proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Jimmy D]

Well here's an article showing that they had been discussing it prior. http://www.equinestudies.org/evolution_horse_2008/elsevier_horse_evolution_2008_pdf1.pdf (see 5th paragraph down)

I've read similar many times. Proposed horse chains presented are not examples of a finely graduated chain between two major forms.

Yeah, what Ophiolite said. ^

I suggest re-reading that article, it supports my assertion of a finely graduated chain.

I've been here long enough to know that you (creationists in general) won't be convinced by any amount of argument or evidence, that's fine. Let's assume that the many paleontologists who have studied these fossils are correct in that there is a finely graduated chain, chronolgically, from Eohippus to the modern horse - How would you explain that chain?

 

[BradB]

Are you of the opinion professional geologists have been doing their jobs wrong for the last 200 years?

Where did you get your information from if you don’t mind me asking, it sounds rather outlandish?

Just which fact sounds outlandish to you exactly? Seriously we can look at it together and see if these are really what geologists have observed. Here's the thing that people don't understand. We are all looking at the same exact evidence. There's not some sort of anti-flood evidence that one group looks at and then some sort of pro-flood evidence that another group looks at. It's all the exact same evidence. What is different is the way one group interprets what they are seeing. The question isn't "are geologists doing their jobs wrong?" It is instead, "are there interpretations of what they see the most logical?" It's like a Russian cosmonaut being so sure his country was the first to land on the moon, that when he stumbles across the USA flag, claiming it is just an abnormal geological anomaly that took millions of years to form. Personal bias can very strongly effect your interpretation. If you are certain that evolution is true then you know you need a whole lot of time to exist. Then that will of course bias your interpretations of strata layers, ice cores, fossils, etc...

 

[BradB]

Reallly? Hyracotherium fossils have been found right next to equus fossils/bones? Do you have a source for that?

Barnhart, W.R. A Critical Evaluation of the Phylogeny of the Horse, ICR, 1987

What "time" are you talking about? T.H. Huxley was born in 1825 and died in 1895. Simpson wasn't even born until 1902 and didn't get his PhD until the 1920s. That's a three decade difference just between Huxley's death and Simpson becoming a paleontologist.

Sorry, poor choice of wording on my part. I meant to say other evolutionists of the time backed away from it, and even established paleontologist such as George Gaylord Simpson have backed away from it.

What a fascinating claim, not for the least of reasons that Marsh has been dead for 118 years.

O. C. Marsh, 'Recent polydactyle horses', American Journal of Science 43, 1892, pp. 339-354

 

[BradB]

And you BELIEVE that is the truth and a fact, don't you?

Yet you reject one species giving rise to another...I'm sure that there is a word for that mental state, but I don't know what it is.

No I don't reject one "species" can give rise to another at all. I reject one form can give rise to a completely different form. And looking at what you believe... that a highly specified universe sprang from nothing, that highly specified life sprang from raining on a rock for several million years, that single celled life became multi celled life, which grew lungs and legs and entirely new nervous systems and took to land, and eventually built town homes. I am always amazed when evolutionistic atheists accuse creationists of being illogical.

 

[pitabread]

And looking at what you believe... that a highly specified universe sprang from nothing, that highly specified life sprang from raining on a rock for several million years, that single celled life became multi celled life, which grew lungs and legs and entirely new nervous systems and took to land, and eventually built town homes.

Conceptually speaking, it's a wee bit more complicated than you seem to be suggesting. Nothing just "sprang" into existence. And one of the biggest conceptual hurdles is the length of time involved and concept of existence itself, which quite frankly is impossible for the human to properly conceive.

 

[Jimmy D]

Just which fact sounds outlandish to you exactly? Seriously we can look at it together and see if these are really what geologists have observed. Here's the thing that people don't understand. We are all looking at the same exact evidence. There's not some sort of anti-flood evidence that one group looks at and then some sort of pro-flood evidence that another group looks at. It's all the exact same evidence. What is different is the way one group interprets what they are seeing. The question isn't "are geologists doing their jobs wrong?" It is instead, "are there interpretations of what they see the most logical?" It's like a Russian cosmonaut being so sure his country was the first to land on the moon, that when he stumbles across the USA flag, claiming it is just an abnormal geological anomaly that took millions of years to form. Personal bias can very strongly effect your interpretation. If you are certain that evolution is true then you know you need a whole lot of time to exist. Then that will of course bias your interpretations of strata layers, ice cores, fossils, etc...

No problem, let's try one at a time.

Brad says....

Ground surface prints which have been fossilized, are common in all of the strata layers. Features like ripple patterns, animal tracks and rain drop impressions. Under usual conditions these features are quickly destroyed by normal erosion and life. In order for these types of impressions to be preserved, the next sediment layer must be laid down very fast, and the next layer, and the next, and so forth.

.....................................

This is not evidence of a global flood, in fact, trace fossil are more likely to be eroded by moving water. I'm not saying they rule out a global flood by the way, but their formation can be explained without the need to invoke one. Besides even if some trace fossils were formed during flooding it's still not evidence for a global flood, floods are fairly common.

Trace fossil - Wikipedia

"Such trace fossils are formed when amphibians, reptiles, mammals or birds walked across soft (probably wet) mud or sand which later hardened sufficiently to retain the impressions before the next layer of sediment was deposited. Some fossils can even provide details of how wet the sand was when they were being produced, and hence allow estimation of paleo-wind directions.[4]

Assemblages of trace fossils occur at certain water depths,[1] and can also reflect the salinity and turbidity of the water column."

Most trace fossils are known from marine deposits.[12] Essentially, there are two types of traces, either exogenic ones, which are made on the surface of the sediment (such as tracks) or endogenic ones, which are made within the layers of sediment (such as burrows).

Surface trails on sediment in shallow marine environments stand less chance of fossilization because they are subjected to wave and current action. Conditions in quiet, deep-water environments tend to be more favorable for preserving fine trace structures.

 

[tas8831]

Reallly? Hyracotherium fossils have been found right next to equus fossils/bones? Do you have a source for that?

Barnhart, W.R. A Critical Evaluation of the Phylogeny of the Horse, ICR, 1987

And your background such that you were able to determine that Barnhart was correct in his assessment?

 

[Jimmy D]

If you are certain that evolution is true then you know you need a whole lot of time to exist. Then that will of course bias your interpretations of strata layers, ice cores, fossils, etc...

My opinion on evolution has no bearing on the age of the Earth which is confirmed by multiple, independent lines of evidence.

(Please spare me a lengthy response about how in 1823 someone got the age of the Earth wrong.)

 

[ruthiesea]

It left lots of fossils. You just call them cro magnon and other’s, drew hair all over them in the past so they looked apelike to support your beliefs. Even if they now depict them as looking like modern humans.

You are demonstrating the difference between a pseudoscience like creationism and actual science. You keep trying to "prove" your so called "facts" by using information for which you can cite no non-religious, biblical source. The practitioners of actual science try to disprove (invalidate) theories by gathering more knowledge.

 

[BradB]

Well that's your opinion. I don't see it as dishonest at all on a forum like this. You are free to believe as you like but it's not plagarism in this context.

I would take it as a compliment if I were you. In these discussions the plagiarism card always gets thrown on the table when you've made an excellent case and they have no reply. Its a distraction move and nothing more.

 

[BradB]

How would you explain that chain?

How do you call the dramatic differences between the bone structure of Eohippus and Oligohippus (the next step in the so called chain) a finely graduated chain? Where are the stages showing the development of those new bone structures? They just suddenly appear in one step. What does the term "finely graduated" mean to you exactly? Again why do most honest paleontologists admit that no such finely graduated chains exist?

 

[BradB]

No problem, let's try one at a time.

Brad says....

Ground surface prints which have been fossilized, are common in all of the strata layers. Features like ripple patterns, animal tracks and rain drop impressions. Under usual conditions these features are quickly destroyed by normal erosion and life. In order for these types of impressions to be preserved, the next sediment layer must be laid down very fast, and the next layer, and the next, and so forth.

.....................................

This is not evidence of a global flood, in fact, trace fossil are more likely to be eroded by moving water. I'm not saying they rule out a global flood by the way, but their formation can be explained without the need to invoke one. Besides even if some trace fossils were formed during flooding it's still not evidence for a global flood, floods are fairly common.

The fossils to which I am referring are found abundantly across and at the surface of each layer that is said to be separated by great amounts of time. I can accept that perhaps rain drop prints and animal tracks could have been formed and preserved temporarily by drying mud. However to claim they would be preserved for hundreds of thousands of years while the next layer is being deposited... I find this notion impossible. The abundance of such preserved fossils at the surface between each layer implies that the layer was laid down, the animals and heavy rain left the tracks and then another layer was laid over it quite fast. Does it prove there was a world wide global flood? No of course not. It just shows that most of the observed strata layers must have been laid quickly in during wet conditions. (Like you would expect to observe if there had been a world wide global flood.)

 

[BradB]

My opinion on evolution has no bearing on the age of the Earth which is confirmed by multiple, independent lines of evidence.

(Please spare me a lengthy response about how in 1823 someone got the age of the Earth wrong.)

Okay I wouldn't want to give you any lengthy response you were not asking for.

Let me just ask a couple of questions if you please. At the moons current drift rate of 1.5 inches a year that means that it was only about 750 feet closer around 6000 years ago. How much closer at the same rate of drift was it during the assumed life time of T-Rex?

As the earth's current magnetic field is known to have decreased by over 7% since 1835, giving it a half life of 1400 years, how strong would that make the magnetic field around the time of T-Rex? (note: I am not talking about the polar shift, but rather the overall strength of the field)

I have many more I'll save, but one final thought... if you were exploring a sunken ship and found a chest of old coins dating from the oldest being 1762 to the youngest being 1945, then what is earliest possible date the ship could have sank?

 

[DavidFirth]

How do you call the dramatic differences between the bone structure of Eohippus and Oligohippus (the next step in the so called chain) a finely graduated chain? Where are the stages showing the development of those new bone structures? They just suddenly appear in one step. What does the term "finely graduated" mean to you exactly? Again why do most honest paleontologists admit that no such finely graduated chains exist?

Preach on, brother, preach on!

 

[bhsmte]

I would take it as a compliment if I were you. In these discussions the plagiarism card always gets thrown on the table when you've made an excellent case and they have no reply. Its a distraction move and nothing more.

And, what was this excellent case that was made?

 

[bhsmte]

Preach on, brother, preach on!

It is preaching, i would agree.

 

[BradB]

And, what was this excellent case that was made?

That the parade of so called progressive human skulls do not demonstrate what is claimed. Not even close.

 

[bhsmte]

That the parade of so called progressive human skulls do not demonstrate what is claimed. Not even close.

And what scientific evidence did you present, to support this claim?

 

[USincognito]

And your background such that you were able to determine that Barnhart was correct in his assessment?

I'd just note the source is from an ICR tract so I'm not putting much hope in the original source saying what is claimed. The same goes for his citation of Marsh from 1892.

 

[kwame1]

the best ANSWER: ask your friend to evolve into a feathered creature........
why has evolution stopped?
give credit to the mastermind behind these marvelous creation.....

look at how your intestines are arranged and operate...so evolution is so sensible..then evolution = God
simple