PDA

View Full Version : The fossil record shows there never was evolution.



Pages : [1] 2 3

Elia
April 25th, 2016, 01:56 AM
Bs"d

The fossil record shows STASIS, non-change, non-evolution, for the species for their whole stay in the fossil record. New species pop up suddenly, without any connection to supposed predecessors.

This is all totally in agreement with creation, and it refutes evolution.

“Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution)."

Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15

Stephen J Gould was on of the most well known evolutionists and the inventor of the “punctuated equilibrium” theory, and professor geology en zoology at Harvard university.




Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ... That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ... prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.

Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46

Niles Eldredge is an evolutionist en co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory .





Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis.Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.

Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182
Stephen J Gould was on of the most well known evolutionists and the inventor of the “punctuated equilibrium” theory, and professor geology en zoology at Harvard university.




"...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."

Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44



"The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change."

Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163




"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species."

Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.

Schwartz, Jeffrey H is professor anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh and also evolutionist, writer of boek about evolution: “Sudden Origins”, a provocative new theory on how evolution works by sudden leaps and bounds:
http://www.post-gazette.com/books/reviews/19991212review395.asp




"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."

Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95, speaking about the Bighorn basin in Wyoming USA.
S.M. Stanley is an evolutionist and professor at the John Hopkins university in Baltimore.
He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory.
One of his articles is “Paleontology and earth system history in the new millennium” which has been published in “Geological Society of America”

For more info about prof Stanley look here: http://www.jhu.edu/~eps/faculty/stanley/index.html#research





"The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ...The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground."

Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59

Robert E Ricklefs is an evolutionist and professor biology at the University of Missouri te St. Louis:
http://www.umsl.edu/~ricklefs






"Paleontologists are traditionally famous (or infamous) for reconstructing whole animals from the debris of death. Mostly they cheat. ... If any event in life's history resembles man's creation myths, it is this sudden diversification of marine life when multicellular organisms took over as the dominant actors in ecology and evolution. Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us and stands as a major biological revolution on a par with the invention of self-replication and the origin of the eukaryotic cell. The animal phyla emerged out of the Precambrian mists with most of the attributes of their modern descendants."

Bengtson, Stefan, "The Solution to a Jigsaw Puzzle," Nature, vol. 345 (June 28, 1990), p. 765-766

Stefan Bengtson is an evolutionist en head curator of the Swedish museum of natural history in Stockholm Zweden.
For more info about S. Bentson look here http://palaeo-electronica.org/staff/stefan.htm





"Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This ‘Cambrian explosion’ marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years."

Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, p. 23-24

Stephen J Gould was on of the most well known evolutionists and the inventor of the “punctuated equilibrium” theory, and professor geology en zoology at Harvard university.






"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life’s history - not the artefact of a poor fossil record."

Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 59

Niles Eldredge is an evolutionist en co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory






"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form."

Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40

S.M. Stanley is an evolutionist and professor at the John Hopkins university in Baltimore.
He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory.
One of his articles is “Paleontology and earth system history in the new millennium” which has been published in “Geological Society of America”

For more info about prof Stanley look here: http://www.jhu.edu/~eps/faculty/stanley/index.html#research





"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," 1982, p. 140

Stephen J Gould was on of the most well known evolutionists and the inventor of the “punctuated equilibrium” theory, and professor geology en zoology at Harvard university.



"Gaps between higher taxonomic levels are general and large."

Raff R.A, and Kaufman, T.C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, 1991, p. 35



"The lack of ancestral or intermediate forms between fossil species is not a bizarre peculiarity of early metazoan history. Gaps are general and prevalent throughout the fossil record."

Raff R.A, and Kaufman, T.C., Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, 1991, p. 34

Rudolf A Raff is an evolutionist en professor biology at the Indiana University in Bloomingdale, Indiana, USA, and also Director—Institute for Molecular and Cellular Biology, Distinguished Professor, Adjunct Professor of History and Philosophy of Science.
More info about prof Raff can be found here: http://newsinfo.iu.edu/sb/page/normal/608.html





"The known fossil record is not, and never has been, in accord with gradualism. What is remarkable is that, through a variety of historical circumstances, even the history of opposition has been obscured . . . ‘The majority of paleontologists felt their evidence simply contradicted Darwin’s stress on minute, slow, and cumulative changes leading to species transformation.’ . . . their story has been suppressed."

Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981, p. 71

S.M. Stanley is an evolutionist and professor at the John Hopkins university in Baltimore.
He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory.
One of his articles is “Paleontology and earth system history in the new millennium” which has been published in “Geological Society of America”

For more info about prof Stanley look here: http://www.jhu.edu/~eps/faculty/stanley/index.html#research





"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."

Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360

Simpson George Gaylord is an evolutionist and professor paleontologie in Columbia and Harvard.




"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin’s post ulate of gradualism...and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."

Mayr, E., One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138

Ernst Mayer was one of the leading evolutionistic biologists of the 20th century, see here: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Ernst_Mayr




"The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time.
On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type."

Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187

Peter J. Bowler, a scholar of Darwin and evolution, is a prolific author and professor of the history and philosophy of science at Queens University of Belfast.
http://www.americanscientist.org/authors/detail/peter-bowler




"The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 Ma. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then."

"Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376





"Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks...One of the ironies of the creation evolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood."

Raup, David, "Geology" New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832,1981

David Raub is an evolutionist, and professor emeritus (former Sewell L. Avery Distinguished Service Professor) in Geophysical Sciences and former curator Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History at the University van Chicago. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Raup



"A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God."

Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56
Czarnecki Mark is an evolutionist and a paleontologist.



"It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. ... Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and (we) both reject this alternative."

Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987, p. 229.

Richard Dawkins is very well known evolutionist en author and professor zoology at the Oxford university.




"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record."

Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p.189

Stephen J Gould was on of the most well known evolutionists and the inventor of the “punctuated equilibrium” theory, and professor geology en zoology at Harvard university.





"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find."

Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23
David Raub is an evolutionist, and professor emeritus (former Sewell L. Avery Distinguished Service Professor) in Geophysical Sciences and former curator Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History at the University van Chicago. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Raup



"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

CherubRam
April 25th, 2016, 03:49 AM
Evolution has always been faith based and not a true science.

Sonnet
April 25th, 2016, 03:54 AM
Evolution has always been faith based and not a true science.

It does remain a serious challenge to Christianity.

CherubRam
April 25th, 2016, 04:14 AM
It does remain a serious challenge to Christianity.
People are lead astray by the Atheist who's income comes from their faith that there is no God. God evolved according to what is stated in scriptures, and then He created other forms of life. The very first life forms that are alive today are the same as in the beginning.

SonOfCaleb
April 25th, 2016, 04:29 AM
It does remain a serious challenge to Christianity.

No it doesnt. Evolution and Christianity have nothing in common at all. Evolution doesn't add anything to the Christiantity, likewise it doesn't detract anything from Christianity and vice versa. What people choose to believe is obnviously their own perogative.
The one thing we do know is the so called Science and theory of evolution is patently not compatible with the Bible. The Bible is not a book of Science. It tells is why, but doesnt explain 'how' and frankly doesnt need to as that detracts from the overall message and theme of the scriptures which is the vindication of Gods name and his reestablishment as the sole universal soverign. Let Science take care of its own matters, and let Christianity do likewise.

Sonnet
April 25th, 2016, 04:30 AM
People are lead astray by the Atheist who's income comes from their faith that there is no God. God evolved according to what is stated in scriptures, and then He created other forms of life. The very first life forms that are alive today are the same as in the beginning.

Thanks.

I'm certainly not saying they have won the argument. The Noachian flood remains problematic - rock layers are not consistent with a single catastrophic deluge. Again, I'm not admitting defeat.

Sonnet
April 25th, 2016, 04:32 AM
No it doesnt. Evolution and Christianity have nothing in common at all. Evolution doesn't add anything to the Christiantity, likewise it doesn't detract anything from Christianity and vice versa. What people choose to believe is obnviously their own perogative.
The one thing we do know is the so called Science and theory of evolution is patently not compatible with the Bible. The Bible is not a book of Science. It tells is why, but doesnt explain 'how' and frankly doesnt need to as that detracts from the overall message and theme of the scriptures which is the vindication of Gods name and his reestablishment as the sole universal soverign. Let Science take care of its own matters, and let Christianity do likewise.

Darwinian evolution and Genesis are incompatible, aren't they?

CherubRam
April 25th, 2016, 04:40 AM
Darwinian evolution and Genesis are incompatible, aren't they?

They are oppositely apposed.

Jonahdog
April 25th, 2016, 04:42 AM
elia gets the prize for quote mining.

Sonnet
April 25th, 2016, 04:42 AM
They are oppositely apposed.

And yet many Christians accept Darwinian evolution.

SonOfCaleb
April 25th, 2016, 04:45 AM
People are lead astray by the Atheist who's income comes from their faith that there is no God. God evolved according to what is stated in scriptures, and then He created other forms of life. The very first life forms that are alive today are the same as in the beginning.

There's not a single scripture in the Bible that supports such errenous thinking. The Bible actually states that God is eternal having no begnning and no end. Psalm 90:2 "Before the mountains were born
Or you brought forth the earth and the productive land,
From everlasting to everlasting, you are God"

Unfortunately human thinking especially in philosphical and academic circles can be very linear applying the same 'known' scientific principles to everything, including God, which actually proves how limited human intelligience can be and explains why Science et al have such a difficult time accepting this Bible based fact.

SonOfCaleb
April 25th, 2016, 04:47 AM
Darwinian evolution and Genesis are incompatible, aren't they?

Thats what i said...
Evolution and Christianity have nothing in common at all

Doesnt matter if its Darwinian or any other kind. Evolution has nothing to do with the Bible.

SonOfCaleb
April 25th, 2016, 04:48 AM
And yet many Christians accept Darwinian evolution.

And many Christians dont....

Sonnet
April 25th, 2016, 04:57 AM
And many Christians dont....

Indeed.

Elia
April 25th, 2016, 05:15 AM
Darwinian evolution and Genesis are incompatible, aren't they?

Bs"d

Darwinian evolution and the fossil record are also incompatible.

Elia
April 25th, 2016, 05:16 AM
elia gets the prize for quote mining.

Bs'd


What is quote-mining?

"Quote-mining" is an expression, invented by evolutionists, who, because of cognitive dissonance, are unable to understand and/or accept the meaning of very clear, straightforward statements made by very scholarly evolutionists.

Because of that cognitive dissonance they become very irrational, and start saying absurd things, for instance, that somebody who quotes an evolutionist professor is a liar, and they cannot understand that then the one who made that statement is really the liar, because he is the one who made that statement in the first place.

They also claim that the statement is taken out of context, and that it really means the opposite of what it says.
When they are then confronted with the context, and it is then clear for everybody that the context doesn't change anything of the meaning of the quote, then they usually start attacking a straw man, meaning that they are going to "prove" something what was not a discussion subject at all. Then they start for instance saying that the one who made the quote believes in evolution, something that was never a point of dissension.
In the last stage they resort to name calling.

Of the above mentioned stages one or more can be skipped in a debate. The intellectually lesser gifted evolutionists usually immediately start name calling.




“Rabbi, you are using the old creationist trick of quote mining”


And I say that when you quote expert opinions in your atheistic articles, you are guilty of “quote mining.” Gee, it seems we are at an impasse. What I am trying to illustrate, of course, is that the accusation of “quote mining” is childish and trivial. Not only does it not contribute to an adult-level exchange of ideas, but it actually inhibits such an exchange. It is perfectly valid to claim that a citation has been taken out of context … As long as you can back it up with a reasoned argument. If you have nothing more to contribute than hurling unsubstantiated accusations of “quote mining” please go back to high school and shoot spitballs and do all the other things that immature adolescents do.

I repeat: It is perfectly valid to claim that a citation has been taken out of context … As long as you can back it up with a reasoned argument. If you have nothing more to contribute than hurling unsubstantiated accusations of “quote mining” please go back to high school and shoot spitballs and do all the other things that immature adolescents do.

Elia
April 25th, 2016, 05:20 AM
And yet many Christians accept Darwinian evolution.

Bs"d

They have been mislead by so called "scientists":

"Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and palaeontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks .... One of the ironies of the creation evolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood."

Raup, David, "Geology" New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832,1981

David Raub is an evolutionist, and professor emeritus (former Sewell L. Avery Distinguished Service Professor) in Geophysical Sciences and former curator Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History at the University van Chicago. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Raup

ClimateSanity
April 25th, 2016, 05:21 AM
Darwinian evolution and Genesis are incompatible, aren't they?

Genesis isn't a science textbook. It isn't saying things were created in a chronological order. It's an allegorical story like other parts of the bible.

Sonnet
April 25th, 2016, 05:23 AM
Bs"d

Darwinian evolution and the fossil record are also incompatible.

Yes - I have read about Gould and his P.E. theory before. Have there been any developments?

Elia
April 25th, 2016, 05:24 AM
Evolution has always been faith based and not a true science.

Bs"d

Here's what an expert says about that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne

Jerry Allen Coyne (born 1949) is an American professor of biology, known for his commentary on the intelligent design debate.

"Of Vice and Men, A Case Study of Evolutionary Psychology" By Jerry Allan Coyne

"In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology (schedelmeting) than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.

The latest dead weight dragging us closer to phrenology is "evolutionary psychology," or the science formerly known as sociobiology, which studies the evolutionary roots of human behavior. There is nothing inherently wrong with this enterprise, and it has proposed some intriguing theories, particularly about the evolution of language. The problem is that evolutionary psychology suffers from the scientific equivalent of megalomania. Most of its adherents are convinced that virtually every human action or feeling, including depression, homosexuality, religion, and consciousness, was put directly into our brains by natural selection. In this view, evolution becomes the key--the only key--that can unlock our humanity.
Unfortunately, evolutionary psychologists routinely confuse theory and speculation. Unlike bones, behavior does not fossilize, and understanding its evolution often involves concocting stories that sound plausible but are hard to test. Depression, for example, is seen as a trait favored by natural selection to enable us to solve our problems by withdrawing, reflecting, and hence enhancing our future reproduction. Plausible? Maybe. Scientifically testable? Absolutely not. If evolutionary biology is a soft science, then evolutionary psychology is its flabby underbelly."

Sonnet
April 25th, 2016, 05:24 AM
Genesis isn't a science textbook. It isn't saying things were created in a chronological order. It's an allegorical story like other parts of the bible.

That's one view. Nothing in the texts says it's an allegory.

Elia
April 25th, 2016, 05:27 AM
Yes - I have read about Gould and his P.E. theory before. Have there been any developments?

Bs"d

Not that I know of.

PE is an emergency measure in order to explain away the total lack of proof for evolution in the fossil record:

"The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. .... The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground."


Ricklefs, Robert E., "Palaeontologists Confronting Macro Evolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59


Robert E Ricklefs is an evolutionist and professor biology at the University of Missouri te St. Louis:

http://www.umsl.edu/~ricklefs

SonOfCaleb
April 25th, 2016, 05:38 AM
That's one view. Nothing in the texts says it's an allegory.

Correct. Genesis is not allegorical. The early chapters detail the history of creation up to the creation of Adam and afterwards. Each creative 'day' or epoch is told and listed in chronological order, Gods creative works starting with the beginning of the preparatory works on Earth in the first day.
Genesis does not detail nor include the creation of the Universe or in fact the Earth (other than acknowledging their creation presuambly in the distant past but no more detail is provided) as part of the Creation account.

Jonahdog
April 25th, 2016, 06:02 AM
elia, the master of cut and paste.

CherubRam
April 25th, 2016, 06:33 AM
There's not a single scripture in the Bible that supports such errenous thinking. The Bible actually states that God is eternal having no begnning and no end. Psalm 90:2 "Before the mountains were born
Or you brought forth the earth and the productive land,
From everlasting to everlasting, you are God"

Unfortunately human thinking especially in philosphical and academic circles can be very linear applying the same 'known' scientific principles to everything, including God, which actually proves how limited human intelligience can be and explains why Science et al have such a difficult time accepting this Bible based fact.

God Evolved
Alpha First Beginning

Isaiah 44:6 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Isa%2044.6)
“This is what the Lord says— Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

Isaiah 48:12 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Isa%2048.12)
“Listen to me, Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last.

Revelation 1:8 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Rev%201.8)
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Revelation 21:6 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Rev%2021.6)
He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life.

Revelation 22:13 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Rev%2022.13)
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.


Isaiah 43:10 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Isa%2043.10). "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD (Yahwah), "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god formed, nor will there be one after me.

The missing links are missing because life did not evolve in this Universe.

SonOfCaleb
April 25th, 2016, 06:55 AM
God Evolved
Alpha First Beginning

Isaiah 44:6 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Isa%2044.6)
“This is what the Lord says— Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.

Isaiah 48:12 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Isa%2048.12)
“Listen to me, Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last.

Revelation 1:8 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Rev%201.8)
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

Revelation 21:6 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Rev%2021.6)
He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life.

Revelation 22:13 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Rev%2022.13)
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.


Isaiah 43:10 (http://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/Isa%2043.10). "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD (Yahwah), "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am He. Before me no god formed, nor will there be one after me.

The missing links are missing because life did not evolve in this Universe.

None of those scriptures support your argument. All they state is that God is the first and the last, which is indeed correct as he is eternal.

Moses said in prayer to Jehovah: “You have always been, and you will always be.” (Psalm 90:2, The Holy Bible, New Century Version). Revelation 4:10 tells us God is "the One that lives forever and ever" his existence stretching into the eternal future and the eternal past.

It should be self evident that the logic around the creation of the creator is spurious. As if God was indeed created than who created the creator that made God and so on and so forth. This kind of logic is flawed and demonsrates circular human 'reasoning'.

CherubRam
April 25th, 2016, 07:44 AM
None of those scriptures support your argument. All they state is that God is the first and the last, which is indeed correct as he is eternal.

Moses said in prayer to Jehovah: “You have always been, and you will always be.” (Psalm 90:2, The Holy Bible, New Century Version). Revelation 4:10 tells us God is "the One that lives forever and ever" his existence stretching into the eternal future and the eternal past.

It should be self evident that the logic around the creation of the creator is spurious. As if God was indeed created than who created the creator that made God and so on and so forth. This kind of logic is flawed and demonsrates circular human 'reasoning'.

I guess you did not see the word "formed."

alwight
April 25th, 2016, 07:51 AM
Bs'd


What is quote-mining?

"Quote-mining" is an expression, invented by evolutionists, who, because of cognitive dissonance, are unable to understand and/or accept the meaning of very clear, straightforward statements made by very scholarly evolutionists.

Because of that cognitive dissonance they become very irrational, and start saying absurd things, for instance, that somebody who quotes an evolutionist professor is a liar, and they cannot understand that then the one who made that statement is really the liar, because he is the one who made that statement in the first place.

They also claim that the statement is taken out of context, and that it really means the opposite of what it says.
When they are then confronted with the context, and it is then clear for everybody that the context doesn't change anything of the meaning of the quote, then they usually start attacking a straw man, meaning that they are going to "prove" something what was not a discussion subject at all. Then they start for instance saying that the one who made the quote believes in evolution, something that was never a point of dissension.
In the last stage they resort to name calling.

Of the above mentioned stages one or more can be skipped in a debate. The intellectually lesser gifted evolutionists usually immediately start name calling.




“Rabbi, you are using the old creationist trick of quote mining”


And I say that when you quote expert opinions in your atheistic articles, you are guilty of “quote mining.” Gee, it seems we are at an impasse. What I am trying to illustrate, of course, is that the accusation of “quote mining” is childish and trivial. Not only does it not contribute to an adult-level exchange of ideas, but it actually inhibits such an exchange. It is perfectly valid to claim that a citation has been taken out of context … As long as you can back it up with a reasoned argument. If you have nothing more to contribute than hurling unsubstantiated accusations of “quote mining” please go back to high school and shoot spitballs and do all the other things that immature adolescents do.

I repeat: It is perfectly valid to claim that a citation has been taken out of context … As long as you can back it up with a reasoned argument. If you have nothing more to contribute than hurling unsubstantiated accusations of “quote mining” please go back to high school and shoot spitballs and do all the other things that immature adolescents do.What is Spamming?
The above is ^!
(I'm not allowed to post links to other forums)

But I learnt something: :)
Eliyahu

Bs"d

The above is an abbreviation of the Aramaic expression "Ba siata desmaya", and that means: "With the help of Heaven".
:spam:

SonOfCaleb
April 25th, 2016, 08:09 AM
I guess you did not see the word "formed."

I did. Like i said none of those scriptures support your argument. And if you think your argument is rationale then who or what, or what process created God....

CherubRam
April 25th, 2016, 09:51 AM
I did. Like i said none of those scriptures support your argument. And if you think your argument is rationale then who or what, or what process created God....

If the words "first," "beginning," "alpha," and "formed" dose not work in your understanding, then there is nothing I can do for you.

6days
April 25th, 2016, 09:51 AM
The Bible is not a book of Science. The Bible is also not a psycholgy book, nor a history book. However when God's Word touches on areas of science, psychology, history etc.....We accept that as inerrant truth.


It tells is why, but doesnt explain 'how'
It does explain 'how'... or as much of the 'how' as we need to know. His Word tells us He spoke things into existence over the course of six days. His Word tell us He formed Eve from Adam's rib....etc


... the overall message and theme of the scriptures which is the vindication of Gods name and his reestablishment as the sole universal soverign.
Now that isn't scriptural is it? In fact it is heretical, although perhaps you just worded it poorly. God has always been the Soveriegn Ruler. He does not need to be reestablished

Jose Fly
April 25th, 2016, 09:52 AM
I wonder who S.J. Gould was referring to when he said this (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html)?


Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

SonOfCaleb
April 25th, 2016, 11:55 AM
Now that isn't scriptural is it? In fact it is heretical, although perhaps you just worded it poorly. God has always been the Soveriegn Ruler. He does not need to be reestablished

Really....and yet Satan raised the issue of Universal Sovereignty in Eden which caused Adam and Eve to sin. If Jehovah God was recognized by ALL creation as THE Universal Sovereign then John 5:19 would have had no reason to say "but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one".

Matthew 4:8-9 "Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.  And he said to him: “All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me".

Luke 4:6 "Then the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and their glory, because it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish."

Its self evident from these scriptures that the Devil disputed Gods sovereignty and right to rule as he couldn't have offered Jesus any authority if it wasn't his to give. In fact its the Devil who is the current ruler of this world.

SonOfCaleb
April 25th, 2016, 12:05 PM
If the words "first," "beginning," "alpha," and "formed" dose not work in your understanding, then there is nothing I can do for you.

No you can, by answering my question
who or what, or what process created God using your unsound logic?

But i know you can't as your point of view doesn't stand up to scrutiny and is simply illogical as well as demonstrating a misunderstanding of the Bible. In fact Colossians 1:15 refutes your point as it says that Jesus is "the firstborn of all creation" further proving that God is indeed eternal just as Moses and Solomon said thousands of years ago.

Elia
April 25th, 2016, 03:10 PM
I wonder who S.J. Gould was referring to when he said this (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html)?

Bs"d

Gould said: "Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

So it is clear enough that between species, there are no transitional forms.

He claims that there are between larger groups, but that is reasoning like: "Here we have a mouse, there we have a horse, and the dog is the transitional form in between them."

Again: Evolution is totally lacking in the fossil record.

Jose Fly
April 25th, 2016, 03:17 PM
Gould said: "Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

So it is clear enough that between species, there are no transitional forms.

No. "Generally lacking" is not the same as "don't exist at all".


Again: Evolution is totally lacking in the fossil record.

How do you know? Just how much time have you spent studying fossil specimens and trends in the larger fossil record?

Crucible
April 25th, 2016, 03:21 PM
It does remain a serious challenge to Christianity.

:doh: Having confidence in chance rather than the Maker is not a 'serious challenge' for Christianity. They are simply Hell bound for trying to turn people away from divine Creation.

Let the reprobates be reprobates. The theory of evolution is all about scapegoating on nature for man's sins.

6days
April 25th, 2016, 03:47 PM
Really....and yet Satan raised the issue of Universal Sovereignty in Eden which caused Adam and Eve to sin. If Jehovah God was recognized by ALL creation as THE Universal Sovereign then John 5:19 would have had no reason to say "but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one".

Matthew 4:8-9 "Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.  And he said to him: “All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me".

Luke 4:6 "Then the Devil said to him: “I will give you all this authority and their glory,because it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish."

Its self evident from these scriptures that the Devil disputed Gods sovereignty and right to rule as he couldn't have offered Jesus any authority if it wasn't his to give. In fact its the Devil who is the current ruler of this world.
I still don't know if you are wording things poorly..... or have fallen for cult teaching.

God always has been soverign. God always will be soveriegn. Satan can do nothing unless permitted by our Soveriegn God.

God allows Satan to roam to and fro, but God is still the Soveriegn Ruler. Satan can dispute God's soveriegnty, and so can you. But if you think that actually makes Satan soveriegn, you are heretical.


Colossians 1:15 refutes your point as it says that Jesus is "the firstborn of all creation" further proving that God is indeed eternal just as Moses and Solomon said thousands of years ago.
Again... it seems you couch your words to not reveal what you believe. Yes...God is eternal but are you saying that verse means Jesus was born, or created; therefore not God? Or, are you saying that "firstborn" is a title of Jesus, and that He is God? After all, Jesus can't be a created being and the creator of all creation

Elia
April 26th, 2016, 12:01 AM
No. "Generally lacking" is not the same as "don't exist at all".


Bs"d

"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form."

Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40

S.M. Stanley is an evolutionist and professor at the John Hopkins university in Baltimore.
He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory.
One of his articles is “Paleontology and earth system history in the new millennium” which has been published in “Geological Society of America”

For more info about prof Stanley look here: http://www.jhu.edu/~eps/faculty/stanley/index.html#research




How do you know? Just how much time have you spent studying fossil specimens and trends in the larger fossil record?

Evolutionist experts on the fossil record tell me so.

For the finer details look here: https://sites.google.com/site/777mountzion/fossiles

Elia
April 26th, 2016, 12:06 AM
...

SonOfCaleb
April 26th, 2016, 02:43 AM
I still don't know if you are wording things poorly..... or have fallen for cult teaching.

God always has been soverign. God always will be soveriegn. Satan can do nothing unless permitted by our Soveriegn God.

God allows Satan to roam to and fro, but God is still the Soveriegn Ruler. Satan can dispute God's soveriegnty, and so can you. But if you think that actually makes Satan soveriegn, you are heretical.

I've not worded anything poorly. As i said initially the theme of the Bible is the vindication of Jehovahs soveringty which is WHY God has tolerated the existence of Satan and his demons as Satan challenged Gods soverignty in Eden. I never once said Satan was soverign. So lets stick top what i said rather than what you think i said or think i have inferred.


Again... it seems you couch your words to not reveal what you believe. Yes...God is eternal but are you saying that verse means Jesus was born, or created; therefore not God? Or, are you saying that "firstborn" is a title of Jesus, and that He is God? After all, Jesus can't be a created being and the creator of all creation

I've not 'couched' anything. The scripture is plain in its statement. It says "[Jesus] is the first born of creation". Therefore God directly made Jesus himself. That's a pretty easy concept to accept and understand unless of course you believe in the Trinity which is a discussion im not interested in getting into.

Lazy afternoon
April 26th, 2016, 03:46 AM
After all, Jesus can't be a created being and the creator of all creation

Jesus is not the creator.

Read Rev.chs 4 and 5

LA

Jonahdog
April 26th, 2016, 05:32 AM
Bs"d

"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form."

Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40

S.M. Stanley is an evolutionist and professor at the John Hopkins university in Baltimore.
He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory.
One of his articles is “Paleontology and earth system history in the new millennium” which has been published in “Geological Society of America”

For more info about prof Stanley look here: http://www.jhu.edu/~eps/faculty/stanley/index.html#research





does Jesus appreciate your intellectual dishonesty?
Evolutionist experts on the fossil record tell me so.

For the finer details look here: https://sites.google.com/site/777mountzion/fossiles

WonderfulLordJesus
April 26th, 2016, 08:21 AM
The fossil record shows STASIS, non-change, non-evolution, for the species for their whole stay in the fossil record. New species pop up suddenly, without any connection to supposed predecessors.

This is all totally in agreement with creation, and it refutes evolution.



As a kid, this was glaring. The fossil record evolution cops to proves it's a farce. The very absence of transitional forms makes it laughable. It proves something else, that people will love and believe a lie that suits their Godless private philosophy, no matter how stupid the lie. I've always likened it that, if evolution were true, you could hardly dig in your garden and not find a transitional form. It's plain stupid, and I saw this as a kid in school. Neither has there been any reason to think any different, everything learned since only proving creation. People, in general, are idiots, because they will believe what they want to believe, only hear what they want to hear, regardless all real evidence contrary.

2 Thessalonians 2

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

WonderfulLordJesus
April 26th, 2016, 08:34 AM
Jesus is not the creator.

Read Rev.chs 4 and 5

LA

Note that verse 10 goes great with your post. So, what cult are you? A JW, or are you just a trolling, independent contractor here, trying to deceive people? Do you guys never see clear scripture leaves you with your pants down? Do the dumber lies never make you feel ridiculous? Can't you find some antichrist site that will pay any attention to you?

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Colossians 1

12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Jose Fly
April 26th, 2016, 09:33 AM
Evolutionist experts on the fossil record tell me so.

You mean like S. Gould who said that any creationist who tried to quote him as saying there are no transitional fossils is either stupid or dishonest? Or how he said in the same essay (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html) "transitions are often found in the fossil record" and then described a few of his favorite transitions (reptilian-mammal, and A. afarensis)?

So if you're being honest and really are going with what the experts say, then on that basis it's been established that transitional fossils do indeed exist.


For the finer details look here: https://sites.google.com/site/777mountzion/fossiles

Let's be clear here....whether transitional fossils exist or not is a scientific question, and in science quotes are pretty much meaningless. What matters is the data. So along those lines, let's look at some actual data and see what we find.

First, let's pick a couple of taxa that are claimed to be evolutionarily related. Let's use dinosaurs and birds. Now, if birds are evolved descendants of dinosaurs, we would expect to find fossil specimens that show this transition. Specifically, we would expect to find specimens that show a mixture of dino-like and bird-like features.

Do you agree with that?

Lazy afternoon
April 26th, 2016, 03:56 PM
Note that verse 10 goes great with your post. So, what cult are you? A JW, or are you just a trolling, independent contractor here, trying to deceive people? Do you guys never see clear scripture leaves you with your pants down? Do the dumber lies never make you feel ridiculous? Can't you find some antichrist site that will pay any attention to you?

John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Colossians 1

12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.


Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

All the religious bigshots who learn from man , talk without understanding like you.

You do not even understand those passages.

Rev 4:10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.


Rev 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
Rev 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
Rev 5:7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

Rev 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

Joh 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Joh 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Maybe if you paid attention to what the scripture really says then you would know the truth.

LA

6days
April 26th, 2016, 09:35 PM
Jesus is not the creator.

Read Rev.chs 4 and 5

LA
WonderfulLordJesus answered you....But, adding to that, you seem to follow a religion that can't distinguish a difference between the man Jesus... and "the Word" or the "first born over all creation". Jesus, the first born over all creation...the Word who became flesh is our Creator.

6days
April 26th, 2016, 09:38 PM
Bs"d

The fossil record shows STASIS, non-change, non-evolution, ....

This is all totally in agreement with creation, and it refutes evolution.

Good post Elia... Thanks.

6days
April 26th, 2016, 09:47 PM
Evolutionist experts on the fossil record tell me so
WIKI..."Confirmation bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses

6days
April 26th, 2016, 10:06 PM
As i said initially the theme of the Bible is the vindication of Jehovahs soveringty which is WHY God has tolerated the existence of Satan and his demons as Satan challenged Gods soverignty in Eden.

What you said, and I is poorly worded (or heretical) was "... the overall message and theme of the scriptures which is the vindication of Gods name and his reestablishment as the sole universal soverign."

God always has been the universal Soveriegn. God does not need His name or sovereignty to be reestablished.




The scripture is plain in its statement. It says "[Jesus] is the first born of creation". Therefore God directly made Jesus himself.

What religion teaches that type of logic?? Where in scripture do you see "first born" means something was made or created? We can see in scripture that "first born" was a title given to David even though he was not the first born.

Furthermore, If Jesus was "made" as you claim, then scripture verses like John 1:3 become illogical " All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence."

6days
April 26th, 2016, 10:28 PM
Each creative 'day' or epoch
'Epoch' is a compromise between what God says and secularists say.

God defines the word days in context in Gen. 1:5 "God called the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day."..... 24 hour days.

From the straight forward reading of Gods Word, how can Christians fit millions of years into the Bible? Here are a few answers as to why "epochs" contradicts scripture.

A Theologian Answers
Dr Peter Barnes, lecturer in church history at the Presbyterian Theological Centre in Sydney. He wrote: “…if God wanted us to understand the creation week as a literal week, He could hardly have made the point any clearer…. The theological argument is also compelling. According to the Bible, there was no death until there was sin. The creation is cursed only after Adam sinned (cf. Genesis 3; Romans 5:12–21; 8:19–25). This implies that all the fossils of dead animals must date from after Adam’s fall. If there was blood and violence in the creation before Adam sinned, the theological structure of the biblical message would appear to suffer considerable dislocation"

A Hebrew Scholar Answers (who does not believe Genesis)
James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.
"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".

A Christian Apologist Answers
Joe Boot, President of Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity

“Since the doctrines of Creation, the Fall and Redemption stand in an absolute historical continuum, we get a distorted worldview when we play games with Genesis.

“The apologist seeks to present biblical truth with coherence. In my experience, one cannot even formulate a compelling response to classic questions like the problem of evil and pain without a clear stand with Scripture on the creation issue.

“I have never been able to see how anyone who wants to defend the faith and proclaim the Gospel can compromise the foundation stones of that defence and then expect clear-thinking people to find a proclamation of salvation in Christ compelling.”

Our Creator Answers
JESUS speaking*"Haven't you read the Scriptures?They record that from the beginning 'God made them male and female.'"

So, again the question is, how can you (why would you?) squeeze millions of years into Gods Word without compromising the Gospel?



Genesis does not detail nor include the creation of the Universe or in fact the Earth (other than acknowledging their creation presuambly in the distant past but no more detail is provided) as part of the Creation account.

What religion teaches you that....It is false. You seemingly reject the very first words of scripture..."In the beginning...". So you think God should have called it 'one of the beginnings'?

You also seemingly reject the words that follow 'In the beginning'.... "God created the heavens and the earth".

Elia
April 26th, 2016, 11:20 PM
Good post Elia... Thanks.

Bs"d

You're welcome.

chair
April 26th, 2016, 11:34 PM
Bs"d

Again: Evolution is totally lacking in the fossil record.

This kind of blind fundamentalism is pathetic, and in this case, also embarrassing.

Elia
April 26th, 2016, 11:58 PM
You mean like S. Gould who said that any creationist who tried to quote him as saying there are no transitional fossils is either stupid or dishonest? Or how he said in the same essay (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html) "transitions are often found in the fossil record" and then described a few of his favorite transitions (reptilian-mammal, and A. afarensis)?

Bs"d

I mean the Gould who says this:

“Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution)."

Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15

Stephen J Gould was on of the most well known evolutionists and the inventor of the “punctuated equilibrium” theory, and professor geology en zoology at Harvard university.

And also this:

Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis.Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.

Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182

And this:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," 1982, p. 140

And also this:

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record."

Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p.189


And I mean the other experts who say this:

Paleontologists just were not seeing the expected changes in their fossils as they pursued them up through the rock record. ... That individual kinds of fossils remain recognizably the same throughout the length of their occurrence in the fossil record had been known to paleontologists long before Darwin published his Origin. Darwin himself, ... prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search ... One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin's predictions. Nor is the problem a miserly fossil record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction is wrong.
The observation that species are amazingly conservative and static entities throughout long periods of time has all the qualities of the emperor's new clothes: everyone knew it but preferred to ignore it. Paleontologists, faced with a recalcitrant record obstinately refusing to yield Darwin's predicted pattern, simply looked the other way.

Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 45-46

Niles Eldredge is an evolutionist en co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory

And this:


"...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."

Eldredge, Niles "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p. 44


And this:

"The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change."

Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163

And this:


"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species."

Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.

Schwartz, Jeffrey H is professor anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh and also evolutionist, writer of boek about evolution: “Sudden Origins”, a provocative new theory on how evolution works by sudden leaps and bounds:
http://www.post-gazette.com/books/reviews/19991212review395.asp

And this:


"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."

Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95, speaking about the Bighorn basin in Wyoming USA.
S.M. Stanley is an evolutionist and professor at the John Hopkins university in Baltimore.
He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory.
One of his articles is “Paleontology and earth system history in the new millennium” which has been published in “Geological Society of America”

For more info about prof Stanley look here: http://www.jhu.edu/~eps/faculty/stanley/index.html#research

And this:

"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form."

Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40

S.M. Stanley is an evolutionist and professor at the John Hopkins university in Baltimore.
He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory.
One of his articles is “Paleontology and earth system history in the new millennium” which has been published in “Geological Society of America”

For more info about prof Stanley look here: http://www.jhu.edu/~eps/faculty/stanley/index.html#research

And this:



"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin’s post ulate of gradualism...and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."

Mayr, E., One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, 1991, p. 138

Ernst Mayer was one of the leading evolutionistic biologists of the 20th century, see here: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Ernst_Mayr

And this:



"The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time.
On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type."

Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187

Peter J. Bowler, a scholar of Darwin and evolution, is a prolific author and professor of the history and philosophy of science at Queens University of Belfast.
http://www.americanscientist.org/authors/detail/peter-bowler

And this:

"Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks...One of the ironies of the creation evolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood."

Raup, David, "Geology" New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832,1981

David Raub is an evolutionist, and professor emeritus (former Sewell L. Avery Distinguished Service Professor) in Geophysical Sciences and former curator Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History at the University van Chicago. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Raup

And many others.




So if you're being honest and really are going with what the experts say, then on that basis it's been established that transitional fossils do indeed exist.

As Gould says very clearly: Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

So it is clear enough that between species, there are no transitional forms.

He claims that there are between larger groups, but that is reasoning like: "Here we have a mouse, there we have a horse, and the dog is the transitional form in between them."

Again: Evolution is totally lacking in the fossil record.


Let's be clear here....whether transitional fossils exist or not is a scientific question, and in science quotes are pretty much meaningless.

From where do you get that utterly crazy idea that "in science quotes are pretty much meaningless"???

It is very VERY important what the evolutionst experts say on the matter.


What matters is the data. So along those lines, let's look at some actual data and see what we find.

What we don't find, is transitional fossils. What we do find is everywhere gaps between the species, as also Gould admits. So we don't find evolution. We find STASIS, non-change, non-evolution.

Get these simple facts into your head.


First, let's pick a couple of taxa that are claimed to be evolutionarily related. Let's use dinosaurs and birds. Now, if birds are evolved descendants of dinosaurs, we would expect to find fossil specimens that show this transition. Specifically, we would expect to find specimens that show a mixture of dino-like and bird-like features.

Do you agree with that?

Do you agree with the fact that if the dinosaurs gradually evolved into birds,that the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on the earth, must be truly enormous, and that then every geological formation and every stratum must be full of such intermediate links between dino's and birds?


"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

Elia
April 27th, 2016, 12:04 AM
This kind of blind fundamentalism is pathetic, and in this case, also embarrassing.

Bs"d

I call it realism. It's pathetic when people cannot accept the fact that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, even though scores of evolutionist experts say so in unison.

That's what is called cognitive dissonance.

Elia
April 27th, 2016, 12:09 AM
WIKI..."Confirmation bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses

Bs"d

WIKI "In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas, or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values."

That's what we see when evo's cannot accept the statements of scores of evolutionist experts who all in unison proclaim that the fossil record shows STASIS, non-change, = non-evolution.

Sonnet
April 27th, 2016, 01:43 AM
I've not worded anything poorly. As i said initially the theme of the Bible is the vindication of Jehovahs soveringty which is WHY God has tolerated the existence of Satan and his demons as Satan challenged Gods soverignty in Eden. I never once said Satan was soverign. So lets stick top what i said rather than what you think i said or think i have inferred.



I've not 'couched' anything. The scripture is plain in its statement. It says "[Jesus] is the first born of creation". Therefore God directly made Jesus himself. That's a pretty easy concept to accept and understand unless of course you believe in the Trinity which is a discussion im not interested in getting into.

John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

First born of creation would be in terms of inheritance status.

Sonnet
April 27th, 2016, 01:46 AM
Jesus is not the creator.

Read Rev.chs 4 and 5

LA

Specifically?

Sonnet
April 27th, 2016, 01:54 AM
Mat 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

All the religious bigshots who learn from man , talk without understanding like you.

You do not even understand those passages.

Rev 4:10 The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
Rev 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.


Rev 5:5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
Rev 5:6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
Rev 5:7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

Rev 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

Joh 4:21 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Joh 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Maybe if you paid attention to what the scripture really says then you would know the truth.

LA

Revelation 4:11 (regarding God)
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

John 1:3 (regarding Jesus)
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Therefore, in terms of Creation at least, there is an equivalence between Christ and God.

Sonnet
April 27th, 2016, 02:04 AM
'Epoch' is a compromise between what God says and secularists say.

God defines the word days in context in Gen. 1:5 "God called the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day."..... 24 hour days.

Rather, however long that day lasted.


From the straight forward reading of Gods Word, how can Christians fit millions of years into the Bible? Here are a few answers as to why "epochs" contradicts scripture.

A Theologian Answers
Dr Peter Barnes, lecturer in church history at the Presbyterian Theological Centre in Sydney. He wrote: “…if God wanted us to understand the creation week as a literal week, He could hardly have made the point any clearer…. The theological argument is also compelling. According to the Bible, there was no death until there was sin. The creation is cursed only after Adam sinned (cf. Genesis 3; Romans 5:12–21; 8:19–25). This implies that all the fossils of dead animals must date from after Adam’s fall. If there was blood and violence in the creation before Adam sinned, the theological structure of the biblical message would appear to suffer considerable dislocation"

A Hebrew Scholar Answers (who does not believe Genesis)
James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University, former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford.
"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; .. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.".

By the middle of the 19th century many Christian geologist accepted that the rock layers found in the geologic column are not consistent with evidence one would expect from the Noachian flood.

How do you respond?

Sonnet
April 27th, 2016, 02:06 AM
This kind of blind fundamentalism is pathetic, and in this case, also embarrassing.

Your evidence?

Sonnet
April 27th, 2016, 02:09 AM
Bs"d


I'm curious - Bs"d means what?

Lazy afternoon
April 27th, 2016, 03:57 AM
Revelation 4:11 (regarding God)
Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

John 1:3 (regarding Jesus)
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Therefore, in terms of Creation at least, there is an equivalence between Christ and God.


john 1:3 is not speaking of Jesus.

It is speaking of Gods word, of His light, of His Spirit.

LA

Elia
April 27th, 2016, 03:57 AM
I'm curious - Bs"d means what?

Bs"d

The above is an abbreviation of the Aramaic expression "Ba siata desmaya", and that means: "With the help of Heaven".

Sonnet
April 27th, 2016, 04:04 AM
Bs"d

The above is an abbreviation of the Aramaic expression "Ba siata desmaya", and that means: "With the help of Heaven".

ta

Sonnet
April 27th, 2016, 04:08 AM
john 1:3 is not speaking of Jesus.

It is speaking of Gods word, of His light, of His Spirit.

LA

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcomea it.

There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

(John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ ”) Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Sonnet
April 27th, 2016, 04:10 AM
john 1:3 is not speaking of Jesus.

It is speaking of Gods word, of His light, of His Spirit.

LA

Who was Jesus?

Sonnet
April 27th, 2016, 04:13 AM
We know he wasn't Michael - Hebrews 1.

To which of the angels did he ever say, 'thou art my son...'

6days
April 27th, 2016, 06:06 AM
Rather, however long that day lasted. The creation days were 24 hour periods of time. Although the word 'yom' / day can mean shorter or longer periods of time, the meaning is always understood by the context. There are several markers / indicators that do not allow for anything other than 24 hour creation days.



By the middle of the 19th century many Christian geologist accepted that the rock layers found in the geologic column are not consistent with evidence one would expect from the Noachian flood.
How do you respond? Perhaps every Christian geologist had compromised at that time not realizing the effect their compromise had on the gospel..... and not realizing how this compromise lead future generations to believe the Bible was inaccurate, and not very relevant.

Jose Fly
April 27th, 2016, 09:58 AM
Bs"d

So the question becomes whether you persist in this quote mining out of stupidity or dishonesty.


As Gould says very clearly: Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

So it is clear enough that between species, there are no transitional forms.

So it must be stupidity. What else explains your inability to understand that "generally lacking" is not the same as "completely non-existent"?


Again: Evolution is totally lacking in the fossil record.

No, actually it's not.


From where do you get that utterly crazy idea that "in science quotes are pretty much meaningless"???

From the fact that I work in science, read scientific journals, attend conferences, and discuss science with my colleagues, and no one ever takes something as true merely because someone says it is. That's why scientific papers have sections where the scientists describe how they collected and analyzed the data, and how it led to their conclusions. That's why presentations at scientific conferences do the same.

Data is what matters.


It is very VERY important what the evolutionst experts say on the matter.

And as we've seen, the one you like to quote the most (Gould) says transitional fossils are abundant and anyone who tries to quote him as saying otherwise is either stupid or a liar.


Do you agree with the fact that if the dinosaurs gradually evolved into birds,that the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on the earth, must be truly enormous, and that then every geological formation and every stratum must be full of such intermediate links between dino's and birds?

You dodged the question. Remember, we're determining whether transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds exist. So again, if birds are evolved descendants of dinosaurs, we would expect to find fossil specimens that show this transition. Specifically, we would expect to find specimens that show a mixture of dino-like and bird-like features.

Do you agree with that?



"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

Charles Darwin, Origin of Species


Nice quote mine (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote75). It's fascinating how some folks claiming to be on the side of God are so consistently dishonest.

Jose Fly
April 27th, 2016, 10:05 AM
Perhaps every Christian geologist had compromised at that time not realizing the effect their compromise had on the gospel..... and not realizing how this compromise lead future generations to believe the Bible was inaccurate, and not very relevant.

You can actually read the writings of many of them. Some of them describe how painful it was to have to ditch their previous beliefs about the flood and such, and they knew full well what that meant for their theology. But being good scientists, they also knew they had to follow the data wherever it led.

chair
April 27th, 2016, 10:31 AM
Bs"d

I call it realism. It's pathetic when people cannot accept the fact that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, even though scores of evolutionist experts say so in unison.

That's what is called cognitive dissonance.

...and I suppose you have some conspiracy theory to explain why the vast majority of biologists think Evolution makes sense.

The bottom line is that the creatures that inhabited the Earth ages ago were different than what inhabits the Earth today. The fossil record is not complete, but there are plenty of examples of how species developed.

As I said- you are an embarrassment.

genuineoriginal
April 27th, 2016, 11:45 AM
The Noachian flood remains problematic - rock layers are not consistent with a single catastrophic deluge.
That depends on how you expect the landscape to change during the catastrophic deluge and whether you expect any additional changes to happen throughout the millennium following the deluge.

Crucible
April 27th, 2016, 11:57 AM
Whether evolutionists want to accept it or not, the fossil record is a problem. What is also a problem is how, incidentally, the Deluge just happens to be a mighty explanation for a myriad of things, right down to the fossils and fuels themselves.

Evolutionists don't want to admit that they talked too much, having become arrogant, and giving evolution a lot more praise and solidarity then is actually warranted.

Elia
April 27th, 2016, 12:48 PM
...and I suppose you have some conspiracy theory to explain why the vast majority of biologists think Evolution makes sense.

Bs"d

That's probably because they are not palaeontologists.

But here is what a biologist says about "evolutionary biology":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne

Jerry Allen Coyne (born 1949) is an American professor of biology, known for his commentary on the intelligent design debate.

"Of Vice and Men, A Case Study of Evolutionary Psychology" By Jerry Allan Coyne

"In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology (schedelmeting) than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.

The latest dead weight dragging us closer to phrenology is "evolutionary psychology," or the science formerly known as sociobiology, which studies the evolutionary roots of human behavior. There is nothing inherently wrong with this enterprise, and it has proposed some intriguing theories, particularly about the evolution of language. The problem is that evolutionary psychology suffers from the scientific equivalent of megalomania. Most of its adherents are convinced that virtually every human action or feeling, including depression, homosexuality, religion, and consciousness, was put directly into our brains by natural selection. In this view, evolution becomes the key--the only key--that can unlock our humanity.
Unfortunately, evolutionary psychologists routinely confuse theory and speculation. Unlike bones, behavior does not fossilize, and understanding its evolution often involves concocting stories that sound plausible but are hard to test. Depression, for example, is seen as a trait favored by natural selection to enable us to solve our problems by withdrawing, reflecting, and hence enhancing our future reproduction. Plausible? Maybe. Scientifically testable? Absolutely not. If evolutionary biology is a soft science, then evolutionary psychology is its flabby underbelly."


The bottom line is that the creatures that inhabited the Earth ages ago were different than what inhabits the Earth today. The fossil record is not complete, but there are plenty of examples of how species developed.

That's what you say. And now what somebody who actually knows what he is talking about says about that:

"The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change."

Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163



"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form."

Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40



As I said- you are an embarrassment.

The usual pattern; when people don't have arguments any more, they start name-calling.

Elia
April 27th, 2016, 12:53 PM
So the question becomes whether you persist in this quote mining out of stupidity or dishonesty.

Bs"d

One way ticket to my ignore list.

Have a nice life.

Jose Fly
April 27th, 2016, 01:04 PM
Bs"d

One way ticket to my ignore list.

Have a nice life.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YWTJ8iZr7ro/hqdefault.jpg

Jose Fly
April 27th, 2016, 01:06 PM
Whether evolutionists want to accept it or not, the fossil record is a problem. What is also a problem is how, incidentally, the Deluge just happens to be a mighty explanation for a myriad of things, right down to the fossils and fuels themselves.

Evolutionists don't want to admit that they talked too much, having become arrogant, and giving evolution a lot more praise and solidarity then is actually warranted.

Interesting, coming from a person who's never studied the fossil record. :rolleyes:

Jose Fly
April 27th, 2016, 01:08 PM
So how about we approach this issue of the existence vs. non-existence of transitional fossils this way....

Can any creationist here define the term "transitional fossil"?

alwight
April 27th, 2016, 03:40 PM
A new transitional fossil creates the need to find two more. :Plain:

chair
April 27th, 2016, 03:50 PM
Bs"d

That's probably because they are not palaeontologists.

But here is what a biologist says about "evolutionary biology":...
Whatever. You're just another fundamentalist who can't deal with science when it interferes with your notions of what the Bible is and what it says.

As they say in Hebrew- I'm not playing.

Have a nice day.

6days
April 27th, 2016, 05:28 PM
Perhaps every Christian geologist had compromised at that time not realizing the effect their compromise had on the gospel..... and not realizing how this compromise lead future generations to believe the Bible was inaccurate, and not very relevant.
You can actually read the writings of many of them. Some of them describe how painful it was to have to ditch their previous beliefs about the flood and such, and they knew full well what that meant for their theology. But being good scientists, they also knew they had to follow the data wherever it led.
Thats essentially what I said....they compromised on scripture. Too bad they didn't trust scripture and notice how it is supported by geological evidence , as some modern geologists note.


Re. .your comment about ' painful to ditch beliefs'...Dr Emil Silvestru, PhD geology with 48 peer reviewed articles and former head scientist of the worlds first Speleological Institute. He speaks of how painful it was for him to realize the evidence did not fit with his belief in millions of years that he had always taught and believed in

Jose Fly
April 27th, 2016, 05:54 PM
Thats essentially what I said....they compromised on scripture. Too bad they didn't trust scripture and notice how it is supported by geological evidence , as some modern geologists note.

So they should have violated the principle that you agreed constituted good science, i.e., following the evidence wherever it leads. IOW, they should have confined their range of potential conclusions to "only those things that conform to the Bible".


Re. .your comment about ' painful to ditch beliefs'...Dr Emil Silvestru, PhD geology with 48 peer reviewed articles and former head scientist of the worlds first Speleological Institute. He speaks of how painful it was for him to realize the evidence did not fit with his belief in millions of years that he had always taught and believed in

So? What's your point?

6days
April 27th, 2016, 10:30 PM
Thats essentially what I said....they compromised on scripture. Too bad they didn't trust scripture and notice how it is supported by geological evidence , as some modern geologists note.
So they should have violated the principle that you agreed constituted good science, i.e., following the evidence wherever it leads. IOW, they should have confined their range of potential conclusions to "only those things that conform to the Bible".
They should have started with the absolute truth of God's Word rather than falling prey to the religion of naturalism. Fortunately today, there are scientists who are willing to follow the evidence wherever even when it leads to the Creator God of the Bible.



Re. .your comment about ' painful to ditch beliefs'...Dr Emil Silvestru, PhD geology with 48 peer reviewed articles and former head scientist of the worlds first Speleological Institute. He speaks of how painful it was for him to realize the evidence did not fit with his belief in millions of years that he had always taught and believed in
So? What's your point?
:) uh..... it was YOU who made the point about it being painful to ditch your beliefs. I provided an example.

If interested there are other examples of scientists who were atheists, admitting how painful it was realizing the evidence did not support their belief system.

6days
April 27th, 2016, 10:37 PM
A new transitional fossil creates the need to find two more.
You first need to find one.

Elia
April 27th, 2016, 11:37 PM
A new transitional fossil creates the need to find two more. :Plain:

Bs"d

If evolution was a fact, than the fossil record should show a myriad of species slowly changing into another.

And the fact of the matter is that there is not even one of those:

"The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change."
Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163


"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species."
Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.
Schwartz, Jeffrey H is professor anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh and also evolutionist, writer of boek about evolution: “Sudden Origins”, a provocative new theory on how evolution works by sudden leaps and bounds:
http://www.post-gazette.com/books/reviews/19991212review395.asp


"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."
Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95, speaking about the Bighorn basin in Wyoming USA.
S.M. Stanley is an evolutionist and professor at the John Hopkins university in Baltimore.
He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory.
One of his articles is “Paleontology and earth system history in the new millennium” which has been published in “Geological Society of America”

For more info about prof Stanley look here: http://www.jhu.edu/~eps/faculty/stanley/index.html#research


"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form."
Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40


"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."
Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360


"A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God."
Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56
Czarnecki Mark is an evolutionist and a paleontologist.



"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

Elia
April 27th, 2016, 11:40 PM
Whatever. You're just another fundamentalist who can't deal with science when it interferes with your notions of what the Bible is and what it says.

As they say in Hebrew- I'm not playing.

Have a nice day.

Bs"d

There is science, and pseudo-science. Science is empirically testable. Everything that is not empirically testable, like evolution, is pseudo-science.

Just like the man said.

You have a nice day too.

Sonnet
April 28th, 2016, 12:02 AM
The creation days were 24 hour periods of time. Although the word 'yom' / day can mean shorter or longer periods of time, the meaning is always understood by the context. There are several markers / indicators that do not allow for anything other than 24 hour creation days.

Perhaps every Christian geologist had compromised at that time not realizing the effect their compromise had on the gospel..... and not realizing how this compromise lead future generations to believe the Bible was inaccurate, and not very relevant.

Okay, but what is your response to the claim that the rock layers do not evidence a single catastrophic flood.

I'm not averring the flood did not happen - I'm just enquiring.

Lon
April 28th, 2016, 12:08 AM
Okay, but what is your response to the claim that the rock layers do not evidence a single catastrophic flood.

I'm not averring the flood did not happen - I'm just enquiring.
Imho, plate tectonics ensure all bets are off. Pangea, no matter when it happened, ensures a global flood is likely. I was talking to an astronomer several days ago and he said the earth has been through several ice ages and concurrent global warmings that fairly necessitate a global impact by floods. Another TOLer speculated that 'whole world' meant 'whole known world' by Moses. Because we are dealing with speculation, both scientific and theological upon our understandings of given data, I try to read my Bible more and I hope science, as well, is not stagnant, but looking over its data. I do think as humans, we often follow crowds. I don't know what it is in us, but we certainly are a social people. -Lon

Sonnet
April 28th, 2016, 12:09 AM
That depends on how you expect the landscape to change during the catastrophic deluge and whether you expect any additional changes to happen throughout the millennium following the deluge.

A single catastrophic world wide flood would leave a single layer of graded material, not layers.

Well, that is the argument anyway.

Sonnet
April 28th, 2016, 12:16 AM
Thats essentially what I said....they compromised on scripture. Too bad they didn't trust scripture and notice how it is supported by geological evidence , as some modern geologists note.


Re. .your comment about ' painful to ditch beliefs'...Dr Emil Silvestru, PhD geology with 48 peer reviewed articles and former head scientist of the worlds first Speleological Institute. He speaks of how painful it was for him to realize the evidence did not fit with his belief in millions of years that he had always taught and believed in

Interesting.

Sonnet
April 28th, 2016, 12:17 AM
If interested there are other examples of scientists who were atheists, admitting how painful it was realizing the evidence did not support their belief system.

Yes please.

Lon
April 28th, 2016, 12:23 AM
And as we've seen, the one you like to quote the most (Gould) says transitional fossils are abundant and anyone who tries to quote him as saying otherwise is either stupid or a liar. :think: Really? I thought he died in 2002 :think:


Nice quote mine (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote75). It's fascinating how some folks claiming to be on the side of God are so consistently dishonest.
Er, reading some of his critique, I think a bit of it 'stretching.' I suppose you want to believe just as badly as some of the 'dishonest folks on God's side.'

Sonnet
April 28th, 2016, 12:24 AM
Imho, plate tectonics ensure all bets are off. Pangea, no matter when it happened, ensures a global flood is likely.

?



I was talking to an astronomer several days ago and he said the earth has been through several ice ages and concurrent global warmings that fairly necessitate a global impact by floods. Another TOLer speculated that 'whole world' meant 'whole known world' by Moses. Because we are dealing with speculation, both scientific and theological upon our understandings of given data, I try to read my Bible more and I hope science, as well, is not stagnant, but looking over its data. I do think as humans, we often follow crowds. I don't know what it is in us, but we certainly are a social people. -Lon

The Noachian flood would only make sense if it was world-wide. The boat was huge - about 1 1/2 times the length of a football pitch...sorry, soccer pitch :)

Sonnet
April 28th, 2016, 12:28 AM
So how about we approach this issue of the existence vs. non-existence of transitional fossils this way....

Can any creationist here define the term "transitional fossil"?

If A evolved into Z, then B-Y might represent examples of the stages in between, I guess.

Would you present to this thread what you consider to be a transitional fossil, please?

Lon
April 28th, 2016, 12:35 AM
? Plate tectonics generally disrupt all layers, with even shells on top of mountain peaks. Most place the break up of Pangea outside of the existence of man, I'm not sure we have it all right simply because 'man' is also one of the animals found on all continents, with diversity among us. I 'think' a global grasp of science sometimes is better when asking larger questions, than a single path of science study (myopic). I am not a science major, however. I just listen when others are discussing and arguing these matters and as it pertains to my faith. I know a good many scientist majors who are also Christians and believe, in this instance and case, that there was a Noahic flood.



The Noachian flood would only make sense if it was world-wide. The boat was huge - about 1 1/2 times the length of a football pitch...sorry, soccer pitch :) There are a lot of good points regarding such. I tend to simply believe what I read in the Bible but try to approach another's concern with possibility. Either I or he(she) has to deal with deductions from our collective data in such a discussion. I don't think we question what God says, we question our assumption based on what He says, rather. In science too, we don't question data persay, but what we extrapolate from that data. -Lon

Sonnet
April 28th, 2016, 12:51 AM
Plate tectonics generally disrupt all layers, with even shells on top of mountain peaks. Most place the break up of Pangea outside of the existence of man, I'm not sure we have it all right simply because 'man' is also one of the animals found on all continents, with diversity among us. I 'think' a global grasp of science sometimes is better when asking larger questions, than a single path of science study (myopic). I am not a science major, however. I just listen when others are discussing and arguing these matters and as it pertains to my faith. I know a good many scientist majors who are also Christians and believe, in this instance and case, that there was a Noahic flood.


There are a lot of good points regarding such. I tend to simply believe what I read in the Bible but try to approach another's concern with possibility. Either I or he(she) has to deal with deductions from our collective data in such a discussion. I don't think we question what God says, we question our assumption based on what He says, rather. In science too, we don't question data persay, but what we extrapolate from that data. -Lon

What about the Siccar Point formation? - horizontal layers upon vertical layers. Hutton used it to prove the immensity of time.

The Noachian flood would be one layer of graded material - and not millions of years ago.

alwight
April 28th, 2016, 01:02 AM
Bs"d

If evolution was a fact, than the fossil record should show a myriad of species slowly changing into another.

And the fact of the matter is that there is not even one of those:
The fact is that evolution is not driven by a need to evolve or adapt, it is driven to evolve and adapt by the environment and by natural selection. If the environment remains unchanged then life soon settles down into a kind of balance where further adaption presents no advantage. Life can adapt quickly initially but also remain static while the environment does not change. Regular fossils are typically rare snapshots but fossils of life from when the environment was under change would be even rarer.

Sonnet
April 28th, 2016, 01:32 AM
The fact is that evolution is not driven by a need to evolve or adapt, it is driven to evolve and adapt by the environment and by natural selection. If the environment remains unchanged then life soon settles down into a kind of balance where further adaption presents no advantage. Life can adapt quickly initially but also remain static while the environment does not change. Regular fossils are typically rare snapshots but fossils of life from when the environment was under change would be even rarer.

That sounds like faith.

There is currently no understanding of abiogenesis, so, de facto, Darwinism is faith based.

alwight
April 28th, 2016, 01:48 AM
That sounds like faith.

There is currently no understanding of abiogenesis, so, de facto, Darwinism is faith based.
Abiogenesis is not a part of Darwinian evolution.
The geological column contains strata indicating periods of relatively rapid change and long static periods, the fact that evolution reflects that in PE, is no great surprise to me.

Sonnet
April 28th, 2016, 02:10 AM
Abiogenesis is not a part of Darwinian evolution.

In a letter sent in 1871 to his friend, the English botanist and explorer Joseph D. Hooker, Charles Darwin imagines a small, warm pool where the inanimate matter would arrange itself into evolutionary matter, aided by chemical components and sufficient sources of energy.



The geological column contains strata indicating periods of relatively rapid change and long static periods, the fact that evolution reflects that in PE, is no great surprise to me.

Ok.

alwight
April 28th, 2016, 02:17 AM
You first need to find one.
You are a transitional form.

Elia
April 28th, 2016, 02:19 AM
Okay, but what is your response to the claim that the rock layers do not evidence a single catastrophic flood.

Bs"d

My response is that that claim is nonsense.

The book "Earth in Upheaval" shows very much and very strong proof for a world wide flood.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/21746106/Velikovsky-Earth-in-Upheaval

Elia
April 28th, 2016, 02:20 AM
You are a transitional form.

Bs"d

And pigs can fly.

Elia
April 28th, 2016, 02:24 AM
Abiogenesis is not a part of Darwinian evolution.

Bs"d

Without abiogenesis evolution doesn't get started.


The geological column contains strata indicating periods of relatively rapid change and long static periods, the fact that evolution reflects that in PE, is no great surprise to me.

What the fossil record shows, is STASIS, non-change, what you call "long static periods".

What it does not show, is "periods of rapid change". You might think that that is indicated, because you happen to believe in evolution, but the fossils surely don't show it.

"The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ...The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground."

Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59

Robert E Ricklefs is an evolutionist and professor biology at the University of Missouri te St. Louis:
http://www.umsl.edu/~ricklefs

Elia
April 28th, 2016, 02:32 AM
A single catastrophic world wide flood would leave a single layer of graded material, not layers.

Well, that is the argument anyway.

Bs"d

A very violent flood, streaming this way and that way, would leave multiple layers.

Elia
April 28th, 2016, 02:40 AM
The fact is that evolution is not driven by a need to evolve or adapt, it is driven to evolve and adapt by the environment and by natural selection. If the environment remains unchanged then life soon settles down into a kind of balance where further adaption presents no advantage. Life can adapt quickly initially but also remain static while the environment does not change. Regular fossils are typically rare snapshots but fossils of life from when the environment was under change would be even rarer.

Bs"d

Meaning there is no proof for evolution in the fossil record whatsoever.

And that's why Gould made up PE, in order to give an explanation for the total lack of evolution in the fossil record, and to explain the everywhere present STASIS, non-change, in the record.

That simple fact is also recognized by Robert E Ricklefs, evolutionist and professor biology at the University of Missouri te St. Louis:

"The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ...The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground."

Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59

Robert E Ricklefs is an evolutionist and professor biology at the University of Missouri te St. Louis:
http://www.umsl.edu/~ricklefs

MichaelCadry
April 28th, 2016, 02:46 AM
Bs"d

And pigs can fly.


Dear Elia,

Yes, pigs can fly on planes, jets, helicopters, etc. Got to give them that!!

Much Love, In Jesus Christ,

Michael

alwight
April 28th, 2016, 02:46 AM
Bs"d

Without abiogenesis evolution doesn't get started.
Life nevertheless began whatever you believe happened after that.


What the fossil record shows, is STASIS, non-change, what you call "long static periods".

What it does not show, is "periods of rapid change". You might think that that is indicated, because you happen to believe in evolution, but the fossils surely don't show it.I actually said "relatively rapid change" and in geological terms that is still a long time compared to human lifetimes.


"The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ...The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground."

Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59

Robert E Ricklefs is an evolutionist and professor biology at the University of Missouri te St. Louis:
http://www.umsl.edu/~ricklefsSince Robert E Ricklefs is apparently an evolutionist perhaps you would like to cut and paste his evolutionary alternative model? Presumably you are not just carefully selecting anything arguably contradictory to generally accepted models?:nono:

Lazy afternoon
April 28th, 2016, 02:47 AM
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcomea it.


That says nothing about Jesus. It speaks of Gods Word, Gods light , Gods Spirit.


There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

Ok now John was witnessing of the light in Gods son.


The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.
Jesus was never the light which lighted everyone who came and comes into the world.


He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

Now the verses above speak of Jesus Christ after the event.


The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Then the verse above speaks of Jesus as revealed to the world at and after His baptism by John.


(John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ ”) Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

As John had declared.

LA

Sonnet
April 28th, 2016, 02:53 AM
Bs"d

A very violent flood, streaming this way and that way, would leave multiple layers.

But surely not layers each of which contains similar material but different to the adjacent layer?

Sonnet
April 28th, 2016, 02:54 AM
That says nothing about Jesus. It speaks of Gods Word, Gods light , Gods Spirit.



Ok now John was witnessing of the light in Gods son.


Jesus was never the light which lighted everyone who came and comes into the world.



Now the verses above speak of Jesus Christ after the event.



Then the verse above speaks of Jesus as revealed to the world at and after His baptism by John.



As John had declared.

LA

Two lights?

Sonnet
April 28th, 2016, 03:00 AM
That says nothing about Jesus. It speaks of Gods Word, Gods light , Gods Spirit.



Ok now John was witnessing of the light in Gods son.


Jesus was never the light which lighted everyone who came and comes into the world.



Now the verses above speak of Jesus Christ after the event.



Then the verse above speaks of Jesus as revealed to the world at and after His baptism by John.



As John had declared.

LA

There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

Which light? The pronoun's referent is in v.4. John goes on to continue talking about the same light.

Wherefore would you attempt to make a distinction when it's not there?

Sonnet
April 28th, 2016, 03:08 AM
That says nothing about Jesus. It speaks of Gods Word, Gods light , Gods Spirit.



Ok now John was witnessing of the light in Gods son.


Jesus was never the light which lighted everyone who came and comes into the world.



Now the verses above speak of Jesus Christ after the event.



Then the verse above speaks of Jesus as revealed to the world at and after His baptism by John.



As John had declared.

LA

Who was Jesus Christ?

Lazy afternoon
April 28th, 2016, 03:12 AM
There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

Which light? The pronoun's referent is in v.4. John goes on to continue talking about the same light.

Wherefore would you attempt to make a distinction when it's not there?

It is the same light but first describing that light before describing the carrier of that light which light has filled the man Jesus and made Him to be indistinguishable from that light.

If you look at Rev.ch 21 you find that Jesus is the candlestick which bears the light, which is a poor description of Him for he is more than that by reason of His being filled with the fullness of the Father, where it is the Father who lighted every man who comes into the world, but not to the fullness.

LA

alwight
April 28th, 2016, 03:13 AM
Bs"d

Meaning there is no proof for evolution in the fossil record whatsoever.
Scientific theories and science itself does not involve "proof", proof is for mathematics and whiskey.


And that's why Gould made up PE, in order to give an explanation for the total lack of evolution in the fossil record, and to explain the everywhere present STASIS, non-change, in the record.
That may be your opinion but given that fossils are never found in the "wrong" strata shall we concentrate on whether the geological column represents "Deep Time", great ages, or whether it was all laid down in one go?

If it were all in one go we would need to explain why fossils could ever became sorted into discrete strata.
If however there was geological "Deep Time" then what we need to do is explain exactly how new life forms evolved relatively rapidly at the beginning of new strata. However imo any relatively quickly evolving life is much less likely to leave behind fossils than those in a more static environment.

Sonnet
April 28th, 2016, 03:21 AM
It is the same light but first describing that light before describing the carrier of that light which light has filled the man Jesus and made Him to be indistinguishable from that light.

If you look at Rev.ch 21 you find that Jesus is the candlestick which bears the light, which is a poor description of Him for he is more than that by reason of His being filled with the fullness of the Father, where it is the Father who lighted every man who comes into the world, but not to the fullness.

LA

The exact nature of the relationship between Christ and God remains a mystery - perhaps we can agree on that?

Sonnet
April 28th, 2016, 03:24 AM
That may be your opinion but given that fossils are never found in the "wrong" strata

Another serious challenge to the Noachian Flood.

alwight
April 28th, 2016, 03:29 AM
Another serious challenge to the Noachian Flood.Clearly.

Sonnet
April 28th, 2016, 03:45 AM
Clearly.

So much so that many Christians have made it a legend.

It doesn't read like a legend though.

Sonnet
April 28th, 2016, 04:05 AM
Hebrews 11:1ff

Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.

By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.

By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death: “He could not be found, because God had taken him away.”a For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6nd without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that is in keeping with faith.

By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God. And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she considered him faithful who had made the promise. And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.

Where would we stop if Noah and the flood was just a legend?

Elia
April 28th, 2016, 04:38 AM
Dear Elia,

Yes, pigs can fly on planes, jets, helicopters, etc. Got to give them that!!

Bs"d

I knew I was right!

Elia
April 28th, 2016, 04:42 AM
Life nevertheless began whatever you believe happened after that.

Bs"d

Thank you for kicking in this open door.

Do evo's believe God created life? Or do they believe in abiogenesis?


I actually said "relatively rapid change" and in geological terms that is still a long time compared to human lifetimes.

Long or short, fact is that all proof for it is lacking.


Since Robert E Ricklefs is apparently an evolutionist perhaps you would like to cut and paste his evolutionary alternative model?

Who says he has one?

Elia
April 28th, 2016, 04:44 AM
But surely not layers each of which contains similar material but different to the adjacent layer?

Bs"d

Why not?

alwight
April 28th, 2016, 05:07 AM
Bs"d

Thank you for kicking in this open door.

Do evo's believe God created life? Or do they believe in abiogenesis?
Wrong question.
I don't represent all evolutionists while some believe in gods and some don't.
Abiogenesis only means life beginning from non-life and has been used in a religious context in the past. I don't think it needs any belief since life patently did start, but how it did doesn't really matter to Darwinian evolution since it is about what happened after the first life appeared.


Long or short, fact is that all proof for it is lacking."Proof" is not science.


Who says he has one?Since he was described as an "evolutionist" then presumably he must have his own version of Darwinian evolution that is different from Gould's?

Elia
April 28th, 2016, 05:44 AM
Scientific theories and science itself does not involve "proof", proof is for mathematics and whiskey.

Bs"d

Nonsense. The theory or relativity is proven, therefore that is now the law of relativity.

All empirical science can be proven with experiments. Everything that can not be proven with experiments is not science, but hypothesis or philosophy.


That may be your opinion but given that fossils are never found in the "wrong" strata

Now you are joking, right?


If it were all in one go we would need to explain why fossils could ever became sorted into discrete strata.

They didn't.


Dr. Carl Werner has written a book that gives details of Scientifically Incorrect Fossils, fossils that have been found in the wrong layers.

This book is filled with examples of Scientifically Incorrect fossils (fossils that should not exist in the layers with fossils that are O.K.)

Living Fossils Evolution: The Grand Experiment Vol. 2 Dr. Carl Werner New Leaf Press ISBN 13:978-0-89221-691-8 ISBN 10: 0-89221-691-3

p. 160 Turtles with Dinosaur fossils

Birds with dinosaurs

p. 163 Dr. Strickberger “Unfortunately, no feathered intermediates appear between Archaeopteryx and its dinosaur ancestors, nor do further birdlike fossils show up until about ten million years later in the Cretaceous period. These Cretaceous [dinosaur-age] fossils are exclusively those of aquatic birds or shore birds, a few already representative of modern groups such as flamingos, loons, cormorants, and sandpipers, although some, such as Hesperornis, still retained reptile-like teeth.”

p. 164 Dr. Paul Sereno, from the University of Chicago . . . He suggested that not only parrots but penguins and owls had been found in dinosaur rock layers too.

p. 166 Dr. Stidham revealed several more birds from the dinosaur era.

p. 167 Dr. Stidham in Nature “most or all of the major modern bird groups were present in the Cretaceous.”

p. 168 Glaucous-winged Gull (Dinosaur name Larus glaucescens) lived with Pterodactylus

Mammals and Dinosaurs

p. 173 Dr. Zhe-Xi Luo at the Carnegie Museum of Natural-History “Nearly 100 Complete Dinosaur-Era Mammal Skeletons Found”

p. 173 Dr. Burge curator of vertebrate paleontology, College of Eastern Utah Prehistoric Museum “We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites.

p. 176 Hedgehog-Like Mammal Found in Dinosaur Rock Layers

p. 178 Possum-Like Mammal Found in Dinosaur Rock Layers

p. 182 Other Mammals Found in Dinosaur Layers

p. 183 Modern Plants found in Dinosaur Layers

Dr. Brad Harrub has documented evidence of a dinosaur that was found in a mammal stomach.

Their layers are far from pure.



Cambrian Fossils Found in 'Wrong' Place
by Brian Thomas, M.S.

http://www.icr.org/article/5469/

Many extinct and strange creatures were only known from Cambrian rocks--until now. Newly discovered fossils in higher, more "recent" rock layers in Morocco show "remarkable preservation" and hold a host of what were for decades considered exclusively Cambrian sea creatures. These fossil finds were quite unexpected by evolutionists, who had pictured a different evolutionary scenario.

In the geologic timescale, the "Cambrian period" refers to the lowermost densely fossil-bearing rocks. These rocks record the sudden appearance of creatures, with representatives of almost every living phylum found fully formed and with no signs of evolutionary transition, which is an enigma for evolution.1

The soft-bodied creatures found in Cambrian strata were considered stem or basal creatures. They were supposed to have been the worms, arthropods, and other odd creatures that "gave rise" to subsequent body forms found in upper strata. Although none of them ever showed clear transition toward the more familiar sea animals that are found in higher strata or are living today, they were considered to be evolutionary predecessors because they were thought to be exclusive to Cambrian rocks.

Now all of that has changed. A recent study in Nature reported that some of the same soft-bodied "Cambrian" sea creatures were found in Morocco--preserved in brilliant reds and yellows because of the oxidation of pyrite that occurred on their soft tissues while they were being fossilized--in a higher layer, mixed in with "later" animals.2 This discovery erases the argument for evolution, which relies on the absence of these creatures in higher layers to support the assumption that they "diverged" into "later" life forms--and eventually into people.

This find forces evolutionists to add a new belief in order to support their overall concept of past life. Before, evolutionists believed that some creatures evolved into others--an easy story to assert but one that lacked the expected transitional forms in the fossil record.3 Now, they must also believe that some creatures evolved into others, and at the same time spawned more of themselves in "parallel." They must insist that the "stem" soft-bodied animals "gave rise" to newer life forms found in higher sediments, as well as to populations that continued to produce more forms just like themselves.

Since both of these "parallel" populations lived alongside one another, instead of in separate periods of time, then why are the Cambrian creatures not typically found as fossils in higher strata? The study's authors said, "The rarity of Burgess Shale-type taxa [organisms] in post-Middle Cambrian rocks elsewhere probably results from a lack of preservation rather than the extinction and replacement of these faunas during the later Cambrian."2 (The Burgess Shale Formation is widely known for soft-tissue preservation in its fossils.)

This one brief statement rewrites a foundational part of the evolutionary story. Instead of going extinct because they evolved into subsequent forms, it must now be believed that they evolved into other forms despite what these new fossils show--not transitional forms evolving, but stable forms persisting. This find forces the evolutionary story to take too many twists and turns to be true.

On the other hand, if God created all creatures during the same week-long miraculous event, and if God subsequently judged the world in a globe-covering watery catastrophe, then one would expect to find exactly what has been described: ancient sea creatures that were fully-formed and coexisted in time, buried together in mud in a massive, worldwide graveyard.


Dinosaur Fossil Found in Mammal's Stomach (http://www.livescience.com/3794-dinosaur-fossil-mammal-stomach.html)


In China, scientists have identified the fossilized remains of a tiny dinosaur in the stomach of a mammal. Scientists say the animal's last meal probably is the first proof that mammals hunted small dinosaurs some 130 million years ago.

It contradicts conventional evolutionary theory that early mammals couldn't possibly attack and eat a dinosaur because they were timid, chipmunk-sized creatures that scurried in the looming shadow of the giant reptiles.


Are There Human Fossils in the "Wrong Place" for Evolution? (http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/are-there-human-fossils-wrong-place-evolution)


Geological column is sometimes out of order (Talk.Origins) (http://creationwiki.org/Geological_column_is_sometimes_out_of_order_%28Tal k.Origins%29)

Elia
April 28th, 2016, 05:51 AM
Wrong question.
I don't represent all evolutionists while some believe in gods and some don't.

Bs"d

As we all know, as a general rule, evo's don't believe in God. They believe in evolution because they don't want to believe in God.


Abiogenesis only means life beginning from non-life and has been used in a religious context in the past. I don't think it needs any belief since life patently did start,

It needs a tremendous amount of believe, because Pasteur proved already in 1860 that life does not spontaneously form from dead matter.


but how it did doesn't really matter to Darwinian evolution since it is about what happened after the first life appeared.

It matters a lot, because the purpose for the whole evo theory is to deny God. And therefore they also need an explanation for the beginning of life.


"Proof" is not science.

Science can be proven. If not, it's not science, but philosophy.


Since he was described as an "evolutionist" then presumably he must have his own version of Darwinian evolution that is different from Gould's?

No.

Elia
April 28th, 2016, 05:54 AM
Another serious challenge to the Noachian Flood.

Bs"d

It would only be that if that assumption of "fossils never found in the wrong strata" were correct.

Elia
April 28th, 2016, 05:59 AM
So much so that many Christians have made it a legend.

It doesn't read like a legend though.

Bs"d

Christians didn't make it into a legend. The Biblical flood story is 1300 years older than Christianity.

EVERY old culture has its own flood story. Also indians in the Amazone jungle who were never in contact with civilization or Christianity.

There are more than 300 flood traditions registered by researchers all over the world. Almost all of 'm contain common elements which can also be found in the Biblical flood story.

The only reasonable reason for the flood tradition being present among all cultures and peoples all over the world is a collective memory of a real event.

6days
April 28th, 2016, 08:55 AM
The Noachian flood would be one layer of graded material - and not millions of years ago. That is certainly easy to believe, since we are told that from the time we watch Dora the Explorer until the time we finish university. However the various layers along with polystrate fossils, and many thick coal seams are excellent evidence of the global flood. (Many other evidences also).
The massive disruption of the earths surface, along with volcanic activity (and possibly asteroid hits) world wide during the flood would certainly have produced many layers. Keep in mind the main flood lasted almost a year, which in all likelihood started and finished with massive tsunamis rolling around the globe. Some geologists such as John Morris think the effects of rising mountains, and water draining of the continents(Ps 104:7,8) may have lasted a couple hundred years. Science always supports God's Word

6days
April 28th, 2016, 08:59 AM
If interested there are other examples of scientists who were atheists, admitting how painful it was realizing the evidence did not support their belief system.
Yes please.
I could provide quotes from several. One of my favorites is Dr. John Sanford, geneticist, professor, inventor, 80 peer reviewed articles. I might quote him later today, but I will start with.....

Dr. Gary Parker, PhD biology with cognate in geology. "For me "evolution" was much more than just a scientific theory. It was a total world and life view, an alternate religion, a substitute for God.... I knew where I came from and I knew where I was going.

"Let's face it. Evolution is an exciting and appealing idea! A lot of scientific evidence can be used to support it. Perhaps most importantly for me and many others, evolution means there is no God, no Creator who sets the rules....

" I didn't just believe evolution; I embraced it enthusiastically. And I taught it enthusiastically. I considered it one of my major missions as a science Professor to help rid my students of any pre-scientific superstitions such as Christianity. ... I was almost fired once for teaching evolution so vigorously that I had Christian students crying in my class!"

Then, several Christians began sharing the gospel with Gary, including a newly-hired biology professor at the college where he was working. He says " my strong belief in evolution was a huge stumbling block to my accepting the good news of New Life In Christ. I thought evolution had proved the Bible was wrong and that there was no God out there...

"For three years I used all the evolutionary arguments I knew so well. For three years I lost every scientific argument. Reluctant and surprised I finally concluded that what we read in God's word is the surest guide to understanding what we see in God's world."
Gary Parker, 'How Real Science Reveals the Hand of God'.

Jose Fly
April 28th, 2016, 09:51 AM
They should have started with the absolute truth of God's Word rather than falling prey to the religion of naturalism.

Right...they should have violated the very principle you agreed was vital to conducting proper science.


:) uh..... it was YOU who made the point about it being painful to ditch your beliefs. I provided an example.

Um....do you even check these guys out before you cite them?


Dr. Emil Silvestru (http://creation.com/emil-silvestru)

After becoming a Christian he quickly realized that the ‘millions of years’ interpretation, so common in geology, was not compatible with Genesis. ‘Once I became a Christian,’ Emil says, ‘I knew I had to “tune up” my scientific knowledge with the Scriptures.’

‘Although philosophically and ethically I accepted a literal Genesis from my conversion, at first I was unable to match it with my “technical” side.’

So as with Sanford before, Silvestru converted to Christianity first, and then adopted young-earth creationism. Also, if you look at the list of publications on that page we see the same thing as Sanford, i.e., a very productive scientific career while operating under the evolutionary and old-earth framework, which all came to a complete halt once he converted to young-earth creationism.

So again, thanks for providing yet another illustration of just how useless creationism is. :thumb:

Jose Fly
April 28th, 2016, 09:53 AM
:think: Really? I thought he died in 2002 :think:

Um.....so?


Er, reading some of his critique, I think a bit of it 'stretching.' I suppose you want to believe just as badly as some of the 'dishonest folks on God's side.'

What are you talking about?

Jose Fly
April 28th, 2016, 09:55 AM
If A evolved into Z, then B-Y might represent examples of the stages in between, I guess.

Would you present to this thread what you consider to be a transitional fossil, please?

A transitional fossil would be a specimen that exhibits a mixture of characteristics from different closely-related taxa.

Anyone disagree with that?

Jose Fly
April 28th, 2016, 10:01 AM
I could provide quotes from several. One of my favorites is Dr. John Sanford, geneticist, professor, inventor, 80 peer reviewed articles.

One of my favorites too!

Sanford's career shows the stark difference between creationism and evolution/old earth. While operating under the framework of evolution/old earth, Sanford authored those "80 peer reviewed articles", invented the gene gun, and was an overall very productive scientist.

But then he converted to Christianity, adopted the young-earth creationist belief, and suddenly his scientific production came to a complete and total halt. He literally has not contributed a single thing since this switch.

An excellent example of the utter irrelevance of creationism! :up:

Lon
April 28th, 2016, 11:46 AM
What about the Siccar Point formation? - horizontal layers upon vertical layers. Hutton used it to prove the immensity of time.

The Noachian flood would be one layer of graded material - and not millions of years ago.
Subduction does push up layers. The time factor, I believe, is what we tend to scrutinize (either with or without theologians).

I asked often in my geology class why the figures so many 'million' years was given. It didn't seem the exact science to me, that it was purported to be (inept professor?) :idunno:

6days
April 28th, 2016, 12:52 PM
An excellent example of the utter irrelevance of creationism!
We are so shocked you think that! :)

Creationism and evolutionism are belief systems about the past. While creationism was largely responsible for the rise of modern science, evolutionism has hindered science, increased racism and was largely responsible for the holocaust.

genuineoriginal
April 28th, 2016, 01:00 PM
A single catastrophic world wide flood would leave a single layer of graded material, not layers.

Well, that is the argument anyway.
And I contend that is a false assumption based on not understanding the forces involved.

Even if you think the flood was only rain water coming down, you would have to accept that the soil from different areas would take different amounts of time to be washed away into a basin.
Because of the difference in the soil and the time of travel it would form into layers that would be different than if all the material entered the basin at the same time suspended in water and then settled at different rates.

We have a recent example of how hundreds of feet of sediment layers can be formed quickly in a small area.


_____
30 Years Later, the Lessons from Mount St. Helens (http://www.icr.org/article/5465/)

. . . For example, the rapid outflow from the volcano caused massive amounts of sediment to fill in the entire valley adjacent to the mountain. And a 1982 dam breach of the snow-melt lake that had formed in the mountain's crater caused a catastrophic flood that tore a gash through those fresh deposits from two years earlier. To this day, the resulting steep-sided canyon walls can be seen,2 showing that horizontal sediment layers hundreds of feet thick were formed within hours during the eruption. This sparks the question: what other layered sedimentary rocks in earth's crust were formed rapidly?
. . . Because of the Mount St. Helens eruption, scientists know that sedimentary rock layers can form in only hours, rather than requiring millions of years. It also showed that radiometric dating is not necessarily accurate and that God gave animals and plants the ability to rapidly re-colonize barren land. And the improved seismic prediction techniques that Mount St. Helens facilitated have also increased scientific understanding of earth's geologic activities. . . .

However, we are talking about a global flood instead of a regional flood.

The theory I find most credible is the asteroid/comet theory, which has the earth being hit by a group of asteroids or a comet, throwing large amounts of water into the air and causing huge tsunamis to repeatedly wash over Pangaea.
Some of the land would be exposed until the next tsunami came and the rain only lasted 40 days and nights of the year long flooding.
After the flood, some of the water would be trapped in inland seas that would be released centuries later to cause more changes to the landscape, and the temperature fluctuations causing the ice ages in the centuries following the flood would also need to be taken into account.

genuineoriginal
April 28th, 2016, 01:10 PM
That may be your opinion but given that fossils are never found in the "wrong" strata


Another serious challenge to the Noachian Flood.

Fossils that are found in the "wrong" strata are not accepted as being from the strata they are found in, and an explanation is crafted to preserve the illusion that fossils are always found in the "right" strata.


_____
Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 2 FOSSILS AND STRATA Part 5 (http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V2/2evlch17e.htm)

MIXED-UP FOSSILS Have you ever noticed that, on the standard strata time charts, certain fossils will always be in certain strata? That is another generalization in the evolutionary theory that does not prove to be correct. Fossils are frequently found in the wrong places, especially far below the strata where they are first supposed to have "evolved" into existence.

There are three ways that the experts deal with to this problem: (1) Ignore the evidence. (2) When small numbers of fossils are found in solid rock below their proper strata, they are said to have been "downwashed" through the solid rock into lower strata. That is, they slipped, slid, or fell through solid rock into lower levels. (3) When only a few are located below their theoretical strata, they are said to have "reworked" themselves into the higher strata. More detail on this will be found near the end of this chapter (appendix 14).


"Fossils frequently occur where they are not 'supposed' to. It is then claimed that either the fauna [animals] or flora [plants] have lived longer than previously known (simple extension of stratigraphic range) or that the fossil has been reworked. In 'reworking,' it is claimed that the fossil has been eroded away from a much older host rock and has thus been incorporated into a rock of more recent age. The reciprocal situation is `downwash,' where it is claimed that an organism has been washed down into rock much older than the time it lived and has become fossilized." John Woodmorappe, "An Anthology of Matters Significant to Creationism and Diluviology: Report 2," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982, p. 209.

"Reworking" and "downwash" are used to explain a few fossils not in agreement with the theory; "overthrusts," to be discussed shortly, are used to explain much larger numbers of such fossils.

6days
April 28th, 2016, 01:24 PM
Sanford's career shows the stark difference between creationism and evolution/old earth. While operating under the framework of evolution/old earth, Sanford authored those "80 peer reviewed articles", invented the gene gun, and was an overall very productive scientist.
You have it backwards. The fact he was published in peer reviewed articles in secular journals shows he understands science. He just doesn't believe in common ancestry...and in fact he says genetics shows "evolution is impossible".

But... besides you having things backwards, it was YOU who brought up topic of it being difficult for a scientist to ditch their beliefs about the past. Sanford, became a Christian but still found it difficult to realize his belief system (evolutionism) was not supported by science.


BTW... the gene gun was only one of several patented inventions of Sanford which has helped feed billions of people

Sonnet
April 28th, 2016, 01:44 PM
Bs"d

Why not?

Like Siccar Point? https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.geowalks.co.uk/images/siccar/dscf1668.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.geowalks.co.uk/isiccar.html&h=360&w=480&tbnid=oQr24kx99i_suM:&tbnh=160&tbnw=213&docid=6TKBN513Habp1M&itg=1&usg=__ZLKlldaaoPYvKix87_puoTTyBV0=

Sonnet
April 28th, 2016, 01:54 PM
Bs"d

Christians didn't make it into a legend.

Some do. They have posted on TOL.

Jose Fly
April 28th, 2016, 02:07 PM
We are so shocked you think that! :)

It's not something anyone "thinks"; it's self-evident from the facts. Both Silvestru and Sanford were productive scientists who contributed to their fields.....

....until they converted to Christianity and young-earth creationism, at which point their scientific productivity and contributions came to a complete halt.

That's just the facts.

Jose Fly
April 28th, 2016, 02:15 PM
You have it backwards. The fact he was published in peer reviewed articles in secular journals shows he understands science. He just doesn't believe in common ancestry...and in fact he says genetics shows "evolution is impossible".

What are you talking about? Sanford describes it himself in the interview you first posted (http://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impossible).

While an "evolutionist" he was a very productive scientist and contributed to his field.

As soon as he became a creationist his contributions to science came to a complete halt.


But... besides you having things backwards, it was YOU who brought up topic of it being difficult for a scientist to ditch their beliefs about the past.

Yep, and I noted that good scientists follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if it contradicts their religious beliefs.


Sanford, became a Christian but still found it difficult to realize his belief system (evolutionism) was not supported by science.

Again, in the interview you posted Sanford describes it quite differently...

"I would not say that science led me to the Lord (which is the experience of some). Rather I would say Jesus opened my eyes to His creation—I was blind, and gradually I could see."

So his abandonment of evolution and adoption of creationism had nothing to do with science, but was the result of his religious conversion that also completely halted his scientific productivity.


BTW... the gene gun was only one of several patented inventions of Sanford which has helped feed billions of people

Invented while he was working under the framework of evolutionary theory. Inventions since becoming a creationist? Zero.

Lon
April 28th, 2016, 02:28 PM
But surely not layers each of which contains similar material but different to the adjacent layer?
Again, it depends on what happened when with the plate movements, if this specific comes into play. See here (http://www.icr.org/article/catastrophic-plate-tectonics-flood-model/)for an abstract

Lon
April 28th, 2016, 02:37 PM
Another serious challenge to the Noachian Flood.

is it? Why aren't you guys reading (http://creation.com/fossils-wrong-place)the same things I am reading (http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V2/2evlch17e.htm)? :idunno:

6days
April 28th, 2016, 03:12 PM
If interested there are other examples of scientists who were atheists, admitting how painful it was realizing the evidence did not support their belief system.
Yes please.
Geneticist John Sanford specifically mentions the "painful" process.
‘I was totally sold on evolution. It was my religion; it defined how I saw everything, it was my value system and my reason for being. Later, I came to believe in “God”, but this still did not significantly change my intellectual outlook regarding origins. However, still later, as I began to personally know and submit to Jesus, I started to be fundamentally changed—in every respect. This included my mind, and how I viewed science and history. I would not say that science led me to the Lord (which is the experience of some). Rather I would say Jesus opened my eyes to His creation—I was blind, and gradually I could see. It sounds simple, but it was a slow and painful process. I still only see “as through a glass, darkly” [1 Cor. 13:12]. But I see so much more than I could before!

Sonnet
April 28th, 2016, 10:34 PM
is it? Why aren't you guys reading (http://creation.com/fossils-wrong-place)the same things I am reading (http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V2/2evlch17e.htm)? :idunno:

thanks. will have a look.

Sonnet
May 1st, 2016, 06:06 AM
Bs"d

My response is that that claim is nonsense.

The book "Earth in Upheaval" shows very much and very strong proof for a world wide flood.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/21746106/Velikovsky-Earth-in-Upheaval

It is a very interesting read.

Jonahdog
May 1st, 2016, 06:55 AM
is it? Why aren't you guys reading (http://creation.com/fossils-wrong-place)the same things I am reading (http://evolutionfacts.com/Ev-V2/2evlch17e.htm)? :idunno:

Your second selection, Velikovsky. On occasion various TOL posters like to quote mine Stephen Gould. Here for your reading pleasure is cite to an entire essay of Gould's about Velikovsky http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_velikovsky.html.
Have fun.

Lon
May 1st, 2016, 02:59 PM
Your second selection, Velikovsky. On occasion various TOL posters like to quote mine Stephen Gould. Here for your reading pleasure is cite to an entire essay of Gould's about Velikovsky http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_velikovsky.html.
Have fun.
Gould is perhaps most enjoyed not by his prowess of field for me, but his ability to write well. For that, thanks. A few worth mentionings:

And here Velikovsky is not to blame at all. He has merely fallen victim — as have so many others with the most orthodox among previously cherished opinions — to this great revolution in geological thought.
Which of course, was scientifically postulated.

Gould admits that he has no expertise when criticizing the most of Velikovsky's work, just his own paleontology and that of a book 27 years past when he was likely in his teens. I have not read Velikovsky.

Jonahdog
May 1st, 2016, 05:37 PM
Lon: My apologies, not sure how I confused your post with one by Elia.

6days
May 1st, 2016, 11:28 PM
Yes please.(examples of scientists who were atheists, admitting how painful it was realizing the evidence did not support their belief system.)
Dr. Jerry Bergman PhD "At Wayne State University, where I earned my bachelor’s, master’s, and Ph.D. degrees, I was exposed to evolution. Influenced by my atheist father and my professors, I accepted this worldview, as did most of my peers. We also accepted the atheist philosophy that came with it......

"....The evidence against Darwinism was a critical factor in my acceptance of creationism, which opened the door to my acceptance of Christianity, biblical reliability, and a young-earth creation worldview. Like many scientists who came before me, I discovered that the evidence supports the truth of the Bible." http://www.icr.org/article/8535

Sonnet
May 1st, 2016, 11:39 PM
Not long ago, Venus emerged from Jupiter, like Athena from the brow of Zeus—literally! It then assumed the form and orbit of a comet. In 1500 B.C., at the time of the Jewish exodus from Egypt, the earth passed twice through Venus's tail, bringing both blessing and chaos; manna from heaven (or rather from hydrocarbons of a cometary tail) and the bloody rivers of the Mosaic plagues (iron from the same tail). Continuing its erratic course, Venus collided with (or nearly brushed) Mars, lost its tail, and hurtled to its present orbit. Mars then left its regular position and almost collided with the earth in about 700 B.C. So great were the terrors of these times, and so ardent our collective desire to forget them, that they have been erased from our conscious minds. Yet they lurk in our inherited and unconscious memory, causing fear, neurosis, aggression, and their social manifestations as war.

(Immanuel Velikovsky - Worlds in Collision)


Does this discredit Velikovsky?

Sonnet
May 1st, 2016, 11:52 PM
S. J. Gould on Velikovsky's 'Earth in Upheaval'


First, the assumption that similarity of form reflects simultaneity of occurrence: Velikovsky discusses the fossil fishes of the Old Red Sandstone, a Devonian formation in England (350-400 million years old). He cites evidence of violent death—contortion of the body, lack of prediction, even signs of "surprise and terror" engraved forever on fossil faces. He infers that some sudden catastrophe must have extirpated all these fishes; yet, however unpleasant the death of any individual, these fishes are distributed through hundreds of feet of sediments that record several million years of deposition! Likewise, the craters of the moon are similar in appearance, and each one formed by the sudden impact of a meteorite. Yet this influx spans billions of years, and Velikovsky's favored hypothesis of simultaneous origin by bubbling on the surface of a molten moon has been conclusively disproved by the Apollo landings.

Thoughts anyone?

Relevant passage in Velikovsky: https://www.scribd.com/doc/21746106/Velikovsky-Earth-in-Upheaval

Pages 51-54.

Sonnet
May 2nd, 2016, 12:00 AM
Bs"d

My response is that that claim is nonsense.

The book "Earth in Upheaval" shows very much and very strong proof for a world wide flood.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/21746106/Velikovsky-Earth-in-Upheaval

Maybe you would like to respond to Gould's rebuttal (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_velikovsky.html) of this book?

Lon
May 2nd, 2016, 12:15 AM
S. J. Gould on Velikovsky's 'Earth in Upheaval'

Thoughts anyone?Gould also said some of it was wrong on science's end also, that is, that he said Velikovsky had been misled by science. Also, Velikovsky was written well before Gould. Gould was a bit harsh with scientists as well, so I see him as being an equal-opportunity offender on his call-outs. He did write well. Some of the time, Gould actually made his oppenents look better by writing their position, probably better than some of them did in the first place, thus inadvertently giving them a higher praise than he likely intended. He does Velikovsky a service by ensuring for posterity he'd be well known. Velikovsky certainly wrote well, painting vivid pictures. -Lon

Elia
May 2nd, 2016, 01:12 AM
Gould is perhaps most enjoyed not by his prowess of field for me, but his ability to write well. For that, thanks. A few worth mentionings:

Which of course, was scientifically postulated.

Gould admits that he has no expertise when criticizing the most of Velikovsky's work, just his own paleontology and that of a book 27 years past when he was likely in his teens. I have not read Velikovsky.

Bs"d

So you haven't read it, Gould is not qualified to comment on it, so what are you trying to say?

Lon
May 2nd, 2016, 01:18 AM
Bs"d

So you haven't read it, Gould is not qualified to comment on it, so what are you trying to say?
Even Gould said he wasn't qualified on most of it, but extrapolated from his own area of study of paleontology and biology. So even Gould agrees with you to an extent. I always found Gould to be a conundrum. He at times said things that would favor an Evolutionist, but he also challenged his own colleagues a fair share of the time and was quotable by creationists because of it.

Elia
May 2nd, 2016, 01:48 AM
Maybe you would like to respond to Gould's rebuttal (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_velikovsky.html) of this book?

Bs"d

There is no rebuttal. As Gould himself says, he is not qualified to comment on it, much less to rebut it.

I read "Earth in Upheaval", and it cannot be rebutted. It is just a whole lot of observations, which cannot be rebutted. The facts are the facts. You cannot rebut facts.

Here is an excerpt of the Foreword of Earth in Upheaval. It is tailor made for you guys:

In Worlds in Collison I presented the chronicles of two the very last series of such catastrophes, those that visited our earth in the second and first millennia before the present era. Since these upheavals occurred in historical times, when the art of writing had already been perfected in the centers of ancient civilization, I described them mainly from historical documents, relying on celestial charts, calendars, and sundials and water clocks discovered by archaeologists,and drawing also upon classical literature, the sacred literature of East and West, the epics of the northern and the oral traditions of from races, primitive peoples Lapland to the South Seas. Geological vestiges of the events narrated in documents and traditions were indicated only here and there, when I felt that the immediate testimony of the rocks must be presented along with the historical evidence. I closed that description of cataclysmic events with a promise to attempt, at a later date, the reconstruction of similar global catastrophes of earlier times, one of them being the Deluge.

I had intended, after piecing together the history of these earlier global upheavals, to present geological and paleontological material to support the testimony of man. But the reception of Worlds in Collision by certain scientific groups persuaded me, before reviving the pageant of earlier catastrophes, to present at least some of the evidence of the rocks, which is as insistent as that carried down to our times by written records and by word of mouth. This testimony is never given in metaphors; and as with the pages of the Old Testament or of the Iliad, nothing can be changed in it. Pebbles and rocks and mountains and the bottom of the sea will bear witness. Do they know of the days, recent and ancient, when the harmony of this world was interrupted by the forces of nature? Have they entombed innumerable creatures and encased them in rock? Have they seen the ocean moving on continents and continents under water? Was this earth and the sliding of its seas showered with stones and covered expanse by ashes? Were its forests, uprooted by hurricanes and set afire, covered by tides carrying sand and debris from the bottom of the oceans? It takes millions of years for a log to be turned into coal but only a single hour when burning. Here lies the core of the problem: Did the earth in a slow a added change process, year to a year and a million years to a million, the peaceful ground of nature being the broad arena of the contest of in which the fittest survived? Or did it throngs, happen, too, that the very arena itself, infuriated, rose the contestants and made an end of their against battles?

I present here some pages from the book of nature. I have excluded from them all references to ancient literature, traditions, and folklore; and this I have done with intent, so that careless critics cannot decry the entire work as "tales and legends." Stones and bones are the witnesses. Mute as they are, only they will testify, clearly and unequivocally. Yet dull ears and dimmed eyes will deny this evidence, and the dimmer the vision, the louder and more insistent will be the voices of protestation.

This book was not written for those who swear by the verba magistri, the holiness of their school wisdom; and they may debate it without reading it, as well.

I. Velikovsky

Elia
May 2nd, 2016, 01:55 AM
Even Gould said he wasn't qualified on most of it, but extrapolated from his own area of study of paleontology and biology. So even Gould agrees with you to an extent. I always found Gould to be a conundrum. He at times said things that would favor an Evolutionist, but he also challenged his own colleagues a fair share of the time and was quotable by creationists because of it.

Bs"d

Everybody who is not struck with total blindness, should know now that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, namely STASIS, non-change, non-evolution.

Everything new always pops up suddenly, without any link to supposed predecessors.

The fossil record rips the evolution theory apart.

Sonnet
May 2nd, 2016, 01:57 AM
Bs"d

There is no rebuttal. As Gould himself says, he is not qualified to comment on it, much less to rebut it.

I read "Earth in Upheaval", and it cannot be rebutted. It is just a whole lot of observations, which cannot be rebutted. The facts are the facts. You cannot rebut facts.


But Gould rejects the notion that the Devonian red sandstone formation occurred as per a single event. Velikosky is arguing it was a catastrophic event.

That is a rebuttal.

Sonnet
May 2nd, 2016, 01:58 AM
Bs"d

Everybody who is not struck with total blindness, should know now that the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, namely STASIS, non-change, non-evolution.

Everything new always pops up suddenly, without any link to supposed predecessors.

The fossil record rips the evolution theory apart.

Surely you don't think it is that obvious?

Sonnet
May 2nd, 2016, 02:03 AM
It takes millions of years for a log to be turned into coal but only a single hour when burning. (Velikovsky)

Elia
May 2nd, 2016, 02:08 AM
Surely you don't think it is that obvious?

Bs"d

How can anybody who reads THIS (https://sites.google.com/site/777mountzion/fossiles) think otherwise?? :confused::confused::confused:

Elia
May 2nd, 2016, 02:10 AM
Your second selection, Velikovsky. On occasion various TOL posters like to quote mine Stephen Gould. Here for your reading pleasure is cite to an entire essay of Gould's about Velikovsky http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_velikovsky.html.
Have fun.

Bs"d

For your reading pleasure, here is something more about Velikovsky: https://sites.google.com/site/777mountzion/exodus

Sonnet
May 2nd, 2016, 02:17 AM
Bs"d

How can anybody who reads THIS (https://sites.google.com/site/777mountzion/fossiles) think otherwise?? :confused::confused::confused:

Well, I don't deny Darwinists may have got it wrong.

Elia
May 2nd, 2016, 02:19 AM
It takes millions of years for a log to be turned into coal but only a single hour when burning. (Velikovsky)

Bs"d

https://answersingenesis.org/biology/plants/how-did-we-get-all-this-coal/

Converting Vegetation to Coal

Once buried, how quickly could this vegetation be compacted and converted to coal? Laboratory experiments have successfully produced coal-like materials rapidly, under conditions intended to simulate the conditions when actual coal beds accumulated.

A research team at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois made material resembling coal by heating plant materials with clay minerals at 302°F (150°C) for two to eight months in the absence of oxygen. After a series of such experiments, the team concluded that coal can be produced directly from plant materials via thermal reactions speeded up by the clay minerals in only one to four months.8 Other experiments have also confirmed that clay particles act as chemical catalysts in a rapid coal-forming process.9 It is thus significant that clay minerals often account for up to 80 percent of the non-plant matter in actual coal.

Subsequent experiments have more closely simulated natural geologic conditions, with temperatures of only 257°F (125°C) and lower pressures (equivalent to burial under 5,905 feet [1,800 meters] of wet sediments).10 After only 75 days, the original plant and wood materials still transformed into coal material, comparable chemically to coal from the same area of Indonesia.

Because these experiments simulated natural conditions, we can be confident that the coal-forming process is rapid and requires only months. So there is no reason to insist that coal formation requires millions of years.

Sonnet
May 2nd, 2016, 02:23 AM
Bs"d

How can anybody who reads THIS (https://sites.google.com/site/777mountzion/fossiles) think otherwise?? :confused::confused::confused:

Unrelated but just curious - who was Jesus Christ?

Elia
May 2nd, 2016, 02:32 AM
Even Gould said he wasn't qualified on most of it, but extrapolated from his own area of study of paleontology and biology. So even Gould agrees with you to an extent.

Bs"d

Gould totally agrees with me that there is no evolution to be found in the fossil record, but only STASIS, non-change = non-evolution, and sudden appearance of new species:

“Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution)."

Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15



Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis.Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.

Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182


"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," 1982, p. 140


"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record."

Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p.189


Gould and Eldredge were the first ones who dared to say out loud these facts. For almost 150 years the public was lied to by "science" about how wonderfully the fossil record matched Darwin.

Elia
May 2nd, 2016, 02:35 AM
Unrelated but just curious - who was Jesus Christ?

Bs"d

One of the many false messiahs.

One of the many who claimed to be the messiah, but who failed to fulfil the messianic prophecies.

Sonnet
May 2nd, 2016, 02:48 AM
Bs"d

One of the many false messiahs.

One of the many who claimed to be the messiah, but who failed to fulfil the messianic prophecies.

Ok, thanks.

Sonnet
May 2nd, 2016, 03:28 AM
Bs"d

Gould totally agrees with me that there is no evolution to be found in the fossil record, but only STASIS, non-change = non-evolution, and sudden appearance of new species:

“Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution)."

Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15



Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis.Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.

Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182


"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," 1982, p. 140


"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record."

Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p.189


Gould and Eldredge were the first ones who dared to say out loud these facts. For almost 150 years the public was lied to by "science" about how wonderfully the fossil record matched Darwin.

Isn't it true that most paleontologists reject P.E. and still hold out for the evidence of gradualism?

Elia
May 2nd, 2016, 03:45 AM
Isn't it true that most paleontologists reject P.E. and still hold out for the evidence of gradualism?

Bs"d

No.

Most agree with PE:

"The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ... The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground."

Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59

Robert E Ricklefs is an evolutionist and professor biology at the University of Missouri te St. Louis:
http://www.umsl.edu/~ricklefs

Sonnet
May 2nd, 2016, 03:49 AM
Bs"d

No.

Most agree with PE:

"The Eldredge-Gould concept of punctuated equilibria has gained wide acceptance among paleontologists. It attempts to account for the following paradox: Within continuously sampled lineages, one rarely finds the gradual morphological trends predicted by Darwinian evolution; rather, change occurs with the sudden appearance of new, well-differentiated species. Eldredge and Gould equate such appearances with speciation, although the details of these events are not preserved. ...The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground."

Ricklefs, Robert E., "Paleontologists Confronting Macroevolution," Science, vol. 199, 1978, p. 59

Robert E Ricklefs is an evolutionist and professor biology at the University of Missouri te St. Louis:
http://www.umsl.edu/~ricklefs

Yeh - sorry, I did read that just after I made the post.

Interesting that Ricklefs admits that PE is unsubstantiated:

The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground.

Not sure what he means here:

apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa)

chair
May 2nd, 2016, 06:44 AM
Bs"d

... the fossil record shows the opposite of evolution, namely STASIS, non-change, non-evolution.

Everything new always pops up suddenly, ...

"STASIS, non-change"..."Everything new always..."

Do you ever read what you write?

Sonnet
May 2nd, 2016, 06:54 AM
Bs"d

Gould totally agrees with me that there is no evolution to be found in the fossil record, but only STASIS, non-change = non-evolution, and sudden appearance of new species:

“Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution)."

Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15



Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis.Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.

Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182


"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," 1982, p. 140


"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record."

Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p.189


Gould and Eldredge were the first ones who dared to say out loud these facts. For almost 150 years the public was lied to by "science" about how wonderfully the fossil record matched Darwin.

What about this: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

Elia
May 2nd, 2016, 07:17 AM
What about this: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils

Bs"d

What they have are either fossils of humans or fossils of apes. Throw in a few humans with rickets, which causes deformation of the skeleton, and the confusion is complete.

Jose Fly
May 2nd, 2016, 10:42 AM
Yeh - sorry, I did read that just after I made the post.

Interesting that Ricklefs admits that PE is unsubstantiated:

The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. Apart from the obvious sampling problems inherent to the observations that stimulated the model, and apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground.

Not sure what he means here:

apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa)

Creationists like to dishonestly misrepresent PE...as we can see in this thread.

In simple terms, PE is about applying modes of speciation that are observed and supported by population genetics to the fossil record. See, when Gould used the term "Darwinism" he was specifically referring to phyletic gradualism, where new species arise when an existing species gradually, and as a whole, evolves into the new species. IOW, species A gives rise to species B over a long period of time, and the entire population of species A evolves into species B.

But clear back in the early 1900's, population geneticists knew that probably wasn't the primary way in which new species evolved. Instead, they knew most speciation happens when a subset of a larger population becomes isolated (e.g., geographically or behaviorally) and eventually evolves into a new species, while the original species they broke away from stays the same.

Then as biologists began to observe more speciation events, they realized the "subset breaking away" mode was more common and could happen more quickly than the Darwinistic phyletic gradualism model.

What Gould and Eldredge did was apply the "subset breaking away" model to paleontology. So it wasn't anything new or some sort of attempt to cover anything up, rather it was them telling their fellow paleontologists "Hey guys...population geneticists and biologists mostly use this PE model of speciation, but for some reason we paleontologists keep interpreting the fossil record through phyletic gradualism (Darwinism)."

So really, that's all there is to PE. Just applying a different type of speciation to the fossil record.

And when we look at actual patterns in the fossil record, we actually see both Darwinistic gradualism and PE. A good example of Darwinistic gradualism is the foraminifera (http://web.archive.org/web/19990203140657/gly.fsu.edu/tour/article_7.html)...


Tony Arnold and Bill Parker compiled what may be the largest, most complete set of data on the evolutionary history of any group of organisms, marine or otherwise. The two scientists amassed something that their land-based colleagues only dreamed about: An intact fossil record with no missing links.

"It's all here--a virtually complete evolutionary record," says Arnold. "There are other good examples, but this is by far the best. We're seeing the whole picture of how this group of organisms has changed throughout most of its existence on Earth."

What Arnold and Parker found is almost a textbook example of gradualism at work.

We've literally seen hundreds of speciation events," syas Arnold. "This allows us to check for patterns, to determine what exactly is going on. We can quickly tell whether something is a recurring phenomenon--a pattern--or whether it's just an anomally. This way, we cannot only look for the same things that have been observed in living organisms, but we can see just how often these things really happen in the environment over an enormous period of time.

But in the near-perfect record exhibited by the forams studied at FSU, the highly touted Eldredge-Gould theory of punctuated equilibrium apparently doesn't work. The record reveals a robust, highly branched evolutionary tree, complete with Darwin's predicted "dead ends"--varieties that lead nowhere--and a profusion of variability in sizes and body shapes. Transitional forms between species are readily apparent, making it relatively easy to track ancestor species to their descendents. In short, the finding upholds Darwin's lifelong conviction that "nature does not proceed in leaps," but rather is a system prepetually unfolding in extreme slow motion.

But in the horse fossil record, we see both PE and Darwinistic gradualism (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html#part10)...


New species can arise through several different evolutionary mechanisms.

Sometimes, new species split off suddenly from their ancestors (e.g., Miohippus from Mesohippus) and then co-existed with those ancestors. Other species came into being through anagenetic transformation of the ancestor, until the ancestor had changed appearance enough to be given a new name (e.g. Equus from Dinohippus). Sometimes only one or a few species arose; sometimes there were long periods of stasis (e.g. Hyracotherium throughout the early Eocene); and sometimes there were enormous bursts of evolution, when new ecological opportunities arose (the merychippine radiation). Again, evolution proceeds according to the ecological pressures facing the individuals of a species and on the variation present within that species. Evolution takes place in the real world, with diverse rates and modes, and cannot be reduced to a single, simple process.

Now don't fool yourself here and think that any of this will ever be at all relevant to the creationists in this thread. As you've seen, even though they like to spout off about "no transitional fossils", none of them can even tell you what they think a "transitional fossil" is, and when they're provided examples of what most normal people would think of as a transitional, they just mindlessly wave them away without much more than "No it isn't".

But that's merely the dishonest nature of creationism manifesting itself in the behaviors of its advocates.

6days
May 2nd, 2016, 01:48 PM
As you've seen, even though they like to spout off about "no transitional fossils", none of them can even tell you what they think a "transitional fossil" is, and when they're provided examples of what most normal people would think of as a transitional, they just mindlessly wave them away without much more than "No it isn't"
Before you "spout off" about transitional fossils, you should have at least one that is clearly transitional and that all scientists agree on. Someone here provided a list of transitional fossils with archaeopteryx at the top of the list. I doubt if even all evolutionists agree on that one. Or how about the 'transitional /missing link', Darwinius masillae?

6days
May 2nd, 2016, 02:04 PM
Bs"d
The fossil record shows STASIS, non-change, non-evolution, for the species for their whole stay in the fossil record. New species pop up suddenly, without any connection to supposed predecessors.
I'm enjoying and agreeing with many of your comments.
Here is something I posted previously on the topic...
The fossil record is often baffling to evolutionists. One such example is that sophisticated eye designs are found out of sequence according to standard evolutionary thinking and dating. (Although ToE is flexible and accommodates improbable, unlikely / counter intuitive evidence).

We have long known that trilobites had one of the most sophisticated and complex eye designs of any creature; but now we see something even more amazing. Giant shrimp about 3' long (1 meter) are dated at 515 myo by evolutionists. (Anomalocarus). These shrimp like creatures dated at more than a half billion years have eyes that contain about 16,000 hexagonal 'lenses'. This is somewhat similar to house flies which have 3,000 and dragonflies with 28,000.

Dr John Patterson wrote:
"The latest find shows sophisticated vision had evolved very rapidly. It came with a bang, in a geological blink of an eye" Nature#480 p237-240 Also; Canberra Times Dec7/11
Notice what he is really saying..... THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE EYE EVOLVED.

Evolutionists often refuse the explanation that best fits the evidence... intelligent design indicates an Intelligent Designer. As an example of this blind faith......
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences#90 wrote:
"...arthropod eye evolution has remained controversial, because one of two seemingly unlikely evolutionary histories must be true. Either compound eyes with detailed similarities evolved multiple times in different arthropod groups....or, compound eyes have been been lost in a Seemingly inordinate number of arthropod lineages " (T.Oakley &C.Cunningham)

Perhaps they should consider more than just the 2 "seeming unlikely " choices. The evidence (sudden appearance and intelligently designed) fits what Gods Word tells us...

God's Word tells us "The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both"

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Another precambrian 'rabbit'. Unfossilized exquisitely preserved wood has been found in a diamond quarry dated at 53 million years old. Interesting is that this is a warm climate wood, found in a cold climate with limited tree growth.Don't expect anyone to carbon date this ... It would pose too many questions with contradictory dates. Finding unfossilized wood in coal veins and diamond quarries poses no problems for the creation / flood model.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0045537

Jose Fly
May 2nd, 2016, 02:05 PM
Before you "spout off" about transitional fossils, you should have at least one that is clearly transitional

And what would a "clearly transitional" fossil look like?


and that all scientists agree on.

Why does every scientist have to agree? As we've been over before, not all scientists agree on whether the earth moves or is stationary. Does that mean the question is still unresolved?


Someone here provided a list of transitional fossils with archaeopteryx at the top of the list. I doubt if even all evolutionists agree on that one. Or how about the 'transitional /missing link', Darwinius masillae?

I think before we get into specific specimens, it would be prudent to clearly state what a "transitional fossil" is.

genuineoriginal
May 2nd, 2016, 03:40 PM
And what would a "clearly transitional" fossil look like?
If you and your fellow evolutionists can't specify it, then you can ensure that nobody can falsify it.
:chuckle:

Sonnet
May 2nd, 2016, 11:55 PM
Before you "spout off" about transitional fossils, you should have at least one that is clearly transitional and that all scientists agree on. Someone here provided a list of transitional fossils with archaeopteryx at the top of the list. I doubt if even all evolutionists agree on that one. Or how about the 'transitional /missing link', Darwinius masillae?

Jose Fly provided this definition:
A transitional fossil would be a specimen that exhibits a mixture of characteristics from different closely-related taxa.

Is this acceptable?

Stripe
May 3rd, 2016, 12:48 AM
Jose Fly provided this definition:
A transitional fossil would be a specimen that exhibits a mixture of characteristics from different closely-related taxa.

Is this acceptable?
No.

It assumes the truth of Darwinist dogma.

When facing disagreement, it is important to use terminology that both sides agree on.

Sonnet
May 3rd, 2016, 12:56 AM
No.

It assumes the truth of Darwinist dogma.

When facing disagreement, it is important to use terminology that both sides agree on.

The term (transitional fossil) only has existence if Darwinian evolution is truth.

Stripe
May 3rd, 2016, 04:10 AM
The term (transitional fossil) only has existence if Darwinian evolution is truth.

You need a way to talk about them without assuming the truth of Darwinism. Just eschew the term "transitional" and talk about fossils.

Sonnet
May 3rd, 2016, 04:21 AM
You need a way to talk about them without assuming the truth of Darwinism. Just eschew the term "transitional" and talk about fossils.

That's fine with me.

Jonahdog
May 3rd, 2016, 04:44 AM
6days: Was Anomalocaris preFlood or post Flood? Or both?

Jose Fly
May 3rd, 2016, 10:27 AM
If creationists don't like this definition...

A transitional fossil would be a specimen that exhibits a mixture of characteristics from different closely-related taxa.

...then what definition do they have in their heads when they say "there are no transitional fossils"?

Stripe
May 3rd, 2016, 10:40 AM
If creationists don't like this definition...A transitional fossil would be a specimen that exhibits a mixture of characteristics from different closely-related taxa....then what definition do they have in their heads when they say "there are no transitional fossils"?

:chuckle:

You want us to define something that does not exist?

We have fossils. Those are defined. Darwinists want to say they show evolution. Let them. No need to classify them as "transitional" or otherwise.

Jose Fly
May 3rd, 2016, 10:47 AM
You want us to define something that does not exist?

How would you know if something exists or not if you can't say what it is?


We have fossils. Those are defined. Darwinists want to say they show evolution. Let them. No need to classify them as "transitional" or otherwise.

I doubt any paleontologists value your advice.

Stripe
May 3rd, 2016, 10:55 AM
How would you know if something exists or not if you can't say what it is?You have an idea, you define it.

No begging the question now.


I doubt any paleontologists value your advice.

I know a few who would. :idunno:

Jose Fly
May 3rd, 2016, 11:27 AM
You have an idea, you define it.

I already did (http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?117596-The-fossil-record-shows-there-never-was-evolution&p=4692582&viewfull=1#post4692582)...pay attention.

genuineoriginal
May 3rd, 2016, 12:16 PM
Jose Fly provided this definition:
A transitional fossil would be a specimen that exhibits a mixture of characteristics from different closely-related taxa.

Is this acceptable?
No, since the criteria assumes the conclusion.

Jose Fly
May 3rd, 2016, 12:31 PM
No, since the criteria assumes the conclusion.

Then what is your definition of a "transitional fossil"?

genuineoriginal
May 3rd, 2016, 12:40 PM
Then what is your definition of a "transitional fossil"?

It should be obvious to everyone with any knowledge of science that a transitional fossil is an impossibility.
The changes in DNA needed for one kind of animal to evolve into another kind of animal will result in non-fertile animals that are incapable of propagating those changes to any new generations.

Jose Fly
May 3rd, 2016, 12:42 PM
It should be obvious to everyone with any knowledge of science that a transitional fossil is an impossibility.

How can you say that unless you know what a "transitional fossil" is?

CabinetMaker
May 3rd, 2016, 12:43 PM
It seems to me that the fossil record does not show evolution in exactly the same way that a photo album does not show a child growing up. There are just snap shots, moments in time. How do you tie one moment to another?

CabinetMaker
May 3rd, 2016, 12:44 PM
It should be obvious to everyone with any knowledge of science that a transitional fossil is an impossibility.
The changes in DNA needed for one kind of animal to evolve into another kind of animal will result in non-fertile animals that are incapable of propagating those changes to any new generations.
Your definition is unacceptable as it assumes your conclusion.

Stripe
May 3rd, 2016, 01:06 PM
How can you say that unless you know what a "transitional fossil" is?

The same way we don't have to define the orbit of the sun around the Earth.

It's your idea, you define it. Just don't do it in a way that requires the assumption of your Darwinism.

Jose Fly
May 3rd, 2016, 01:14 PM
The same way we don't have to define the orbit of the sun around the Earth.

So you have no idea what a "transitional fossil" is, yet you're absolutely sure they don't exist. I'll just let that speak for itself. :kookoo:


It's your idea, you define it. Just don't do it in a way that requires the assumption of your Darwinism.

Educate yourself on how science works. If we hypothesize that humans share a common evolutionary ancestry with other primates, we can use that to make several predictions that can be used to test the hypothesis. One of those is that we would expect to find fossil specimens that evidence this evolutionary past, specifically ones that show a mixture of human-like and primate-like traits.

That's how science works.

Stripe
May 3rd, 2016, 01:27 PM
So you have no idea what a "transitional fossil" is, yet you're absolutely sure they don't exist.

You've told us the definition you like numerous times. :idunno:

The problem is, it assumes the truth of your Darwinism. So it's perfectly clear what your definition is. The problem is, it's not in the least bit useful.


Educate yourself on how science works. If we hypothesize that humans share a common evolutionary ancestry with other primates, we can use that to make several predictions that can be used to test the hypothesis. One of those is that we would expect to find fossil specimens that evidence this evolutionary past, specifically ones that show a mixture of human-like and primate-like traits.Educate yourself. We believe all life had a common creator. Those things He created that work in similar ways will have similar features.

That's how science works.

6days
May 3rd, 2016, 02:19 PM
Jose Fly provided this definition:
A transitional fossil would be a specimen that exhibits a mixture of characteristics from different closely-related taxa.

Is this acceptable?
Taxa is often based on evolutionary beliefs, and organisms continually get reclassified. Darwin's tree of life has been re-drawn thousands of times.
Also similar characteristics do not mean common ancestry. A good designer uses similar plans quite often. For example, a beaver has webbed feet, but that does not mean its great grandmother was a duck.
And, the definition is also a bit circular assuming that there is such a thing as transitionals.

IOW... I like Stripes simple answer to the question... "No."

6days
May 3rd, 2016, 02:22 PM
The problem is, it (Definition of transitional0 assumes the truth of your Darwinism. So it's perfectly clear what your definition is. The problem is, it's not in the least bit useful.Exactly. They start with the conclusion, then try make the evidence fit.

Jose Fly
May 3rd, 2016, 02:24 PM
You've told us the definition you like numerous times. :idunno:

The problem is, it assumes the truth of your Darwinism.

No, it's a prediction that is a test of the hypothesis. It's no different than an archaeologist hypothesizing that there was a Mayan influence in an ancient culture and predicting "we should expect to find Myan-style artifacts in the remains of this ancient village" as a way to test that hypothesis.


So it's perfectly clear what your definition is. The problem is, it's not in the least bit useful.

So you disagree that under a hypothesis of evolutionary common ancestry between humans and other primates, we should find fossil specimens with a mixture of human-like and primate-like traits?


Educate yourself. We believe all life had a common creator. Those things He created that work in similar ways will have similar features.

That's how science works.

And what specific scientific organization utilizes that framework? Also, I thought you agreed that creationism isn't science?

Jose Fly
May 3rd, 2016, 02:26 PM
Taxa is often based on evolutionary beliefs, and organisms continually get reclassified. Darwin's tree of life has been re-drawn thousands of times.
Also similar characteristics do not mean common ancestry. A good designer uses similar plans quite often. For example, a beaver has webbed feet, but that does not mean its great grandmother was a duck.
And, the definition is also a bit circular assuming that there is such a thing as transitionals.

IOW... I like Stripes simple answer to the question... "No."

So what is your definition of "transitional fossil"?

genuineoriginal
May 3rd, 2016, 05:21 PM
Your definition is unacceptable as it assumes your conclusion.

It is not a definition, it is a testable (and falsifiable) hypothesis, unlike so-called "transitional fossils"

Here it is again:
The changes in DNA needed for one kind of animal to evolve into another kind of animal will result in non-fertile animals that are incapable of propagating those changes to any new generations.

Stripe
May 3rd, 2016, 05:52 PM
No.No? We asked for a definition, you gave it — and now "no"? :AMR:


It's a prediction that is a test of the hypothesis.Not really. We can look at extant creatures running around and see the same similarities that you claim as evidence for evolution.


So you disagree that under a hypothesis of evolutionary common ancestry between humans and other primates, we should find fossil specimens with a mixture of human-like and primate-like traits?
No. Learn what begging the question is.

You can have your idea; what you can't have is definitions that assume the truth of your idea. Not as part of a debate over the validity of Darwinism.


And what specific scientific organization utilizes that framework?Uh, all of them. :idunno:


Also, I thought you agreed that creationism isn't science?Shows what you know.

Creationism is science.

Jose Fly
May 3rd, 2016, 06:08 PM
No? We asked for a definition, you gave it — and now "no"?

Again, pay attention. You complained that the definition assumes the conclusion, and I corrected you by noting that it is a prediction, not an assumption.


Not really. We can look at extant creatures running around and see the same similarities that you claim as evidence for evolution.

If you disagree that evolutionary theory predicts the existence of transitional fossils, why do you creationists spend so much time and effort arguing that transitional fossils don't exist? :idunno:


No. Learn what begging the question is.

You can have your idea; what you can't have is definitions that assume the truth of your idea. Not as part of a debate over the validity of Darwinism.

Then what do you think evolutionary theory predicts regarding the fossil record?


Uh, all of them.

Then name one.


Creationism is science.

How do you propose we test it?

6days
May 3rd, 2016, 07:48 PM
So what is your definition of "transitional fossil"?
I like what others in this thread have said about definitions that assume the conclusion.


You've told us the definition you like numerous times.

The problem is, it assumes the truth of your Darwinism. So it's perfectly clear what your definition is. The problem is, it's not in the least bit useful.or

Your definition is unacceptable as it assumes your conclusion. or,
the criteria assumes the conclusion.

Jonahdog
May 3rd, 2016, 07:52 PM
6days, was Anomalocaris pre Flood or post Flood?

CabinetMaker
May 3rd, 2016, 08:09 PM
It is not a definition, it is a testable (and falsifiable) hypothesis, unlike so-called "transitional fossils"

Here it is again:
The changes in DNA needed for one kind of animal to evolve into another kind of animal ?will result in non-fertile animals that are incapable of propagating those changes to any new generations.
This is why your definition is wrong. This is an assumption on your part goes far beyond what you claim Kose did with his definition.

Stripe
May 3rd, 2016, 11:14 PM
Again, pay attention. You complained that the definition assumes the conclusion, and I corrected you by noting that it is a prediction, not an assumption.Pay attention. You accused us of having "no idea what a transitional fossil is, yet you're absolutely sure they don't exist." You've told us numerous times your definition of a transitional fossil. We reject their existence based on your definition.

You gave your definition numerous times. The problem is, it assumes the truth of your Darwinism.


If you disagree that evolutionary theory predicts the existence of transitional fossils.I wouldn't deny that. Why would you say I did?

Given that your definition of transitional forms requires the assumption of Darwinism, it's difficult to deny that evolution predicts them.

However, it's not much of a prediction; we can line up creatures running around today to show "evolutionary progress."


Why do you creationists spend so much time and effort arguing that transitional fossils don't exist?Because they don't.


What do you think evolutionary theory predicts regarding the fossil record?We should see a broad spectrum of change between one kind and another. In fact, there should be no need to look at the fossil record. We should examples of a fine-scale range between two distinct kinds. For example, there should be at least one example of something like a range of creatures linking the dog kind and the cat kind.

One of these populations should be running around today.


How do you propose we test it?What aspect? Be specific.

Sonnet
May 4th, 2016, 03:35 AM
Imanuel Velokovsky - Earth in Upheaval - (page 25)
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/earth-upheaval.pdf


Darwin in South America

Charles Darwin, who had previously dropped his medical studies at Edinburgh University, upon his graduation in theology from Christ College, Cambridge, went in December 1831 as a naturalist on the ship Beagle, which sailed around the world on a five-year surveying expedition. Darwin had with him the newly published volume of Lyel's Principles of Geology that became his bible. On this voyage he wrote his Journal, the second edition of which he dedicated to Lyell. This round-the-world voyage was Darwin's only field-work experience in geology and palaeontology, and he drew on it all his life long. He wrote later that these observations served as the "origin of all my views." His observations were made in the Southern Hemisphere and more particularly in South America, a continent that had attracted the attention of naturalists since the exploration travels of Alexander von Humboldt (1799—1804). Darwin was impressed by the numerous assemblages of fossils of extinct animals, mostly of much greater size than species now living; these fossils spoke of a flourishing fauna that suddenly came to its end in a recent geological age. He wrote under January 9, 1834, in the Journal of his voyage: "It is impossible to reflect on the changed state of the American continent without the deepest astonishment. Formerly it must have swarmed with great monsters: now we find mere pygmies, compared with the antecedent, allied races." He proceeded thus: "The greater number, if not all, of these extinct quadrupeds lived at a late period, and were the contemporaries of most of the existing sea-shells. Since they lived, no very great change in the form of the land can have taken place. What, then, has exterminated so many species and whole genera? The mind at first is irresistibly hurried into the belief of some great catastrophe; but thus to destroy animals, both large and small, in Southern Patagonia, in Brazil, on the Cordillera of Peru, in North America up to Behring's Straits we must [B]shake the entire framework of the globe"

Stripe
May 4th, 2016, 03:47 AM
Imanuel Velokovsky - Earth in Upheaval - (page 25)
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/earth-upheaval.pdf


Darwin in South America

Charles Darwin, who had previously dropped his medical studies at Edinburgh University, upon his graduation in theology from Christ College, Cambridge, went in December 1831 as a naturalist on the ship Beagle, which sailed around the world on a five-year surveying expedition. Darwin had with him the newly published volume of Lyel's Principles of Geology that became his bible. On this voyage he wrote his Journal, the second edition of which he dedicated to Lyell. This round-the-world voyage was Darwin's only field-work experience in geology and palaeontology, and he drew on it all his life long. He wrote later that these observations served as the "origin of all my views." His observations were made in the Southern Hemisphere and more particularly in South America, a continent that had attracted the attention of naturalists since the exploration travels of Alexander von Humboldt (1799—1804). Darwin was impressed by the numerous assemblages of fossils of extinct animals, mostly of much greater size than species now living; these fossils spoke of a flourishing fauna that suddenly came to its end in a recent geological age. He wrote under January 9, 1834, in the Journal of his voyage: "It is impossible to reflect on the changed state of the American continent without the deepest astonishment. Formerly it must have swarmed with great monsters: now we find mere pygmies, compared with the antecedent, allied races." He proceeded thus: "The greater number, if not all, of these extinct quadrupeds lived at a late period, and were the contemporaries of most of the existing sea-shells. Since they lived, no very great change in the form of the land can have taken place. What, then, has exterminated so many species and whole genera? The mind at first is irresistibly hurried into the belief of some great catastrophe; but thus to destroy animals, both large and small, in Southern Patagonia, in Brazil, on the Cordillera of Peru, in North America up to Behring's Straits we must [B]shake the entire framework of the globe"

Heh.

Sounds global.

CabinetMaker
May 4th, 2016, 09:20 AM
I like what others in this thread have said about definitions that assume the conclusion.
Originally Posted by CabinetMaker Your definition is unacceptable as it assumes your conclusion.


I was actually saying that about GO's attempt at a definition, not Jose's.

Jose offered a definition of what we might reasonably expect to find in a transitional fossil.

GO complained that it was a bad definition because it assumed its conclusion (it did not).

GO then made a statement that included this "The changes in DNA needed for one kind of animal to evolve into another kind of animal will result in non-fertile animals that are incapable of propagating those changes to any new generations." GO did EXACTLY what he claimed Jose did.

I was merely pointing that out to GO. And everybody else.

genuineoriginal
May 4th, 2016, 09:21 AM
why do you creationists spend so much time and effort arguing that transitional fossils don't exist? :idunno:
We are hoping some of you evolutionists can recognize that transitional fossils is a failed prediction.

Elia
May 4th, 2016, 09:24 AM
We are hoping some of you evolutionists can recognize that transitional fossils is a failed prediction.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," 1982, p. 140

genuineoriginal
May 4th, 2016, 09:27 AM
This is why your definition is wrong. This is an assumption on your part goes far beyond what you claim Kose did with his definition.
It is not a definition.
Do you need to be reminded of what a definition is?

_____
definition
the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc., as found in dictionaries.
Since I am not providing the meaning of a phrase, I am not giving a definition.

I am giving a statement of fact.
The fact is that any change in DNA significant enough for one kind of animal to evolve into another kind of animal will always result in the production of non-fertile animals.
There will be no fertile animals that will be able to propagate those changes to any new generations.

CabinetMaker
May 4th, 2016, 09:45 AM
It is not a definition.
Do you need to be reminded of what a definition is?
_____
definition
the formal statement of the meaning or significance of a word, phrase, idiom, etc., as found in dictionaries.
Since I am not providing the meaning of a phrase, I am not giving a definition.

I am giving a statement of fact.
The fact is that any change in DNA significant enough for one kind of animal to evolve into another kind of animal will always result in the production of non-fertile animals.
There will be no fertile animals that will be able to propagate those changes to any new generations.

If you claim that this is an established fact, then present your research. I would expect your research to address, at a minimum, the following points.

Clear definition of what constitutes a new animal
Definition of what a significant change in DNA is and how it is measured.
Discussion of whether significant changes can occur in steps of if the entire gene must happen at once
Evidence supporting that significant changes ALWAYS result in infertility


If you can't show us your research that address those points as a minimum, why should your statement be accepted as a statement of fact?

CabinetMaker
May 4th, 2016, 09:49 AM
We are hoping some of you evolutionists can recognize that transitional fossils is a failed prediction.
Is it? Here we see the transitions of horse from its prehistoric form to a modern form. We see gradual transitions of leg and skull bones over a period of time. Why would those not be considered transitional fossils?
http://laelaps.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/horseevosimple.jpg

CabinetMaker
May 4th, 2016, 10:09 AM
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," 1982, p. 140
Is it possible that the transitions you seek occurred at a time when there was nothing to make a fossil? Consider the most simple of organisms, not much more that a collection of a few tens or hundreds of cells. Many of these organisms would never leave a fossil. I have long speculated that the major phyla categories occurred during this period of history and we will never find a fossil of the most basic life forms that evolved into the diversity we see around us today.

Jose Fly
May 4th, 2016, 10:47 AM
I like what others in this thread have said about definitions that assume the conclusion.

Then what is your definition of a "transitional fossil"?

Jose Fly
May 4th, 2016, 10:57 AM
You accused us of having "no idea what a transitional fossil is

As evidenced by your collective running away from giving your own definition of "transitional fossil".


You've told us numerous times your definition of a transitional fossil. We reject their existence based on your definition.

Hilarious. You still have no idea what a "transitional fossil" is, yet you continue to assert they don't exist. :chuckle:


You gave your definition numerous times. The problem is, it assumes the truth of your Darwinism.

No it doesn't. That's just an excuse you've latched on to in order to try and avoid reality.

As I explained, it's no different than an archaeologist hypothesizing that a certain culture was influenced by Mayans, and from that predicting that Mayan artifacts would be found in that culture's remains.

Is he assuming his conclusion?


I wouldn't deny that. Why would you say I did?

Since we agree that evolutionary theory predicts the existence of transitional fossils, what do you think a transitional fossil would be?


However, it's not much of a prediction; we can line up creatures running around today to show "evolutionary progress."

Only if you're either incredibly ignorant or incredibly dishonest.


Because they don't.

How can you say that if you don't even know what a "transitional fossil" is?


We should see a broad spectrum of change between one kind and another. In fact, there should be no need to look at the fossil record.

But contrary to your desires, we do look at the fossil record. So again, what do you think we would expect to see in the fossil record under evolutionary theory?


We should examples of a fine-scale range between two distinct kinds. For example, there should be at least one example of something like a range of creatures linking the dog kind and the cat kind.

Given that you admitted to merely "guessing" that there is a "cat kind" and a "dog kind", that isn't really meaningful.


What aspect? Be specific.

Given that creationism is predicated on the existence of God, let's start there. How do we test for the existence of God?

Jose Fly
May 4th, 2016, 10:58 AM
We are hoping some of you evolutionists can recognize that transitional fossils is a failed prediction.

How can you say that if you don't even know what a "transitional fossil" is?

genuineoriginal
May 4th, 2016, 11:16 AM
If you claim that this is an established fact, then present your research.
It is a fact that any change in DNA significant enough for one kind of animal to evolve into another kind of animal will always result in the production of non-fertile animals.
There will be no fertile animals that will be able to propagate those changes to any new generations.

This fact has been rejected by evolutionists because this fact destroys the entire theory of evolution.


If you can't show us your research that address those points as a minimum, why should your statement be accepted as a statement of fact?
You will never accept the truth about it, no matter what research is done.


_____
Fruit Fly, 100 Years Later (http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/08/fruit-fly-100-years-later/)

Morgan, in the book entitled The Mechanism of Mendelian Inheritance (1915) demonstrated how mutations using radiation on two-winged fruit flies resulted in four-winged fruit flies. The four-winged fruit fly was widely heralded as the earliest evidence that the first evolutionary step to produce a new species was a mutation.

The question, however, centered on whether the mutated four-winged fruit fly was a new species or an unsustainable aberrational freek. By 1963 after decades of research, the question could be answered definitively. Ernst Mayr, Charles Darwin’s twentieth century Bulldog, viewed the mutated four-winged fruit flies as “such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination.” Mutation is not the gateway to evolution.
. . .
The fruit fly as a model for evolution via mutations gets even worse—there are no “slight, successive” genetic changes even between over 1,400 closely related Drosophila species.

The number of nucleotide base pairs Drosophila species ranges from 127 to 800 million. The probability of constructing a Tree of Life with “slight, successive” changes in nucleotide base pairs from species to species approaches the realm of impossible.
. . .
Pierre-Paul Grassé, past-president of the French Academie des Sciences in the book entitked Evolution of Living Organisms concludes – “The fruit fly [Drosophila melanogaster],the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times”—evolution never happened.

No wonder genetic researchers at Bioinformatics Research Center, North Carolina State University now bring into question whether genes even play a role in evolution between related Drosophila species. Wen-Ping Hsieh and collegues published in Genetics –

genuineoriginal
May 4th, 2016, 11:21 AM
Is it? Here we see the transitions of horse from its prehistoric form to a modern form. We see gradual transitions of leg and skull bones over a period of time. Why would those not be considered transitional fossils?

Why would these not be considered different breeds of horses?
http://america.pink/images/2/6/8/5/3/0/9/en/3-list-horse-breeds.jpg

Stripe
May 4th, 2016, 11:36 AM
As evidenced by your collective running away from giving your own definition of "transitional fossil".Nope. You've provided the definition numerous times.

We don't disagree with it.


Hilarious. You still have no idea what a "transitional fossil" is, yet you continue to assert they don't exist.Nope. You've defined it numerous times.

Perhaps you've forgotten?


No it doesn't.Sure, it does.


Since we agree.:chuckle:

False dichotomies are logical fallacies as well.


Only if you're either incredibly ignorant or incredibly dishonest.I see you've got bluster. Are you up to a challenge? You show a lineup of fossils that shows evolutionary progression and we'll show a bunch of living things that could be lined up in a similar fashion.


How can you say that if you don't even know what a "transitional fossil" is?
Can't you remember your definition? :idunno:


Given that you admitted to merely "guessing" that there is a "cat kind" and a "dog kind", that isn't really meaningful.
Only because you're desperate to avoid challenges.

Jose Fly
May 4th, 2016, 11:48 AM
Thanks for your time Stripe.

Stripe
May 4th, 2016, 12:04 PM
Thanks for your time Stripe.

Ah, the wail of the defeated atheist.

CabinetMaker
May 4th, 2016, 01:30 PM
Why would these not be considered different breeds of horses?
http://america.pink/images/2/6/8/5/3/0/9/en/3-list-horse-breeds.jpg

They ARE different breeds of horses.

Are you going to answer my question regarding transitional fossils as related to the horse now?

CabinetMaker
May 4th, 2016, 01:34 PM
It is a fact that any change in DNA significant enough for one kind of animal to evolve into another kind of animal will always result in the production of non-fertile animals.
There will be no fertile animals that will be able to propagate those changes to any new generations.

This fact has been rejected by evolutionists because this fact destroys the entire theory of evolution.


You will never accept the truth about it, no matter what research is done.

_____
Fruit Fly, 100 Years Later (http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/08/fruit-fly-100-years-later/)

Morgan, in the book entitled The Mechanism of Mendelian Inheritance (1915) demonstrated how mutations using radiation on two-winged fruit flies resulted in four-winged fruit flies. The four-winged fruit fly was widely heralded as the earliest evidence that the first evolutionary step to produce a new species was a mutation.

The question, however, centered on whether the mutated four-winged fruit fly was a new species or an unsustainable aberrational freek. By 1963 after decades of research, the question could be answered definitively. Ernst Mayr, Charles Darwin’s twentieth century Bulldog, viewed the mutated four-winged fruit flies as “such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination.” Mutation is not the gateway to evolution.
. . .
The fruit fly as a model for evolution via mutations gets even worse—there are no “slight, successive” genetic changes even between over 1,400 closely related Drosophila species.

The number of nucleotide base pairs Drosophila species ranges from 127 to 800 million. The probability of constructing a Tree of Life with “slight, successive” changes in nucleotide base pairs from species to species approaches the realm of impossible.
. . .
Pierre-Paul Grassé, past-president of the French Academie des Sciences in the book entitked Evolution of Living Organisms concludes – “The fruit fly [Drosophila melanogaster],the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotopical, urban, and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times”—evolution never happened.

No wonder genetic researchers at Bioinformatics Research Center, North Carolina State University now bring into question whether genes even play a role in evolution between related Drosophila species. Wen-Ping Hsieh and collegues published in Genetics –

So no research to back your claim. Your OPINION is noted for what it is: an opinion.

Your article about four winged fruit flies is rabbit hole. Genetic monsters have been known for some time and it is also known that if one monster occurs, there is nothing for it to mate with. Thus, nobody has ever claimed, except for the creationists, that a genetic monster is part of the evolutionary process.

genuineoriginal
May 4th, 2016, 01:39 PM
They ARE different breeds of horses.

Are you going to answer my question regarding transitional fossils as related to the horse now?

You didn't show any transitional fossils, you showed fossils of different breeds of horse.

Sonnet
May 4th, 2016, 01:42 PM
You didn't show any transitional fossils, you showed fossils of different breeds of horse.

Can you prove this?

CabinetMaker
May 4th, 2016, 01:46 PM
You didn't show any transitional fossils, you showed fossils of different breeds of horse.
No, I didn't. the modern horse is characterized by a single toe. Early horses had three toes on the ground. The structure of the horses leg and foot evolved over time to produce the modern horse that we have today. So the fossil record has a series of fossils that show a gradual transition from three toes to one toe. Those fossils have things in common with fossils of older and younger fossils.

Said a bit differently, the breed chart you should are all modern horses and can be interbred freely. Could the modern horse have bred with an ancient horse? probably not based on the difference is size alone.

genuineoriginal
May 4th, 2016, 01:50 PM
So no research to back your claim. Your OPINION is noted for what it is: an opinion.
An opinion is stating that there must be transitional fossils based on your theory that animals evolve.
A fact is stating that any change in DNA sufficient to change one kind of animal into another kind will end up in animals that are incapable of reproducing, i.e. an evolutionary dead end.


nobody has ever claimed, except for the creationists, that a genetic monster is part of the evolutionary process.
The creation of genetic monsters is the evolutionary process.
If you can't understand something as simple as that, then you may want to gracefully bow out of this conversation.

genuineoriginal
May 4th, 2016, 01:51 PM
Early horses had three toes on the ground.
If you admit they are horses, why are you trying to claim they are not?


Could the modern horse have bred with an ancient horse? probably not based on the difference is size alone.
Maybe you haven't heard of the Shire and the Falabella miniature horse, both of which were on the chart I posted.

Jose Fly
May 4th, 2016, 01:51 PM
Your article about four winged fruit flies is rabbit hole. Genetic monsters have been known for some time and it is also known that if one monster occurs, there is nothing for it to mate with. Thus, nobody has ever claimed, except for the creationists, that a genetic monster is part of the evolutionary process.

It's funny to see creationists citing fruit flies as evidence against evolution, since if you actually look at the science, fruit fly studies have provided valuable insight into the evolutionary mechanism behind speciation (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=speciation%20in%20fruit%20flies).

But then like I said before....that's kinda what creationists do. They'll insist until the day they die that black is white and up is down. That's what makes these conversations so entertaining. :chuckle:

Jose Fly
May 4th, 2016, 01:54 PM
An opinion is stating that there must be transitional fossils based on your theory that animals evolve.

And do you agree with that prediction?


A fact is stating that any change in DNA sufficient to change one kind of animal into another kind will end up in animals that are incapable of reproducing, i.e. an evolutionary dead end.

Before we go down that road, do you agree with the previous definition of "kind" (organisms that share a common ancestry)?


The creation of genetic monsters is the evolutionary process.
If you can't understand something as simple as that, then you may want to gracefully bow out of this conversation.

And as we've seen, by studying fruit flies scientists have gained a lot of key insights into the evolutionary mechanisms behind speciation.

genuineoriginal
May 4th, 2016, 01:57 PM
It's funny to see creationists citing fruit flies as evidence against evolution, since if you actually look at the science, fruit fly studies have provided valuable insight into the evolutionary mechanism behind speciation (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=speciation%20in%20fruit%20flies).

But then like I said before....that's kinda what creationists do. They'll insist until the day they die that black is white and up is down. That's what makes these conversations so entertaining. :chuckle:

It is funny to watch evolutionists claim there is a new species whenever they see a new breed.

by studying fruit flies scientists have gained a lot of key insights into the evolutionary mechanisms behind speciation.
Farmers have been creating new breeds for centuries through the mechanisms you claim are speciation.

Jose Fly
May 4th, 2016, 02:07 PM
It is funny to watch evolutionists claim there is a new species whenever they see a new breed.

Wow...you read all that information very quickly. Or did you not bother to read it at all?


Farmers have been creating new breeds for centuries through the mechanisms you claim are speciation.

What would have to happen for something to be a speciation event to you?

Also, 6days claims that rapid speciation is a part of the "Biblical model of creation" (it's how things went from a few pairs of each "kind" to all the species around us after the flood). Is he wrong?

genuineoriginal
May 4th, 2016, 02:15 PM
do you agree with the previous definition of "kind" (organisms that share a common ancestry)?
No, that is too simplistic.

_____
What Are the Biblical Kinds? (http://nwcreation.net/biblicalkinds.html)

Creationists generally assert that conclusions about common ancestry should only be drawn if there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion. That is, one should not presume that forms of life are related, but should hold that position only if there is solid reason to do so.

In the absence of the ability to directly observe life in its original form, classification of kinds generally revolves around reproductive compatibility -- that is, created kinds are generally seen as having common descent if they are reproductively compatible. Thus, humans and frogs are considered to be different kinds because they are not reproductively compatible at all, while the African and European races are considered to be clearly of the same kind, because they are totally reproductively compatible.

The classification is more difficult when reproductive compatibility is partial, as in the case of the mule, a hybrid of the horse and the donkey which, although viable, is not fertile. While it is possible that the two species descend from a common ancestor due to their reproductive compatibility, it is also possible that they do not, but were created separately with reproductive systems similar enough to create viable offspring, but not similar enough to create fertile offspring.

Other criteria for common ancestry are rejected. The mere fact that organisms are alive is not seen as evidence of common ancestry, because there is no evidence available to refute the possibility that life originated in several unrelated forms. Genetic and physiological similarities are not seen as evidence of common ancestry, because there is no evidence available to refute the possibility that the genetic similarities are a result of a similar design being used on different "kinds."

genuineoriginal
May 4th, 2016, 02:19 PM
Wow...you read all that information very quickly. Or did you not bother to read it at all?
Did you follow the link you posted?
It was only a google search, not a specific page of information.
Since you didn't have anything specific in mind, I assumed you mindlessly posted the google link hoping I would find something for you.


What would have to happen for something to be a speciation event to you?
You can't give a good enough definition of species for me to answer that question.


Also, 6days claims that rapid speciation is a part of the "Biblical model of creation" (it's how things went from a few pairs of each "kind" to all the species around us after the flood). Is he wrong?
Yes, he is wrong in using the terms that have been slanted to the evolutionary viewpoint.

chair
May 4th, 2016, 02:29 PM
To the Creationists here:

What would you expect the fossil record to look like, based on your literal reading of Genesis?

CabinetMaker
May 4th, 2016, 02:34 PM
An opinion is stating that there must be transitional fossils based on your theory that animals evolve.
A fact is stating that any change in DNA sufficient to change one kind of animal into another kind will end up in animals that are incapable of reproducing, i.e. an evolutionary dead end.


The creation of genetic monsters is the evolutionary process.
If you can't understand something as simple as that, then you may want to gracefully bow out of this conversation.

This post is meaningless. There are far to many undefined and vague terms to be useful.

Please define "A new kind of animal"
Please quantify "sufficient change in the DNA"
Please quantify if the change must occur in one step of if it can occur in multiple steps over time.

Genetic monsters, by definition, are not part of the evolutionary process. They are considered unsuccessful off spring because they do not mate and, thus, cannot transfer their genes into the gen pool. If you don't understand that rather simple concept then you should bow out.

CabinetMaker
May 4th, 2016, 02:38 PM
If you admit they are horses, why are you trying to claim they are not?I drew a distinction between early horses and modern horses. I did not say that they were the same. Would you feel better if I went and dug up the latin names for them?



Maybe you haven't heard of the Shire and the Falabella miniature horse, both of which were on the chart I posted. Sure. They are still modern horses. And you would not cross either of those horses with say a Percheron which was also on your chart.

Stripe
May 4th, 2016, 02:44 PM
What would you expect the fossil record to look like, based on your ... reading of Genesis?

Billions of dead things buried in flood deposits.

Whoa, would you look at that!?

CabinetMaker
May 4th, 2016, 02:47 PM
Billions of dead things buried in flood deposits.

Whoa, would you look at that!?

Why would you expect it to separated into layers with dinos at the bottom, modern animals at the top and no mixing of them?