Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That is the problem...you are not looking at "God's evidence", but at the manifestations that are a result of a fallen world - the evolution of a world at enmity with God. The contingency is indeed real, but from decay and corruption comes evil and destruction.

Do you not know that the way of the world, is not the Way we know of as Christ? Whom, then, will you hear and follow?

I don't care about your interpretation of the Bible. But since you asked, if I was to hear and follow anyone, it wouldn't be you.

 

[ScottA]

I don't care about your interpretation of the Bible. But since you asked, if I was to hear and follow anyone, it wouldn't be you.

Since the only name I mentioned was Christ...thanks, that tells all.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Since the only name I mentioned was Christ...thanks, that tells all.

Oh, I misread the intent of your post. I'd follow Christ, but that's it. I wouldn't follow the Bible or any other self-proclaimed prophet, and that's it.

 

[Commander]

I'm willing to bet you hadn't heard of isopods until I posted what I did so your musing is more like amusing.

Binomial nomenclature for species has the effect that when a species is moved from one genus to another, not only is its genus name changed but sometimes its species name must be changed as well (e.g. because the name is already used in the new genus, or to agree in gender with the new genus). Some biologists have argued for the combination of the genus name and specific epithet into a single unambiguous name, or for the use of uninomials (as used in nomenclature of ranks above species): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_nomenclature
Now, tell me scientist do not change the names to fit their believe in evolution!

Index fossils are widespread, limited in time and a specific species. Coelacanth's are an order and been around for 400 million years and thus are not used as index fossils. Index fossils do not date strata absolutely, but instead identify the strata which is given a provisional date until it can be given an absolute date via radiometric dating.

400 million years is a very long time for a species not to change. You must not understand that here are no index fossils. Strata, is identified by evolutionary scientist by the fossils that are found in them and the fossils are dated by the strata that they are found in. It's called circular reasoning. Have you or anyother person ever seen a fossil with a date on it? That is a very easy question for you or anyone else to answer. I will ask the question again, have you ever seen a fossil with a date on it?

 

[HitchSlap]

400 million years is a very long time for a species not to change. You must not understand that here are no index fossils. Strata, is identified by evolutionary scientist by the fossils that are found in them and the fossils are dated by the strata that they are found in. It's called circular reasoning. Have you or anyother person ever seen a fossil with a date on it? That is a very easy question for you or anyone else to answer. I will ask the question again, have you ever seen a fossil with a date on it?

You would be wrong, then.

 

[Commander]

You would be wrong, then.

Radoimetric dating problems: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
Clocks in the Rocks - HyperPhysics hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/clkroc.html Georgia State University Lead isochrons are also an important radioactive dating process. .... However, there are two obvious problems with radioactive dating for geological purposes: 1) This site can't be reached do to it conflicts with evolutionary science.

 

[Commander]

You would be wrong, then.

And you mean that you have seen a fossil with a date on it? You should be famous!

 

[HitchSlap]

And you mean that you have seen a fossil with a date on it? You should be famous!

Answer this, then, if radiometric dating is so flawed, how was Neil Shubin able to use radiometric dating to predict where he should, and did, find T. roseae?

 

[HitchSlap]

Radoimetric dating problems: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html
Clocks in the Rocks - HyperPhysics hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/clkroc.html Georgia State University Lead isochrons are also an important radioactive dating process. .... However, there are two obvious problems with radioactive dating for geological purposes: 1) This site can't be reached do to it conflicts with evolutionary science.

I don't read creationist's interpretation of the experts.

 

[Commander]

Answer this, then, if radiometric dating is so flawed, how was Neil Shubin able to use radiometric dating to predict where he should, and did, find T. roseae?

Uh, fish swim in water. That would be where I would look to find a fish. Anyone can say that they found something after they found it, yeah I thought I would find it there. Still, many problems with radiometric/carbon/Dendrochronology dating methods. I would say that all scientific dating methods are in error.

 

[Commander]

I don't read creationist's interpretation of the experts.

You can't read it for yourself? BTW- these are scientific websites.

 

[AV1611VET]

Notice this video shows U235 and Pb207 both in one fossil?

Then it goes on to imply that only half of the U235 changed into Pb207.

First of all, why is the Pb207 assumed to have been U235 at one time?

Second of all, how does only half of the U235 change to Pb207, while the other half remains unchanged?

Here's what that cartoon seems to be implying:

Put ten ice cubes in a bowl.

We know that in one hour, all the ice cubes will turn into water.

But if we see only five ice cubes and some water, then only half an hour has passed.

No ... in half an hour's time, you're going to see ten ice cubes -- smaller in size, but still ten.

(I think I'll make this into a challenge thread.)

 

[HitchSlap]

Uh, fish swim in water. That would be where I would look to find a fish. Anyone can say that they found something after they found it, yeah I thought I would fi 2nd it there. Still, many problems with radiometric/carbon/Dendrochronology dating methods. I would say that all scientific dating methods are in error.

ToE predicts a "fishopod" should be found in rock dating to approx. 375 mya, so Dr. Shubin used radio isochron dating to predict where he should find a transitional fish to amphibian fossil... and he did.

So, was he lucky, or was he correct in utilizing radio. iso. to find this transitional fossil?

 

[AV1611VET]

Answer this, then, if radiometric dating is so flawed, how was Neil Shubin able to use radiometric dating to predict where he should, and did, find T. roseae?

Because he went looking for T. roseae in an area where the natives had been reporting it as a legend for centuries?

 

[HitchSlap]

Because he went looking for T. roseae in an area where the natives had been reporting it as a legend for centuries?

Nope.

 

[Commander]

ToE predicts a "fishopod" should be found in rock dating to approx. 375 mya, so Dr. Shubin used radio isochron dating to predict where he should find a transitional fish to amphibian fossil... and he did.

So, was he lucky, or was he correct in utilizing radio. iso. to find this transitional fossil?

Fish are found in many different strata of rock! Was a Coelacanth one of these transitional fish?

 

[Commander]

The only thing they actually found of is the cranium. The other parts of the skeleton is fabrications according to some articles. I would not be surprised. I mean look what they did with the primitive-looking coelacanth.

• All the characteristics of the skull are CHARACTERISTICS BELONGING TO ALLIGATORS: The eyes being close to one another and located on the top of the head, the flat skull, the skull being able to move independently of the body, the sharp teeth and its general appearance are all specific to the alligators. In appearance, the animal IS IDENTICAL TO THE ALLIGATOR SINANSIS SPECIES LIVING IN today’s China.:http://www.harunyahya.com/en/Articles/28445/how-was-tiktaalik-roseae-turned

 

[HitchSlap]

The only thing they actually found of is the cranium. The other parts of the skeleton is fabrications according to some articles. I would not be surprised. I mean look what they did with the primitive-looking coelacanth.

• All the characteristics of the skull are CHARACTERISTICS BELONGING TO ALLIGATORS: The eyes being close to one another and located on the top of the head, the flat skull, the skull being able to move independently of the body, the sharp teeth and its general appearance are all specific to the alligators. In appearance, the animal IS IDENTICAL TO THE ALLIGATOR SINANSIS SPECIES LIVING IN today’s China.:http://www.harunyahya.com/en/Articles/28445/how-was-tiktaalik-roseae-turned

Choosing fringe sources does not bolster your case.

 

[Commander]

Choosing fringe sources does not bolster your case.

Yes it does, and it debunks yours, now doesn't it.

 

[USincognito]

Binomial nomenclature for species has the effect that when a species is moved from one genus to another, not only is its genus name changed but sometimes its species name must be changed as well (e.g. because the name is already used in the new genus, or to agree in gender with the new genus). Some biologists have argued for the combination of the genus name and specific epithet into a single unambiguous name, or for the use of uninomials (as used in nomenclature of ranks above species): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_nomenclature
Now, tell me scientist do not change the names to fit their believe in evolution!

I don't see anything in here about whether you had heard of isopods previous to my pointing out that the being in the left photo was not a trilobite, but an isopod.

400 million years is a very long time for a species not to change.

Where did you get the crazy idea that coelacanths hadn't changed in 400 million years?

You must not understand that here are no index fossils.

I understand that the assertion that there are no index fossils is wrong. There are index fossils and I explained to you what they are and are not.

Strata, is identified by evolutionary scientist...

The word you're looking for is "geologists".

...by the fossils that are found in them and the fossils are dated by the strata that they are found in. It's called circular reasoning.

Actually that's called a straw man and a particularly insipid one from none other than Kent Hovind. As I explained to you strata are identified by index fossils, but they are dated by radiometric dating.

Have you or anyother person ever seen a fossil with a date on it? That is a very easy question for you or anyone else to answer. I will ask the question again, have you ever seen a fossil with a date on it?

Have you ever considered that this question might impress five-year-olds and the scientifically illiterate, but is obviously and patently stupid to anyone who possesses even the most basic of knowledge on the subject?