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

[Brightmoon]

I think they set themselves up for that too. I’ve heard that they believe it’s all true or it’s all trash . I’d never even heard that expression until I first spoke to a YEC . And I didn’t even know creationists existed until I was long out of college.

 

[juvenissun]

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

You agreed with what I said? Do you know what does a "trend" of fossil changes mean to the theory of evolution?

 

[Brightmoon]

Juvie just because you indulge in Orwellian newspeak doesn’t mean that we don’t see right through you . Changing the meanings of words like creationists do doesn’t mean that those definitions are accepted

 

[Jjmcubbin]

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.

I feel that scientists would've figured it out by now that their number one evidence for supporting evolution, the fossil record, isn't evidence for evolution at all!



Talk about logic!

 

[Shemjaza]

I feel that scientists would've figured it out by now that their number one evidence for supporting evolution, the fossil record, isn't evidence for evolution at all!



Talk about logic!

Talk is cheap. Explain why it isn't evidence.

There are transitional fossils that line up with genetic relatedness of modern animals. Igneous rock layers give us radiometric dating that lines up with the fossils in the sedimentary layers.

EDIT: Sorry! I misread that as a serious critique of evolution.

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

Demonstrably false.

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia

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

Evolution of whales

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

Demonstrably false. See above.

Again, not one evidence has been found.

Demonstrably false. See above.

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.

How does the fossil record "prove" that? If what you say about the lack of sequences is true, which it isn't, what positive evidence is there that life forms were spontaneously created? What would falsify such a proposal?

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

Demonstrably false.

This is called no foundation for Evolution.

No, it's called either the lies of the creationist who should know better or the assertions of the ignorant.

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.

Developed over time? I thought that according to you the fossil record didn't show that that happened, you can't even get your story straight.

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

I'd say that it's time for you to study some paleontology before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

 

[Jimmy D]

Talk is cheap. Explain why it isn't evidence.

There are transitional fossils that line up with genetic relatedness of modern animals. Igneous rock layers give us radiometric dating that lines up with the fossils in the sedimentary layers.

I think you missed his sarcasm there Shemjaza, it was probably too subtle for an Aussie .

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Talk is cheap. Explain why it isn't evidence.

There are transitional fossils that line up with genetic relatedness of modern animals. Igneous rock layers give us radiometric dating that lines up with the fossils in the sedimentary layers.

That was sarcastic. I meant to point out, that if what the OP said was true, then the greatest minds of today (scientists) are wrong and the OP, without any evidence, is correct. Of course, that is stupid, which was my point. I again forgot not to use sarcasm on the internet.

 

[Shemjaza]

I think you missed his sarcasm there Shemjaza, it was probably too subtle for an Aussie .

Clearly my brain was turned off while I responded.

I think this place has damaged my ability to perceive sarcasm.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You do that first.

The statement has been retracted. Now will you answer my question?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Gratz, you manage to make a ridiculous mistake in the first sentence.
Although, honestly, I doubt it's a mistake. I think you know that what you said, simply is not true.

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

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

It is rather time for you, to stop bearing false witness.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is a forum about creation and evolution. I make a post which says: fossils do not support evolution. What is wrong with that? Why is it not adequate? Why must I give any explanation to that?

You make a claim, you demonstrate said claim.

 

[DogmaHunter]

For the moment, yes.
But it is not settled at all.

Actually, in reality, this discussion has been settled since more then a century already.

May be I will come back to haunt you for what you said.

Don't forget to actually learn some biology, before you try.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Creationists are unable to understand the science.

I disagree. I think they are very able. They almost certainly have the mental capacity and intellect to understand the science.

It's just that they don't want to.

 

[juvenissun]

The statement has been retracted. Now will you answer my question?

You are right. Human was not there at that time according to the TE.
So, why bother with human? Why not save dinosaurs?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are right. Human was not there at that time according to the TE.
So, why bother with human? Why not save dinosaurs?

Why though? Jesus was born of man, not born of... Maiasaura.

 

[juvenissun]

Why though? Jesus was born of man, not born of... Maiasaura.

Why not? Why not a Jesus for dinosaur? Since there was no man and there was no insurance that human would appear.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why not? Why not a Jesus for dinosaur? Since there was no man and there was no insurance that human would appear.

... I'm going to say this first: I cannot believe that I'm having this conversation, with anyone.
And secondly, because what would be the point? Granted, seeing dinosaurs in heaven would be cool, but since Jesus was the son of God, do you not think that God would have looked at the Earth and gone; "Yeah, this might be a bit too dangerous for him."

 

[majj27]

Why not? Why not a Jesus for dinosaur? Since there was no man and there was no insurance that human would appear.

Are you *certain* Dino-Jesus didn't exist? Sure he did! Unfortunately, due to a lack of opposable thumbs, their Testimony was oral in nature and died off with them.

Dino-Jesus' name, by the way, was "Phil".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why not? Why not a Jesus for dinosaur? Since there was no man and there was no insurance that human would appear.

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

Why not, ey?