I desperately need valid proof of creationism.

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
There's nothing arbitrary about physical measurements

Everything has "physical measurements" , phenotype results can always be "measured" - but "Drawing the line" is arbitrary... there are no "labels" in nature.

storytelling related to Tiktaalik is no exception.

Tiktaalik is not an amphibian or a reptile-- it is in a group of fish we like to call "lobe-fin fish.”

Coelacanth is also in that group even though stories claim that vanished 135 million years ago and then resurfaced in 1938 near Madagascar. So then "did not evolve much in those 135 million years".

Lobe-fin fish have bones similar to other vertebrates. Tiktaalik is not unique in having these bones because other lobe-fish, such as “coelacanth” fish, also have them.

A 1955 Scientific American article exposing its consistent lineage embarrassed evolutionists because “it didn’t evolve; it didn’t change; it looked like the one found in the fossil record.”

They are a fish; they do not walk on the land; they use these fins to swim with.

None of the lobe-fin fish, including Tiktaalik, have bones attaching their fins to the axial skeleton so not at all likely that they walk with them especially since the fins that are attached to these bones are delicate.

evolution's stories have sooo many twists and turns...

========================

More walking fish -- real ones.

from; Walking fish - Wikipedia

Most commonly, walking fish are amphibious fish. Able to spend longer times out of water, these fish may use a number of means of locomotion, including springing, snake-like lateral undulation, and tripod-like walking. The mudskippers are probably the best land-adapted of contemporary fish and are able to spend days moving about out of water and can even climb mangroves, although to only modest heights.[1] The climbing gourami is often specifically referred to as a "walking fish", although it does not actually "walk", but rather moves in a jerky way by supporting itself on the extended edges of its gill plates and pushing itself by its fins and tail. Some reports indicate that it can also climb trees.[2]

The epaulette shark (Hemiscyllium ocellatum) tends to live in shallow waters where swimming is difficult, and can often be seen walking over rocks and sand by using its muscular pectoral fins.[3] It lives in areas of great variation in water depth, usually where the tide falls below its location. If it finds itself out of water, it can survive for several hours, and is capable of walking over land to get to water. This means that it is easily observed by beachgoers in its natural range.

There are a number of fish that are less adept at actual walking, such as the walking catfish. Despite being known for "walking on land", this fish usually wriggles and may use its pectoral fins to aid in its movement. Walking catfish have a respiratory system that allows them to live out of water for several days. Some are invasive species, for example, the Northern snakehead in the U.S.[4] Polypterids have rudimentary lungs and can also move about on land, though rather clumsily. The mangrove rivulus can survive for months out of water and can move to places like hollow logs.[5][6][7]

Some species of fish can "walk" along the sea floor but not on land. One such animal is the flying gurnard (it does not actually fly, and should not be confused with flying fish). The batfishes of the family Ogcocephalidae (not to be confused with batfish of Ephippidae) are also capable of walking along the sea floor. Bathypterois grallator, also known as a "tripodfish", stands on three fins on the bottom of the ocean and hunts for food.[8] The African lungfish (P. annectens) can use its fins to "walk" along the bottom of its tank in a manner similar to the way amphibians and land vertebrates use their limbs on land.[9][10]

And we have swimming birds such as the Cormorant -- "are birds evolving into fish"??

Lots of stories one can string together in those cases.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Everything has "physical measurements" , phenotype results can always be "measured" - but "Drawing the line" is arbitrary... there are no "labels" in nature.

You're not even making an argument, you're just speaking now. When you have a clear statement to make against the prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik, feel free to let me know.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
You're not even making an argument, you're just speaking now.

on the contrary you said we have "measurements" and that is nonsense as an argument against the arbitrary nature of the story telling. We already know that everything has measurements.

How is this not obvious??

Y
When you have a clear statement to make against the prediction and discovery of Tiktaalik, feel free to let me know.

already did.... 20 minutes ago #281

game over.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Everything has "physical measurements" , phenotype results can always be "measured" - but "Drawing the line" is arbitrary... there are no "labels" in nature.

storytelling related to Tiktaalik is no exception.

Tiktaalik is not an amphibian or a reptile-- it is in a group of fish we like to call "lobe-fin fish.”

Coelacanth is also in that group even though stories claim that vanished 135 million years ago and then resurfaced in 1938 near Madagascar. So then "did not evolve much in those 135 million years".

Lobe-fin fish have bones similar to other vertebrates. Tiktaalik is not unique in having these bones because other lobe-fish, such as “coelacanth” fish, also have them.

A 1955 Scientific American article exposing its consistent lineage embarrassed evolutionists because “it didn’t evolve; it didn’t change; it looked like the one found in the fossil record.”

They are a fish; they do not walk on the land; they use these fins to swim with.

None of the lobe-fin fish, including Tiktaalik, have bones attaching their fins to the axial skeleton so not at all likely that they walk with them especially since the fins that are attached to these bones are delicate.

evolution's stories have sooo many twists and turns...

========================

More walking fish -- real ones.



And we have swimming birds such as the Cormorant -- "are birds evolving into fish"??

Lots of stories one can string together in those cases.

This is all just a bunch of rambling, there is nothing technical about anything you're saying. It's also filled with technical errors that are irrelevant to the topic.

Ceolacanth doesn't have a flat head and robust pectoral girdle. So you cannot say that ceolacanth has features of Tiktaalik. Tiktaalik also has more derived wrist bones (it has a radius and ulna as an example and much more derived individual digits), and a flat head with eyes on top and an elongated rib cage.

But really all of this is irrelevant, because none of it has anything to do with the fossil succession and the prediction made with respect to tiktaaliks temporal and geospatial locality. Which you still have yet to say anything about.

And if you aren't familiar with the topic or aren't sure what I am describing, you're welcome to ask questions.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
This is all just a bunch of rambling, there is nothing technical about anything you're saying.

I am stating facts regarding real observations in nature and the point that if one "wished" one could "string stories together" with just about anything.

But the observations in nature do not change "with the stories".

It's also filled with technical errors

It would be very difficult to have technical errors in "nothing technical".


Ceolacanth doesn't have a flat head and robust pectoral girdle.

I don't recall saying that it did -- and Ceolecanth is modern (in the waters of Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, South Africa, Madagascar, Comoros and Indonesia) not extinct yielding to something else. They have not evolved rather they remain just as they were.

So you cannot say that ceolacanth has features of Tiktaalik.

Neither of them walked and BOTH of them are lobe-fin fish. None of the lobe-fin fish (and that includes Tictaalic) have bones attaching their fins to the axial skeleton so not at all likely that they walk with them especially since the fins that are attached to these bones are delicate. And they did not walk on their heads, or eyes either

By contrast I am pointing to fish that actually are seen to have the ability to "walk" in a fashion that we can see in real life today.

Tiktaalik also has more derived wrist bones (it has a radius and ulna as an example and much more derived individual digits), and a flat head with eyes on top and an elongated rib cage.

It could not walk on its head, or eyes and its fins were not connected to the axial skeleton. The point remains.

But really all of this is irrelevant, because none of it has anything to do with the fossil succession

Ahh that's the real argument all along - forget the it was not even possible for them to walk and forget that coelacanths has not evolved at all in 400 million years. A Paleozoic fossil still with us to this very day coelacanth and so still in the very latest fossil record not just an ancient one where it then vanishes. It is there the whole time ... unchanged..

DNA Sequencing Reveals that Coelacanths Weren’t the Missing Link Between Sea and Land | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

"DNA Sequencing Reveals that Coelacanths Weren’t the Missing Link Between Sea and Land
The rare fish’s genome is slowly evolving—and contrary to prior speculation, it probably isn’t the common ancestor of all land animals"
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ceolecanth is modern...They have not evolved rather they remain just as they were.



Neither of them walked and BOTH of them are lobe-fin fish. None of the lobe-fin fish (and that includes Tictaalic) have bones attaching their fins to the axial skeleton so not at all likely that they walk with them especially since the fins that are attached to these bones are delicate. And they did not walk on their heads, or eyes either

By contrast I am pointing to fish that actually are seen to have the ability to "walk" in a fashion that we can see in real life today.



It could not walk on its head, or eyes and its fins were not connected to the axial skeleton. The point remains.



Ahh that's the real argument all along - forget the it was not even possible for them to walk and forget that coelacanths has not evolved at all in 400 million years. A Paleozoic fossil still with us to this very day coelacanth and so still in the very latest fossil record not just an ancient one where it then vanishes. It is there the whole time ... unchanged..

DNA Sequencing Reveals that Coelacanths Weren’t the Missing Link Between Sea and Land | Science | Smithsonian Magazine

"DNA Sequencing Reveals that Coelacanths Weren’t the Missing Link Between Sea and Land
The rare fish’s genome is slowly evolving—and contrary to prior speculation, it probably isn’t the common ancestor of all land animals"

None of the above actually addresses the existence of transitional features in Tiktaalik. Nor is any explanation for the fossil succession provided.

And it's further filled with more errors. Ceolacanth of the devonian are morphologically unique and are not equivelant to those of today (as are those of the carboniferous as well):

A newly recognized fossil coelacanth highlights the early morphological diversification of the clade

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Above are two links to research articles describing why ceolacanth of the fossil record are morphologically different from one another and from the ones alive today (ie., The fossil record suggests that they have evolved, although not in rates as fast as other species, they've evolved none the less).


And saying that Tiktaalik is a fish is meaningless if you don't address it's transitional features. Every animal has some kind of name attributed to it. But just because it's transitional, doesn't mean that it is automatically not a fish or not an amphibian. It's not an alien from outer space. So we call it a fish with transitional features.

And nobody is saying that Tiktaalik was out running marathons. It's pectoral and pelvic girdles are blatantly transitional.

Pelvic girdle and fin of Tiktaalik roseae

But as noted before, Tiktaalik holds a whole host of transitional features. Eyes on top of a flat head, unfused neck for turning it's head, elongated rib cage, it's robust pectoral and pelvic girdles, spiracles for air breathing, the presence of a radial and ulna, etc etc.

It is blatantly transitional.

Your best response is basically that because ceolacanth (a derived version) exists today, the fossil succession therefore doesn't exist, also just doesn't make any sense.

Starfish exist today too. But just because starfish exist today, doesn't mean that the fossil succession somehow magically doesn't exist. Evolution doesn't require species to morphologically change in significant ways.

Your argument is like saying that because one person decided to walk a marathon, it is fair to therefore conclude that no other people ran the marathon or perhaps that the marathon never happened or that there is no evidence for it.

It just doesn't make any sense. Just because one genus changes in few ways, doesn't automatically mean that no other species changed at all.

And here are some further images depicting tiktaaliks transitional features:
Screenshot_20210119-224033.png

Screenshot_20210119-223957.png

Screenshot_20210119-223942.png

Screenshot_20210119-224113.png

Screenshot_20210119-224128.png

Screenshot_20210119-224332.png
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Early Devonian Fish don't have unfused skulls, don't have robust pectoral and pelvic girdles, don't have flat heads with eyes on top, don't have elongated rib cages, don't have digits of primitive hands, etc.

Tiktaalik has all of the above (temporal and morphological intermediate)

These are all features found in late Devonian tetrapods.

To simplify things, Tiktaalik holds traits that are not seen in fish that predate it, but rather are more commonly viewed in tetrapods that post-date it. Meaning that it is a fish with tetrapod traits.

And this doesn't mean that Tiktaalik isn't a fish. It still has fins and scales.

It simply means that it is a fish with transitional features, often refered to informally as a fishapod.


I mean, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to connect these dots^.

But again, still deniers of evolution offer no explanation for the fossil succession.

Reminding us that fish (like ceolacanth) still exist today (even though fish are also observed hundreds of millions of years ago) doesn't say anything about the fossil succession. It just tells us that not all fish evolved to walk on land and that some stayed fish.

This isn't a profound counter argument, it's just unreasonable nonsense because evolution doesn't mandate that all species change in significant ways over time.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Natural Geometry sold it too me, although it isn't solid proof, it is if you know what you are looking for.

Thanks for the input. What do you mean by natural geometry?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alex Reynolds
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Devonian Fish don't have unfused skulls, don't have robust pectoral and pelvic girdles, don't have flat heads with eyes on top, don't have elongated rib cages, don't have digits of primitive hands, etc.

These are all features found in late Devonian tetrapods.

I mean, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to connect these dots^.

Lots of arguments for why fish don't walk - no one is doubting that.

None of the above actually addresses the existence of transitional features in Tiktaalik. Nor is any explanation for the fossil succession provided.

coelacanths has not evolved at all in 400 million years. It is a Paleozoic fossil still living with us to this very day coelacanth and so still in the very latest fossil record not just an ancient one where it then vanishes. It is there the whole time ... unchanged..

Simpson already pointed out that there is "a way" to align fossils to tell a story when he unwittingly published the fraudulently "arranged fossil" series created by Othniel Charles Marsh and Thomas Huxley .

You see it still on display today in the Smithsonians fraudulent smooth orthogenic transition where fossils were "arranged" to show the much imagined progression.

Lots of good "stories" for how that transition was "the best illustration" of evolution.

Then you take 'a feature' and label it "a transitional feature" even though no such transition occurred. Its a circular argument.

=============================

Neither of the lobe-fin fish examples - walked. None of the lobe-fin fish (and that includes Tiktaalic) have bones attaching their fins to the axial skeleton so not at all likely that they walk with them especially since the fins that are attached to these bones are delicate. And they did not walk on their heads, or eyes either
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Alex Reynolds

Active Member
Jan 18, 2021
53
26
27
Winchester
Visit site
✟9,676.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Independence-Party
Thanks for the input. What do you mean by natural geometry?

Thank you for allowing me to eloborate.

Crystals such as quartz, are atomically aligned identically to how they grow. Might take a minute to get your head around but if you where to chip a quartz crystal then look at it under a microscope, you would be looking at a smaller version of the crystal, it all follows the same geometry.

Below picture is an example of a fractal, I encourage you to look into fractals yourself, far too complicated for here and do prepare yourself for a truly magnificent yet intense mathematical journey, there is a documentary on the Mandelbrot, good place to start if you find it. To me this is intelligent design.

And...I am putting myself out here, on the subject of zodiacs...everyone hold your horses. I think there is something to zodiacs, but not that it is any of our business. It is like the organs, it's fine to acknowledge they exist and work, but messing around with them for personal gain is sinful.

The zodiac, to me, are just there part of god's creation, we don't need to mess with it or be too concerned with it, but what I will say is this. There are 12 zodiac, 12 notes in the western chromatic music scale and 12 colors in the color wheel. If you put all these in a circle and look at what notes harmonize they are the same as "compatible signs" and "complimentary colors".

They are all based of the same "theory of intervals". To me that was the fingerprint of God. I know this works I am a musician and have studied art.

Again, I think there is something to astrology, I do not believe in using it however nor worshiping it, it is God's creation.

Hope my perspective is interesting and helps, God bless you.

iu
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Alex Reynolds

Active Member
Jan 18, 2021
53
26
27
Winchester
Visit site
✟9,676.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Independence-Party
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Forgive me, is this directed to me? I thought I elaborated well on natural geometry.

Sorry nope! It's for the bob ryan guy haha. But thanks for your post as well!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alex Reynolds
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Alex Reynolds

Active Member
Jan 18, 2021
53
26
27
Winchester
Visit site
✟9,676.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Independence-Party
Sorry nope! It's for the bob ryan guy haha. But thanks for your post as well!

No worries, I thought so just there was nothing in the quote so I got confused, a lot of interesting things on here that I never thought about though. There is also general God and particular God, although not proof, is a reasonable argument for God that encompasses science to a degree, the idea that God created the universe and the laws of science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Devonian Fish don't have unfused skulls, don't have robust pectoral and pelvic girdles, don't have flat heads with eyes on top, don't have elongated rib cages, don't have digits of primitive hands, etc.

These are all features found in late Devonian tetrapods.

I mean, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to connect these dots^.

Lots of arguments for why fish don't walk - no one is doubting that.

None of the above actually addresses the existence of transitional features in Tiktaalik. Nor is any explanation for the fossil succession provided.

coelacanths have not evolved (into something else) at all in 400 million years. It is a Paleozoic fossil still living with us to this very day coelacanth and so still in the very latest fossil record not just an ancient one where it then vanishes. It is there the whole time ... unchanged rather than evolved-to-some-other-species..

Simpson already pointed out that there is "a way" to align fossils to tell a story when he unwittingly published the fraudulently "arranged fossil" series created by Othniel Charles Marsh and Thomas Huxley .

You see it still on display today in the Smithsonian's fraudulent smooth orthogenic transition where fossils were "arranged" to show the much imagined progression.

Lots of good "stories" for how that transition was "the best illustration" of evolution.

Then you take 'a feature' and label it "a transitional feature" even though no such transition occurred. Its a circular argument.

=============================

Neither of the lobe-fin fish examples - walked. None of the lobe-fin fish (and that includes Tiktaalic) have bones attaching their fins to the axial skeleton so not at all likely that they walk with them especially since the fins that are attached to these bones are delicate. And they did not walk on their heads, or eyes either

I desperately need valid proof of creationism. -link number 1

I desperately need valid proof of creationism. -link number 2

When you're ready to actually address my comments, I'll be here.

ok -- we see the "need" for "arranged sequences" and find them to be flawed.

Fossil record is sparse if one believes in evolution... very sparse. So then guesses abound.

Completeness of the Fossil Record
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
And saying that Tiktaalik is a fish is meaningless if you don't address it's transitional features. Every animal has some kind of name attributed to it. But just because it's transitional, doesn't mean that it is automatically not a fish or not an amphibian. It's not an alien from outer space.

And it is not a transitional form.

=======================================

Collin Patterson - Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history
On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:

=================
April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland


“ I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.

You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it.

Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.

You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “

[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]

====================================

so then while I do find "stories easy enough to tell" to be entertaining - that is about it for the stories -
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: coffee4u
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,509
Georgia
✟900,262.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
But again, still deniers of evolution offer no explanation for the fossil succession.
.

Just so we can head off any red herrings that may show up - you do agree that the fossil succession seen in the fossil record has been around for a while -- it did not just pop up in the last 10 or 20 years.. agreed?
 
Upvote 0