Looking for all the missing links

[Jazer]

The moral of the story? Either find a modern animal fossil near the Cambrian, or some other era where they're not supposed to be found;

We know that something has to die in order for something else to be born. That is why we believe that we have to be born again. WE die and then we can become a new creation in Christ.

When an age or an era ends God will preserve a small remnant onto Himself. Like at the end of the Cambrian 98% perished. But 2% survived to repopulate the Earth and begin the new era. Just like the age or era that we currently live in will soon come to an end. Only a very small percentage will survive to repopulate the earth and begin the new era.

 

[Tiberius]

We know that something has to die in order for something else to be born.

Are you confusing correlation with causality?

That is why we believe that we have to be born again. WE die and then we can become a new creation in Christ.

If changing the person that you were to become a religious person works for you, fine. But that doesn't mean that your subjective experience is true for every one.

When an age or an era ends God will preserve a small remnant onto Himself. Like at the end of the Cambrian 98% perished. But 2% survived to repopulate the Earth and begin the new era. Just like the age or era that we currently live in will soon come to an end. Only a very small percentage will survive to repopulate the earth and begin the new era.

How about in five billion years or so when the sun expands and the Earth is pulled into its fiery core and is vaporized? What small part of Earth will be preserved?

 

[good brother]

Why do you mock God's Holy Scriptures by pretending that your list of Bible texts relates to evolution and this "looking for missing links" thread?

Do you honestly believe that anyone will be encouraged in godliness by claiming that those scripture passages are about evolution?

I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish (other than to convince non-Christians that those who use the Bible as a grab bag of random words to deploy in meaningless ways are just mocking those who wish to discuss substantive questions.)


.

See, and I knew exactly what Sky was talking about when he posted those verses/passages. Over and over the Bible says that "the meek will inherit the earth" and the lowest will be highest in the final order of things. This is in stark contrast to what evolution teaches about things. Evolution states that only the strongest and the fiercest, those who will fight the hardest for survival, will make it. The Bible says you must die in order to live. Evolution says "if you don't do everything you can to live, you will die". Diametrically oppsing ideas. Is it the "meek and gentle" of the Bible or the "strong and aggressive" of evolution?

You thought they were completely unrelated and yet there there are, related. Much like the North Pole and the South Pole are related because they are the two most extremes of the cardinal directions north and south, yet they are at far ends of the spectrum. They are related because they are opposite. One can either stand at the NP or stand at the SP but one will never stand at both places at the same time.

In Christ, GB

 

[Jro]

Beware the fearsome products of evolution.

 

[Split Rock]

See, and I knew exactly what Sky was talking about when he posted those verses/passages. Over and over the Bible says that "the meek will inherit the earth" and the lowest will be highest in the final order of things. This is in stark contrast to what evolution teaches about things. Evolution states that only the strongest and the fiercest, those who will fight the hardest for survival, will make it. The Bible says you must die in order to live. Evolution says "if you don't do everything you can to live, you will die". Diametrically oppsing ideas. Is it the "meek and gentle" of the Bible or the "strong and aggressive" of evolution?

You thought they were completely unrelated and yet there there are, related. Much like the North Pole and the South Pole are related because they are the two most extremes of the cardinal directions north and south, yet they are at far ends of the spectrum. They are related because they are opposite. One can either stand at the NP or stand at the SP but one will never stand at both places at the same time.

In Christ, GB

You continue to view the theroy of evolution as some kind of philosophy. It is not. It describes what happens, not have humans should behave. In addition "survival of the fittest" does not mean an individual needs to go out and kill everything he/she sees. Fitness is only about reproductive success, not the ability to fight or to be "strong and aggressive." And yes, if you don't do everything you can to live, you will die. That is reality in nature... do you deny it?

 

[Split Rock]

Well, at least ignoring the facts and mocking others will make that embarrassing comment go away.

GB

Yes, I noticed that ignoring the facts and mocking others is your primary strategy here. I don't think it is doing you any good, though.

 

[Split Rock]

You still owe me the definition of human. Now you made more mistakes (Sorry, you are my only worthy target in this thread. Better quit arguing? )

I don't remember you asking me for a definition of "human." There is indeed a fine line between human and human ancestor, as one would expect from evolution.

We do assume that there is no amphibian fossil in Silurian rocks. Don't we? In fact, all new fossil huntings are based on what we know about old fossils. This is how people found "transitional" fossils. When they found something, they said: Aha... I predicted it. When they found nothing, they said: keep searching.

These are not assumptions these are inferences. There were no assumptions or even reason to suspect that certain species would be only found in certain strata during the late 18th to early 19th centuries. Yes, nowadays we can make predictions based on the evidence we already have. This is not the same as finding fossil "x" and assuming that it is from time "y" and then leaving it at that... which is exactly what your compatriot was claiming.

So, is the idea of index fossil wrong based on evolution? It sounds like a 100% creation product.

How so? Explain using "creation science" (ha,ha) why this should be the case. According to the theory of evolution, species and even ecosystems replace each other over time. Therefore it makes sense that some species would only be found in specific strata. Now your turn...

 

[juvenissun]

I don't remember you asking me for a definition of "human." There is indeed a fine line between human and human ancestor, as one would expect from evolution.


These are not assumptions these are inferences. There were no assumptions or even reason to suspect that certain species would be only found in certain strata during the late 18th to early 19th centuries. Yes, nowadays we can make predictions based on the evidence we already have. This is not the same as finding fossil "x" and assuming that it is from time "y" and then leaving it at that... which is exactly what your compatriot was claiming.


How so? Explain using "creation science" (ha,ha) why this should be the case. According to the theory of evolution, species and even ecosystems replace each other over time. Therefore it makes sense that some species would only be found in specific strata. Now your turn...

I am not a paleontologist. I learned about the feature and the function of the index fossil a few decades ago, but have never thought about it seriously. As I think about it now, the existence of so many index fossils seems to be a big slap in face to evolution.

If we use human beings as a possible index fossil (for illustration purpose), then we can not use it to indicate the beginning of Holocene or Pleistocene, but we probably can use it to indicate the time when we killed off ourselves in a nuclear exchange. Otherwise, what kind of environmental change could make human extinct all at once, but not affect contemporary animals?

 

[Split Rock]

I am not a paleontologist. I learned about the feature and the function of the index fossil a few decades ago, but have never thought about it seriously. As I think about it now, the existence of so many index fossils seems to be a big slap in face to evolution.

You made this statement:

So, is the idea of index fossil wrong based on evolution? It sounds like a 100% creation product.

Please explain how index fossils sound like a "100% creation product."

If we use human beings as a possible index fossil (for illustration purpose), then we can not use it to indicate the beginning of Holocene or Pleistocene, but we probably can use it to indicate the time when we killed off ourselves in a nuclear exchange. Otherwise, what kind of environmental change could make human extinct all at once, but not affect contemporary animals?

If you are correct, then please explain why the fossil record shows us just what you claim cannot happen? Explain why there are no more woolly mammoths, or why horses became extinct in North America and had to be re-introduced by Europeans. Even the mass extinctions evident in the fossil record did not kill off all species.... some always survived. In any case, you have yet to explain how creationism explains index fossils. Do tell.

 

[verysincere]

I have not altered the quotation which follows. I simply numbered the main points:

1) I am not a paleontologist.

2) I learned about the feature and the function of the index fossil a few decades ago, but have never thought about it seriously.

3) As I think about it now, the existence of so many index fossils seems to be a big slap in face to evolution.

Clearly, #1 and #2 fully explain why "the existence of so many index fossils seems to be a big slap in face to evolution" appears in #3.

To assume that the existence of SO MANY INDEX FOSSILS somehow subtracts from the credibility of the theory of evolution............it boggles the mind.

Is it really that difficult to notice that the people who deny and obsess on objecting to the theory of evolution know the very least about it?

Most of these forum threads tend to degenerate into a remedial tutoring program for a few deniers who badly need elementary instruction in evolutionary biology and physics. (Those two fields are usually the rehashed territories.)

The other inescapable observation is that evolution is usually the focus of the attacks and even though the anti-evolution crowd usually consists predominantly of Young Earth Creationists, there is rarely any kind of evidence (and certainly not organized into some over-arching comprehensive "theory") to convince any reader that the "creation science" viewpoint is more credible than the theory of evolution in explaining what we observe!

Now why is that?

.

 

[NailsII]

We know that something has to die in order for something else to be born..

I planted some carrot seeds in my garden last week for my daughter's pet rabbits to eat.
What had to die in orde rfor these seeds to grow?

See, and I knew exactly what Sky was talking about when he posted those verses/passages. Over and over the Bible says that "the meek will inherit the earth" and the lowest will be highest in the final order of things. This is in stark contrast to what evolution teaches about things. Evolution states that only the strongest and the fiercest, those who will fight the hardest for survival, will make it. The Bible says you must die in order to live. Evolution says "if you don't do everything you can to live, you will die". Diametrically oppsing ideas. Is it the "meek and gentle" of the Bible or the "strong and aggressive" of evolution?

Read Mark 10:19 again.
That is one of the biggest lies I have ever read - and you should be ashamed of yourself. If you genuinely believe that statement to be true, then you need to start reading some factual books.
Even On the Origin of Species would suggest otherwise, as would The Sefish Gene.
Look around the world today, and do you need to be fierce to survice and prosper?
No.
Grass.
Trees.
Are they agressive?
Sharks and crocodiles are amongst the fiercest animals on the planet, yet they don't dominate it.

Evolution by natural selection actually says that those organisms best suited to their particular environment will, on average, have more offspring than those who are less well adapted.
They will pass on any advantageous traits to their progeny.

The meek shall inherit the earth?
Would that be mice, snails or some other timid creature?

What you fail to realise is that perental care is an evolved trait, it is seen throughout the animal kingdom. Some cephalopods leave themselves so weak after protecting their eggs that they are unable to defend themselves from predators - a fact that is completely at odds with your statement.

So, please learn some biology before you start spouting your dogma please - you might find that learning and thinking for yourself is much more reqarding than copying someone else's misconceptions about the natural world.

/rant

As I think about it now, the existence of so many index fossils seems to be a big slap in face to evolution.

How so?

 

[juvenissun]

You made this statement:



Please explain how index fossils sound like a "100% creation product."


If you are correct, then please explain why the fossil record shows us just what you claim cannot happen? Explain why there are no more woolly mammoths, or why horses became extinct in North America and had to be re-introduced by Europeans. Even the mass extinctions evident in the fossil record did not kill off all species.... some always survived. In any case, you have yet to explain how creationism explains index fossils. Do tell.

The idea of index fossil is: no one survived, anywhere.

So, they showed up and died off faster than the environmental change, and are morphologically distinct (no transitional form).

It doesn't matter how I look at it, it characterized the process of creation.

--------

Is the woolly mammoth an index fossil? I guess it is not.

Do you know any index fossil, which is disqualified at later time?

 

[Split Rock]

The idea of index fossil is: no one survived, anywhere.

So, they showed up and died off faster than the environmental change, and are morphologically distinct (no transitional form).

It doesn't matter how I look at it, it characterized the process of creation.

--------

Is the woolly mammoth an index fossil? I guess it is not.

Do you know any index fossil, which is disqualified at later time?

Index fossils are are short-lived geologically, but that can be for a few hundered thousand years. They are species, and there can be descendant species that survive them. Here are a few:
Index fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you claiming these species were created separately, over long periods of time? Why... so we could use them for geology?

 

[good brother]

Index fossils are are short-lived geologically, but that can be for a few hundered thousand years. They are species, and there can be descendant species that survive them. Here are a few:
Index fossil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I just found a hare in my Cambrian soup! Thanks Split Rock!

Look at this article from the site you posted:

Index fossils (also known as guide fossils, indicator fossils or zone fossils) are fossils used to define and identify geologic periods (or faunal stages). They work on the premise that, although different sediments may look different depending on the conditions under which they were laid down, they may include the remains of the same species of fossil.

Did you catch that? The article admits that no matter what the actual sediment layer appears to be, if it contains (oh let's say) a tilobite, then "we" know the layer to be "X" years old belonging to "Y" era. Basically, what the article is trying to slip by is that circular reasoning is used to date the rocks because it is assumed that the "index fossil" is of a certain age and time and therefore the rock associated with it (index fossil) must therefore be that old too. It wouldn't matter one bit if the trilobite fossil was found in a layer of mud that sat atop a human skeleton, wooly mammoth remains, or a Mcdonalds restaurant, the evolutionists would say that the layer must have been flip flopped in some kind of event because they know the trilobite is older than any of those. In addition to this, if a rabbit fossil were ever to be found in a layer that appeared to be belonging to (oh, let's say) the Cambrian, evolutionists would simply state that " Obviously the rabbit cannot be from the Cambrian because we know that rabbits are not that old. Therefore the rabbit fossil must have been superimposed in this layer. Either that, or it is an obvious hoax."

Of course another thing to contemplate is the number of fossils we DON'T have. Ever notice how quickly an evolutionist will scream out to a creationist who is asking for more transitions a response something along these lines, "How many examples do you want? Don't you know not everything fossilizes? Why, even if I were to show you (the creationist in this scenario) every single transition, you wouldn't believe it because you are so blinded by your belief in that old book." Those evolutionists are often the very same ones who demand we creationists bring forth evidence for a Cambrian rabbit. And after all that talk about how few of fossils they have to prove evolution. It's rather ironic.

In Christ, GB

 

[NailsII]

Did you catch that? The article admits that no matter what the actual sediment layer appears to be, if it contains (oh let's say) a tilobite, then "we" know the layer to be "X" years old belonging to "Y" era. Basically, what the article is trying to slip by is that circular reasoning is used to date the rocks because it is assumed that the "index fossil" is of a certain age and time and therefore the rock associated with it (index fossil) must therefore be that old too. It wouldn't matter one bit if the trilobite fossil was found in a layer of mud that sat atop a human skeleton, wooly mammoth remains, or a Mcdonalds restaurant, the evolutionists would say that the layer must have been flip flopped in some kind of event because they know the trilobite is older than any of those. In addition to this, if a rabbit fossil were ever to be found in a layer that appeared to be belonging to (oh, let's say) the Cambrian, evolutionists would simply state that " Obviously the rabbit cannot be from the Cambrian because we know that rabbits are not that old. Therefore the rabbit fossil must have been superimposed in this layer. Either that, or it is an obvious hoax."

Of course another thing to contemplate is the number of fossils we DON'T have. Ever notice how quickly an evolutionist will scream out to a creationist who is asking for more transitions a response something along these lines, "How many examples do you want? Don't you know not everything fossilizes? Why, even if I were to show you (the creationist in this scenario) every single transition, you wouldn't believe it because you are so blinded by your belief in that old book." Those evolutionists are often the very same ones who demand we creationists bring forth evidence for a Cambrian rabbit. And after all that talk about how few of fossils they have to prove evolution. It's rather ironic.

I don't even think that deserves a response.
If it looks circular to you, then it must be.
Geology is just one big hoax.

Lack of fossils is one thing, but before you talk of irony and double standards, you may wish to notice one small detail.
Fossil finding is difficult.
Time consuming.
Not all rock formations contain fossils.
Not all dead animals become fossilised.

These are all facts - and it is with humility and honesty that these are presented as facts, not obstacles.

It is with these facts in mind that people know they will never, ever find every animal or plant that has ever lived - probably not even one example of ever species that have ever lived.

 

[Split Rock]

I just found a hare in my Cambrian soup! Thanks Split Rock!

Look at this article from the site you posted:

Index fossils (also known as guide fossils, indicator fossils or zone fossils) are fossils used to define and identify geologic periods (or faunal stages). They work on the premise that, although different sediments may look different depending on the conditions under which they were laid down, they may include the remains of the same species of fossil.

Did you catch that? The article admits that no matter what the actual sediment layer appears to be, if it contains (oh let's say) a tilobite, then "we" know the layer to be "X" years old belonging to "Y" era. Basically, what the article is trying to slip by is that circular reasoning is used to date the rocks because it is assumed that the "index fossil" is of a certain age and time and therefore the rock associated with it (index fossil) must therefore be that old too. It wouldn't matter one bit if the trilobite fossil was found in a layer of mud that sat atop a human skeleton, wooly mammoth remains, or a Mcdonalds restaurant, the evolutionists would say that the layer must have been flip flopped in some kind of event because they know the trilobite is older than any of those. In addition to this, if a rabbit fossil were ever to be found in a layer that appeared to be belonging to (oh, let's say) the Cambrian, evolutionists would simply state that " Obviously the rabbit cannot be from the Cambrian because we know that rabbits are not that old. Therefore the rabbit fossil must have been superimposed in this layer. Either that, or it is an obvious hoax."

Do you understand the principle of Stratigraphy? Rocks do not form uniformly of the same type everywhere on the planet, or even in the same continent. Sandstone may form in one area, where limestone will form somewhere else. Geologists use Stratigraphy to determine if they are from the same time period. And this technique goes back to before evolution, as I have already mentioned. Also, while strata can get moved in orientation, there are clear signs when this is the case. You really think geologists are just plain stupid liars, don't you? I guess it makes things simpler for you and your dogma.

Of course another thing to contemplate is the number of fossils we DON'T have. Ever notice how quickly an evolutionist will scream out to a creationist who is asking for more transitions a response something along these lines, "How many examples do you want? Don't you know not everything fossilizes? Why, even if I were to show you (the creationist in this scenario) every single transition, you wouldn't believe it because you are so blinded by your belief in that old book." Those evolutionists are often the very same ones who demand we creationists bring forth evidence for a Cambrian rabbit. And after all that talk about how few of fossils they have to prove evolution. It's rather ironic.
In Christ, GB

Bring out any fossil that doesn't belong where it is consistantly found. When you guys ask for A transitional fossil species, we give it to you. Then you demand more. When we ask you for A fossil species that is found out of place, we get silence.

You do have a point, though I'm sure you don't realize it. What we don't find is indeed very telling as well. We don't find true chimeras in the fossil record. We don't find mammals with feathers, or fish with fur. We don't find anything that evolution wouldn't be able to explain. Yet the creator could have given birds fir or frogs a placenta. And evolutionists would be dumbfounded. Strange indeed we never find these....

 

[good brother]

Bring out any fossil that doesn't belong where it is consistantly found.

Ceolocanth. It was supposed to be an index fossil from 65 million years ago, now they're fished for. Dragonflies. They're supposed to be how old and did evos find them in every layer of rock from 300 million years ago til the present? Turtles? Did they have no need to adapt over a period of 230 million years? Guess not. Sharks? Crocodiles?

When you guys ask for A transitional fossil species, we give it to you. Then you demand more.

because there should be millions of transitional forms if TOE is correct. When you all give us one "transitional" it's about like giving us .0000000001% of one strand of DNA and telling us that "Of course we have all sorts of proof. That's all the proof you should need."

When we ask you for A fossil species that is found out of place, we get silence.

Perhaps because according to us, there aren't specific places fossils should be found if they were laid down during a global world wide flood.

You do have a point, though I'm sure you don't realize it. What we don't find is indeed very telling as well. We don't find true chimeras in the fossil record. We don't find mammals with feathers, or fish with fur. We don't find anything that evolution wouldn't be able to explain.

And yet in all the pictures, lizards have feathers.

Yet the creator could have given birds fir or frogs a placenta. And evolutionists would be dumbfounded. Strange indeed we never find these....

The platypus comes to mind.

In Christ, GB

 

[Split Rock]

Ceolocanth. It was supposed to be an index fossil from 65 million years ago, now they're fished for. Dragonflies. They're supposed to be how old and did evos find them in every layer of rock from 300 million years ago til the present? Turtles? Did they have no need to adapt over a period of 230 million years? Guess not. Sharks? Crocodiles?

No. Index fossils are particular Species, not orders or families. Even the modern Ceolocanths are different species from those in the fossil record. Generally similar, but they are not identical. So, no "sharks" and "dragonflies" cannot be called index fossils.

because there should be millions of transitional forms if TOE is correct. When you all give us one "transitional" it's about like giving us .0000000001% of one strand of DNA and telling us that "Of course we have all sorts of proof. That's all the proof you should need."

We have more than one. But when you aks for "just one," you ask for more. Then we give you more, and you still claim it isn't enough.

Perhaps because according to us, there aren't specific places fossils should be found if they were laid down during a global world wide flood.

They should be all mixed up, and they are not. That's the point.

And yet in all the pictures, lizards have feathers.

Lizards do not have feathers. Dinosaurs (at least certain types) had feathers and scales both. Their descendents still have both scales and feathers.

The platypus comes to mind.

In Christ, GB

And the platypus is not part bird. The platy's "bill" is completely different from a bird's. In fact, the playpus is a good example of a transitional type... it is part mammal and part reptile. It has fur, but it lays leathery eggs.

"The Platypus has a bill that resembles a duck's bill but is actually an elongated snout covered with soft, moist, leathery skin and sensitive nerve endings" Unique Australian Animals

 

[Jazer]

I planted some carrot seeds in my garden last week for my daughter's pet rabbits to eat.
What had to die in orde rfor these seeds to grow?

With carrots it is the flower above the ground that has to die and turn to seed. It is very difficult to kill a plant that has not produced seeds. Even if you burn them off at ground level the roots still continue to grow.

 

[good brother]

They should be all mixed up, and they are not. That's the point.

Nope, not at all mixed up.

In Christ, GB