Intermediate fossils

[flatworm]

i use the term unecessary because i dont get why God wouldnt just make everything like "poof"....considering he can.

As if it made more sense for God to create the laws of physics such that he must violate them repeatedly in order to bring about the result he had always intended in the first place.

Why go through the trouble of evolution, which would lead people to think his existance is false, leading more people away from him... not what he wants.

One would think an omnipotent being who wanted to make himself known could easily do so on an ongoing basis. I've heard the whole "free will" argument and it's a red herring. I myself routinely make my existence obvious to other people, and as far as I can tell none of them have turned into zombies.

This, however, is not the reason i have yet to accept evolution so easily. I am stubbron about it because of a more in depth purpose. Evolution would take billions of years (3.5 billion apparently), the only part of the Bible which would extend its timeline for more then 6k years is a false interpetation of the begats (which would only extend it by no more then...maybe 100k years?), and the term "day" used in the first Chapter of Genesis.

Why not take the Genesis creation story as a fable? I mean, in the Bible, a supposedly omniscient God apparently doesn't know Adam and Eve have eaten the forbidden fruit until he goes walking through the garden and sees them in makeshift clothes. He even has to call out to them because he doesn't know where they are. A literal interpretation presents more than just scientific absurdities.

 

[pyro214]

Why not take the Genesis creation story as a fable? I mean, in the Bible, a supposedly omniscient God apparently doesn't know Adam and Eve have eaten the forbidden fruit until he goes walking through the garden and sees them in makeshift clothes. He even has to call out to them because he doesn't know where they are. A literal interpretation presents more than just scientific absurdities.

how do you know he doesnt know they ate the fruit/ know where they are?

to call out to them doesnt mean he does not know where they are, have you ever played hide and seek with a 5 year old....they hide under a blaket right next to you, to avoid recking the game you call out there name and pretend that you cant find them.

 

[flatworm]

Then again i dont know how he thinks so for me to question him is wrong, just a confusion i have....doesnt mean its not possible at all. (theres many things i dont understand why he did it, how people are sent to hell...why there sent there for so long, etc...).

What puzzles me is why Christians who claim the ways of God are beyond human understanding would insist that the way God created the universe must fit neatly into the imagination of ancient desert nomads.

 

[flatworm]

how do you know he doesnt know they ate the fruit/ know where they are?

to call out to them doesnt mean he does not know where they are, have you ever played hide and seek with a 5 year old....they hide under a blaket right next to you, to avoid recking the game you call out there name and pretend that you cant find them.

A game? He's supposed to already know they've disobeyed him and he's just about to curse them and all their descendents... but you think he doesn't want to wreck the game?

I'm afraid even that little bit of imaginative interpretation doesn't jive with the idea of an omnipresent deity.

 

[pyro214]

A game? He's supposed to already know they've disobeyed him and he's just about to curse them and all their descendents... but you think he doesn't want to wreck the game?

I'm afraid even that little bit of imaginative interpretation doesn't jive with the idea of an omnipresent deity.

nice way to take things to literally,
did i say he was playing a game? no...so why do you assume this so suddenly?
it was a nice example, take from it the fact that he was not calling there name because he did not no where they were. thats what you were supposed to get from it.

to call out to them doesnt mean he does not know where they are

yes, this was the point....

have you ever played hide and seek with a 5 year old....they hide under a blaket right next to you, to avoid recking the game you call out there name and pretend that you cant find them.

an example of how it didnt mean he didnt know where they were.
i havnt read of all Genises in a while but if i remember correclty this verse shows us that Adam and Eve had to hide from there creator because they were ashamed...due to sin. Even when God called out to them they continued to hide.

He even has to call out to them because he doesn't know where they are

Athiests often blame Chrisitians for saying "you take it out of context".....well we usually have reason to, this is a prime example.

 

[flatworm]

yet i didnt insits, just pointed out that it confuses me and that i dont question...people critisize the Bible with a human mind, i try to defend it in ways the understand.



nice way to take things to literally,
did i say he was playing a game? no...so why do you assume this so suddenly?

Hmmm...

to call out to them doesnt mean he does not know where they are, have you ever played hide and seek with a 5 year old....they hide under a blaket right next to you, to avoid recking the game you call out there name and pretend that you cant find them.

I think any rational human being would infer that was exactly what you were implying from the above.

it was a nice example, take from it the fact that he was not calling there name because he did not no where they were. thats what you were supposed to get from it.

So now that your one alternative explanation has been demolished, you expect me to just stop thinking about it and accept the party line, eh?

Doubleplusgood.

I think we've strayed from the topic somewhat, though, and I must take some of the blame for that.

 

[pyro214]

I think we've strayed from the topic somewhat, though, and I must take some of the blame for that.

yea me to, anyways....heres the main reason (didnt finish edited before you replied).

"i havnt read of all Genises in a while but if i remember correclty this verse shows us that Adam and Eve had to hide from there creator because they were ashamed...due to sin. Even when God called out to them they continued to hide."

anyways, back to evolution
(any further comments can be given over PM, if a new conclusion is derived will post it).

 

[MarkT]

When i argue against evolution i usually state that there is no intermediate stages backing up evolution, even though evolutoin suggests there should be billions of them. Am i the only one that has yet to see a intermediate fossil?

Not only should there be intermediate fossils but living intermediates should exist. In fact there should be so many intermediates, it would make classifying animals almost impossible. But animals can be put into distinct categories. That's one argument against evolution.

 

[pyro214]

Not only should there be intermediate fossils but living intermediates should exist. In fact there should be so many intermediates, it would make classifying animals almost impossible. But animals can be put into distinct categories. That's one argument against evolution.

This is best source for fossils backing up evolution so far posted/ seen by myself:

i said that it is possible, although those could be a variations of apes living at the time. Personally i rather see a transitional diagram of the apes tail.

Your second point, that there should be lots of intermediate stages of life still on earth is very good...ive heard a reason why it is possible, but for it to happen to a majority of the earths wildlife is very strange.

Heres an example:
apes were apparently a "ancestor" of humans. If apes evolved into humans, then why are there still apes? Some may argue that apes have yet to die off, in this case....why are A HUGE MAJORITY of the intermediate stages of apes no longer alive (this includes all animals present today, not just humans!)?

 

[MarkT]

I would like to put forward a question. Why are all different types of fossils found in sequential order? If God made all "kinds" of animals and once, and there was a devistating global flood, wouldn't they be mixed up?

The Bible tells us there were 6 days of creation. Each day was a period of light followed by a period of darkness. Since everything was made by the light in the light, we can say there was a period of time when God did not create which followed each period of time when God did create. Let's say from Adam to today is 6000 years. If this period represents God's down time, it should be noted that the seventh day is God's day of rest. In other words, we are now entering the seventh day or thousand years of the seventh day. The new day is approaching my friends.

By my calculations, then, it's been about six thousand years since Adam. Before Adam there was a seven thousand year period of light. If one period of light followed by a period of darkness equals one day, then each day of creation was 14 thousand years. So I would say the earth is no more than 14X6=84 thousand years old and life on earth began 14X2=28 thousand years ago.

That's just my opinion. I didn't research anyone else's idea so don't ask me to cite any source.

Now the earth was once mostly flat. According to the Bible, the earth was watered by springs and mists when man was created. I can imagine a primordial swamp covered most of the earth, with ferns and plants as we would expect. This is shown in the fossil record. The flood only occurred about 5 or 6 thousand years ago. I would expect to find a record of life before the flood going back another 22 thousand years or so.

 

[pyro214]

In other words, we are now entering the seventh day or thousand years of the seventh day. If one period of light followed by a period of darkness equals one day, then each day of creation was 14 thousand years.

where did you get 1000 years per period of light (or darkness).
is it from that one verse that says a day with God is like a thousand days on earth or somthing?

also

what do you thinking about dating methods? ive argued against them throughout this thread but im wondering what you think:
14 carbon dating (concludes life on earth to be 3.5 billions years old, and earth itself to be 4.5 billions years old).
ring tree dating (counting number or rings in the trunk of a tree....also was used to verify 14 carbon dating as a accurate method, up to 6-8k years).
ice glacier dating (concludes life of earth being 150k+ years minimum).

 

[MarkT]

Your second point, that there should be lots of intermediate stages of life still on earth is very good...ive heard a reason why it is possible, but for it to happen to a majority of the earths wildlife is very strange.

Heres an example:
apes were apparently a "ancestor" of humans. If apes evolved into humans, then why are there still apes? Some may argue that apes have yet to die off, in this case....why are A HUGE MAJORITY of the intermediate stages of apes no longer alive (this includes all animals present today, not just humans!)?

There are all kinds of humans with human type skulls and apes with ape type skulls. Also abnormalities occur. Diet, nutritional deficiency, even the rays of the sun which can cause mutations ... all these things can affect the size and shape of the skull.

Yep. There's no good reason for any population of animal to go extinct if the animals can breed and move about. It's only since man arrived on earth that I can see how animals can go extinct.

 

[Skaloop]

Not only should there be intermediate fossils but living intermediates should exist. In fact there should be so many intermediates, it would make classifying animals almost impossible. But animals can be put into distinct categories. That's one argument against evolution.

Every single organism on Earth is a transitional, or intermediate as you call it. You, for example, are an intermediate between your parents and your children. Your argument against evolution is therefore totally and completely baseless, and entirely wrong. Just like every other so-called "argument against evolution" that I have seen on these boards.

 

[MarkT]

where did you get 1000 years per period of light (or darkness).
is it from that one verse that says a day with God is like a thousand days on earth or somthing?

Well, we are in the day of rest. It's been 6000 years since Adam and we are entering the seven thousandth; the millenial reign should be upon us very soon. I'm guessing one period would be seven thousand years because it's been six thousand years so far. All you have to do is go back to the 'day' in which man was created; the sixth 'day'. Since then, it's been six thousand years. So one period should equal seven thousand years. If a 'day' equals a period of light and an equal period of dark, then one 'day' should be 14 thousand years.

what do you thinking about dating methods? ive argued against them throughout this thread but im wondering what you think:
14 carbon dating (concludes life on earth to be 3.5 billions years old, and earth itself to be 4.5 billions years old).
ring tree dating (counting number or rings in the trunk of a tree....also was used to verify 14 carbon dating as a accurate method, up to 6-8k years).
ice glacier dating (concludes life of earth being 150k+ years minimum).

We can imagine the atmosphere was different 80 thousand years ago; mostly argon. Animals grew bigger, lived longer. Days were longer. The amount of Argon in the atmosphere today suggests most of the Argon was absorbed by rock formation. Older rock would contain more Ar 40, so called 'daughter isotopes', than rock that was formed more recently.

This means the dates arrived at by radiometric dating are way off. As far as ice dating goes, I don't know.

 

[MarkT]

Every single organism on Earth is a transitional, or intermediate as you call it. You, for example, are an intermediate between your parents and your children. Your argument against evolution is therefore totally and completely baseless, and entirely wrong. Just like every other so-called "argument against evolution" that I have seen on these boards.

In terms of species, there should be so many intermediates that it would make classification impossible.

 

[Skaloop]

In terms of species, there should be so many intermediates that it would make classification impossible.

That is not true. For one thing, species evolve, not individuals. Secondly, being a transitional merely means that you are different than your parents and your children will be different than you. It doesn't mean that you are all different species.

 

[Nooj]

We can imagine the atmosphere was different 80 thousand years ago; mostly argon. Animals grew bigger, lived longer. Days were longer. The amount of Argon in the atmosphere today suggests most of the Argon was absorbed by rock formation. Older rock would contain more Ar 40, so called 'daughter isotopes', than rock that was formed more recently.

Show that argon makes animals grow bigger and longer.

Show that there was more argon then than now and by a significant proportion.

 

[Valkhorn]

We can imagine the atmosphere was different 80 thousand

years ago; mostly argon. Animals grew bigger, lived longer. Days were longer. The amount of Argon in the atmosphere today suggests most of the Argon was absorbed by rock formation. Older rock would contain more Ar 40, so called 'daughter isotopes', than rock that was formed more recently.

This means the dates arrived at by radiometric dating are way off.

So where are you pulling this garbage from?

I don't know.

Never were words truer, Mark. You don't.

 

[pyro214]

Every single organism on Earth is a transitional, or intermediate as you call it. You, for example, are an intermediate between your parents and your children. Your argument against evolution is therefore totally and completely baseless, and entirely wrong. Just like every other so-called "argument against evolution" that I have seen on these boards.

depends on your view of a "transitional fossil"
to say hes wrong and just drop the question is merely a fallacy used to avoid answering the question.

reply to my example of his statment:
apes were apparently a "ancestor" of humans. If apes evolved into humans, then why are there still apes? Some may argue that apes have yet to die off, in this case....why are A HUGE MAJORITY of the intermediate stages of apes no longer alive (this includes all animals present today, not just humans!)?

*look at all those skulls of intermediate stages! why did they all die but monkeys are still alive??*

(when giving an answer, remember this applies to all animals....consiering all animals "were evolved" from a common ancestor.)

 

[RedAndy]

reply to my example of his statment:
apes were apparently a "ancestor" of humans. If apes evolved into humans, then why are there still apes? Some may argue that apes have yet to die off, in this case....why are A HUGE MAJORITY of the intermediate stages of apes no longer alive (this includes all animals present today, not just humans!)?

There are still apes because no evolutionist is arguing that modern apes are ancestral to humans. However long we wait, no chimpanzees or gorillas or howler monkeys are going to evolve into humans, because they are pursuing a different evolutionary pathway, away from us.

What evolutionary theory does say, however, is that humans and chimpanzees and gorillas and howler monkeys all share a common ancestor. The "intermediate" stages of ape (i.e. common ancestor and their descendants) have evolved into the various species of modern ape we see today. There is no mystery why there are still apes around, because any modern species is just as "evolved" as all the others.