The Oldest Animal Ever Found

[David_M]

A correction, a question and a comment.

First the comment. Excellent rhetoric. It could probably fool anyone unaccustomed to critical thinking.
The correction: The coelecanth was thought to be extinct during, or at the end of, the Cretecaeous, not 50,000 years ago.
The question: Given that no fossil coelocanth had been found in strata younger than the Cretaceous and no living examples had been found, why do you think it was a mistake to think it was extinct?
Back up question: do you prefer to rely on supposition rather than confirmed observations?

And to be wholly accurate the Coelecanth fossils found represent species that are extinct because the extant species are different to those in the fossil record (because Coelecanth is not a species name, its a name for a group of species).

 

[AV1611VET]

What will science uncover next!

Raquel Welch from 1,000,000 years B.C.

 

[Job 33:6]

A correction, a question and a comment.

First the comment. Excellent rhetoric. It could probably fool anyone unaccustomed to critical thinking.
The correction: The coelecanth was thought to be extinct during, or at the end of, the Cretecaeous, not 50,000 years ago.
The question: Given that no fossil coelocanth had been found in strata younger than the Cretaceous and no living examples had been found, why do you think it was a mistake to think it was extinct?
Back up question: do you prefer to rely on supposition rather than confirmed observations?

Unfortunately young earthers are incapable of comprehending the fact that fish existing today does not run contrary to the theory of evolution.

As someone said above, ceolacanths of the devonian are morphologically different and more derived (by evolution) than ceolacanths of the Cretaceous. And ceolacanths of the Cretaceous as well are morphologically unique and different than ceolacanths of today.

There are also starfish that are alive today that look a lot like starfish from the cretaceous. But the fact that some species of starfish still exist today, doesn't contradict the theory. Nothing in the theory suggests that all life absolutely must change in large scale ways in geologically short periods of time. In fact, rates of evolution are known to fluctuate based on environmental pressures or a lack thereof.@Justatruthseeker

If evolution mandated that all life change in large scale ways, then no fish should exist in today's time at all

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Why?

Probably they're scared of the truth, and that you might educate them a little.

 

[Brightmoon]

Scared of what ? Creationist Pseudoscience and ignorant rants that have been refuted by verifiable evidence so many times that they illicit eyerolls from the scientifically literate rather than answers !

 

[AV1611VET]

Scared of what?

The Truth, total reality, Biblical history, miracles, cause-and-effect evidence for God ... to name a few.

 

[Job 33:6]

LOL^

 

[Ophiolite]

Or I belive in every word of God and know the earth is not that old.

Feel free to continue to ignore the word of God written in the rocks and in our genes. However, there are two downsides to that approach that you should be aware of: firstly, you are missing a great story; secondly, and what should be of much more importance to you, you are disrespecting your creator by choosing to ignore his works. Good luck with that approach.

Edit: corrected spelling of "importance".

 

[Ophiolite]

If evolution mandated that all life change in large scale ways, then no fish should exist in today's time at all

And we know that all life cannot change in large scale ways, since it is only fish that have large scales*.


*Apart from pharmacists and postal clerks.

 

[Brightmoon]

The Truth, total reality, Biblical history, miracles, cause-and-effect evidence for God ... to name a few.

. None of which you have any evidence for. Not impressed at all !

 

[AV1611VET]

... you are disrespecting your creator by choosing to ignore his works.

Is the Bible one of His works?

 

[AV1611VET]

The Truth, total reality, Biblical history, miracles, cause-and-effect evidence for God ... to name a few.

None of which you have any evidence for.

I just paid His evidence a visit Sunday -- twice.

In fact, we have a faith promise missions conference in progress this week, being held in His evidence building, by a group of His followers.

Would you like to visit His evidence site?

You're more than welcome to come and investigate visit.

 

[Ophiolite]

Is the Bible one of His works?

Perhaps, but less well validated as the direct creation of a deity. We know people can write books. We've not yet seen anyone create a planet with a detailed internal history written in the rocks. I would tend to go with the direct evidence rather than the part that's been corrupted by humans.

 

[Brightmoon]

Is the Bible one of His works?

honestly No ,the Bible is not one of God’s works . It’s been edited , bowdlerised ,had things added and subtracted over the centuries and been mistranslated to boot!

 

[AV1611VET]

honestly No ,the Bible is not one of God’s works . It’s been edited , bowdlerised ,had things added and subtracted over the centuries and been mistranslated to boot!

Assuming that's true -- (which it isn't) -- but assuming that's true:

1. Isn't It your standard of worship?
2. Did Ophiolite's "corrupted by humans, indirect evidence" cause It to become corrupted?
3. Hasn't Ophiolite's "planet with a detailed internal history written in the rocks" also been corrupted by humans?

 

[Strathos]

Is the Bible one of His works?

Yes, but it was never meant to be a science book. Using the Bible to determine the age of the earth or the universe is like using a cookbook to try to find instructions on how to repair your car.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, but it was never meant to be a science book.

Using the Bible like a science book is like using Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

It is, however, God's history book -- written in Blood.

 

[Ophiolite]

3. Hasn't Ophiolite's "planet with a detailed internal history written in the rocks" also been corrupted by humans?

The scientific method allows the corruption to be identified and removed.

****Reader Warning**** Stand by for a routine AV1611VET denigration of science and scientists, "The process and people who brought you thalidomide, the Hindenburg and assorted other evils".

 

[AV1611VET]

I would tend to go with the direct evidence rather than the part that's been corrupted by humans.

The scientific method allows the corruption to be identified and removed.

Every jot and tittle ... right?

 

[Brightmoon]

Assuming that's true -- (which it isn't) -- but assuming that's true:

1. Isn't It your standard of worship?
2. Did Ophiolite's "corrupted by humans, indirect evidence" cause It to become corrupted?
3. Hasn't Ophiolite's "planet with a detailed internal history written in the rocks" also been corrupted by humans?

. - 1No
2 yes if you’re discussing pseudoscience creationist Pseudoscience is usually put forward by corrupt individuals for money!
3 we’ve changed some climate systems,not the underlying physics chemistry biology and geology