Is fossil evidence that strong of a case for evolution?

[bhsmte]

Sure, say whatever you want but please believe that no one is obligated to believe you on assertions only. Credibility matters, but sure, if you don't care about an honest representation of your beliefs just cite whatever you can manage to find regardless how lacking the factual knowledge the person has on the subject.



By asking for some data to support your assertions? This is the level you stoop to as a creationist so you're free to wallow in it.

Hey, it's AV. He plays the victim when people call him on stuff.

 

[Queller]

QV please:

Pangea – How God Split the Continents | Genesis and Creation

QV please:

What Happened in the "Days of Peleg"?

BTW, any site that you link to that states this as part of their argument;

"Since the ice age was a northern hemisphere phenomenon, there would be about 200 feet of ice covering our world here in Wisconsin. I find that hard to believe. What natural phenomenon would cause that much ice to cover everything? The July sun would never allow it."

is rejected for being too stupid.

Third grade science books can tell you that the ice was two miles thick in places over North America during the last ice age.

Old Cold: Living in Ice Age America

 

[Queller]

Luke 14:16 Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:
17 And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.
18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.
19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.
20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.
21 So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.
22 And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.
23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
24 For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.

What in the world makes you think this refers to Noah?

 

[Queller]

He's lucky I cited any source outside the Bible.

Why? I would have preferred a Biblical source over that garbage.

Such demands for justification are rude, IMO.

You make a wild claim and asking you to support that claim is rude?

If he doesn't like what people believe, he's welcome to move.

Complete non sequitur

You guys make the Ku Klux Klan and the Inquisition look good.

And you make Kent Hovind look like a saint.

 

[RickG]

Luke 14:16 Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many:
17 And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.
18 And they all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said unto him, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it: I pray thee have me excused.
19 And another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them: I pray thee have me excused.
20 And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.
21 So that servant came, and shewed his lord these things. Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind.
22 And the servant said, Lord, it is done as thou hast commanded, and yet there is room.
23 And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.
24 For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper.

And what does "Luke" have to say about the fossil record? Does Luke say anything against ToE, or perhaps in support of ToE?

 

[mark kennedy]

And what does "Luke" have to say about the fossil record? Does Luke say anything against ToE, or perhaps in support of ToE?

Depends on what you mean by evolution, if you mean populations changing traits over time, no. If your talking about a philosophy of natural history that requires naturalistic causes going back to and including the Big Bang. Yea, actually the New Testament takes sides on that one.

Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. (Luke 3:28)​

Adam is the first parent of humanity according to the New Testament witness. (Rom 5:14, 1Co 15:22, 1Co 15:45, 1Ti 2:13, 14, Jude 1:14)

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[USincognito]

Depends on what you mean by evolution...

Oh give us all a break. Whenever non-Creationists here use the word evolution they are referring to actual evolution - the change in allele frequencies over time that has led to the diversity we see in the today and in the fossil record.

Your straw man philosophical version of "evolution" is a phantasm that exists only in your mind.

 

[RickG]

Just trying to get the thread back on topic Mark. BTW, since we are of the same denomination, what are your thoughts on the GA Minutes 1969: 59-62?

 

[mark kennedy]

"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.

It depends on what you mean by corrupt, throughout Hebrew and Christians history the manuscripts have been maintained meticulously well. The Scriptures are known for text variation and as far as I can tell, little errors and alterations are in almost every chapter. Mostly spelling errors and grammar and over all it's a couple of percentage points actually effected.

I always thought it was a mark of authenticity that God used human instruments to pen and preserve the Scriptures.

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?

Well with there being literally thousands of human ancestors in the fossil record and 3 maybe 4 teeth representing the evolution of chimpanzees I'd say the record is biased toward the continuous evolution of species. All the time in the world doesn't give you a cause.

 

[USincognito]

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

Thanks Robert Frost.

That would depend on the actual source of the variation,

Not really. There's basically only one source for variation and that's mutations.

...the actual variation that happens in nature doesn't account for amphibians going from land to water dwelling creatures.

Sure it does. We know this from both fossil and genomic studies.

The problem with Darwinian evolution is that it assumes a cause no one has ever seen on an evolutionary scale.

You mean random mutation causing changes that are acted upon by natural selection? We see it on an evolutionary scale in the fossil record and genomic analyses.

Which is an odd thing to say when Mendelian genetics is ignored in these debates.

By whom? Inheritance is discussed here all the time. Mendel, just like Darwin, didn't know about genetics though. He did solidify our understanding of inheritance, but Punnett squares don't take mutation into account.

The timeline is based on fossils, you will never get a Darwinian timeline from molecular clocks, they are notoriously unreliable.

Says who? You?

 

[mark kennedy]

Thanks Robert Frost.

'It takes no inward struggle not to go' (Robert Frost)

Not really. There's basically only one source for variation and that's mutations.

So your saying that mutations are the source for every adaptation in creation? Almost 3/4 of the protein coding genes in the human genome have at least one indel per lineage as compared to Chimpanzee. The problem is that when this happens in nature it usually results in a frameshift.

Sure it does. We know this from both fossil and genomic studies.

You must be reading too much Talk Origins because what I'm reading tells a different story.

You mean random mutation causing changes that are acted upon by natural selection? We see it on an evolutionary scale in the fossil record and genomic analyses.

You assume it, it's not the same as quantitative data.

By whom? Inheritance is discussed here all the time. Mendel, just like Darwin, didn't know about genetics though. He did solidify our understanding of inheritance, but Punnett squares don't take mutation into account.

Mendel's experiments yielded two laws of inheritance that became the foundation for Genetics. Dominant and recessive traits account for a lot of variation while mutations have anecdotal evidence at best.

Says who? You?

It's a common complaint among researchers, I could show you examples if I thought you were serious.

Have a nice day

 

[RickG]

It depends on what you mean by corrupt, throughout Hebrew and Christians history the manuscripts have been maintained meticulously well. The Scriptures are known for text variation and as far as I can tell, little errors and alterations are in almost every chapter. Mostly spelling errors and grammar and over all it's a couple of percentage points actually effected.

I always thought it was a mark of authenticity that God used human instruments to pen and preserve the Scriptures.

I'm talking about the Earth, God's creation. Are you saying we should ignore the evidence left for us to examine?

Well with there being literally thousands of human ancestors in the fossil record and 3 maybe 4 teeth representing the evolution of chimpanzees I'd say the record is biased toward the continuous evolution of species. All the time in the world doesn't give you a cause.

Biology is not my field, therefore I generally leave comments in that area to those who have an expertise in it. Nevertheless, I do know that there is far more evidence concerning the evolution of Apes than just a few teeth. Also, ToE does not say we evolved from chimpanzees, although we are of the same genera, hominidae, and more closely biologically related than any of the other great apes.

 

[USincognito]

Well with there being literally thousands of human ancestors in the fossil record and 3 maybe 4 teeth representing the evolution of chimpanzees I'd say the record is biased toward the continuous evolution of species.

The human, chimp and neanderthal genome papers more than make up for the paucity of chimpanzee fossils.

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm talking about the Earth, God's creation. Are you saying we should ignore the evidence left for us to examine?

Apparently I'm some kind of a Gap Theorist, I think there might have been a considerable amount of time between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2. Whatever the case, I don't see the age of the earth as relevant.

Biology is not my field, therefore I generally leave comments in that area to those who have an expertise in it. Nevertheless, I do know that there is far more evidence concerning the evolution of Apes than just a few teeth. Also, ToE does not say we evolved from chimpanzees, although we are of the same genera, hominidae, and more closely biologically related than any of the other great apes.

I didn't say apes, I said Chimpanzees. To date their entire fossil record is represented by three maybe four teeth.

First chimp fossil unearthed

That's because every time a chimpanzee skull in unearthed in Africa it's automatically one of our ancestors.

 

[RickG]

It's a common complaint among researchers, I could show you examples if I thought you were serious.

Have a nice day

Not in the scientific literature. On in the YEC literature where it is deliberately misrepresented. If you have scientific literature citations supporting your position, then please present them.

 

[justlookinla]

I'm talking about the Earth, God's creation. Are you saying we should ignore the evidence left for us to examine?



Biology is not my field, therefore I generally leave comments in that area to those who have an expertise in it. Nevertheless, I do know that there is far more evidence concerning the evolution of Apes than just a few teeth. Also, ToE does not say we evolved from chimpanzees, although we are of the same genera, hominidae, and more closely biologically related than any of the other great apes.

Some would have us believe that bananas are our relatives also. The fact is, neither bananas nor chimps are our relatives. We're unique, one of a kind, nothing else like us.

 

[mark kennedy]

The human, chimp and neanderthal genome papers more than make up for the paucity of chimpanzee fossils.

The Neanderthal paper was impressive and the Chimpanzee genomic comparisons were fascinating. However, Darwinian evolution has less credibility with the comparative genomics evidence then it does with fossils, which is really saying something.

 

[RickG]

Apparently I'm some kind of a Gap Theorist, I think there might have been a considerable amount of time between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2. Whatever the case, I don't see the age of the earth as relevant.

Deep time is only one aspect. I'm mainly talking mainly about the geologic record, i.e.; past life, environments and geologic processes.

I didn't say apes, I said Chimpanzees. To date their entire fossil record is represented by three maybe four teeth. [/quote]

Chimpanzees are apes as well as humans.

 

[USincognito]

So your saying that mutations are the source for every adaptation in creation?

So's Law and no. I'm saying that there's basically one source for variation and that's mutations. That's why I wrote those particular words instead of different ones.

Almost 3/4 of the protein coding genes in the human genome have at least one indel per lineage as compared to Chimpanzee. The problem is that when this happens in nature it usually results in a frameshift.

Indel's are mutations.

You must be reading too much Talk Origins because what I'm reading tells a different story.

You have a tendency to misunderstand what you read so I'm not surprised. Remember how many people tried to explain to you that "human specific lineage ERVs" were different from "all ERVs in the human genome"? I'm still not sure you understand the difference.

You assume it, it's not the same as quantitative data.

Ah yes. "Assume". One of the Creationist magical words that is supposed to make evidence disappear. Sorry man. The data are there in the fossil record and genomic analyses. That you don't like the results of those studies is your problem, not ours.

Mendel's experiments yielded two laws of inheritance that became the foundation for Genetics. Dominant and recessive traits account for a lot of variation while mutations have anecdotal evidence at best.

Thanks for telling me something I learned in high school biology. But I'll state again, Mendel didn't know about mutations and therefore could not take them into account. Heck, he didn't even understand genes since they hadn't been discovered yet.

...while mutations have anecdotal evidence at best.

This sentence is missing a "in my opinion" or something like that.

It's a common complaint among researchers, I could show you examples if I thought you were serious.

That some genes are unreliable is known. That some genes are more reliable is known. That molecular clocks as a whole are unreliable (as you were suggesting) is known only to Creationists who want to use magical words to make evidence go away.

 

[RickG]

The Neanderthal paper was impressive and the Chimpanzee genomic comparisons were fascinating. However, Darwinian evolution has less credibility with the comparative genomics evidence then it does with fossils, which is really saying something.

You never did comment on the PCUS GA Minutes 1969: 59-62.