Lines of Evidence

[Loudmouth]

No ... I just think they are demonically guided sometimes.

How do you know it isn't you who is demonically guided? If there is anything that can do serious damage to christianity, it is creationism.

"The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?"--Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know it isn't you who is demonically guided?

Please re-read what I changed it to.

 

[Loudmouth]

Please re-read what I changed it to.

How do you know that you aren't demonically assisted? If there is anything that can do serious damage to christianity, it is creationism.

"The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?"--Francis Collins, "Faith and the Human Genome"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

 

[AV1611VET]

How do you know that you aren't demonically assisted?http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

For one thing, I love the Bible.

For another, I'm not too popular among scientific methodists: that's almost a dead giveaway right there.

 

[Loudmouth]

For one thing, I love the Bible.

For another, I'm not too popular among scientific methodists: that's almost a dead giveaway right there.

That is what a demonically assisted individual would say.

 

[Oafman]

No ... I just think they are demonically assisted sometimes.

How do you think Pluto got demoted?

1

AV, have you heard the exciting news? Pluto might be in line for a reprieve!

NASA Missions May Re-Elevate Pluto And Ceres From Dwarf Planets To Full-On Planet Status

You must be thrilled?

 

[AV1611VET]

That is what a demonically assisted individual would say.

If you think I'm demonically assisted, that's your prerogative.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, have you heard the exciting news? Pluto might be in line for a reprieve!

NASA Missions May Re-Elevate Pluto And Ceres From Dwarf Planets To Full-On Planet Status

You must be thrilled?

Yes, I heard that.

And yes, I'm thrilled about it.

I wish the IAU would have tried that junk in L'Aquila.

I'll bet you can't find a scientist in L'Aquila now.

 

[Oafman]

Yes, I heard that.

And yes, I'm thrilled about it.

I wish the IAU would have tried that junk in L'Aquila.

I'll bet you can't find a scientist in L'Aquila now.

I hope you don't demand the same perfection from your wife that you demand from scientists!

 

[RickG]

Here's my apology:

Much of modern science today is antibiblical and is influenced by the muse of science, which is one of Satan's powerful angels.

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

I can't describe his infrastructure, but if I had to, I would say it goes:

Satan, then his nine muses, then [whatever].

IMO, the tares are (or have now) outgrowing the wheat, and one of scientists' jobs is to sterilize every jot & tittle of the Bible.

Just my opinion.

Oh, wait.

You wanted an apology.

No thanks.

I'm not going to be hypocritical about this.

As a part of the scientific community for most of my professional career, I would appreciate an apology for your derogatory comments. Not only in the previous post but especially the one calling science antibible.

 

[Split Rock]

I did not see the answers to what I was saying to show the sequences of transitions, so the site wasn't showing it though I was told to look at it to find that.

I don't believe the evidence is there, but if it was I would be forced to choose to think differently and would do a lot of re-examining. Of course I will still learn, I seek doing that all my life.

If there is enough transitions for evolution from kind to kind, from reptiles to mammals as discussed with me, I could expect it represented in fossils with there already being an abundance of fossils that are found. So what is there, that I should see?

It is easy to throw an accusation that another is not willing to look at evidence because of belief already had so securely. You all would already know that I am a Christian believer, and that said would be for my position. It cuts both ways. I have great evidence for belief, from Jesus Christ and what was said, and the resurrected Christ seen after his crucifixion, and the empty tomb and no body ever turning up to disprove it. But any such evidence will be dismissed without real consideration, just as was all that I have said before about the necessary existence that there has to be.

Here you go:

This shows fossil species that best demonstrate the transition from reptile jaw joint to mammalian jaw joint, including intermediates that have both joints. Jaws to ears in the ancestors of mammals

The Cynodonts were the most recent ancestors to mammals and have left a large fossil record. This is primarily because they were the dominant terrestrial animals for hundreds of millions of years. Palaeos Vertebrates: Cynodontia: Basal Cynodontia

If you want an overview of the entire transition, see the Therapsids section. You can click on individual names for specific information on each. Palaeos Vertebrates: Therapsida Overview

 

[Split Rock]

No ... I just think they are demonically assisted sometimes.

How do you think Pluto got demoted?

So demons got a planet named after a demon-inspired false god demoted??? Hmmmm....

How do you know that you aren't demonically assisted? If there is anything that can do serious damage to christianity, it is creationism.

For one thing, I love the Bible.

For another, I'm not too popular among scientific methodists: that's almost a dead giveaway right there.

If you were demonically assisted, would you realize you were being demonically assisted? What better way for the demons to carry out their job than to make someone like yourself who loves the Bible, work to undercut Christianity? Is Satan not the most clever liar of all time? Would it not be more clever to work though people who love the Bible, instead of those who do not?

 

[stevevw]

Can that skepticism explain how the fossil record is laid down exactly how evolution would expect? How did all those fossils just pop into the geologic strata at just the right place time?

That is according to the picture that evolution have painted for the fossil record. But in reality it doesn't work out according to that. There are many assumptions in which evolutionists have built the fossil record on. There are many gaps and there are fossils that disappear only to reappear with any trace. The Cambrian explosion introduces many of the phyla body plans that exist today and show some complex designs. So complexity is spread throughout the fossil record. A evolutionists may date a creature in one layer as cambrian but then date a similar looking creature that may have a couple of differences as later in another layer because of that difference. But was that difference another species or just a variation fo the same species. This would then change the sucession from transitional showing gradual change and progression to being just the same creature with variations. This would then blend the evolutionary layers that evolutionists have painted.

Ninety five percent of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.Ninety five percent of the remaining five percent are algae and plants.Ninety five percent of the remaining zero point two five percent are invertebrates, including insects. The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. Ninety five percent of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone.
So I guess evolutionists have made a whole lot of something out of barely nothing. Many fossils are found on the surface and many of the geological columns ten layers are poorly represented around the globe.

Many fossils are being re dated through new discoveries and expanding the dates of their existence. This is pushing many of the modern animals back towards the Cambrian era. Others are being expanded towards modern era as well. So this is blending the overall record together. There are many living fossils today and there are animals which are smaller versions of the same larger animals in the fossil records. There are gaps where they cant see certain creatures like the living fossils in the records. Yet they know that they existed. So the fossil records are not very reliable in showing all the possible animals and where they fist came into the records.

When new fossils are discovered, it is not always clear as to which species they belong. There are two different, opposing approaches to solving this problem. They are commonly known as the typological and the populationist viewpoints. Those who take the typological approach believe that if two fossils look even slightly different, they must be from two distinct species. This is an emphasis on minor differences. In contrast, those who use the populationist approach accept that individuals in all populations of organisms normally have at least minor differences. Therefore, when they encounter fossils that are similar, but not identical, they tend to lump them into the same species.
The Record of Time:[bless and do not curse] Interpreting the Fossil Record
So many of the so called transitions that evolutionists use to show the progressive change in the fossil record maybe just variations of the same species mistaken for transitions of animals into new and different one. The dating of rocks is up fro debate. There is circular reasoning associated with dating fossils and the rocks they are found in. Some fossils are determined by the rocks they are found in sand some rocks are decided by the fossils that are found in them. If they find a modern looking creature in an old layer they automatically assume it cannot be modern and therefore is a new species that happens to have some modern features. Even if every bit of that creature was like a modern one. Their belief is that modern creatures cannot be in old rocks so therefore it cannot be modern.

When they find a very similar creature in modern layers they assume that it is either a out of place fossil because of various reasons but never will consider that is may just be there because their beliefs are wrong. So all their assumptions and beliefs help build the story that evolution has painted. So though in your mind and other evolutionists minds the evidence is there and unquestionable the reality is that there are many anomalies and contradictions to the fossil records. There are barely enough fossils in themselves to make any predictions or firm positions on what the fossil records show.

There needs to be more fossils from all places around the globe to give us a better understanding of what the fossil record is showing. But evolutionists have filled in what is unknown aspects of the fossil record with their own biased beliefs and painted a false picture. So I guess its how you see the fossil records. But evolutionists have been painting a picture that is not completely true.

 

[Split Rock]

Many fossils are being re dated through new discoveries and expanding the dates of their existence. This is pushing many of the modern animals back towards the Cambrian era. Others are being expanded towards modern era as well. So this is blending the overall record together. There are many living fossils today and there are animals which are smaller versions of the same larger animals in the fossil records. There are gaps where they cant see certain creatures like the living fossils in the records. Yet they know that they existed. So the fossil records are not very reliable in showing all the possible animals and where they fist came into the records.

The last sentence is quite true. However, I would like to see the actual data showing that all species are being shrunched in together into the same time period, as you infer. I think you are reading into the refinment of the fossil record (which is a continuing process) what isn't there.

So many of the so called transitions that evolutionists use to show the progressive change in the fossil record maybe just variations of the same species mistaken for transitions of animals into new and different one. The dating of rocks is up fro debate. There is circular reasoning associated with dating fossils and the rocks they are found in. Some fossils are determined by the rocks they are found in sand some rocks are decided by the fossils that are found in them. If they find a modern looking creature in an old layer they automatically assume it cannot be modern and therefore is a new species that happens to have some modern features. Even if every bit of that creature was like a modern one. Their belief is that modern creatures cannot be in old rocks so therefore it cannot be modern.

No circular reasoning is involved. Some species are found in only certain layers and can therefore be used as an "index fossil," for preliminary age determination. Many index fossils were discovered before common descent was accepted. Geologists knew they were assoicated with certain time periods, but they didn't know why. Evolution explains why (something creationism never does). Final derterminations are made by radio-isotope dating of igneous rocks that bracket the sedimentary rocks in question.

When they find a very similar creature in modern layers they assume that it is either a out of place fossil because of various reasons but never will consider that is may just be there because their beliefs are wrong. So all their assumptions and beliefs help build the story that evolution has painted. So though in your mind and other evolutionists minds the evidence is there and unquestionable the reality is that there are many anomalies and contradictions to the fossil records. There are barely enough fossils in themselves to make any predictions or firm positions on what the fossil records show.

That is a nice little fantasy you have going, but its just a fantasy that fits your religious paradigm. Geologists are not as dumb as you want to believe they are.

There needs to be more fossils from all places around the globe to give us a better understanding of what the fossil record is showing. But evolutionists have filled in what is unknown aspects of the fossil record with their own biased beliefs and painted a false picture. So I guess its how you see the fossil records. But evolutionists have been painting a picture that is not completely true.

Not completely true?... likely. Close to true.. yes. So far, all you have done is make assertions that the interpretation of the fossil record is wrong, without providing any reason to believe you.

 

[FredVB]

I don't believe the evidence is there, but if it was I would be forced to choose to think differently and would do a lot of re-examining. Of course I will still learn, I seek doing that all my life.
If there is enough transitions for evolution from kind to kind, from reptiles to mammals as discussed with me, I could expect it represented in fossils with there already being an abundance of fossils that are found. So what is there, that I should see?
It is easy to throw an accusation that another is not willing to look at evidence because of belief already had so securely. You all would already know that I am a Christian believer, and that said would be for my position. It cuts both ways. I have great evidence for belief, from Jesus Christ and what was said, and the resurrected Christ seen after his crucifixion, and the empty tomb and no body ever turning up to disprove it. But any such evidence will be dismissed without real consideration, just as was all that I have said before about the necessary existence that there has to be.

What features would you need to see in a sequence of transitions? If you are willing to plant the goal posts, we would be willing to run towards them. The problem with these discussions is that the creationists refuse to define [what a transitional should look like.
We already have reptile to mammal transitionals. More importantly, why don't we see any mammal to bird transitionals?
The fact of the matter is that ALL of the fossils are consistent with evolution, and that is why the theory is accepted.
The accusation is that no matter what features a fossil has, you will not accept it as being transitional.

You are not getting it. What is called for is not a fossil getting recognition as a transitional, that would need certain features that would satisfy some demand and have an acceptance of evolution, which seems very important to you that others come to. For real transition through descent to be recognized, it should be with fossils of all the types of creatures that would be involved for that to happen. With many fossils around of almost any kind, that should be there if any such descent happened. Otherwise it is a matter of connecting dots with it guessed about what happens in-between. Design from a common plan would explain an arrangement like that.

Nobody is expecting mammal to bird transitionals. So we only talk about linked designs between reptiles and mammals, which scientists, whom I can indeed call evolutionists as they accept evolution as an approach and not creation with intelligence at all, consider for a model of evolution.

The fossils are also consistent with a pattern of design being used intelligently from one Creator for all, with variations being used on it in ways that will work well. I had already come to see it that way before.

Here you go:
This shows fossil species that best demonstrate the transition from reptile jaw joint to mammalian jaw joint, including intermediates that have both joints. Jaws to ears in the ancestors of mammals
The Cynodonts were the most recent ancestors to mammals and have left a large fossil record. This is primarily because they were the dominant terrestrial animals for hundreds of millions of years. Palaeos Vertebrates: Cynodontia: Basal Cynodontia
If you want an overview of the entire transition, see the Therapsids section. You can click on individual names for specific information on each. Palaeos Vertebrates: Therapsida Overview

Thank you for that. It gives things to consider. To be clear of what you show for communicating, would it be for saying Dimetrodon which I have indeed seen represented enough before was directly producing Thrinaxodon, which then after that at a later time directly produced Probainognathus, which then later directly produced Morganonucodon, which later directly produced a monotreme (which one?), Yanoconodon, and a Eutherian (which one, an opossum?)?

 

[RickG]

The fossils are also consistent with a pattern of design being used intelligently from one Creator for all, with variations being used on it in ways that will work well. I had already come to see it that way before.

So they were just created over a period of 3.5 Ga at just the right place and time as to mimic evolution? Not to mention creating some 5 major extinction events and some 20 minor extinction events.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Half your claims about what a species is has already been shot down. Why you keep trying to use the same error in reasoning that led you to that error is beyond me.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_shape_shifting_dinosaurs?language=en

There is your evidence your interpretation of the fossil record is flawed. But heaven forbid we cut up any of those precious fossils and look at the real evidence. And this only in the few he chose to examine. We have millions more to go, which will only show what we already know. Kind after Kind.

 

[Split Rock]

Nobody is expecting mammal to bird transitionals. So we only talk about linked designs between reptiles and mammals, which scientists, whom I can indeed call evolutionists as they accept evolution as an approach and not creation with intelligence at all, consider for a model of evolution.

Why do you claim that no one expects mammal to bird transitions? What do you think a pegasus is? What do you think an angel is? What do you think a Persian sphinx is? These are all chimeras that humans have thought up, but do not exist in the real world. Why not?

The fossils are also consistent with a pattern of design being used intelligently from one Creator for all, with variations being used on it in ways that will work well. I had already come to see it that way before.

Why wouldn't a whale with feathers work? Feathers are good insulation... penguins use them and they swim great. Why not a whale with gills? They wouldn't have to hold their breathe as long as they do underwater. They could even have both lungs and gills, like lung fish do. They could breath air on the surface and use gills diving down deep. That would be a great design.

Thank you for that. It gives things to consider. To be clear of what you show for communicating, would it be for saying Dimetrodon which I have indeed seen represented enough before was directly producing Thrinaxodon, which then after that at a later time directly produced Probainognathus, which then later directly produced Morganonucodon, which later directly produced a monotreme (which one?), Yanoconodon, and a Eutherian (which one, an opossum?)?

We don't know if certain species begat certain others. They would be representative of such species that did, however. In other words you had a number of species, some of which gave rise to anothers which diversified. Then some of those species did the same, etc. We don't know for certain which ended in a dead end and which gave rise to those that evolved further.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why do you claim that no one expects mammal to bird transitions? What do you think a pegasus is? What do you think an angel is? What do you think a Persian sphinx is? These are all chimeras that humans have thought up, but do not exist in the real world. Why not?

Because you misinterpret what was being described. And this is why you can not see the underlying harmony in the mythology. Why entire cultures based their entire civilizations on what you now find incomprehensible.

What mythology really describes.

 

[stevevw]

The last sentence is quite true. However, I would like to see the actual data showing that all species are being shrunched in together into the same time period, as you infer. I think you are reading into the refinment of the fossil record (which is a continuing process) what isn't there.

I didn't say all the species are being pushed together. I said evidence is coming in more and more for some animals being pushed back towards the Cambrian era and others being brought forward towards the modern era. The evidence is individual discoveries in which there are quite a few being re dated. The other point is like I said when they discover a creature that looks very similar to an existing earlier one in a earlier layer rather than say its the same species and then re date the species and the layers they re name the new discovery as a new species. Even if it looks modern and much the same they still give it a new name and say it must be some ancient species that is a relative to the existing one.

So if they had went with what the new discoveries really look like they should be classed as then this would re date layers even more. Add to this that many of the so called ancient species are still being found alive or there are very similar ones found that are either smaller versions then we could say they are the same species that have always been around and dont show any evolution. But of course evolutionists say they just happen to have not evolved because they found their niche. Yet there are more and more being found all the time and other animals in similar niches have supposedly evolved. So they have an answer for just about every situation. Anyway here are some examples.
Discovery of ancient sea sponge fossils could push back existence of animal life on Earth by 90million years.
[FONT=&quot]: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1304061/Ancient-sea-sponge-fossils-push-existence-animal-life-90million-years.html#ixzz3T94UriC8[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]Oldest Land-Walker Tracks Found--Pushes Back Evolution[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
Oldest Land-Walker Tracks Found--Pushes Back Evolution

[FONT=&quot]Giant Penguin [/FONT][FONT=&quot](Icadyptes salasi) [/FONT]
Ancient giant penguin found in Peru waddled the Earth 36m years ago | Daily Mail Online
I could post many examples like this. All are very much the same as today's animals except bigger. So there has been little evolution. Some are just about the same in every aspect like some of the sea life like shells or trees and plants ect.
[FONT=&quot]Wollemi Pines [/FONT]
Found Tree from the Dinosaur Age - Sydney Morning Herald Article.

[FONT=&quot]

Crabs supposedly millions of years old look very much the same.
Others such as shrimps, lobsters, dragon flies, mozzies, many different ferns and of course the famous [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Coelacanth[/FONT].

There are also suppose to be around 23 modern looking mammals found with dinos as well as many other creatures and plants.
Fossils of Jurassic 'squirrels' suggest mammals roamed the Earth 40 MILLION YEARS earlier than first thought.

Read more: Fossils of Jurassic 'squirrels' suggest they roamed Earth 200m years ago | Daily Mail Online

They have even found modern birds with dinos.
Winged Victory: Modern Birds Now Found to Have Been Contemporaries of Dinosaurs.
Winged Victory: Modern Birds Now Found to Have Been Contemporaries of Dinosaurs - Scientific American

They have also dated dinos to be less that 40,000 years old. If you add this with the soft tissue that has been found things are starting to get a little suspect.
Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

No circular reasoning is involved. Some species are found in only certain layers and can therefore be used as an "index fossil," for preliminary age determination. Many index fossils were discovered before common descent was accepted. Geologists knew they were assoicated with certain time periods, but they didn't know why. Evolution explains why (something creationism never does). Final derterminations are made by radio-isotope dating of igneous rocks that bracket the sedimentary rocks in question.

Evolutionists will assume that a creature found in old rocks is old. It cannot be anything but old even if it looks modern. They will give all sorts of other reasons why it cannot be anything but old. If it looks modern and is in old rocks they will come up with a new name and make it a new species rather than say it maybe a modern specimen in old rocks.
​

That is a nice little fantasy you have going, but its just a fantasy that fits your religious paradigm. Geologists are not as dumb as you want to believe they are.

Its not a case of being dumb. Its a case of being human. All humans are susceptible to bias and seeing things in the way they want to see them. If evolutionists believe a certain way and that all evidence should fit that way then everything they see will be made to fit that way.

Not completely true?... likely. Close to true.. yes. So far, all you have done is make assertions that the interpretation of the fossil record is wrong, without providing any reason to believe you.

I guess its a matter of how things are interpreted. But if you add to this that the genetic evidence is also not matching with the tree of life in the Darwinian model then we can begin to see how some had built the links fore evolution bias on observations which are susceptible to personal interpretation and bias. In fact there concept for dealing with fossils that are predicted to be in certain places for the evolutionary model but are not there called ghost linage.

Ghost lineage – the gap of time in which an organisms supposedly existed (according to our phylogentic hypothesis) but for which there are no fossils. The crux of the ghost lineage problem is where we have disparity between where we find certain organisms in the fossil record, and where we think we should find them.
https://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/ghost-lineages/
Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? - Evolution News & Views