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

[theQuincunx5]

Show me sequences of fossils morphologically changing from one lifeform into another higher lifeform.

You show you do not follow science based on physical evidence.

Why?

 

[theQuincunx5]

I see different animals in this article, not evolution.

By definition they are different animals.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No need for more objective reality, we get enough of that.

Ah, the mantra of escapist fantasy.

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you exclude the science of how there is zero physical evidence for evolution?

You are, of course correct. The only physical evidence we have is from comparative anatomy, gene sequences, geographical distribution of clades, ring species, nested heirarchies, etc. Such a limited basis, with probably fewer than five million research papers and texts on various aspects of evolutionary theory. I can understand why, with this paucity of evidence, you would be reluctant to accept the theory. It's best to be cautious.

As to the rest of your post, it is the same thing you have posted many times. Earlier, in this thread, post#115, I said this:

I suppose you are going to assert that the remarkable (and incidentally, beautiful) increase in complexity and diversity of ammonite sutures over many millions of years is irrelevant, since at the end of it the creatures were still ammonites?

Or will you amaze me by acknowledging the significance of those changes?

Where do you place the dividing line of "another lifeform"? Clearly not at the level of species or genus. What about a different Family? A different Sub-Order, or Order? How about a different Class, or Sub-Class? What's the level of change you would accept as constituting a different lifeform?

Apparently you missed it, as I see no reply from you. (If I missed your reply please direct me to it.) I think your answers would be pertinent to and effective in clarifying your position on evolution. I would welcome a considered response.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not my fault you know nothing about what you rail against.

My comments are purely defensive (it's a thankless job but someone has to do it).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ah, the mantra of escapist fantasy.

Mantra, no.
Fantasy, no.
Escapist, yes.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

My comments are purely defensive (it's a thankless job but someone has to do it).

Your comments aren't defensive in the slightest. They're borderline idiotic.

 

[Jimmy D]

I see different animals in this article, not evolution.

Lol, it wouldn’t be much of a sequence if they were all the same animal would it?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Show me sequences of fossils morphologically changing from one lifeform into another higher lifeform.

Show you again?

And then again and again?

Why wasn't one time enough?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Show you again?

And then again and again?

Why wasn't one time enough?

It's a horrible pattern. Repeats the same lie about there being no fossil evidence for evolution, is shown evidence that he claims doesn't exist, promptly ignore is, repeats the same lie about their being no fossile evidence of evolution...

 

[theQuincunx5]

It's a horrible pattern. Repeats the same lie about there being no fossil evidence for evolution, is shown evidence that he claims doesn't exist, promptly ignore is, repeats the same lie about their being no fossile evidence of evolution...

It is interesting that a poster who claims to be a scientist would be unable to differentiate between data NOT existing and data they simply does not agree with.

Those of us who have worked as scientists and researchers usually learned sometime after our freshman year in undergrad that sometimes data one does not like is still very real. And that's how science is done.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your comments aren't defensive in the slightest. They're borderline idiotic.

I don't think the final verdict is in yet. You guys continue to demonstrate the absurdity of evolution through your research. One fine day the light will come on and you will say, "Nowadaminit." You might want to keep that option open.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't think the final verdict is in yet. You guys continue to demonstrate the absurdity of evolution. One fine day the light will come on and you will say, "Nowadaminit." You might want to keep that option open.

Funny thing is, I can't imagine that day coming anytime soon. And the fact you call the science that you CLEARLY DON'T UNDERSTAND the 'absurdity of evolution' speaks bloody volumes.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Lol, it wouldn’t be much of a sequence if they were all the same animal would it?

You see sequence, I see different animals. So shoot me.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Funny thing is, I can't imagine that day coming anytime soon. And the fact you call the science that you CLEARLY DON'T UNDERSTAND the 'absurdity of evolution' speaks bloody volumes.

Few in this world understand the 'science' of evolution, so I'm in good company.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Few in this world understand the 'science' of evolution, so I'm in good company.

So you admit that you don't understand the science of evolution, but you feel confident enough to say that it's wrong?
Wow. Good luck fitting through a doorway with that ego.

 

[theQuincunx5]

I don't think the final verdict is in yet. You guys continue to demonstrate the absurdity of evolution through your research. One fine day the light will come on and you will say, "Nowadaminit." You might want to keep that option open.

"absurdity of evolution through...research". That line confuses me. What about the people on here who are biologists and geologists by education and training. What are your bona fides to call it "absurdity" when so very few actual scientists consider it absurd?

I get your very valid point that science can say nothing about the supernatural (clearly we differ on who important a point that actually is, but it is manifestly true.) But by the same token when one wishes to make science comport with personal beliefs of the supernatural one has effectively thrown in the towel on discussing a scientific topic.

Think of science as sporting event or a court of law. There are only so many specific actions which are allowed. If we are playing soccer and neither of us is the goalie then neither of us can use our hands. If we are playing baseball then neither of us are allowed to shoot tranquilizer darts at the base runner.

Science does not allow for the reliance on unverifiable concepts in order to decree an hypothesis valid or invalid.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So you admit that you don't understand the science of evolution, but you feel confident enough to say that it's wrong?
Wow. Good luck fitting through a doorway with that ego.

I peruse lots of evolution 'science' pursuant to these discussions. I just don't see this 'evidence' making the point for evolution as I understand it i.e. goo-to-you. Especially since you are unable to explain where the 'goo' came from (pretty complex stuff that goo). You can't just ride in on your evolutionary white horse and take over after incredibly complex life forms have already appeared. Get your own 'dirt'.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I peruse lots of evolution 'science' pursuant to these discussions. I just don't see this 'evidence' making the point for evolution as I understand it (goo to you).

You don't understand it as evidence because A) you have zero scientific knowledge nor a desire to learn what evidence for evolution is, and B) you've also gone into the discussion with the idea already in your mind that evolution cannot be correct.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"absurdity of evolution through...research". That line confuses me. What about the people on here who are biologists and geologists by education and training. What are your bona fides to call it "absurdity" when so very few actual scientists consider it absurd?

I get your very valid point that science can say nothing about the supernatural (clearly we differ on who important a point that actually is, but it is manifestly true.) But by the same token when one wishes to make science comport with personal beliefs of the supernatural one has effectively thrown in the towel on discussing a scientific topic.

Think of science as sporting event or a court of law. There are only so many specific actions which are allowed. If we are playing soccer and neither of us is the goalie then neither of us can use our hands. If we are playing baseball then neither of us are allowed to shoot tranquilizer darts at the base runner.

Science does not allow for the reliance on unverifiable concepts in order to decree an hypothesis valid or invalid.

As I have often stated, I agree that the science is valid. It's the conclusion that I don't accept. A great example is the so-called evolution of the horse. Shown are different animals that resemble each other is some ways. The conclusion that the latest evolve from the former is apparent only to the evolutionist. Others just see different animals that resemble each other in certain ways, which indicates a common design, using common materials, by a common designer.

Evolutionist view creationism as a big Jenga game. If they can pull out the ID block the whole thing will come down.