|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4884 days) Posts: 310 From: Broomfield Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fossils - Exposing the Evolutionist slight-of-hand | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
quote: Websters:Progression 2) a sequence or succession, as of acts, happenings, etc. I have also used this "progression" as being my fundimental evidence of evolution. Perhaps I am pushing things too far, but as I see it, in the fossil record, "Progression" and "Evolution" are synonymous. The change from one situation to another situation is an evolution. This is independent of the mechanisms of that change. In itself, it doesn't say that Godly creative processes were or weren't the mechanism for the evolution. In itself, it doesn't say that the theory of evolution processes were or weren't the mechanisms for the evolution. This is how I personally divorce the "fact of evolution" from the "theory of evolution" An analogy to this thought process would be the "evolution" of the automobile. Autos have changed through time. In that case, we know that the evolutions were because of human creative processes. Moose Added by edit at c. 1:15 am ET, 1/15/02:Perhaps I was negligent at the original time of posting this original message, but I have now gone back and given a more careful look at the Fred message in question. I now have a greater understanding of Fred's point. He had interpreted my use of the term "progression" to mean a sequence of events that were making some sort of progress in some direction. I think that's a pretty understandable, if erroneous interpretation. I guess it's some strange quirk in the English language that a progression doesn't necessarily mean that progress is being made. You could even have a progression of events leading to a regressive result. Still Moose ------------------Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-14-2002] [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 01-15-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3851 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][b]This is a non-sequitur. Just because there are many courses on invertebrate paleontology does not mean there are many examples of evolution of the invertebrates from the fossil record.[/QUOTE]
[/b] Your apparent claim was that paleontologists focus on vertebrate animals. Perhaps you should be more clear in the future. [This message has been edited by gene90, 01-14-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3851 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
Duplicate deleted.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-14-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
stonetool Inactive Member |
A lot of others got to you first, Fredd but I'll pile on a little here
Try http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/fossil_series.html for several examples of smooth change in transitional fossils for inverterbrates. all this sound and fury over the evolution sham is only a cover for the complete inability of creationists to come up with any complete, internally consistient explanation of the geological and fossil record.THE sham in view is creationists trying to poke holes in the theory of evolution while refusing to come to terms with the problems with their model.You do have a model, don't you, Fred?Waitasecond, you dont have one on your website? I'm sure thats an accident!I'm sure that you will post one somewhere, sometime on this forum.Until then, your article signifies nothing but a rehash of the same old creationist arguments that have been repeatedly refuted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Out of curiosity, how within a creationist model
do you account for the huge discreprancy in numbers of vertebrate and invertebrate fossils ? In the evolutionary model it's straightforward, theinvertebrates have been around much longer and so have had greater opportunity to be represented in the fossil record.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Andor Inactive Member |
As you know, God loves beetles
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I did wonder whether the answer might come back as
'well there are more of them.' but I'm not entirely convinced that would satisfy such a vast discreprancy in the numbers of finds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NimLore Inactive Member |
What are your takes on Broken Hill Man?
and of La Quina V?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
I believe the phrase is "conspiracy theory"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NimLore Inactive Member |
I think that the fossils are as such by reason of intelligence.
Biblically it is plainly obvious that some creatures were more intelligent than others.. eg. the serpent was more cunning... In order for myself to take my theory further on this subjectI wonder what the behaviours of animals would be during a rainfall to a flood of such magnitude.. I would imagine that earthquakes would have been happening as well. Again I say it is a matter of intelligence.. would not the more intelligent creatures go for higher ground? The large discrepency would be do to this factor, birds would have flown to higher ground, correct me if I am wrong. Is it a natural instinct to survive in all of the animals? seeing that the major activity of covering creatures would be happening under the waters of the flood easily explains the discrepencies in numbers. Look at Ezikiel 26:19 and on to the end of the chapter.. ;compare this to Numbers 16, in this Numbers story Korah and his brothers where swallowed up alive into the ground... Now look at the Genesis account for the flood, in chapter 7, the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened... I imagine it looking something like this;It starts to rain, Noah and his family went into the Ark, the people like normal people except maybe a few retreat to there homes seeing that it is raining quite hard(the bible does not describe wether it is violent or not but I think it would be safe to say it was very)... At what point would they have realised they were in a great trajesty like none before it? A week? 2 weeks? I could imagine the panic of the animals being prior to the humans. all the places on the lower parts of the earth would have started to flood and maybe right from square one... non the less any intelligent being goes to higher ground but the account says that the waters covered even over the tops of the highest mountains.(what were the hieghts of the mountains than compared to now?) how long can a human hold onto a floating device in raging storms? and for how long can he survive without food? any of the animals including humans that went to higher ground would most likely have not been fossilised because of the lack of mineralisation and quick covering, they would most likely have decomposed fully to the earth.. For the matters of the humans I have to say look again to the Ezekiel account and the Numbers account that I alluded to earlier. Praise God for he will make the weak strong and confound the wise with the simple.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: You very succinctly described the viciousness of this tale. Thank you. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
"Again I say it is a matter of intelligence.. would not the more intelligent creatures go for higher ground?"
Ah yes, those clever little angiosperms, obviously much smarter than gymnosperms. That is the obvious reason why gymnosperms first appear much lower in that strata than angiosperms. I wonder why sloths don't appear in the lower strata. Yes, they are reasonably intelligent mammals but not very quick, in fact a lot slower than many small dinosaurs appeared to be. Why do we not find fossils of flightless birds well below the strata where we first find flighted birds? I'm afraid, Nimlore, that you are simply making up stories which are contradicted by the scientific evidence so that you can hold onto your own peculiar religious beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5223 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: wj, Indeed, I wonder why there are bivalve molluscs & brachiopods that represent the sessile benthos in the same strata as marine mammals! Presumably they managed to escape the roiling waters better than mobile jawless fish, icthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs, ambulocetus, pakicetus, & basilosaurus? If you drop a mussel in a bucket of water, you will note that it sinks like a stone. Is there ANYONE who would expect such a dense shelled organism to be anywhere other than the bottom of any fossil bearing strata, & nowhere else? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NimLore Inactive Member |
well I have faith that they are there...
similar to the naturalists faith of a transitional fossil... I will let your own sarcasms against me be your judge.I forgive you allready.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
quote: Well, I can't imagine why. All of the patterns which I mentioned, which are inconsistent with your flood fairytale, are present in the fossil record. So, you have faith that an out-of-place fossil will eventually turn up. It must be faith because there is no reason behind it.
[b][quote]similar to the naturalists faith of a transitional fossil...[/b][/quote] No, the many transitional fossils exist, no faith is involved.
[b][quote]I will let your own sarcasms against me be your judge.I forgive you allready.[/B][/QUOTE] The sarcasm was directed at your nonsense fairytale which you presented to support your religious view. However examples such as gymnosperms and sloths contradict your fairytale.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024