Lines of Evidence

[Loudmouth]

A daisy chain.

What features does a fossil need in order to be part of the daisy chain?

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe punctuated equilibrium does the same thing, does it not?

Does what?

 

[JacksBratt]

Based on what evidence?

Let's let Darwin himself provide that:

"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed;

Also, you didn't answer my question. Here it is again.

What features would a fossil need to have in order for YOU to accept it as being transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps?

Please try to answer it this time.

You seem to be a person of intelligence. Maybe you missed my answer.

Here it is:

Fossils cannot show a transition of anything unless you had far far far more fossils. These fossils never showed up. Darwin would be unhappy.

It's like taking a picture of a newborn, a 15 year old, a 40 year old and then an 85 year old corps of someone else and saying that this is the same person as they age. It's too few and far between to guarantee authenticity.
You cannot show evidence of a fluid morphing changing line of organism with pointed, snapshots of information that are limited to that period of time.

Then why don't we find any modern humans in sediments that date to 3 million years where we find the transitional Australopithecines? Why don't we find any modern humans 1 million years before present where we find the transitional H. erectus fossils?

Because they grabbed on to floating debris and floated around until the died and remained a bloated ignorant unrighteous floating corpses on the great flooded earth.

What features are you using to determine that these dogs are transitional?

Ah,... their bones.....!

Found the geologic column for you. It isn't debunked.

Notice how you have difference layers and sediments stacked on top of each other? That is a geologic column.

Just how did this happen if the place that the river flows into the grand canyon would have been lower than where it leaves????

Did water flow uphill back then... Also, this stratification, just like at Mt. St. Helens. Not a geologic column.

How do you determine if a fossil appears abruptly and fully formed? What are the criteria you are using?

IT appearse abruptly as a complex creature. Lacking a parade of fossils that would be necessary in order to arrive at the final fossil.

 

[AV1611VET]

What features does a fossil need in order to be part of the daisy chain?

Its fossil preceding it, and its fossil succeeding it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does what?

Looks like evolution did it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Its fossil preceding it, and its fossil succeeding it.

Preceding and succeeding are not features on a fossil.

What features does a fossil need in order to be part of the daisy chain?

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's let Darwin himself provide that:

"Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed;

What do you think Darwin means by this quote?

"Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

What does Darwin mean by the imperfection of the geologic record? In case you want to study up a bit, here is a link to the entire chapter which is entitled, "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record":
The Origin of Species: Chapter 9

What explanation did Darwin give for not seeing a continuous line of finely graduated intermediate varieties?

Fossils cannot show a transition of anything unless you had far far far more fossils.

What features must these fossils have in order to be a part of the group of transitional fossils? How do you determine when you have found a fossil that belongs in the chain of intermediates?

These fossils never showed up. Darwin would be unhappy.

Why would he be unhappy?

It's like taking a picture of a newborn, a 15 year old, a 40 year old and then an 85 year old corps of someone else and saying that this is the same person as they age. It's too few and far between to guarantee authenticity.

We aren't saying that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of living species.

You cannot show evidence of a fluid morphing changing line of organism with pointed, snapshots of information that are limited to that period of time.

What features would a fossil need in order to be a part of that line of organisms?

Because they grabbed on to floating debris and floated around until the died and remained a bloated ignorant unrighteous floating corpses on the great flooded earth.

Evidence for this claim?

Just how did this happen if the place that the river flows into the grand canyon would have been lower than where it leaves????

Red herring. Do you see the geologic column or not?

IT appearse abruptly as a complex creature. Lacking a parade of fossils that would be necessary in order to arrive at the final fossil.

How did you determine that there are no fossils that precede it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Looks like evolution did it.

What are you trying to say?

 

[AV1611VET]

Preceding and succeeding are not features on a fossil.

What features does a fossil need in order to be part of the daisy chain?

Oh, that's cute.

That's very good.

 

[AV1611VET]

What are you trying to say?

825

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh, that's cute.

That's very good.

Notice that you are yet another creationist who can't answer that simple question.

 

[Loudmouth]

825

What are you trying to say?

 

[AV1611VET]

What are you trying to say?

Nevermind.

I noticed, after I replied too fast, that Rick also said this:

So, are you saying that God created all life forms, both fauna and flora, over millions of years at just the right place and time to look like evolution instead of being evolution?

... and it rendered my reply pointless.

 

[JacksBratt]

What do you think Darwin means by this quote?

"Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

What does Darwin mean by the imperfection of the geologic record? In case you want to study up a bit, here is a link to the entire chapter which is entitled, "On the Imperfection of the Geological Record":
The Origin of Species: Chapter 9

What explanation did Darwin give for not seeing a continuous line of finely graduated intermediate varieties?

The quote I posted is self explanatory. Darwin hoped that the imperfect geological record would show more and more facts, as it was researched and excavated, to back up his "theory". We now know it was very disappointing.

What features must these fossils have in order to be a part of the group of transitional fossils? How do you determine when you have found a fossil that belongs in the chain of intermediates?

That's just it. You can't. Nothing that a fossil could have would do that. Fossils are not the gems of a record of history that you make them out to be. They are bones. Old bones of one animal or organism that lived in one moment of time. They cannot tell you what their kids looked like or if they even had any. IT is all "speculation"

Why would he be unhappy?

He would be unhappy with the fact that the fossil record never ever delivered the numerous chain of fossils that would have to be necessary in order to back up the "theory".

We aren't saying that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of living species.

I understand. However, in reality, you cannot even say that it is an ancestor at all. Truthfully, it is just a similar animal. You have no proof, it's speculation and nothing more.

What features would a fossil need in order to be a part of that line of organisms?

Again, there is nothing that the incomplete or complete skeletal remains of one animal can say about anything that lived millions or even thousands or years before it. Or, millions or thousands of years after it. All it can say is that this animal lived once. Telling someone that two similar skeletons means that one is the ancestor or the other is just plain guess work, speculation, extrapolation and a wishful dream.

Evidence for this claim?

I have as much evidence for this claim as you do for a fish climbing our of the water and becoming a land animal. Or life spontaneously showing up one day. I know, evolution doesn't deal with how the cart got rolling down the hill. They just say "so, this cart just appeared one day and was rolling down the hill. And as it did, the wheels turned to rubber and the wood turned to steel and at the bottom of the hill a Ford F150 rolled to a stop".

Red herring. Do you see the geologic column or not?

I see layers and layer of different kinds of sediment. Just like the ones that were formed in a matter of days at Mt. St. Helen's. The geologic column has been well debunked in posts here and by many accredited people who can be read on the internet if you open your eyes. Believe the lie if you must.

How did you determine that there are no fossils that precede it?

That's just it. You can't. The fossil record is like hearing the opening bar of music and then the closing bar of the piece, and saying the rest of the music must of went like this........?

It's a dot on a long line of information. Between the dots the line could be straight, curved, dotted, doubled, form hearts, clovers, cartoons.... who knows. No one has any proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The quote I posted is self explanatory. Darwin hoped that the imperfect geological record would show more and more facts, as it was researched and excavated, to back up his "theory". We now know it was very disappointing.

Yes, disappointing for creationists since the millions of fossils found since his time made evolution a slam dunk.

That's just it. You can't. Nothing that a fossil could have would do that. Fossils are not the gems of a record of history that you make them out to be. They are bones. Old bones of one animal or organism that lived in one moment of time. They cannot tell you what their kids looked like or if they even had any. IT is all "speculation"

Wrong, your inability to understand the evidence is not a valid debating point. It is not "speculation", it is interpretation based upon the evidence.

He would be unhappy with the fact that the fossil record never ever delivered the numerous chain of fossils that would have to be necessary in order to back up the "theory".

Laughably wrong.

I understand. However, in reality, you cannot even say that it is an ancestor at all. Truthfully, it is just a similar animal. You have no proof, it's speculation and nothing more.

Wrong again, it is evidence. To wit scientific evidence, the strongest kind of evidence there is. I would be happy to explain this to you.

Again, there is nothing that the incomplete or complete skeletal remains of one animal can say about anything that lived millions or even thousands or years before it. Or, millions or thousands of years after it. All it can say is that this animal lived once. Telling someone that two similar skeletons means that one is the ancestor or the other is just plain guess work, speculation, extrapolation and a wishful dream.

Actually it can say quite a bit. You are only posting an argument from ignorance.

I have as much evidence for this claim as you do for a fish climbing our of the water and becoming a land animal. Or life spontaneously showing up one day. I know, evolution doesn't deal with how the cart got rolling down the hill. They just say "so, this cart just appeared one day and was rolling down the hill. And as it did, the wheels turned to rubber and the wood turned to steel and at the bottom of the hill a Ford F150 rolled to a stop".

No you don't. You don't have any scientific evidence that supports your claims. This is a very powerful tool used by scientists.

I see layers and layer of different kinds of sediment. Just like the ones that were formed in a matter of days at Mt. St. Helen's. The geologic column has been well debunked in posts here and by many accredited people who can be read on the internet if you open your eyes. Believe the lie if you must.

But they are nothing at all like the layers that came from Mt. St. Helens. And no, the geologic column has never been debunked. Creationists have only made strawman arguments that they have debunked, breaking the Ninth Commandment in the process.

That's just it. You can't. The fossil record is like hearing the opening bar of music and then the closing bar of the piece, and saying the rest of the music must of went like this........?

No, once again you are simply arguing from ignorance..

It's a dot on a long line of information. Between the dots the line could be straight, curved, dotted, doubled, form hearts, clovers, cartoons.... who knows. No one has any proof.

And yet there is only one scientific explanation for those fossils. Also, "Proof" is for mathematics and liquor. Science works upon evidence. It is too bad that your side has none.

 

[JacksBratt]

double post for some reason

 

[JacksBratt]

Yes, disappointing for creationists since the millions of fossils found since his time made evolution a slam dunk.




Wrong, your inability to understand the evidence is not a valid debating point. It is not "speculation", it is interpretation based upon the evidence.



Laughably wrong.



Wrong again, it is evidence. To wit scientific evidence, the strongest kind of evidence there is. I would be happy to explain this to you.




Actually it can say quite a bit. You are only posting an argument from ignorance.




No you don't. You don't have any scientific evidence that supports your claims. This is a very powerful tool used by scientists.




But they are nothing at all like the layers that came from Mt. St. Helens. And no, the geologic column has never been debunked. Creationists have only made strawman arguments that they have debunked, breaking the Ninth Commandment in the process.




No, once again you are simply arguing from ignorance..



And yet there is only one scientific explanation for those fossils. Also, "Proof" is for mathematics and liquor. Science works upon evidence. It is too bad that your side has none.

Here ya go, from a site for evolution, trying deperately to back you up but still stating that the fossil record is not near what Darwin or other evolutionists were hoping for.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The fossil record is life’s evolutionary epic that unfolded over four billion years as environmental conditions and genetic potential interacted in accordance with natural selection. It could be likened to a movie recording the history of life across nearly four billion years of geological time. The problem is that only a small fraction of the frames are preserved, and those that have been preserved have often been chronologically scrambled. Viewed in this way, reconstituting the movie seems intractable, and yet science has done so.[/FONT]



The "science" of evolution is 10% data 90% dreams and speculation of the men and women who desperately want it to be true.

This is not science. It is religion.

Keep living the dream.....

The events that are about to unfold in the next decade will pull the curtain on this farce.

 

[Oafman]

I see layers and layer of different kinds of sediment. Just like the ones that were formed in a matter of days at Mt. St. Helen's.

If the whole Earth was made of volcaniclasts, you might have a point. But it isn't, so you don't.

For example, are you hoping to attribute sandstones to volcanic eruptions?

The geologic column has been well debunked in posts here and by many accredited people who can be read on the internet if you open your eyes. Believe the lie if you must.

I have never read a single thing written by a creationist which suggested they have the slightest grasp on what the geologic column tells us, and about the evidence which tells us how it was created. As usual, they put the cart before the horse. The form a conclusion - or at least, are taught a conclusion in Sunday School - and then they cherry pick, misinterpret and misrepresent data to attempt to support these predetrmined conclusions. This is obvious to anyone with an ounce of understanding of this subject.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here ya go, from a site for evolution, trying deperately to back you up but still stating that the fossil record is not near what Darwin or other evolutionists were hoping for.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The fossil record is life’s evolutionary epic that unfolded over four billion years as environmental conditions and genetic potential interacted in accordance with natural selection. It could be likened to a movie recording the history of life across nearly four billion years of geological time. The problem is that only a small fraction of the frames are preserved, and those that have been preserved have often been chronologically scrambled. Viewed in this way, reconstituting the movie seems intractable, and yet science has done so.[/FONT]



The "science" of evolution is 10% data 90% dreams and speculation of the men and women who desperately want it to be true.

This is not science. It is religion.

Keep living the dream.....

The events that are about to unfold in the next decade will pull the curtain on this farce.

Wrong, it is not religion. You are correct that many of the "frames of the movie" are missing. The problem is that there is only one interpretation of those frames that is not self refuting.

That is why the idea of a testable hypothesis is so important to science. In science one takes the data, forms a testable hypothesis and then of course one tests it. The theory of evolution went through that testing. It has been tested many thousands if not millions of times and has not failed. Meanwhile creationists have no testable explanation for the fossil record that is not self contradicting. They don't even try any longer having been debunked too many times.

That is why your side has no scientific evidence. If you read in my signature you will see a definition of scientific evidence. I did not write it. If a group is not willing to put up their ideas to the test of evidence then they cannot claim to have any evidence. The reason there is no scientific evidence for creationism is all the fault of creationists and not that of scientists.

Worse yet for creationism is that every fossil found is like finding a piece of the puzzle. The evolution model forms a paradigm and each fossil found fits into that paradigm. The creationists won't even start to make an all encompassing model. As I said they have been embarrassed to often when they try.

 

[stevevw]

I am always skeptical of the fossil record. All the claims about where fossils are found is not always verified. It is left up to peoples interpretation and even influence about where they find the fossils and in what order they do. Quite often many of the fossils are found on the surface. But they are put into their categories by other finds or by the age they have determined the ground it was found in. So a fossil age can be determined by the ground and the ground can be determined by the fossil.

If they find say a modern bone in what is suppose to be old ground they automatically determine that even though the bone many look modern it is old. Then this can become a new discovery for a transitional because this is all judged on pieces of bone similarities that connect different species together. The bone cannot be considered modern because the determination has already been made that no modern bones can be found in those locations. If they did acknowledge that then it becomes a big problem so they dont even entertain the idea. It just has to be part of an old species with modern looking features. Yet if we were to place all those anomalies aside and just for a moment allow the alternative view that they maybe be out of place fossils the system would be full of contradictory fossils.