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

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

Gorillas didn't evolve?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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

A gorilla skull. What happened to all of the gorilla skulls that show their evolution?

 

[Snappy1]

Words from an a debater.

Again, not one fossil sequence showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another. Got it.

Go to the library and read and apprehend paleontology texts.

According to you, what would a "fossil sequence showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another" look like?

And do you have any particular texts you would reccomend? What specific information should I be looking for?

 

[majj27]

According to you, what would a "fossil sequence showing morphological changes of one lifeform changing into another" look like?

Doesn't matter. No evidence will be acceptable.

 

[Shemjaza]

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?

They really don't look like gorillas.

I'm not going to carefully repost each individual find. But there have been many, many examples of each species found.

If you look at the last two of the first line and first two of the next you can see that there isn't that much change in any individual step.

Add to how's they were dated, as they are recent terrestrial fossils radiometric dating works, but nearby igneous layers can work.

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.

Lie.

Shame.

 

[Jimmy D]

As posted a few posts up, but ignored.

Why did you ignore my post? Can't you respond to evidence that contradicts your nonsense?

I admit it wasn't particularly original, but the examples it showed clearly showed the progression you deny.

 

[tas8831]

Gorillas didn't evolve?

Yes, but you claimed the skulls on the top row of the picture presented to you all looked like gorilla skulls.

They do not.

Your current antics are those of a troll with nothing intelligent or informed to add to the discussion.

As is, sadly, so often the norm with anti-evolution poseurs.

 

[tas8831]

A gorilla skull. What happened to all of the gorilla skulls that show their evolution?

Troll diversions.

Sad.

 

[PsychoSarah]

A gorilla skull. What happened to all of the gorilla skulls that show their evolution?

I've seen creationists ask where the fossils relevant to the evolution of other apes are, as if the fact that there are fewer of them somehow invalidates the fossils relevant to human evolution.
1. Paleontologists just don't have as much interest in finding the transitional fossils for gorillas as they do humans, especially not ones which aren't relevant to when our lineage split from theirs.
2. Human ancestors and gorilla ancestors lived in very different environments. The former had conditions that were absolutely excellent for fossilization, and the latter had conditions outright terrible for it. There are other modern organisms which have very complete fossil records, such as horses, as well as ones that have extremely incomplete fossil records, such as bats. To act as if all fossil records should be equally complete for each organism is to ignore processes by which fossils form and remain intact entirely.
3. There are some fossils relevant to gorillas; here's an example: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LAUt8cVepNQ/VsNEiqzFziI/AAAAAAABj40/X7m9pwHAUgI/s1600/Gorilla_03.jpg
4. Your attempt to distract from the fact that you claimed skulls that are very distinct from gorilla skulls looked like gorilla skulls is ineffective. Admit your mistake rather than to distract from it. If I don't see this part acknowledged in your response, I'm not going to reply to said response. I am sick of people shifting the conversation without admitting mistakes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Many debaters are fossil record ignorant.

Evolution is nissing its prime supportive evidence.

-_- the fossil record hasn't been the primary evidence for evolution since before I was born. Genetic comparisons are by far better evidence.

And posters are chiming in like such is not true.

As claimed by you, one who presents 0 evidence whatsoever. For example, you took issue with this particular image of skull fossils

But you gave no reason why. Are the fossils fake? Are these incorrect recreations of fossils? Are they positioned out of order? Are they positioned in a way that makes them look more related than other physical positions? There are a lot of logical reasons a person can take issue with fossils, but you don't give your reason at all and instead opt to call people ignorant over and over.

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.

What do you think a transitional fossil would look like?

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[majj27]

What do you think a transitional fossil would look like?

If past experience of these sort of discussions are anything to go on, it may wind up looking sort of like this:

 

[Heissonear]

A gorilla skull. What happened to all of the gorilla skulls that show their evolution?

You know, there are millions of fossils of advanced mammals that the fossil record shows zero sequence of one type of mammal remains going through morphological changes to a structurally different life form.

Zero is zero.

There are none. What exists are scientific guesstimations of the tree of life lifeforms found.

And of the below picture, imagine the many very complex mutations to bring about mental, nerve, blood vessel array, and such to transition one human-like species to another. Incredibly complex and intricate biomoleculer and anatomical mutations.

 

[Heissonear]

Many have belief in evolution and think they are on pure scientific ground, evidence included.

Bot there are zero fossil sequences of one lifeform changing into another lifeform.

Zero is zero.

As a former evolutionist in geology classes I knew this - evolution was a belief - and the only understanding we have as physical beings trying to intelligently grasp and know how life came about, in the field observation details, and scientifically assemble into Historical Geology and Paleontology sciences. But the foundation of evolution was upon belief, not on pure stettle evidence. Such as the Tree of Life diagram - there are different configurations to what paleontologists each assumed and deduced. There have been many arguments between camps of paleontologists. Why? The transition fossil sequences did not exist to show firsthand such anatomical changes in progressive fossil assemblies. Zero. All were assumptions.

Zero evidence of what evolution claims- not one lifeform shown by fossils to change progressively into another lifeform.

Zero.

Evolutionist on forums like to sweep this fact under the bus or just not accept it - change their belief to what the fossil record shows about evolution, that there is zero evidences evolution happened.

Meanwhile, the fossil record show how God would have Created lifeforms and their remains over geologic time.

There was a point in time I investigated what I persecuted - those who believe in the Bible. And God showed up in my openness to learn really what has happened in the physical realm over time, if He is.

 

[Snappy1]

Many have belief in evolution and think they are on pure scientific ground, evidence included.

Bot there are zero fossil sequences of one lifeform changing into another lifeform.

Zero is zero.

As a former evolutionist in geology classes I knew this - evolution was a belief - and the only understanding we have as physical being trying to know how life and fossils came about, in the details we have assembled, such as in Historical Geology and Paleontology sciences. But the foundation of evolution was upon belief, not on pure stettle evidence. Such as the Tree of Life diagram - there are different configurations to what paleontologists each assumed and deduced. There have been many arguments between camps of paleontologists. Why? The transition fossil sequences did not exist to show firsthand such anatomical changes in progressive fossil assemblies. Zero. All were assumptions.

Zero evidence of what evolution claims- not one lifeform shown by fossils to change progressively into another lifeform.

Zero.

Evolutionist on forums like to sweep this fact under the bus or just not accept it - change their belief to what the fossil record shows about evolution, that there is zero evidences evolution happened.

Meanwhile, the fossil record show how God would have Created lifeforms and their remains over geologic time.

There was a point in time I investigated what I persecuted - those who believe in the Bible. And God showed up in my openness to learn really what has happened in the physical realm over time, if He is.

You know people have asked you questions, right?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Many have belief in evolution and think they are on pure scientific ground, evidence included.

Bot there are zero fossil sequences of one lifeform changing into another lifeform.

Zero is zero.

As a former evolutionist in geology classes I knew this - evolution was a belief - and the only understanding we have as physical beings trying to intelligently grasp and know how life came about, in the field observation details, and scientifically assemble into Historical Geology and Paleontology sciences. But the foundation of evolution was upon belief, not on pure stettle evidence. Such as the Tree of Life diagram - there are different configurations to what paleontologists each assumed and deduced. There have been many arguments between camps of paleontologists. Why? The transition fossil sequences did not exist to show firsthand such anatomical changes in progressive fossil assemblies. Zero. All were assumptions.

Zero evidence of what evolution claims- not one lifeform shown by fossils to change progressively into another lifeform.

Zero.

Evolutionist on forums like to sweep this fact under the bus or just not accept it - change their belief to what the fossil record shows about evolution, that there is zero evidences evolution happened.

Meanwhile, the fossil record show how God would have Created lifeforms and their remains over geologic time.

There was a point in time I investigated what I persecuted - those who believe in the Bible. And God showed up in my openness to learn really what has happened in the physical realm over time, if He is.

I have given a link, twice, to a website that shows transitional fossils and yet you keep ignoring it.

 

[USincognito]

It is fact which has given Evolutions a black eye - out of billions of fossils inspected and documented there is not one single sequence/succession that shows Evolution by the fossil record.

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

Again, not one evidence has been found.

What the fossil record does show is how God over time would have made Kinds of lifeforms. The fossil record proves this - since there is not one case of displaying by physical remains of postulated evolution of life forms.

Again, out of billions of fossils not one sequence showing hard physical fact of morphological change of one lifeform changing into another lifeform.

This is called no foundation for Evolution.

The fossil record instead has tantamount evidence in how God would have developed life over time. And their remains we would have physical evidence to display before all.

It is time for bias debaters and believers in Evolution to face up to the obvious. What the fossil record really shows.

lol

 

[USincognito]

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.

It's almost like he's never heard of genetics.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You know, there are millions of fossils of advanced mammals that the fossil record shows zero sequence of one type of mammal remains going through morphological changes to a structurally different life form.

Zero is zero.

There are none. What exists are scientific guesstimations of the tree of life lifeforms found.

And of the below picture, imagine the many very complex mutations to bring about mental, nerve, blood vessel array, and such to transition one human-like species to another. Incredibly complex and intricate biomoleculer and anatomical mutations.

View attachment 225285

That's what I've been saying all along.

Scientists realize the sheer number of impossibly intricate, elaborate, precise, and successful changes that are necessary for even the simplest change to take place in an organism. That's why evolution is presented in giant leaps to the general public. And if questioned we are dazzled with terminology and details that are unfathomable to any except themselves.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

This looks like the far left skull in the top row (without the lower jawbone).

The skull of an adult female gorilla



digicoll.library.wisc.edu
link
Animal SkullsAnimal AnatomyThe SkullsFemale GorillaAnimal DrawingsPrimatesBonesSkullsPrimateForward