Intermediate fossils

FoeHammer · Jan 22, 2007

MartinM said:
Yes, it is. Look, this is remarkably simple. Common descent implies the existence of transitional fossils. We know what observable characteristics such fossils will have. We find fossils with those characteristics. Hence, transitional fossils, and the evidence supports common descent.

You might recognise this as basic scientific method, common to all scientific study.

Nonsense you cannot prove that any of two those fossils are related let alone all of them.

FoeHammer.

MartinM · Jan 22, 2007

FoeHammer said:
Nonsense you cannot prove that any of two those fossils are related let alone all of them.

Good grief, did you even read what I wrote? What a waste of time this is.

FoeHammer · Jan 22, 2007

Loudmouth said:
Only fools, alcoholics, and mathematicians look for proof. Scientists look for evidence.

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.

Elduran · Jan 22, 2007

FoeHammer said:
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.

They do. You just ignore it.

rmwilliamsll · Jan 22, 2007

FoeHammer said:
Nonsense you cannot prove that any of two those fossils are related let alone all of them.

FoeHammer.

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.

Loudmouth · Jan 22, 2007

FoeHammer said:
Nonsense you cannot prove that any of two those fossils are related let alone all of them.

FoeHammer.

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.

thaumaturgy · Jan 22, 2007

FoeHammer said:
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.

It isn't opinion.

I wonder why the designation "ornithiscia" exists. Hmmm.

Loudmouth · Jan 22, 2007

FoeHammer said:
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.

Birds are dinosaurs.

FoeHammer · Jan 22, 2007

Loudmouth said:
Each of those fossils are either a chimp, human, or something that is intermediate between modern humans and their common ancestor with chimps. If you don't agree with this, then please list the characteristics a "true intermediate" between humans and their common ancestor with chimps should have.

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.

FishFace · Jan 22, 2007

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?

Loudmouth · Jan 22, 2007

FoeHammer said:
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.

What characteristics would you require a fossil to have for it to evidence human/chimp common ancestry?

FoeHammer · Jan 22, 2007

Loudmouth said:
Birds are dinosaurs.

Says who?

FoeHammer.

thaumaturgy · Jan 22, 2007

FoeHammer said:
Says who?

FoeHammer.

Clearly NOT the same taxonomy text that classifies Bats as Birds.

Loudmouth · Jan 22, 2007

FoeHammer said:
Loudmouth: Birds are dinosaurs.

FoeHammer: Says who?

Taxonomists. From http://tolweb.org/Dinosauria

Dinosaurs are divided into:

Birds are considered bipedal Theropod dinosaurs.

FoeHammer · Jan 22, 2007

thaumaturgy said:
Clearly NOT the same taxonomy text that classifies Bats as Birds.

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.

Elduran · Jan 22, 2007

FoeHammer said:
If the Bible calls a whale a fish then a fish it is.
And a bat a bird for that matter.

FoeHammer.
[/COLOR]
[/COLOR]

No, if that happens then the bible is wrong. A small mistake, maybe, but still a mistake.

FoeHammer · Jan 22, 2007

Elduran said:
No, if that happens then the bible is wrong. A small mistake, maybe, but still a mistake.

Why is the Bible wrong in this instance?

FoeHammer.

rmwilliamsll · Jan 22, 2007

FoeHammer said:
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.

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.

FishFace · Jan 22, 2007

FoeHammer, once more: What constitutes a transitional fossil?

pyro214 · Jan 22, 2007

FishFace said:
FoeHammer, once more: What constitutes a transitional fossil?

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.

Intermediate fossils

Veteran

GondolierAce

Veteran

Disruptive influence

avid reader

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Veteran

Disruptive influence

Veteran

avid reader

Senior Veteran

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency