Why was Tiktaalik where the scientists predicted it would be (II)

MrGoodBytes · Apr 13, 2006

John is amazing. Most creationists I know, even the most hardened YECs would rather try to explain why Tiktaalik isn't the right kind of transitional fossil, why the dating is off, something to retain a shred of credibility - but not John. It collides with his neat fantasy world, so it is a conspiracy. Case closed. Simply amazing.

USincognito · Apr 14, 2006

Jet Black asked that this topic not be mucked up with repeated responses the the ramblings of this forums resident Bedlamites. Can you guys just back off for once and see if any Creationist will even try and address the OP?

Split Rock · Apr 14, 2006

USincognito said:
Jet Black asked that this topic not be mucked up with repeated responses the the ramblings of this forums resident Bedlamites. Can you guys just back off for once and see if any Creationist will even try and address the OP?

All well and good, but if there are no responses to John's Holier-Than-Thou ramblings, then this thread will simply drift off the front page into obscurity.

USincognito · Apr 14, 2006

Split Rock said:
All well and good, but if there are no responses to John's Holier-Than-Thou ramblings, then this thread will simply drift off the front page into obscurity.

The last time I checked the FAQ there are no rules against the initiator of a thread bumping an OP that didn't get many (or any) legitimate replies so he could bump it to see if anyone with a substantial response could do so.

I still maintain there's no reason to give the town drunk a bottle of hootch just so a respected citizen's question before the town council will not go unanswered.

Sadly these days good threads in this forum don't die because they go unanswered, they die because too many people respond to the John's and dad's will post without abandon or justification for doing so - and worse yet, the 4-7 responses each of their ramblings elicit.

Jet Black · Apr 19, 2006

anyone going to answer the OP then?

please don't reply to inane drivel

JohnR7 · Apr 19, 2006

Asimov said:
Only those who really have no idea what they're talking about claim to have "TRUTH"(tm)

So if you know what your talking about then you do not have the truth?

JohnR7 · Apr 19, 2006

MrGoodBytes said:
John is amazing. Most creationists I know, even the most hardened YECs would rather try to explain why Tiktaalik isn't the right kind of transitional fossil, why the dating is off, something to retain a shred of credibility - but not John. It collides with his neat fantasy world, so it is a conspiracy. Case closed. Simply amazing.

You guys really take the cake. You make a claim, then offer nothing to back up the claim. So why should I offer any "evidence" to refute something that you have never presented any evidence for in the first place.

USincognito · Apr 19, 2006

Jet Black said:
anyone going to answer the OP then?

The ramblings of some of our resident Bedlamites aside, I can't help but be struck by the silence of the YEC side regarding the OP. We keep hearing bold assertions that there is no evidence for evolution, that the flood explains the placement of all fossils and that there are no transitionals - and yet, the method via which Tiktaalik was uncovered relied on evolution having occured, on traditional geology and on finding a fish/tetrapod transitional in Devonian strata.

How could that have happened since evolution and "old Earth" geology is so bankrupt? Come on Creationists, tell us why the predicted fossil was found in the predicted place in the predicted strata is somehow invalid and show your work.

CalUWxBill · Apr 19, 2006

JohnR7 said:
You guys really take the cake. You make a claim, then offer nothing to back up the claim. So why should I offer any "evidence" to refute something that you have never presented any evidence for in the first place.

What kind of evidence are you looking for? A crash course in plate tectonics? The reasons Wegner first proposed continental drift? Paleomagnetism? an Understanding of radioactive decay? I mean, do you believe earthquakes happen in California because parts of the Earth's crust are moving? I can deal with and am still in fact searching for the notion of a meaning to life and an ultimate deity behind it, but to put the blinders on to all these things, seems very short-sighted. I mean we have proven methods to measure the speed at which the mid-Atlantic ridge and other divergent plate boundaries are spreading apart. All these processes that are shown to be active at the very least should provide enough evidence to the brain of an individual that the Earth is very old. Explaining and proving evolution may be harder, but this research helps confirm and refine our theories. If I gave you a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle with say 50 pieces missing. You still should be able to put the puzzle together, sure you may not know exactly what those 50 pieces look like, but do these missing pieces truely deny the picture that should be easily recognizable by the other 450 pieces. Now I understand the pieces of the whole picture that may be missing are most related to evolution, but I think you can easily see the temporal nature of our Earth and the geologic nature of a constantly changing Earth. And, the theories that have been developed to explain evolution have been well-supported through the predictions made by these scientists in digging up this fossil should show that they understand the puzzle, they know what the missing pieces should look like, based on the other pieces that they do have.

Mocca · Apr 19, 2006

I nominate this post for the Quiet Thread. I mean, seriously... we haven't gotten any replies that actually adressed the OP yet.

JohnR7 · May 21, 2006

Asimov said:
My goodness John, you really know when to spread misinformation and deceit.

I am not the one trying to tell people that a pigs tooth is the missing link. If there is any misinformation and deceit, it is being spread by evolutionists.

Frumious Bandersnatch · May 21, 2006

JohnR7 said:
I am not the one trying to tell people that a pigs tooth is the missing link. If there is any misinformation and deceit, it is being spread by evolutionists.

This has been addressed many times. Now does any creationist have anything to say about the excellent point that Jet Black made in the OP?

JohnR7 · May 21, 2006

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
Now does any creationist have anything to say about the excellent point that Jet Black made in the OP?

What point did he make? The bottom line is that land animals did not come from the sea. The Bible is clear that they came from the Earth. So it is a waste of time for science to look for any sort of transition from water to land, because that transition does not exist.

Genesis 1:20
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

There is a clear distinction between what the water brings forth and what the earth brings forth.

Asimov · May 21, 2006

JohnR7 said:
I am not the one trying to tell people that a pigs tooth is the missing link. If there is any misinformation and deceit, it is being spread by evolutionists.

Neither are we and neither is the scientific community, John. Hence the misinformation and deceit.

Asimov · May 21, 2006

JohnR7 said:
What point did he make? The bottom line is that land animals did not come from the sea. The Bible is clear that they came from the Earth. So it is a waste of time for science to look for any sort of transition from water to land, because that transition does not exist.

Genesis 1:20
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

There is a clear distinction between what the water brings forth and what the earth brings forth.

Ooooooooh, everyone, listen....John's mythology says it, so it must be true. End of discussion.

Frumious Bandersnatch · May 21, 2006

JohnR7 said:
What point did he make? The bottom line is that land animals did not come from the sea. The Bible is clear that they came from the Earth. So it is a waste of time for science to look for any sort of transition from water to land, because that transition does not exist.

Genesis 1:20
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

There is a clear distinction between what the water brings forth and what the earth brings forth.

From Epistle of James

5:14
Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

5:15
And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

So John your brilliant logic medical research is a waste of time and Galileo was wasting his time looking for evidence of a heliocentric solar system since the Bible states the earth is fixed and immovable since the Bible declares that The earth is fixed and immovable.
1 Chronicles 16:30: Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Psalm 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is established, that it cannot be moved.

Psalm 96:10: Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously....

Psalm 104:5: Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

and that the sun goes around it

Ecclesiastes 1, 5:The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

Psalm 19:4-6 Their line [the heavens] is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof."

Pete Harcoff · May 21, 2006

JohnR7 said:
So it is a waste of time for science to look for any sort of transition from water to land, because that transition does not exist.

But... they found it. Weird that they find transitions that you claim don't exist, isn't it? I guess you must be wrong.

JohnR7 · May 21, 2006

Pete Harcoff said:
But... they found it.

What did they find a extinct amphibian? There are still lots of amphibians alive today. That still is not proof that fish turned into land animals. Macro evolution is not even all that accepted of a theory. In fact it is losing ground. Less and less people accept it as being valid.

I guess you must be wrong.

What is it that you think I am wrong about?

JohnR7 · May 21, 2006

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
So John your brilliant logic medical research is a waste of time

Doctors help who they are able to help and the church helps who they are able to help. We always say get all the help you can from man. Then when man has done all he can, reach out to God for help.

Galileo was wasting his time

Someone should give you a prize for the most superfical reading of scripture I have ever seen.

Frumious Bandersnatch · May 21, 2006

JohnR7 said:
Doctors help who they are able to help and the church helps who they are able to help. We always say get all the help you can from man. Then when man has done all he can, reach out to God for help.

But by your logic medical research should have never been performed as the Bible clearly tells how to treat illness.

Someone should give you a prize for the most superfical reading of scripture I have ever seen.

This is how nearly everyone read the scripture before Galileo and by your logic Galileo should not have bothered to look for evidence.
"Second. I say that, as you know, the Council [of Trent] prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter, it is on the part of the ones who have spoken. It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the mouths of the prophets and apostles. "

From Cardinal Robert Bellarmine's letter concerning Galileo.

Now can explain why the fossil in question (which was NOT yet an amphibian) was found where it was predicted to be?

Why was Tiktaalik where the scientists predicted it would be (II)

Seeker for life, probably

a post by Alan Smithee

Conflation of Blathers

a post by Alan Smithee

Jet Black

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

a post by Alan Smithee

Active Member

MokAce - Priest of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Objectivist

Objectivist

Contributor

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency