The Fossil Record- As God Would Have Made It Through Time

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The fossil record proves how God Created Kinds, with no evolution. Zero lifeforms evolving morphologically into another lifeform over time in the fossil record. Just as God would have made the fossil record, per Genesis One. 100% evidence supporting Genesis One Kinds with no evolution in sight or needed.

Again: why are you lying?

 

[Heissonear]

Why are you lying?

Go get a paleontology text and then show me the fossil record of evolution. Or the pose of such happening.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Go get a paleontology text and then show me the fossil record of evolution. Or the pose of such happening.

Fossil Evidence

Or if that's too complex for you, have something at the high school level: GCSE Bitesize: Evidence for evolution - fossils

You say that you've studied paleontology and geology, but if you respond and say that these aren't evidence for evolution, then I know that everything you have said has been a lie.

 

[theQuincunx5]

Are you unwilling to face the glaring fact that out of billions of fossils there are no sequence of fossils unearthed showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time?

No, what you are taking part in here is a little parlor game.

One could show the fossils between ambulocetus and whale and you'd demand mid-points between each of the points.

You will complain that there is no mid-point between Dorudon and Balaena, or that there is no mid point between Diacodexis and Pakicetus etc.


Or if were to show Tiktaalik in context:

You will no doubt complain that there is no mid-point between Tiktaalik and Acanthostega and so on and so forth.

It is a simple game and really does no service to any larger point.

Are you unwilling to face this face?

Nope. But then I did have a paleontology class in undergrad so....

 

[Heissonear]

Again: why are you lying?

Not one sequence showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another lifeform over time.

Show me any such physical proof from a paleontology text.

 

[Heissonear]

No, what you are taking part in here is a little parlor game.

One could show the fossils between ambulocetus and whale and you'd demand mid-points between each of the points.

You will complain that there is no mid-point between Dorudon and Balaena, or that there is no mid point between Diacodexis and Pakicetus etc.


Or if were to show Tiktaalik in context:

You will no doubt complain that there is no mid-point between Tiktaalik and Acanthostega and so on and so forth.

It is a simple game and really does no service to any larger point.




Nope. But then I did have a paleontology class in undergrad so....

You are showing cartoons. Cartoons with speculation.

And where is the biological natural processes and pathways for what you showed?

Hind feet that do not work? But still magically have a biological pathway to "grow"?

Do you understand the spectrum of "back feet mutations" to anatomically reach even the fitst sign of "feet". And you are telling me all those mutations happened with no neccessity or utility, they just happened because feet are needed from fish?

Who are you? And what disinformation are you proposing?

Again, without aligned cartoon pictures - find actually unearthed physical remains in staratigraphic sequence of such morphological change to a fish.

 

[Heissonear]

The posts supporting physical evolution is porous of facts, and linked to speculation.

The first stage of feet growing inside a creature over geologic time by thousands if not millions of mutations, a morphological feature that has no present utility? And they keep on mutating "into feet" until finally utility?

Again, who are you? You pose truck loads of speculations of thousands of mutations of no utility but still on a - natural process pathway - to more lifeform complexity?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It looks like these critters had a common designer. Why reinvent the wheel for each creature. If a limb, vascular, or breathing design works spread it around to many different created creatures. All must live in the same environment, so their functional design must be similar. No need for evolution when the master creator is at work.

 

[Speedwell]

The posts supporting physical evolution is porous of facts, and linked to speculation.

The first stage of feet growing inside a creature over geologic time by thousands if not millions of mutations, a morphological feature that has no present utility? And they keep on mutating "into feet" until finally utility?

Again, who are you? You pose truck loads of speculations of thousands of mutations of no utility but still on a - natural process pathway - to more lifeform complexity?

There are, nor ever were, new morphological features which have no immediate utility. Every step of evolutionary change results in immediate increased fitness.

 

[Heissonear]

You will complain that there is no mid-point between

You will no doubt complain

So this is physical proof in the fossil record - the best to bring forth.

First, they are arranged cartoons. Do you know how many mutations it would take to trend from just one pair of cartoon figures? And you say natural processes existed for this paired sequence? Thousands of mutations occurred without no increased functionality in transition?

Such is speculation. I faced it when in college taking geologic coursework. In cousework you get firsthand information of the "proof of evolution." What exist is zero evidence of one lifeform anatomically changing into another lifeform over time.

 

[Heissonear]

Debaters who are bias to evolution have a hard time facing the reality the fossil record presents - no physical evidence of evolution. Zero.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Debaters who are bias to evolution have a hard time facing the reality the fossil record presents - no physical evidence of evolution. Zero.

Have you looked at the links I provided in post #183?

 

[Heissonear]

There are, nor ever were, new morphological features which have no immediate utility. Every step of evolutionary change results in immediate increased fitness.

I meet a believer of evolution. Where mutations by the thousands change creatures such as fish to have legs.

Where is your physical proof of the sequence of mutations in the strata: where is the unearthed remains to show physical proof of your claim?

Let's see the fossils, not cartoons. And the entire sequence showing morphological changes along the mutation process.

Are you starting to realize there is no physical evidence for evolution? Not one example?

Is it a debate or Reality you present?

 

[Heissonear]

Have you looked at the links I provided in post #183?

Show me in a paleontology text, Ward.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Show me in a paleontology text, Ward.

Let Me Google That For You
Click the link and I'm sure that you'll find what you're looking for.

 

[theQuincunx5]

So this is physical proof in the fossil record - the best to bring forth.

First, they are arranged cartoons.

I am sorry but I am unable to present physical fossils online.

Do you know how many mutations it would take to trend from just one pair of cartoon figures? And you say natural processes existed for this paired sequence? Thousands of mutations occurred without no increased functionality in transition?

Well, let us further wonder why God would decide to make several animals sequentially throughtout geologic time which appear transitional. Why? But remember there aren't NUMEROUS creation events....ONLY ONE in the Bible. Yet these animals don't all exist at the same time! Why is that?

Such is speculation. I faced it when in college taking geologic coursework. In cousework you get firsthand information of the "proof of evolution." What exist is zero evidence of one lifeform anatomically changing into another lifeform over time.

You too? I did too! Only it "took" for me! Maybe because the science seemed to be pretty straightforward and it didn't run afoul of my religious beliefs. I'm sure that if I had to make the data square with religious beliefs it would have been more difficult. Because clearly the religious beliefs cannot be wrong, so it becomes easier to throw out the data if it runs up against religion.

 

[theQuincunx5]

Debaters who are bias to evolution have a hard time facing the reality the fossil record presents - no physical evidence of evolution. Zero.

Don't forget that some debaters also carry the burden of graduate geology degree, too! That sometimes stands in the way of better accepting Creationism. If only there was a way for them to get rid of that.

 

[theQuincunx5]

Who are you? And what disinformation are you proposing?

I am that I am! Tell them that I am has arrived...no wait, sorry, still having flashbacks from The 10 Commandments...

No, I am theQuincunx5. I have a BS, MS and PhD in geology. Sorry I didn't introduce myself.

Who are you?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, let us further wonder why God would decide to make several animals sequentially throughtout geologic time which appear transitional. Why? But remember there aren't NUMEROUS creation events....ONLY ONE in the Bible. Yet these animals don't all exist at the same time! Why is that?

The bible isn't too concerned with the first billion or so years of life on earth. Actually two creation events are suggested: the original creation of Genesis 1:1, and the following ruin/restoration event described thereafter. There may have been yet another after the flood. The geologic record reveals a series of ruin/restoration events, each featuring 'new and improved 'creatures that appeared rather suddenly.

 

[Jimmy D]

In the OP, there is reference to zero fossil sequences of one lifeform morpholigically changing step by step into another lifeform.

Zero means zero.

The fossil record does not show evolution ever happened. The very physical evidence to prove evolution scientifically does not exist.

The fossil record then proves there is not a biological process of natural factors and conditions that show one lesser lifeform changes through such referred natural and biological processes into a new lifeform morphologically distinct and adapted to its natural surroundings.

Zero natural process exist for evolution.

The position of evolutionists is now like stating nature evolves mopeds into Harley's, VW's into Porsche's, lawnmowere into farm tractors, pickup trucks into semi's. The list goes on. There are no natural processes nor pathways of "equipment evolving".

The same is true with lifeforms past and present - no natural processes nor pathways of "complex lifeforms evolving."

Now tell us again how a Chevy evolves into a Mercedes. You know, a process where over time into a more complex higher equipment-form.

Why are you responding to that post? It was aimed at xianghua, not you.

I’ve made two posts to you, both ignored, containing evidence contrary to your weird claims, you could try addressing those.

In response to what you’ve written above, is the manufacture and development of vehicles analogous to biological reproduction with variation?

No it isn’t and only someone with no understanding of either would suggest it is... or a troll.... or an idiot.