The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[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.
I don't care.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, you may choose: Go away.
I don't care.

If you didn't care, why even bother typing anything on this thread?

 

[Shemjaza]

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.

They do share DNA but their underlying bone structure and reproduction system are less similar then the mouse is to the whale.

The whale has live young, breathes air, produces milk, has a placenta... just like the mouse.

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.

DNA tests are also used for more distant relatives, and they can show if a child is likely the cousin or maternal or paternal descendants.

It’s the same system, it looks at DNA and compares how similar and what possible families can be structured.

Why wouldn’t it work?

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.

This is a poor analogy.

You are characterising scientific research as “guessing” and assuming the “text message” is both reliable and varied. Science is based on repeatable tests, not blind adherence to faith statements or guesswork.

When I said line up, i meant that the different overlapping versions of radiometric dating and chronologies from tree rings and fossils.

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.

Yes, they are tools to learn, and multiple scientists can use them to learn. They don’t work if you ignore the conclusions because you don’t like the results.

 

[Brightmoon]

Shrews are related to moles and hedgehogs . They aren’t Rodentia despite the fact that they superficially resemble them.
When I picked Archaeopteryx,I chose it precisely because almost the complete skeleton is there . So your claim of forcing old bones together is a little silly handwave on your part. As usual, scientists have the evidence and creationists dismiss it because it doesn’t agree with their unverified religious beliefs.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If you didn't care, why even bother typing anything on this thread?

It's the same old story - make stupid unsupportable claims, blame everyone else for not understanding them, then clam up and ignore the follow-ups. Rinse and repeat.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

. <dp>

 

[Shemjaza]

Shrews are related to moles and hedgehogs . They aren’t Rodentia despite the fact that they superficially resemble them.
When I picked Archaeopteryx,I chose it precisely because almost the complete skeleton is there . So your claim of forcing old bones together is a little silly handwave on your part. As usual, scientists have the evidence and creationists dismiss it because it doesn’t agree with their unverified religious beliefs.

The critter I posted was actually an Antechinus, so considerably more distantly related then shrews.

 

[juvenissun]

If you didn't care, why even bother typing anything on this thread?

to bother you.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

to bother you.

EDIT: Statement has been retracted.

 

[tas8831]

... so you admit that you're doing this JUST to be a troll?

I believe that is against forum rules...

 

[Brightmoon]

A mouse is a lot more closely related to a whale than to a marsupial “shrew”. I was wondering why you’d picked a shrew. Wrong shrew. ( this is why scientists hate common names)

 

[Brightmoon]

Double post

 

[Brightmoon]

Not again

 

[juvenissun]

It's the same old story - make stupid unsupportable claims, blame everyone else for not understanding them, then clam up and ignore the follow-ups. Rinse and repeat.

I tell people what I know related to the issue raised in the OP. This is what you called to "make a claim".
Accept it or not is your business, not mine. I have no obligation to explain anything to anyone here. If you like to question/discuss, I am always here to fully answer what you questioned. If you still don't understand and don't want to ask any more question, then you can go. I accomplished what I originally want to do: tell you what I know.

I do this for two reasons: 1. love myself; 2. love you. I don't care if you accept what I said or not. And I don't care if you want to understand it or not.

 

[Brightmoon]

You haven’t supported any of your ideas, though . We “ evolutionists “ asked you for verifiable evidence,not love

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[stevevw]

And that's a bad thing how?

When you use the term that believers say “I got this Book here and I believe everything in it - even the stupid stuff.” Scientists can’t do that" you are comparing apples and oranges and being naieve. Scientists can do that. You are confusing the topic of science with the humans behind it.

The bible is not a scientific book and is not measured that way so that is a fruitless exercise. Creationists are not the only ones who believe in what you say is stupid stuff. The core of all faith is the resurrection of Christ and his life and miracles. Science would also say this is non-verifiable yet millions upon millions of people believe this, many who are supporters of evolution, scientists and intelligent coherent people, some in the past founded our greatest theories, are they all stupid ?.

My point was that there is also a worldview about science where people believe just about whatever is claimed is right without question which also requires faith. The claim that just because it is science that it can never be influenced by humans who have a tendency to believe in things without verification is naive. The subject of science itself may seek the truth and only stand if verified and therefore things need to be questioned is correct. But those behind it do not always act that way and in fact, there is a dominant worldview that can permeate our teaching institutions that promotes a certain world views that is just as much indoctrinated as religion.

So yes it is good to keep on searching for verification but I think even more prominent is that the humans behind science are basing scientific discoveries on faith in a world view and using that as a way to support their atheism. They have a blinkered view that there can only be certain outcomes that can be predicted which affects their predictions and that is why they get it so wrong so often.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

When you use the term that believers say “I got this Book here and I believe everything in it - even the stupid stuff.” Scientists can’t do that" you are comparing apples and oranges and being naieve. Scientists can do that. You are confusing the topic of science with the humans behind it.

The bible is not a scientific book and is not measured that way so that is a fruitless exercise. Creationists are not the only ones who believe in what you say is stupid stuff. The core of all faith is the resurrection of Christ and his life and miracles. Science would also say this is non-verifiable yet millions upon millions of people believe this, many who are supporters of evolution, scientists and intelligent coherent people, some in the past founded our greatest theories, are they all stupid ?.

My point was that there is also a worldview about science where people believe just about whatever is claimed is right without question which also requires faith. The claim that just because it is science that it can never be influenced by humans who have a tendency to believe in things without verification is naive. The subject of science itself may seek the truth and only stand if verified and therefore things need to be questioned is correct. But those behind it do not always act that way and in fact, there is a dominant worldview that can permeate our teaching institutions that promotes a certain world views that is just as much indoctrinated as religion.

So yes it is good to keep on searching for verification but I think even more prominent is that the humans behind science are basing scientific discoveries on faith in a world view and using that as a way to support their atheism. They have a blinkered view that there can only be certain outcomes that can be predicted which affects their predictions and that is why they get it so wrong so often.

But in your original post, the one I responded to, you made it sound like science proving itself wrong was a bad thing.

 

[stevevw]

....

You really really dont understand the basics of science.

This is the blinkered world view I talk about. The assumption that when someone makes a statemnet that questions something behind science that they must not understand.

 

[stevevw]

....

You really really dont understand the basics of science.

This is the blinkered world view I talk about. The assumption that when someone makes a statemnet that questions something behind science that they must not understand.

 

[VirOptimus]

This is the blinkered world view I talk about. The assumption that when someone makes a statemnet that questions something behind science that they must not understand.

No, thats because your post was ignorant nonsense.

 

[Paul Porter]

One worldwide evidence in the sedimentary rock record is how fossil lifeforms show mature Speciation, and zero fossils that disproves Speciation.

In the fossil record, out of billions of fossils unearthed, is zero transitional fossils. Zero fossils that by morphological change prove evolution - evidence of one lifeform changing into another higher lifeform.

There is zero fossils that show life morphologically changed on Earth in sedimentary environments which show the Grand Picture of evolution of life from simple to complex.

All a paleontologist has is the observable evidence in the sedimentary rock layers srarted as the most simplest life and through time fossils that become more and more biologically complex over time and depositional history.

In Creating the Earth, God could have used geologic time to first Create simple life to exist and as geologic time progressed at select times Create more complex Species of life. And incresed the the complexity of each Species over geologic time, displaying an Earth with a fossil record we observe today - zero transitional fossils.

By scientific evidence the fossil record proves Speciations over time.

Get use to it, and start the change that Speciations was produced over time.

In another view, when Earth was Created it showed a natural history of Speciation of life over time, as He would have done if He chose geologic time and natural processes to develop the Mature Earth we now see. A Creation with an Apparent-Mature Age.

I have no idea what 'mature speciation' means in a scientific context? Evoklution is no longer debated in science, it has become the central unifying theory for every other scientific discipline, biological sciences in particular. Evolution is fact and beyond reasonable doubt.
Speciation occurs when two related organisms can no longer interbreed successfuly. The genetic differences between them may not even be superficially apparent, but successive mutations have caused successive traits to accumulate which cause them to branch off as distinct species. Once again this is an observed fact and the transitional fossils which you deny, have been found in abundance. I would post links to support that observed fact, but you aren't interested in facts.
Your post amounts to a pile of assumptions which are pseudoscientific guesswork. Before you can hypothesise on reading the mind of your fictional creator, you must first establish without doubt that such a creator actually exists. So until you (for the first time) produce credible evidence for this creator then you have nothing of scientific value to offer this debate. Your superstitious beliefs are not evidence.