Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossils - Exposing the Evolutionist slight-of-hand
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 16 of 90 (2106)
01-14-2002 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by edge
01-14-2002 2:24 PM


quote:
Edge: Sorry, Fred, that's not what Moose meant. There is a progression of fossil assemblages present in the record. You have never explained this.
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by edge, posted 01-14-2002 2:24 PM edge has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 17 of 90 (2107)
01-14-2002 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by prionesse
01-14-2002 6:27 PM


[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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by prionesse, posted 01-14-2002 6:27 PM prionesse has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by gene90, posted 01-14-2002 6:57 PM gene90 has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 18 of 90 (2108)
01-14-2002 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by gene90
01-14-2002 6:55 PM


Duplicate deleted.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 01-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by gene90, posted 01-14-2002 6:55 PM gene90 has not replied

stonetool
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 90 (2348)
01-17-2002 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fred Williams
01-11-2002 4:51 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fred Williams, posted 01-11-2002 4:51 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 20 of 90 (13808)
07-19-2002 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fred Williams
01-11-2002 4:51 PM


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, the
invertebrates have been around much longer and so have
had greater opportunity to be represented in the fossil
record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fred Williams, posted 01-11-2002 4:51 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Andor, posted 07-19-2002 6:53 AM Peter has replied
 Message 25 by NimLore, posted 11-07-2002 9:29 PM Peter has not replied

Andor
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 90 (13809)
07-19-2002 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Peter
07-19-2002 6:44 AM


As you know, God loves beetles

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Peter, posted 07-19-2002 6:44 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Peter, posted 07-23-2002 11:08 AM Andor has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 22 of 90 (14006)
07-23-2002 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Andor
07-19-2002 6:53 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Andor, posted 07-19-2002 6:53 AM Andor has not replied

NimLore
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 90 (21745)
11-06-2002 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by lbhandli
01-11-2002 7:55 PM


What are your takes on Broken Hill Man?
and of La Quina V?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by lbhandli, posted 01-11-2002 7:55 PM lbhandli has not replied

Karl
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 90 (21761)
11-07-2002 3:35 AM


I believe the phrase is "conspiracy theory"

NimLore
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 90 (21809)
11-07-2002 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Peter
07-19-2002 6:44 AM


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 subject
I 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Peter, posted 07-19-2002 6:44 AM Peter has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by John, posted 11-07-2002 9:36 PM NimLore has not replied
 Message 27 by wj, posted 11-07-2002 9:54 PM NimLore has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 90 (21812)
11-07-2002 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by NimLore
11-07-2002 9:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by NimLore:
how long can a human hold onto a floating device in raging storms? and for how long can he survive without food?

You very succinctly described the viciousness of this tale. Thank you.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by NimLore, posted 11-07-2002 9:29 PM NimLore has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 90 (21814)
11-07-2002 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by NimLore
11-07-2002 9:29 PM


"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by NimLore, posted 11-07-2002 9:29 PM NimLore has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by mark24, posted 11-07-2002 10:12 PM wj has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 28 of 90 (21819)
11-07-2002 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by wj
11-07-2002 9:54 PM


quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by wj, posted 11-07-2002 9:54 PM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by NimLore, posted 11-07-2002 11:16 PM mark24 has replied

NimLore
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 90 (21825)
11-07-2002 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by mark24
11-07-2002 10:12 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by mark24, posted 11-07-2002 10:12 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by wj, posted 11-08-2002 12:01 AM NimLore has not replied
 Message 31 by mark24, posted 11-08-2002 6:13 AM NimLore has not replied
 Message 32 by Silent H, posted 12-11-2002 1:47 PM NimLore has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 90 (21830)
11-08-2002 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by NimLore
11-07-2002 11:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by NimLore:
well I have faith that they are there...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by NimLore, posted 11-07-2002 11:16 PM NimLore has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024