Lets try this again

[fieldsofwind]

Posted by Pete: "If you think your complete and utter refusal to even look at the info you're being directed to is being "reasonable", then you obviously have no clue how online debate works."

Maybe Pete... but the way I've seen it done effectively is to chose certain parts of a post, and then reply to them as I have done here with your's.

So I'm going to start this again... and see if there is any luck...

How about we start with the fossile record... This is a common sense arguement questioning the claim of an evolutionary process in the fossil record. The requirements for such a change do not seem to fit what is seen in the ground. Actually... what is seen does seem to support a world-wide flood. Alot here will not agree with that, and will ask me to post info in support of that thesis. I will do so in due time...anyways... here is the problem:

Transitional Fossils: These are fossils that should be present between evolutionary forms. For example: something representing intermediate traits between one phylum to another. We simply have fossils… Set A of complete fossils and then another completely different group of fossils comprising set B that supposedly evolved from the fossils in set A. However, in this evolutionary process one can’t imagine that one creature just becomes another in one reproductive cycle. There would be many gradual changes over millions of years to achieve the set B fossils. These things do not exist. Evolutionist will frequently grab at any similar trait between fossils, and then call it an intermediate form. The problem is that nothing else in the fossil resembles anything else in its predecessor. These are obviously not the transitions that scientists are still looking for… and it’s a wonder they haven’t found any, because there should be 10 times more of them than the complete sets of different taxa that we have.

Lewiswildermuth's Reply: "Why should there be ten times more than we see? Please show us the studies that state this. But let's take a simple one, lizards and birds. Birds have feathers, lizards do not. Birds have wishbones, lizards do not. Correct? Well, almost, you see there are one type of lizards that had wishbones and feathers, these were a type of dinosaur. And interestingly enough they appear in the fossil record before birds and after lizards."

My Reply: "so you've got an example of a fossile that has a wishbone and feathers... and (you claim) is a lizzard. Now lets think here... do you suppose that the lizzard before that one, the one with no feathers/no wishbone... just produced one of the ones you described in one reproductive cycle after a million years of chance??? Or would it take gradual steps in between??? And, the one you describe just happened to become a bird one day... with no cycles in betwee??? Well... that is truly amazing... Like I said... you hope for a myth. Remember... and that's just one 'claimed' example... there should be many more of them that the existing complete taxas that are seen.

Thanks

FOW

 

[lithium.]

Yeah paste from your YEC sites, fossile records of dinosours are millions of years old nothing you can say or show can change that its been proven. And you can see evolution in the bones on the animals. You can put bones of an animal in a line and see evolution. There was 1000+ of types of dinosours, and they had different kinds of bones. Thats why there is so many types of birds and lizards they all look different.

To many people have proven that dinosours were alive millions of years ago.

Birds
_____
http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/evolution/
http://www.yale.edu/yup/books/064608.htm
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/birdfr.html

dinosours
______
http://www.discovery.com/guides/dinos/hunter6.html
http://www.museum.vic.gov.au/dinosaurs/time-earthage.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extinction.html
http://www.kgs.ukans.edu/Publications/primer/primer09.html

 

[fieldsofwind]

well bud... I didn't past anything

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by fieldsofwind
well bud... I didn't past anything

lol i know, you said

"and will ask me to post info in support of that thesis. I will do so in due time...anyways"

And when you try to post you most of the time paste from places. But i proved evidence in the links i posted that prove flossils are millions of years old and birds evolved from dinosours.

 

[fieldsofwind]

sure you did... now tell me how

thanks

FOW

 

[fieldsofwind]

come on... now take that 'conclusive' info I just read at your link and answer the previous question... because it still remains.

According to 'so and so' millions of years ago dinosaurs amazingly transformed into birds!

Come on... give me a break

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Maybe Pete... but the way I've seen it done effectively is to chose certain parts of a post, and then reply to them as I have done here with your's.

You seem to be missing the point. The critical factor in a debate is to at least be willing to consider your opponents arguments (granted, this doesn't always happen). If you're not even willing to meet half-way in a discussion, then debating is pointless. For example, if I provide a link to an off-site resource that either rebuffs your claims, or shows that your understanding of what you are arguing is flawed, and you arbitrarily wave it off, then you've done nothing to further your own position. In effect, you're not even debating.

So I'm going to start this again... and see if there is any luck...

If you're willing to follow proper debating etiquette this time, then I will debate with you. Also, if you're going to quote a source, please include a link to the original source. It's far too easy to quote things out of context to support one's own position.

How about we start with the fossile record...

Let's do that, then.

However, in this evolutionary process one can’t imagine that one creature just becomes another in one reproductive cycle.

The thing is, nobody assumes that (at least, not biologists). Evolution occurs in populations, not individuals.

There would be many gradual changes over millions of years to achieve the set B fossils. These things do not exist. Evolutionist will frequently grab at any similar trait between fossils, and then call it an intermediate form. The problem is that nothing else in the fossil resembles anything else in its predecessor. These are obviously not the transitions that scientists are still looking for… and it’s a wonder they haven’t found any, because there should be 10 times more of them than the complete sets of different taxa that we have.

You keep asserting transitional fossils don't exist. That's just not true. For example, look at this list of fossil hominids: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html (yes, it's a big list, so you'll have to click the link to see it; I'm certainly not going to try to retype it here for you). And that's not even ALL fossil hominids, that's just the more prominent ones. Seems to me like pretty good evidence of a transition from a more ape-like species to a human one.

Also, you keep asserting that we should be swimming in fossils. Fossilization is a very rare process. Quite frankly, we're lucky to have fossils at all. But there are a good number of them, and scientists do the best they can with the available evidence.

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by fieldsofwind  
Actually... what is seen does seem to support a world-wide flood. Alot here will not agree with that, and will ask me to post info in support of that thesis. I will do so in due time...anyways... here is the problem:

Interesting that you say that the fossel record supports a world wide flood but then do not proceed to showing how that is so.  Instead you moved straight to trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution without presenting your own theory including the evidence for it.

Transitional Fossils: These are fossils that should be present between evolutionary forms.

Almost all fissils are transitional and existing species around today aretransitionals.  This is because evolution is always happening to one degree or another.

 

[fieldsofwind]

Well... that is quite a bit of info, so just as you could not write out the entire list... neither can I write out a 'rebuttle' on every aspect (although I'm sure that others have done so).

However, it is a common thing that I have seen regarding these fossils to say the following: "They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare."

First I state that this is my opinion I am about to state, so it has not come from any 'scientific' study... it is simply an observation of somewhat common sense... When someone can piece together certain fragments of bones found within a large (this varies) area that is known for having all types of primates... and knowing the abnormalities that we see even in the human race as it is... is it not reasonable to assume, (given the relatively few examples that we have), alot of speculation here??? And furthermore... Why are these types of bridges not found nearly as much (again a relative statement) in other types of animals... for example a horse, or an elephant?? I know that I can post a plethora of links pertaining to the numerous assumptions and errors involved in the cases that I browsed over. Could it be because there are so many primates that are of a relatively similar nature? Also, why would these examples have died out, (assuming that they were defeated by the process of natural selection), while at the same time not defeating the many primates that we have on earth today that were of the same or lesser capability than 'early man'???

 

[fieldsofwind]

In responce to crazy fingers... Actually, I said that the 'flood evidence' would be coming soon... (I write the stuff out based on the info I read)

About the transitional fossil thing... you say that 'every fossil is a transitional one'... well that is not what I am saying, and I don't believe that it is true. In my previous example we have something that somewhat resembles something else... (this can be seen in nature today if one looks around)... but it in no way explains or shows a complete transformation from one thing to another. There are necessary gradual changes that should be taking place between this 'lizzard type thing' and the bird. And the arguement that it happens through populations does not hold water. (or maybe I simply am not on the same page with it)... regardless of the numbers within the sample population... it would have to make that radical change in one reproductive cycle for there not to be many steps inbetween. These steps are missing from the fossil record to my knowledge... and the only thing that I have seen attempted at coming close is the 'stages of man' arguement. This arguement takes from fragments of bone found in the earth that are pieced together. (are they always found in africa???) Anyways... it is assuming alot to say the least. For one it assumes that these are 'early man' bones. Secondly it assumes that they are pieced together from the same 'early man' species. Thirdly it assumes that these 'steps' could have also taken place in one reproductive cycle... For these things I could post documents pertaining to mutation rates etc... but that just puts too much information on the screen... this should do for now

take care

FOW

 

[lithium.]

The problem with a global flood fieldsofwind, is that if there was there would be evidence of it, When you dig a hole there would be a flood area, i mean there would be a layer of dirt that would show a flood and there isn't, the only place is in the places where a local flood happened.

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by fieldsofwind

* snip *

FOW [/B]

Transitional fossils 

 

And here is a nice one on Dinos > Birds

 

 

 

 

[fieldsofwind]

seesaw... lol... what little info on the flood that I have read so far... will be posted in due time... just have a little patience

 

[lithium.]

i don't have patience of stuff that has already been proven wrong. But hey i will have patience this time.

 

[fieldsofwind]

"The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land (see Edwards, 1989). "

you see... its statements like these that cannot be omited... and once again... I obviously am not going to disect that entire article... not now anyways...

they 'seem' to have, but there is no physical evidence supporting it

From your website: "Osteolepis (mid-Devonian) -- One of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other lobe-finned fishes). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of major limb bones, capable of flexing at the "elbow", and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth."

Yes... and I share many features with a monkey... but that assumption in itself is not evidence that I came from one... same thing here.

 

[lithium.]

the first life forum didn't have any legs or arms or feet. It most likely just floated around. They later evolved the appendages.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by fieldsofwind

However, it is a common thing that I have seen regarding these fossils to say the following: "They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare."

Yes, this is pretty much a given. Wear and tear in the natural world has its consequences.

First I state that this is my opinion I am about to state, so it has not come from any 'scientific' study... it is simply an observation of somewhat common sense... When someone can piece together certain fragments of bones found within a large (this varies) area that is known for having all types of primates... and knowing the abnormalities that we see even in the human race as it is... is it not reasonable to assume, (given the relatively few examples that we have), alot of speculation here???

There is some speculation, yes. Keep in mind, though, that the people that actual work with fossils are educated and trained in a manner that they would consider a lot more than we might. One doesn't simply dig a fossil up then declare it a human or ape or whatever. There are considerations, such as how old the fossil is, its geographical location, relationship to other fossils in the strata, etc.

And furthermore... Why are these types of bridges not found nearly as much (again a relative statement) in other types of animals... for example a horse, or an elephant??

Actually, horse evolution is pretty well documented (not sure about elephant evolution, though; I'd have to check). Part of the reason could be that we're so much more interested in our own historical roots, that we favor the study of our ancient origins.

I know that I can post a plethora of links pertaining to the numerous assumptions and errors involved in the cases that I browsed over. Could it be because there are so many primates that are of a relatively similar nature?

Pick a few errors and post them. I'd like to see them.

Also, why would these examples have died out, (assuming that they were defeated by the process of natural selection), while at the same time not defeating the many primates that we have on earth today that were of the same or lesser capability than 'early man'???

Depends on how or where in the evolutionary tree you look. If you have a homogeneous population of individuals that evolves over a period of time and remains homogeneous, then there won't be any "extinction".

 

[fieldsofwind]

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/Early Man.html

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by fieldsofwind
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/Early Man.html

Whats your point.

 

[fieldsofwind]

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/The Fossil Record.html