The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Do you think a rock has a god behind it or in it? A rock god.
Why not?

Because it's an inanimate object! It's a rock!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Do you think a rock has a god behind it or in it? A rock god.
Why not?

Don't know about a rock, but rock in general has rock gods behind it - such as Ozzy Osborne, Jon Bon Jovi, Jimi Hendrix, etc.

Makes more sense than your ideas about life...

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Do you think a rock has a god behind it or in it? A rock god.
Why not?

I actually think that every piece of pizza has a God in it. Rocks, not so much.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Do you think a rock has a god behind it or in it? A rock god.
Why not?

I actually think that every piece of pizza has a God in it. Rocks, not so much.

 

[Kylie]

I told you that rock is alive, just like I told you there is God.
I know why, but you do not. You may accept it, or you don't.
Who's business is that? Certainly not mine.

Any fool can make a claim. You have yet to support that claim. If you can't support that claim, then you really have no business trying to have a rational conversation about it.

 

[Kylie]

I told you that rock is alive, just like I told you there is God.
I know why, but you do not. You may accept it, or you don't.
Who's business is that? Certainly not mine.

Any fool can make a claim. You have yet to support that claim. If you can't support that claim, then you really have no business trying to have a rational conversation about it.

 

[juvenissun]

I actually think that every piece of pizza has a God in it. Rocks, not so much.

Are you a Hindu? Why not Hinduism have a rock god? If you look at a rock, it is awesome. It is alive. It can tell fantastic stories and teach fantastic philosophy.

 

[juvenissun]

Any fool can make a claim. You have yet to support that claim. If you can't support that claim, then you really have no business trying to have a rational conversation about it.

You try to make a claim to me. See who's business is it after that. It is not yours. See?

 

[Brightmoon]

Creationists basically say, “I got this Book here and I believe everything in it - even the stupid stuff.” Scientists can’t do that . If we make a claim or prediction we have to show how we got the answer. For example, Darwin predicted that we’d find ape-man fossils and we found them long after he’d died. We’re still finding them 150 years later. He also predicted that we’d probably find transitionals . Archaeopteryx is a good example; it really is a dino-bird . It has traits of both birds and theropod dinosaurs. (Probably - only because fossilisation is a rare process)

 

[Innerfire89]

Creationists basically say, “I got this Book here and I believe everything in it - even the stupid stuff.” Scientists can’t do that . If we make a claim or prediction we have to show how we got the answer. For example, Darwin predicted that we’d find ape-man fossils and we found them long after he’d died. We’re still finding them 150 years later. He also predicted that we’d probably find transitionals . Archaeopteryx is a good example; it really is a dino-bird . It has traits of both birds and theropod dinosaurs. (Probably - only because fossilisation is a rare process)

Old fragments of bone forced together to make imagination come true. Lol.

 

[Shemjaza]

Old fragments of bone forced together to make imagination come true. Lol.

Plenty of almost complete near skeletons, that line up with the genetic patterns found in living animals.

My personal favourite is Tiktaalik roseae, a fossil found because they predicted in advance where and when such a transitional should be found and searched sedimentary rocks of the right age.

 

[Innerfire89]

Plenty of almost complete near skeletons, that line up with the genetic patterns found in living animals.

My personal favourite is Tiktaalik roseae, a fossil found because they predicted in advance where and when such a transitional should be found and searched sedimentary rocks of the right age.

Having similar genetics is not evidence of transition from fossils to living animals, as much as the the similarities between human and mosquito aren't evidence that humans evolved from mosquito.

They found what they found and pressed it into their theory. They date the age of the rocks by their narrative, it's what they do with all evidence, view it through thier own interpretive lense, then thow in theory that were supposed to just accept it as what accutly happened.

 

[Shemjaza]

Having similar genetics is evidence of transition from fossils to living animals, as much as the the similarities between human and mosquito aren't evidence that humans evolved from mosquito.

It's the pattern of similarities, not the mere fact that there are similarities.

Apes are humans are of a similar shape, so having similar genes due to a common designer might seem convincing, but it is insufficient to explain the pattern of similarities. It's not just the functional genes that are similar and form the pattern of a family tree, it's the non functional genes and effectively genetic scars that are also more similar the more closely related.

Why would a common designer make this creature:

have more in common genetically with this creature:

then it does with this creature:



The technology that identifies how closely related species of animals are is the same technology that identifies paternity and criminals by DNA evidence. Do you think that is also just made up?

They found what they found and pressed it into their theory. They date the age of the rocks by their narrative, it's what they do with all evidence, it's what they do with all evidence, view it through thier own interpretive lense, then thow in theory that were supposed to just accept it as what accutly happened.

That is not true.

There are multiple lines of evidence backing up radiometric dating. Is you assertion that the different time scales of decaying elements just happen to line up by coincidence? That time lines of common sediments also happen to line up?

How much of physics and geology do you think is just guesswork or conspiracy? Also, why is it so effective at mining and construction if it isn't true?

 

[Innerfire89]

It's the pattern of similarities, not the mere fact that there are similarities.

Apes are humans are of a similar shape, so having similar genes due to a common designer might seem convincing, but it is insufficient to explain the pattern of similarities. It's not just the functional genes that are similar and form the pattern of a family tree, it's the non functional genes and effectively genetic scars that are also more similar the more closely related.

Why would a common designer make this creature:

have more in common genetically with this creature:

then it does with this creature:



The technology that identifies how closely related species of animals are is the same technology that identifies paternity and criminals by DNA evidence. Do you think that is also just made up?

That is not true.

There are multiple lines of evidence backing up radiometric dating. Is you assertion that the different time scales of decaying elements just happen to line up by coincidence? That time lines of common sediments also happen to line up?

How much of physics and geology do you think is just guesswork or conspiracy? Also, why is it so effective at mining and construction if it isn't true?

But shouldn't the rat and the shrew have similar DNA if they share an ancestor? It doesn't make sense to link a rat and a whale together at all by any of the evidence we have available, unless linked together by having the same creator.

Paternity test are pretty narrowed down already, just test whoever the mother slept with. That's pretty much saying becuse the method is accurate for one use it's accurate for every use.

Line up with what? The principals are very simple, an example, someone puts a cup under a facet and fills it, one will guess it took a few seconds to fill the cup, the other has got a text message saying it took two hours, they're both viewing the cup full of water, ones guessing, the other trusting the message.

I don't think scientific studies in and of themselves are anything but tools to learn. I certainly think all scientist are biased in viewing evidence in some decree.

 

[Kylie]

You try to make a claim to me. See who's business is it after that. It is not yours. See?

What in the world are you trying to say?

It seems all you are doing is avoiding the issue.

You've made the claim that rocks are alive, yet refused to provide ANYTHING to back up your claim. Until you can manage to do that, it's just wasting my time.

 

[stevevw]

Creationists basically say, “I got this Book here and I believe everything in it - even the stupid stuff.” Scientists can’t do that . If we make a claim or prediction we have to show how we got the answer. For example, Darwin predicted that we’d find ape-man fossils and we found them long after he’d died. We’re still finding them 150 years later. He also predicted that we’d probably find transitionals . Archaeopteryx is a good example; it really is a dino-bird . It has traits of both birds and theropod dinosaurs. (Probably - only because fossilisation is a rare process)

Thats apart from the 1000's of predictions science has made that are wrong, ie the universe is slowing since the big bang becuase thats what happens from expansion with naturaltic reasoning but was wrong. Or a static universe becuase of the counter force of gravity according to the prediction but that was wrong so hense dark matter was invented to counter the results when in fact it was found to be speeding up. So they had to come up with another explanation in dark energy. This will probably be wrong and then they will have to come up with another idea and so on.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thats apart from the 1000's of predictions science has made that are wrong, ie the universe is slowing since the big bang becuase thats what happens from expansion with naturaltic reasoning but was wrong. Or a static universe becuase of the counter force of gravity according to the prediction but that was wrong so hense dark matter was invented to counter the results when in fact it was found to be speeding up. So they had to come up with another explanation in dark energy. This will probably be wrong and then they will have to come up with another idea and so on.

And that's a bad thing how?

 

[VirOptimus]

Thats apart from the 1000's of predictions science has made that are wrong, ie the universe is slowing since the big bang becuase thats what happens from expansion with naturaltic reasoning but was wrong. Or a static universe becuase of the counter force of gravity according to the prediction but that was wrong so hense dark matter was invented to counter the results when in fact it was found to be speeding up. So they had to come up with another explanation in dark energy. This will probably be wrong and then they will have to come up with another idea and so on.

....

You really really dont understand the basics of science.

 

[VirOptimus]

Thats apart from the 1000's of predictions science has made that are wrong, ie the universe is slowing since the big bang becuase thats what happens from expansion with naturaltic reasoning but was wrong. Or a static universe becuase of the counter force of gravity according to the prediction but that was wrong so hense dark matter was invented to counter the results when in fact it was found to be speeding up. So they had to come up with another explanation in dark energy. This will probably be wrong and then they will have to come up with another idea and so on.

/doublepost/

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thats apart from the 1000's of predictions science has made that are wrong, ie the universe is slowing since the big bang becuase thats what happens from expansion with naturaltic reasoning but was wrong. Or a static universe becuase of the counter force of gravity according to the prediction but that was wrong so hense dark matter was invented to counter the results when in fact it was found to be speeding up. So they had to come up with another explanation in dark energy. This will probably be wrong and then they will have to come up with another idea and so on.

And that's a bad thing how?

 

[juvenissun]

What in the world are you trying to say?

It seems all you are doing is avoiding the issue.

You've made the claim that rocks are alive, yet refused to provide ANYTHING to back up your claim. Until you can manage to do that, it's just wasting my time.

So, you may choose: Go away.