Nonsense you cannot prove that any of two those fossils are related let alone all of them.
FoeHammer.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Intermediate fossils
- Thread starter pyro214
- Start date
FoeHammer.
Anyone who claims that birds evolved from dinosaurs had better be able to back it up with something a whole lot more than just their opinion.
FoeHammer.
Upvote
0
rmwilliamsll
avid reader
you are absolutely right.
of course the evidence does not prove transitional forms. the evidence just sits there, it doesn't actually do anything.
people are persuaded that things are true, this is a function of the evidence presented.
however science doesn't do proof.
it does evidence.
and what it does with the evidence is persuade people who know the necessary underlying theory, that the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt demonstrating a principle. In these case, for anyone adequately trained in evolutionary theory, the evidence for transitional fossils is beyond reasonable doubt.
the evidence does not persuade people who:
1. believe that the evidence is false
2. believe that the system is false
3. who do not know enough of the system to understand the relationship of the evidence to the whole system.
so you are right.
the evidence does not persuade you that there are transitional fossils. but this is not the science's failure, it is yours. the evidence that it is yours is the large number of people who looking at the same evidence find it persuasive.
Upvote
0
Again, proof is for fools, alcoholics, or mathematicians. Science deals with evidence and predictions. The theory of evolution predicts that if two species share common ancestory that you should discover species that have a mix of characteristics intermediate between the two. That is exactly what these fossils demonstrate. Short of DNA, there is no way of "proving" that two identical fossil organisms are related, capable of interbreeding, or if they even used DNA.
Upvote
0
I don't believe in evolution, I don't believe that there are intermediates between man and apes I believe that they were created seperately.
FoeHammer.
Upvote
0
I notice FoeHammer never said what he thought would constitute a true transitional. To me, a transitional fossil would be a blend between two other fossils or known organisms. It should have in-between features of the things it's supposed to be in transition from and two.
When we find these things, it is pretty sure that they are transitional since they fit this bill. If you think "the bill" is different - what is it?
When we find these things, it is pretty sure that they are transitional since they fit this bill. If you think "the bill" is different - what is it?
Upvote
0
What characteristics would you require a fossil to have for it to evidence human/chimp common ancestry?
Upvote
0
thaumaturgy
Well-Known Member
Clearly NOT the same taxonomy text that classifies Bats as Birds.
Upvote
0
Taxonomists. From http://tolweb.org/Dinosauria
Dinosaurs are divided into:
Birds are considered bipedal Theropod dinosaurs.
Upvote
0
Note.
Mans taxonomy may not concur with Adams.
Genesis 2:19
19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
Jonah 1:17
17Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
Matthew 12:40
40For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
If the Bible calls a whale a fish then a fish it is.
And a bat a bird for that matter.
FoeHammer.
Upvote
0
rmwilliamsll
avid reader
that is one of the problems with arguing the issues of Scripture with an English translation.
Jonah 1:17
the word for fish is "dag" and the Greek equivalent is "icthus", which is fish not whale.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Jon&chapter=1&verse=17&strongs=01709&page=
in Matthew 12:40
but Matt doesn't use ichtus here but ketos. which means sea-monster, whale, or huge fish.
the hermeneutical rule that applies here is that the clearer verse should help interpret the less clear. Since Matt's word may be translated as whale but does not have to be, it ought to be translated as great fish. Positing the two different translations in order to prove that a whale is a fish is nonsense, it is forcing the word in Matt to be translated in a particular way and then making Jonah and Matt have to harmonize to correspond to your translation.
was it a whale?
not necessarily but possibly. is a whale a fish? not from these verses.
Upvote
0
ill leave this for FoeHammer but just to summarize somthing on my mind:
theres 109 species of dogs, what makes you think there couldnt be a great number of differnt kinds of apes back then? that have now died off.
personally i think you can look at it either way, those can be considered as transitional fossils yet they can also be considered as differnt species of apes that lived at the time (all created by God).
and there could/ maybe should be more transitional fossils then that?
its hard to say, i would expect a more smoother transition.
think about it...if all the dogs died today and fossilized. It wouldnt be to hard to make it look like a evolutionary transition a couple thousand years from now.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Poll
