Is fossil evidence that strong of a case for evolution?

[lost999]

Disclaimer: I could care less if we evolved or were created. The whole debate is non-sense, but some aspects of it are interesting, so no reason to go crazy over my question. I'm just curious, and looking for critiques.

I just wanted to get opinions on how this video is deceptive, and how creationist distort evidence to fit their pseudo-science.

I just got through the first few chapters of Jerry Coyne's book, "Why Evolution is True", and I didn't find the fossil evidence he gave that compelling. The whale evidence I thought was the worst (or maybe tiktaalik). Dinosaurs with feathers, eh, sort of convincing. The rest of the examples were just small variations within certain organisms, nothing impressive that I would throw all in and say evolution is true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkwhd_gIR7c&feature=youtu.be

 

[AV1611VET]

Is fossil evidence that strong of a case for evolution?

In my opinion ... yes.

But only because evolutionists can make almost anything look like it evolved.

I don't think it is possible for any human being to disprove evolution.

 

[mark kennedy]

Disclaimer: I could care less if we evolved or were created. The whole debate is non-sense, but some aspects of it are interesting, so no reason to go crazy over my question. I'm just curious, and looking for critiques.

I just wanted to get opinions on how this video is deceptive, and how creationist distort evidence to fit their pseudo-science.

Well that's a novel approach, a scathing rant about those despicable Creationists from someone who could care less about the subject. It's called an ad hominem fallacy and it's been done before.

As far as the fossils, an interesting study but it takes some time to wade through the literature. I don't know what amphibian fossils are supposed to be proof of but it's certainly interesting that the molecular basis for such a transformation is almost completely unknown.

 

[lost999]

Sorry for coming off offensive; just stating what's in the literature.

As for the disclaimer: I have no bias towards creation or evolution. I'm skeptical of both.

 

[USincognito]

I just wanted to get opinions on how this video is deceptive, and how creationist distort evidence to fit their pseudo-science.

A two minute YouTube video is hardly a good place to start when discussing fossil evidence.

I just got through the first few chapters of Jerry Coyne's book, "Why Evolution is True", and I didn't find the fossil evidence he gave that compelling. The whale evidence I thought was the worst (or maybe tiktaalik). Dinosaurs with feathers, eh, sort of convincing. The rest of the examples were just small variations within certain organisms, nothing impressive that I would throw all in and say evolution is true.

Small variations? I think that's a bit of an understatement.

And just for the record, we could have zero fossils and the genetic evidence would be sufficient to provide overwhelming support for the theory of evolution. The fossils are just the icing on the cake.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sorry for coming off offensive; just stating what's in the literature.

As for the disclaimer: I have no bias towards creation or evolution. I'm skeptical of both.

Skepticism is good, it proves you think for yourself when you don't just agree with views because of other personal beliefs. Although I have to ask that if you are skeptical of both creationism and evolution, does that mean there is some third position you support? Or do you just not really feel like you support any position strongly in this regard?

 

[SkyWriting]

The rest of the examples were just small variations within certain organisms, nothing impressive that I would throw all in and say evolution is true.

Evolution is true. When two animals breed, the outcome varies.

If you have well documented circumstances, it can be scientifically repeated to add
supportive evidence. Otherwise, it is outside the scientific method.

 

[RickG]

In my opinion ... yes.

But only because evolutionists can make almost anything look like it evolved.

Yeah! It's absolutely amazing what science can do with the evidence that God provided.

I don't think it is possible for any human being to disprove evolution.

To do so would be to disprove God's creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah! It's absolutely amazing what science can do with the evidence that God provided.

Would you explain, please, what you mean, when you say: "God provided evidence"?

It's almost as if you're saying: God did something, then created evidence and planted it around what He did, so as to leave an audit trail of His actions.

 

[RickG]

Would you explain, please, what you mean, when you say: "God provided evidence"?

It's almost as if you're saying: God did something, then created evidence and planted it around what He did, so as to leave an audit trail of His actions.

"Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

It's like I keep telling you AV. I believe the evidence provided by God over that of writings of fallible men. Man can corrupt the written word. Man cannot corrupt the physical earth.

How would you explain the fossil record, which is laid down in an exact manner that describes evolution with nothing out of place, without evolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

"Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

It's like I keep telling you AV. I believe the evidence provided by God over that of writings of fallible men. Man can corrupt the written word. Man cannot corrupt the physical earth.

How would you explain the fossil record, which is laid down in an exact manner that describes evolution with nothing out of place, without evolution?

1

 

[mark kennedy]

A two minute YouTube video is hardly a good place to start when discussing fossil evidence.

It doesn't matter where it starts, it's where the evidence takes you that's important.

Small variations? I think that's a bit of an understatement.

That would depend on the actual source of the variation, the actual variation that happens in nature doesn't account for amphibians going from land to water dwelling creatures. The problem with Darwinian evolution is that it assumes a cause no one has ever seen on an evolutionary scale.

And just for the record, we could have zero fossils and the genetic evidence would be sufficient to provide overwhelming support for the theory of evolution. The fossils are just the icing on the cake.

Which is an odd thing to say when Mendelian genetics is ignored in these debates. The timeline is based on fossils, you will never get a Darwinian timeline from molecular clocks, they are notoriously unreliable.

 

[RickG]

1

AV, you are the only one who claims God embedded things, which makes God a deceiver.

I make no such claim. Whether God created it or not, the Earth formed and natural processes did the rest, including evolution of "all" life.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, you are the only one who claims God embedded things,

You must have me mixed up with someone else.

 

[mark kennedy]

AV, you are the only one who claims God embedded things, which makes God a deceiver.

Which is an absurd, if not blasphemous clutch phrase.

I make no such claim. Whether God created it or not, the Earth formed and natural processes did the rest, including evolution of "all" life.

Finally, an honest admission. So you don't believe God created life except by naturalistic means. Classic Darwinian logic, there is nothing scientific or Biblical about it.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Which is an absurd, if not blasphemous clutch phrase.

AV is claims that God embedded 4.5 billion years of age and history in Earth's surface when He made it. Direct your accusation of blasphemy at him.

Finally, an honest admission. So you don't believe God created life except by naturalistic means. Classic Darwinian logic, there is nothing scientific or Biblical about it.

Do you believe He couldn't have "created" life by naturalistic means?

If He could have, then how do we determine if He, in fact, actually did?

 

[AV1611VET]

AV is claims that God embedded 4.5 billion years of age and history in Earth's surface when He made it.

Link please?

You and Rick must be seeing things.

 

[Naturalism]

The fossils are compelling evidence for the descent with modification for life.

 

[Delphiki]

Link please?

You and Rick must be seeing things.

So what's your reason for the thinly veiled dishonesty this time? Did you change your mind about embedded age or is there some kind of semantic error you're pretending to not notice?

Sometimes I wish, only for the sake of justice, that a God does exist so you can reap what you sow for all your lying and disrespect.

 

[bhsmte]

.