.

Some people don't even search for these answers. I'm glad to see you may not be satisfied with so much an answer as you would a working system.

Thank you and God Bless you in this

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

For the Theistic Evolutioninists - mine explaining why there are no half-this/half-that remains and fossils, and only remains of the "full" creatures? Surely we'd find a halffrog halffish thing somewhere...

read through:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Hunt is a pretty good writer.

 

[Poke]

Fossils are not easy. If they were, you could dig up your backyard and land a couple.

Yet, there are trillions of fossils in the fossil record. 99.999% of them don't work as a transitional even in the wild imagination of Evolutionists. And, nearly eveyone probably has countless thousands of fossils in their backyards. They just have to find some rocks native to the backyard. But, don't get too excited. Even if you identifed a 1000 fossils from your backyard, you wouldn't have found anything that isn't each identical to a million other fossils already dug up.

Transitional Fossils is what you are looking for.

If Evolution is true, then all fossils should be transitional fossils.

Let's say I showed you archeoptryx and said here's a lizard with feathers. You could then ask what came before archeoptryx and then I showed you it's madeupitryx

Archaeopteyx has ultra-modern feathers. That alone is fatal to your transitional fossil claim. The consensus among scientists is that archaeopteryx is too high in the fossil record to be a transitional ancestor to birds.

So, no, I won't be asking you what came before archaeopteryx.

 

[XTE]

Yet, there are trillions of fossils in the fossil record. 99.999% of them don't work as a transitional even in the wild imagination of Evolutionists. And, nearly eveyone probably has countless thousands of fossils in their backyards. They just have to find some rocks native to the backyard. But, don't get too excited. Even if you identifed a 1000 fossils from your backyard, you wouldn't have found anything that isn't each identical to a million other fossils already dug up.

You mentioned something else where Evolution spead up and then slowed down to dump a million fossils for us. Are there trillions in mixed layers? Than what I said earlier is only validated again by you yourself. It takes a catastrophy. You also need to realize that this took a very long time. In your world of 6000 years it wouldn't work and so by your rational it works. Fortunately we have people that care that will take a long proactive look at the situation and they've come across facts and drawn conclusions from those. They even make a career out of it.

If it isn't the case, it would seem you're being a little opportunistic.

If Evolution is true, then all fossils should be transitional fossils.

They are. I messed up and should have said that YECs call them "Transitional Fossils." If you strain just a bit, you'll see it was probably what I was going after.

Archaeopteyx has ultra-modern feathers. That alone is fatal to your transitional fossil claim. The consensus among scientists is that archaeopteryx is too high in the fossil record to be a transitional ancestor to birds.

"Ultra-modern?" I Googled and Wikipedia'd this to the extreme and never found this. Did you fabricate this? Could you LINK the consensus you mention please? I'd appreciate it as would the OP.

So, no, I won't be asking you what came before archaeopteryx.

O.K. with me. Didn't stop many others though did it?

 

[random_guy]

For the Theistic Evolutioninists - mine explaining why there are no half-this/half-that remains and fossils, and only remains of the "full" creatures? Surely we'd find a halffrog halffish thing somewhere...

Before I explain, could you explain what scientifically, a transitional fossil is and what transitional fossils would you expect to see? Not to be rude, but I made a post a couple of months ago keeping track of Creationists' definitions of transitionals, and no one got it right.

After that, I can try to give a detailed response. It helps tailor my response depending on your level of knowledge. Thanks!

 

[AureateDawn]

Um... not sure what your asking random_guy.

Also, how do TE's think of Adam and Eve? They were microscopic organisms that tended a garden, named animals, and.... wait... were those few celled organisms, too? Didn't Adam and Eve also think and were tempted to eat the fruit?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Um... not sure what your asking random_guy.

Also, how do TE's think of Adam and Eve?

Varies greatly.
Some see it as purely a moral story,
others see it as representational of what individuals go through,
others see it as representational of something in the development of homo sapiens,
some believe that there really was an Adam and Eve...

 

[XTE]

Also, how do TE's think of Adam and Eve? They were microscopic organisms that tended a garden, named animals, and.... wait... were those few celled organisms, too? Didn't Adam and Eve also think and were tempted to eat the fruit?

Genesis is filled with Methaphor and lost to some by constant translation. Why someone couldn't spend the extra effort to search out it's meaning in it's original text is beyond me if they truly cared.

Adam for instance in Hebrew means simply: Man.

Likewise Eve in Hebrew means simply: Life. It isn't to hard to picture Eve's name coming about because she gave life to her children. How much did our ancestor's know about it?

Adam and Eve weren't names to begin with. They were words. Even further, symbols.

Eatting from the tree of knowledge almost makes it seem like I've committed a no-no pursuing knowledge other than the Bible full-time and to some I'm sure that might seem the case. I've heard it before including from my mom out of worry.

All I could tell my mother is that I felt spirit-led to do this. That I felt my calling was figuring out human life. To take some of magic out of it. To eliviate some problems in the process. To attain more understanding than absolutes. She is fully in my court now and I love her to peices. Just so you know, my dad's always been my dad and a great one at that.

Thank you and God Bless

 

[AureateDawn]

Really? Mind linking things like that about the translations of Adam, Eve, day, etc.? That is very interesting right there.

 

[XTE]

Really? Mind linking things like that about the translations of Adam, Eve, day, etc.? That is very interesting right there.

I wish I could link but I can't as of yet. I have to post 15 posts first but if you just wikipedia it you'll find your answers in short order.

Hopefully you trust Wikipedia, it is the ultimate in peer-revision and is why it's so visited. If it's meanings of Adam and Eve aren't spot on, they'd hear about it REALLY REALLY QUICK LIKE and I've seen that more than a year ago. Nothing's really changed.

God Bless

 

[Melethiel]

There is no uniform TE view on Adam and Eve. I for example, believe that there was a literal Adam and Eve, while others view it as a symbolic account.

 

[random_guy]

Um... not sure what your asking random_guy.

Well, basically, just what do you think a transitional fossil is? For example, do you think a half fish/half frog is a transitional fossil? What characteristics makes a fossil transitional, and one that isn't, etc... If you could answer these questions, I can try to put together an answer depending on how much you already know.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

I for example, believe that there was a literal Adam and Eve.

Could you please expand on this?

 

[Melethiel]

Could you please expand on this?

Not really. I'm bad at explaining my thoughts.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Not really. I'm bad at explaining my thoughts.

okay, thanks anyways