Transitional Fossils would not prove we evolved from other species

[Davian]

Why is what important to me?

We're in a spiritual warfare, Confused; and the enemy is marching on holy ground waiving the Darwin banner on a pole of a transitional fossil.

Evolution is a form of voodoo, where their priests don't wear skulls as necklaces; but they do display them just as prominently:

You forgot to use that voodoo 'sword' of yours in that post!

 

[bhsmte]

Debate it is, commit one fallacy, insult, be condescending, pseudo-intellectual, use words beyond my comprehension then do not make definitions layman, be disrespectful, make something not understandable(which is a cheap shot) even after asked to, hide any knowledge, not admit when you are wrong, refuse to demonstrate something when asked to, or any fallacious and disingenuous thing and the debate is over, and you are disqualified.

you have to convince me and prove beyond reasonable doubt that nothing other than common descent can be demonstrated.

So yes, I accept. create the debate.

Do the same rules apply to you?

 

[UncleHermit]

How so? say the required amount of Transitional Fossils is fulfilled(it is not, something for another day/post), we can easily assume that YHWH made all those species... similar, so it appears like an evolve, take Playstation Consoles for Example(just an example, don't commit a fallacy and take the example literal), the PS1, PS2, and PS3 for example,

it all starts from the PS1, but did the PS3 evolve and descend from the PS2 and so forth? No, they were individually designed by human beings, one better and more advanced than the other, likewise,

Apes, Humans, birds, etc, even if there were supposed "Transitional Fossils" that make it appear as if everything slowly evolved, it is not proof, why? because with the same fossils we can theorize, Just as we theorize that they evolved, that they were designed... Similar, some better than the other, and it appears as if they evolved(like the Playstation analogy)

The evolution hypothesis is not required and therefore fossils called "transitional fossils" offer no proof for one species evolving into a new/different species as they could have just been designed this way.

Sure, and this can work for anything. "I don't care how much evidence you have that weather is caused by air pressure and jet streams and stuff, I theorize that that thunderstorm was caused by angry faeries so your hypothesis is not required!"

 

[Loudmouth]

The evolution hypothesis is not required and therefore fossils called "transitional fossils" offer no proof for one species evolving into a new/different species as they could have just been designed this way.

Why do we only find the transitional fossils that evolution predicts we should find?

Why do we never see a mammal to bird transitional?

 

[Loudmouth]

Because of the rocks they're found embedded in ... right?

Because of the ratio of isotopes in the rocks above and below the fossil. How is it that we can not find a T. rex buried above igneous rock that has a ratio of isotopes consistent with just 5 million years of radioactive decay?

 

[Loudmouth]

This assumes life has been around that long,

No such assumption is being made. We can directly date the rocks.

Common Ancestor has been observed?

It is evidenced beyond all reasonable doubt.

Which means it's a possible theory and transitional fossils aren't proof for one species evolving into a new/different species.

It's possible that all forensic evidence for every unwitnessed crime was planted by God as well, and yet we don't see this evidence being thrown out of court.

"obvious conclusion" means faith,

No, it means reasoned conclusions drawn from evidence which is the very opposite of faith.

 

[AV1611VET]

How is it that we can not find a T. rex buried above igneous rock that has a ratio of isotopes consistent with just 5 million years of radioactive decay?

How many T. Rexes have you found over this entire planet? one? two?

And what is the ratio of T. Rexes to igneous rock? 10:100,000,000?

I've lost my marbles before on a playground; and never did find them to this day.

What's that say to you?

 

[Lucy Stulz]

How many T. Rexes have you found over this entire planet? one? two?

Around 30.

But how about all other dinosaurs (excluding birds, of course)? How come NONE of them have been discovered conformably above a marker bed of <65 million years age?

And what is the ratio of T. Rexes to igneous rock? 10:100,000,000?

I think it's about the same ratio as the number of flowers to clouds.

 

[AV1611VET]

Around 30.

But how about all other dinosaurs (excluding birds, of course)? How come NONE of them have been discovered conformably above a marker bed of <65 million years age?



I think it's about the same ratio as the number of flowers to clouds.

Then I think I'll just take your point with a grain of sand.

If you think not finding a T. Rex in igneous rock is some kind of selling point for evolution, then ... well ... I'll just issue my favorite line here:

Keep looking.

 

[Loudmouth]

How many T. Rexes have you found over this entire planet? one? two?

In every case they are below rock of 65 million years old. Why is that?

And what is the ratio of T. Rexes to igneous rock? 10:100,000,000?

That is nothing by blabber. It has nothing to do with the fossil record or how rocks are dated.

I've lost my marbles . . .

I'll say.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then I think I'll just take your point with a grain of sand.

If you think not finding a T. Rex in igneous rock is some kind of selling point for evolution, then ... well ... I'll just issue my favorite line here:

Keep looking.

We are, and the theory of evolution keeps making accurate predictions while all of the evidence contradicts your claims.

 

[AV1611VET]

In every case they are below rock of 65 million years old. Why is that?

Because that's where they were?

You have "around 30" T. Rexes ... all found below deck on a planet the size of the earth -- and you think these 30 are indicative of the entire race?

I found a hub cap in a parking lot once.

Then I found another hub cap in another parking lot.

You know what I concluded?

Hub caps can only be found above the K-T layer.

 

[AV1611VET]

We are, and the theory of evolution keeps making accurate predictions...

Until a coelacanth bites you in the rear end, or someone gets small pox -- then PR department goes to work to reestablish accuracy somehow.

 

[Loudmouth]

Until a coelacanth bites you in the rear end, or someone gets small pox -- then PR department goes to work to reestablish accuracy somehow.

How are either a problem? What transitional features do the two modern species of coelocanth have that are a problem for evolution? Why does small pox pose a problem?

Are you just saying the first words that come to you head?

 

[Loudmouth]

Because that's where they were?

Why?

You have "around 30" T. Rexes ... all found below deck on a planet the size of the earth -- and you think these 30 are indicative of the entire race?

T. rex is just the tip of the iceberg. What we have is billions of years worth of natural history, and it is consistent with evolution.

I found a hub cap in a parking lot once.

Perhaps you should find your marbles.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Then I think I'll just take your point with a grain of sand.

If you think not finding a T. Rex in igneous rock is some kind of selling point for evolution, then ... well ... I'll just issue my favorite line here:

Keep looking.

Scientists are doing so. They don't need you to tell them to. HOWEVER, that being said, so far they have NEVER found dinosaurs less than 65 million years ago. In fact what they have found is that across the globe under the K-T boundary the dinosaurs appear to CEASE TO EXIST.

If you think there were dinos like T.Rex after 65million years ago then by all means it is incumbent upon you to show them!

(excluding birds obviously).

 

[rjw]

Why is what important to me?

We're in a spiritual warfare, Confused; and the enemy is marching on holy ground waiving the Darwin banner on a pole of a transitional fossil.

Evolution is a form of voodoo, where their priests don't wear skulls as necklaces; but they do display them just as prominently:

Actually no AV.

We (atheists and theists, including Christians), are marching, waving the banner of evolution on a pole of transitional fossils, nested hierarchies, ERVs, pseudogenes, atavars, etc.


You need to get these things correct before you start writing in the name of truth.

 

[Split Rock]

Because that's where they were?

You have "around 30" T. Rexes ... all found below deck on a planet the size of the earth -- and you think these 30 are indicative of the entire race?

I found a hub cap in a parking lot once.

Then I found another hub cap in another parking lot.

You know what I concluded?

Hub caps can only be found above the K-T layer.

Well... you are indeed correct... so, how does that dispute what Loudmouth wrote?

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Why is what important to me?

We're in a spiritual warfare, Confused; and the enemy is marching on holy ground waiving the Darwin banner on a pole of a transitional fossil.

Evolution is a form of voodoo, where their priests don't wear skulls as necklaces; but they do display them just as prominently:

This is waaaay over-interpreting the facts on the ground.

Evolution is what it is. It isn't voodoo. It is literally just looking at the facts and drawing the most reasonable conclusions possible. Nothing more nothing less.

It is what happens when there are no RULES against looking at EVERYTHING.

Religious folks have had problems with Evolution from the beginning for any number of reasons but NONE of them to do with what Evolution is actually doing.

Their fears are:

1. Fear of looking outside of the proscribed bounds of the "holy word"
2. Fear of no longer being able to clearly differentiate humans from other animals
3. Fear of seeing ourselves as just another group of animals prone to the same limitations as animals (nothing special)

Note how NONE of these things is what evolution is made to do. That stuff just falls out of what the data looks like.

It is like condemning the mirror for showing you a face you don't like.

 

[Split Rock]

How many T. Rexes have you found over this entire planet? one? two?

A lot more than that, not including the related species, like Albertosaurus and Tarbosaurus, etc. I wonder how many fossils would be enough for you? Also, please note they are found in sedimentary rock, not igneous rock.

And what is the ratio of T. Rexes to igneous rock? 10:100,000,000?

Whatever does the ratio have to do with anything?

I've lost my marbles before on a playground; and never did find them to this day.

What's that say to you?

That's too easy a setup and I'm not going to touch it with a ten foot pole...

Then I think I'll just take your point with a grain of sand.

If you think not finding a T. Rex in igneous rock is some kind of selling point for evolution, then ... well ... I'll just issue my favorite line here:

Keep looking.

Too late, God cleaned it all up and dumped the coccoliths in a pile over in Dover England.