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

[majj27]

That meteor 65-million years ago that killed them all was actually "judgement day", brought about by Dino-Jesus.

Why not, ey?

Except for the ones that got mysteriously taken up to Heaven. They called it "The Raptor".

 

[tas8831]

I always think the fossil "sequence" is a fatal blow to TE people. They can not answer a simple question: Why didn't the Salvation happen, say, in the Permian time, or in the Cretaceous time?

A much, much better question is 'When are creationists going to offer any actual positive, supporting evidence that Salvation, as you claim it, ever happened?'

 

[ViaCrucis]

I get the feeling that some people want to find a fossil of an organism that is somehow "mid-evolutionizing",

"And here we have a trout turning into a toad"

-CryptoLutheran

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Creationists are unable to understand the science.

You got that right. (Me, trying to understand evolution.)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

That was easy.

Next question?

The top row looks like gorilla skulls. Where were these found and how deep in the earth? How many such skulls exist? How were they dated?

 

[tas8831]

The top row looks like gorilla skulls. Where were these found and how deep in the earth? How many such skulls exist? How were they dated?

This is a gorilla skull:

It looks nothing like the top row of skulls.

Maybe this is why you saw creation in anatomy - you didn't actually study it one bit.

 

[HitchSlap]

You got that right. (Me, trying to understand evolution.)

 

[tas8831]

You got that right. (Me, trying to understand evolution.)

That will happen when you lack the required background knowledge.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The top row looks like gorilla skulls. Where were these found and how deep in the earth? How many such skulls exist? How were they dated?

Dude, have you even looked at a gorilla skull before?

 

[Heissonear]

You make so many grand claims, but you have never once given a single shred of evidence to back up your claims. You do this in every thread you create.

It is quite clear you have not taken paleontology, nor view such texts. There are only presumptions of transitions, no actual physical anatomy sequence in the rock record.

You have never understood nor acknowledged the missing fundamental evidence foundation that is missing to support evolution.

And you want replies to such ignorance?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It is quite clear you have not taken paleontology, nor view such texts. There are only presumptions of transitions, no actual physical anatomy sequence in the rock record.

And so many more learned men and women than you say otherwise.

You have never understood nor acknowledged the missing fundamental evidence foundation that is missing to support evolution.

And what evidence is missing to support evolution?

And you want replies to such ignorance?

Well, people seem to respond to your own ignorance freely...

 

[Heissonear]

Yes there is. What exactly would you expect to see that isn't visible?

Do your own field geology and look hard at the "data" that is presented in Tree of Life diagrams in paleontology texts.

You do not appear to be a trained geologist with experience in what the fossil record shows.

And have thereby missed the gigantic missing evidence that evolution is suppose to be supported by.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It is quite clear you have not taken paleontology, nor view such texts. There are only presumptions of transitions, no actual physical anatomy sequence in the rock record.

I'm not sure what a "physical anatomy sequence" is supposed to be. Do you not think that bones, scales, feathers, skin, etc. are a part of anatomy?

You have never understood nor acknowledged the missing fundamental evidence foundation that is missing to support evolution.

I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that not only is the fossil record incomplete, but that it is impossible for it to be complete. -_- some people, such as yourself, apparently think we'd need an example from every generation for the fossil record to support evolution, and it is fine by me if you want to do that, considering that the fossil record is some of the weakest evidence for evolution. Not that it contradicts it, but rather that genetic evidence and evolution experiments are just so much better in terms of evidence.

And you want replies to such ignorance?

I find it funny that you say that, given your lack of actual content in this post. You pretty much just call a person ignorant and leave it at that.

 

[Heissonear]

That was easy.

Next question?

Rather than Google and copy from other evolution supporting sites, you might want to investigate the content of what you present.

What you present is pollution of supposed facts.

Evolution in the rock record is a story, unsupported by physical lifeform remains.

You should know this if you were educated in paleontology.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Rather than Google and copy from other evolution supporting sites, you might want to investigate the what you presented.

What you present is pollution of supposed facts.

Evolution in the rock record is a story, unsupported by physical lifeform remains.

You should know this if you were educated in paleontology.

Or, how about this crazy idea: instead of simply telling us to look for something we don't know about, how about YOU TELL US what is missing?
How about that idea?

 

[Heissonear]

And so many more learned men and women than you say otherwise.



And what evidence is missing to support evolution?



Well, people seem to respond to your own ignorance freely...

Get educated in paleontology. Got it? Otherwise you may be unkowingly thinking there are real sequences in the rock recored in geographic regions of one lifeform that changes in morphological features into another lifefore.

You seem to have amiss of this glaring fact. Evolution has no fossil record foundation to prevent sequential remains where such actually happened.

 

[Speedwell]

Get educated in paleontology. Got it? Otherwise you may be unkowingly thinking there are real sequences in the rock recored in geographic regions of one lifeform that changes in morphological features into another lifefore.

In fact there are, and references to them are posted in this forum from time to time, but what I would like to know is where you are getting your misinformation from. What are your sources?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Get educated in paleontology. Got it? Otherwise you may be unkowingly thinking there are real sequences in the rock recored in geographic regions of one lifeform that changes in morphological features into another lifefore.

Okay, first off: drop the attitude. You are sounding very rude and condescending in practically every post you make. So cut it out. Be an adult instead of sounding like a petulant teenager.

And secondly: why should I get educated in paleontology when you can simply SHOW US what the evidence is for your claims.

[QUOTE[You seem to have amiss of this glaring fact. Evolution has no fossil record foundation to prevent sequential remains where such actually happened.[/QUOTE]

Except that hundreds of thousands of paleontologists don't support your view and they probably a tonne more credentials than you. So why should I trust some anonymous user on the internet who comes off sounding like a crackpot conspiracy theorist?
And that last sentence makes no sense! How can evolution 'prevent sequential remains'? That phrase makes no sense no matter how I read it.

 

[Heissonear]

Many debaters are fossil record ignorant.

Evolution is nissing its prime supportive evidence.

And posters are chiming in like such is not true.

And blind to how the whole stratigraphic column supports how God whould have Created life and how the physical remains support Kinds over historic time. No transitional fossils. Zero, as the billions of found and inspected fossils prove.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Many debaters are fossil record ignorant.

Evolution is nissing its prime supportive evidence.

And posters are chiming in like such is not true.

And blind to how the whole stratigraphic column supports how God whould have Created life and how the physical remains support Kinds over historic time. No transitional fossils. Zero, as the billions of found and inspected fossils prove.

A (few) transitional fossils.
You act as though people can't look up information online.