Looking for all the missing links

[JanetReed]

Igneous and volcanic layers contain few if any fossils. There are no "fossils who age is known" if we can't test them or the layer they reside in. Its true though, that we can guess.

You may think what you please.
Even Young Earth Creationists fully understand natural selection and it's effects on populations.
Study up guy.
Institute for Creation Research

It happens that I am more conservative than YEC's in that I do not add the idea of a "young earth" into the scriptures.

Any person who believes in a God of any kind outside of the natural world can be a Creationist. Should be in fact.
Mass/energy cannot be created or destroyed.
That goes double for Christians:

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

Galatians 6:15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.

Mark 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'

Romans 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

I was going to write something then it struck me that it would be futile so I decided not to write anything.
Well as you can read I did write something but I don't think it's anything worth thinking about.

The above can be called babbling, it's exactly what creationists do and communicates about as much.

 

[SkyWriting]

I was going to write something then it struck me that it would be futile so I decided not to write anything.Well as you can read I did write something but I don't think it's anything worth thinking about.The above can be called babbling, it's exactly what creationists do and communicates about as much.

You hit the nail on your own head with that response.

 

[good brother]

Checking the strata it was found in, comparing it to all the other fossils who's ages are known and fitting it into the lineage.

Me thinks that sounds a bit like circular reasoning, if ye ask me. But then what do I know? I am but a creationist.

In Christ, GB

 

[Guy1]

Me thinks that sounds a bit like circular reasoning, if ye ask me. But then what do I know? I am but a creationist.

It's nice to see you know your place. Since you were so humble about your ignorance I'll grace you with a tidbit. When we check the strata and compare fossils we're actually trying to falsify our own theories. You see, if we find the fossil in a place we don't expect it (Say a bunny right next to a trilobite) and/or it doesn't even vaguely resemble any form we've ever seen before, we have to give some serious consideration to the possibility that we might be wrong.

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; or dig up a fossil unlike any we've seen before. I'm sure you'd get many people's attention with that.

 

[NailsII]

When we check the strata and compare fossils we're actually trying to falsify our own theories. You see, if we find the fossil in a place we don't expect it (Say a bunny right next to a trilobite) and/or it doesn't even vaguely resemble any form we've ever seen before, we have to give some serious consideration to the possibility that we might be wrong.

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, or dig up a fossil unlike any we've seen before. I'm sure you'd get many people's attention with that.

Indeed, people rarely gat famous (and so get bigger, better research grants) by finding the same as everyone else.
The best finds are always the new ones, especially if they overturn our current understanding.

 

[JanetReed]

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, or dig up a fossil unlike any we've seen before. I'm sure you'd get many people's attention with that.

They are 100% most definitely not going to do that, what would happen if they only found what they were supposed to find?

They even refuse to read books on evolution because they know without a shadow of a doubt they would not be able to remain creationists if they did, where would they go and what would they do? they would lose everything, even being a creationists is better than losing everything, even their families would disown them. [love? what's that?]

 

[good brother]

It's nice to see you know your place. Since you were so humble about your ignorance I'll grace you with a tidbit. When we check the strata and compare fossils we're actually trying to falsify our own theories. You see, if we find the fossil in a place we don't expect it (Say a bunny right next to a trilobite) and/or it doesn't even vaguely resemble any form we've ever seen before, we have to give some serious consideration to the possibility that we might be wrong.

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; or dig up a fossil unlike any we've seen before. I'm sure you'd get many people's attention with that.

Right. Like if you were to find one lone kind of fossil in a layer of limestone that you were sure belonged only in the Tapeats limestone, you would never question that fossil might actually be in the Coconino limestone. Evolutionists assume that animal "A" only ever appeared in "X" layer and therefore every time one finds animal "A" in a layer that layer must be layer "X" and therefore we are going to test said layer this one way instead of another so we can assure ourselves that we get the result we "know" we should have because this animal "A" only lived during the time of of layer "X" and we know that layer "X" is ____ millions of years old. That is only an example of the assumptions that are made during the dating process. Therefore, the proverbial bunny will never be found in the Cambrian.

In Christ, GB

 

[Guy1]

Right. Like if you were to find one lone kind of fossil in a layer of limestone that you were sure belonged only in the Tapeats limestone, you would never question that fossil might actually be in the Coconino limestone. Evolutionists assume that animal "A" only ever appeared in "X" layer and therefore every time one finds animal "A" in a layer that layer must be layer "X" and therefore we are going to test said layer this one way instead of another so we can assure ourselves that we get the result we "know" we should have because this animal "A" only lived during the time of of layer "X" and we know that layer "X" is ____ millions of years old. That is only an example of the assumptions that are made during the dating process. Therefore, the proverbial bunny will never be found in the Cambrian.

In Christ, GB

Wow ... Take it away moderator


You have done nothing more than complain about sciences you neither like nor understand; doing little more than rambling incoherently and ending with an invalid excuse as to why you can't bring up the one thing that would overturn the theory of evolution.

Can you point out any evidence to suggest that these so called "Assumptions" are incorrect?

 

[Jazer]

Therefore, the proverbial bunny will never be found in the Cambrian.

They try to say that the Cambrian is 10 million years. Still something new shows up in the fossil record. There is no change and then that species goes extinct and is never heard from again. Or something like 98% of them go extinct at the end of their age. Only a very small remanent remains.

 

[NailsII]

They try to say that the Cambrian is 10 million years. Still something new shows up in the fossil record. There is no change and then that species goes extinct and is never heard from again. Or something like 98% of them go extinct at the end of their age. Only a very small remanent remains.

You really need to stop learning about biology in church, they're not teaching you anything factual.

 

[Split Rock]

Right. Like if you were to find one lone kind of fossil in a layer of limestone that you were sure belonged only in the Tapeats limestone, you would never question that fossil might actually be in the Coconino limestone. Evolutionists assume that animal "A" only ever appeared in "X" layer and therefore every time one finds animal "A" in a layer that layer must be layer "X" and therefore we are going to test said layer this one way instead of another so we can assure ourselves that we get the result we "know" we should have because this animal "A" only lived during the time of of layer "X" and we know that layer "X" is ____ millions of years old. That is only an example of the assumptions that are made during the dating process. Therefore, the proverbial bunny will never be found in the Cambrian.

In Christ, GB

You have no idea how geology or paleontology actually works, do you? You just have your made-up idea that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about yourself, and you come here to show your ignorance. There are no assumptions about fossils and where they should be found. In fact, the use of Index Fossils came BEFORE evolution was accepted by the scientifc community. Geologists noticed that certain fossils were ONLY found in certain strata, but they didn't know why. Only later did we understand why. So, you see, reality does not fit with your made-up preconceptions about geologists and paleontologists at all.

 

[good brother]

There are no assumptions about fossils and where they should be found.

So when you typed this, did this sentence know what the next two would be?

In fact, the use of Index Fossils came BEFORE evolution was accepted by the scientifc community. Geologists noticed that certain fossils were ONLY found in certain strata,

It'd be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

In Christ, GB

 

[Guy1]

So when you typed this, did this sentence know what the next two would be?



It'd be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

In Christ, GB

Hey bro you're doing that thing again where you post, but aren't really saying anything.

 

[Split Rock]

So when you typed this, did this sentence know what the next two would be?



It'd be laughable if it wasn't so sad.

In Christ, GB

Hey bro you're doing that thing again where you post, but aren't really saying anything.

He has nothing to say, so he just blerts out rhetoric. God forbid he give up on any of his precious made-up paradigms about evil evos and their evil atheist conspiracy.

 

[good brother]

He has nothing to say, so he just blerts out rhetoric. God forbid he give up on any of his precious made-up paradigms about evil evos and their evil atheist conspiracy.

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

GB

 

[juvenissun]

You have no idea how geology or paleontology actually works, do you? You just have your made-up idea that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about yourself, and you come here to show your ignorance. There are no assumptions about fossils and where they should be found. In fact, the use of Index Fossils came BEFORE evolution was accepted by the scientifc community. Geologists noticed that certain fossils were ONLY found in certain strata, but they didn't know why. Only later did we understand why. So, you see, reality does not fit with your made-up preconceptions about geologists and paleontologists at all.

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? )

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.

 

[juvenissun]

You have no idea how geology or paleontology actually works, do you? You just have your made-up idea that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about yourself, and you come here to show your ignorance. There are no assumptions about fossils and where they should be found. In fact, the use of Index Fossils came BEFORE evolution was accepted by the scientifc community. Geologists noticed that certain fossils were ONLY found in certain strata, but they didn't know why. Only later did we understand why. So, you see, reality does not fit with your made-up preconceptions about geologists and paleontologists at all.

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

 

[verysincere]

Me thinks that sounds a bit like circular reasoning, if ye ask me. But then what do I know? I am but a creationist.

I've seen this kind of "logic" many times in "creation science" literature, especially when a large number of different types of dating methods all affirm the same dates. Something which SHOULD be considered an incredible confirmation of the facts is instead called "circular reasoning." By that "logic", the world itself if full of "circular reasoning" because everything interconnects and tells one big integrated story of the whole.

How does one respond or reason with someone who has decided from the beginning that their answer to ALL of the evidence is the same answer: No! (?) You can't.

It truly is futile.

If evidence mattered, there would be no "creation science".

If logic mattered, there would be no "creation science".

I was a YEC back in the 1960's and 1970's when THE GENESIS FLOOD brought "science" to the Bible in a whole new way. What has been fascinating over the decades has been watching the many of us who "moved on" as we were confronted by the evidence (both in the Bible itself and in Creation) VERSUS those who stayed "behind" and worked hard to defend the dogma. I've noticed major differences in personalities and in educational paths and in types of career. I also found it interesting that those who left "creation science" continued to be congenial with their YEC friends---but the converse was often NOT the case. That is, the "creation science faithful" have often shown contempt for those of us who "left the fold". We've been called "compromisers" and "sons of Satan". (For an interesting look at such experiences, look up geologist Glen Morton's story. He used to write for various "creation science" journals.)

In the 1960's we had our facts wrong but for the most part we were honest and excited about the scientific evidence. I saw that change over time. In the last 20 years the dishonest quote-mining and the denial of evidence has increased proportionally with the big money of a growing industry. The atmosphere and the integrity is very different. It has been very sad to watch. Truth doesn't matter.

For an example, consider this:

* If a scientist discovers something in evolutionary biology which doesn't make sense and "rocks the boat" of what we thought we knew about evolutionary processes, they are a celebrity and have boosted their career.

* But in "creation science" anyone who publishes something which in ANY way questions or possibly defies even some tiny "doctrine" of the canon of the YEC world, (1) you won't make any more money speaking at churches and "creationist conferences", (2) Answers in Genesis won't sell your books and DVDs any more, (3) Your former friends in the YEC camp quit speaking to you, (4) Ken Ham starts calling you a "compromiser" and some will even call you "a Son of Satan, who is the father of all lies".

One of the great ironies -- and I've personally observed it--- is that while Ben Stein et al complain about "academic freedom" and how "creationists can't get hired or allowed to publish in journals", a creationist professor [even one with tenure] can lose his job WITHIN HOURS of saying the wrong thing which merely QUESTIONS "creation science" dogma. [e.g. Dr. Bruce Waltke. How many profs change schools in mid-semester? He was lucky. He has a big name and another school hired him a few hours later.]

Some of us have "been there." I grew tired of the lies many years ago. If one has the truth, lying should be unnecessary.

.

 

[verysincere]

It says about Evolution:

Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. ... “Blessed
are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. ...
//bible.cc/matthew/5-5.htm - 15k

Matthew 11:29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am ...
... Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly
in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. ...
//bible.cc/matthew/11-29.htm - 16k..............................

The LORD
lifts up the meek: he casts the wicked down to the ground. ...
//bible.cc/psalms/147-6.htm - 15k

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.)

In this context, there are many passages in the Book of Proverbs which are sobering reminders.

.

 

[Tiberius]

This is a letter that evolutionary theory should send out:

Let me know what you all think of the letter, and what kind of responses you might have to an actual letter like this.

What do I think of it? It's full of nonsense. What kind of response would I expect? Laughter.

Let's see why...

"To whom it may concern,

I'm looking for a chain. The only problem with my "chain" is I have only a handful of pieces and I need my "chain" to be millions (if not billions) of "miles" long. Of the scant few links I have in my possession, some of them do bear a vague resemblance to eachother, but I cannot get them to fit with eachother. One of the problems I have with my "chain", among the many, is that all the links that I have in my possession are still closed, and welded shut. There is no way I can ever get them connected.

This is a complete lie. The fossils we have do fit together. And while we don't have the entire chain, the links we do have fit together in such a way that they allow us to predict what we will find in the missing pieces. And when those missing pieces are found, they fit into the places we predicted they will, and they have the features we predicted they would.

I "know" that the millions of "miles" long "chain" once existed because I have a scant few disconnected links in my hand. I "know" that there should be hundreds of millions of copies of my missing links scattered all over the earth because I know that my "chain" is very long and very old.

And what is your problem with fossils being very old? Do you have a problem with radiometric dating?

Most people have bought and paid for the whole chain when I have shown them the very few closed pieces I have in my hand. Thank goodness they just took my word that those pieces fit nicely together instead of doing any investigation and saw that the links I have cannot be connected because they are shut and welded.

Then they wouldn't be able to have been disconnected, and you would have the entire chain. You are stretching the analogy to breaking point.

I really must have more pieces of my "chain" if I am going to sell this "chain" to every thinking person. Some of those pesky people that won't buy my whole "chain" believe in this book that says there never was one long complete "chain", but instead there was a "chainmaker" that made thousands of short unlinked "chains" that are still visible today. Of course we can see all those short unlinked "chains" around us today, that's where I got my "revelation" that there must be one long "super chain" that connects all the unlinked short chains into one very long super chain. Look at the finches of the Galapogos Islands. They all belong to one of those short "unlinked chains", so there must be a super chain that connects all birds everywhere. Look at horses, zebras, and donkeys. Look all around you. We all can see these short unlinked chains all around us, so doesn't it make sense that there is a super chain just waiting to be discovered?

So would you care to point out how common descent is impossible?

So please, if you see any of my chain, any at all, please send it to me. Also, if you know of anyway I can connect these welded closed links to each other I would be much obliged."

Thanks.

Sincerely, Evolution."

Yes, if you find any new fossils, please document them and make them available for study. learning about the world is a wonderful thing, y'know.

Ah, but then you go back into your ridiculous strawman of evolution. Such a shame...