Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum fossils

The only thing fossils in the geological colum present to us is that a creature that produced those fossils once lived.

The conclusion often presented as FACT...and forced fed to our children... that they are a transitional is nothing more than biased belief mixed with speculative assumption....and circular reasoning.

.....the real definition is PSUEDO-SCIENCE....AKA, evolutionism.

"The conclusion often presented as FACT...and forced fed to our children... that they are a transitional is nothing more than biased belief mixed with speculative assumption....and circular reasoning."

Wrong on all counts. I doubt you studied very much science in HS, let alone college. You're relying on a comic-book understanding of what science is. You don't have to. You could actually try to figure it out.

That would require intellectual effort. And integrity.

FF wrote:
"I doubt you studied very much science in HS, let alone college."

I not only doubt he has graduated from high school but have run some of what he's written here through some reasonably sophisticated software and it too agrees ... you are trying to talk to a child or someone doing a very good imitation of one: A troll.

Hi TFF, any chance you could edit that "fossil" link back on page 2 of God & sci. (put a hard return in near the middle) because I think that'll bring the whole page back down to a readable size.

Do you have any thoughts re: defining "fact," from that thread also?

Thanks,
~samwik

Samwik,
I am having no trouble with the readability of the pages in Mozilla. Perhaps it is your browser? What are you using to search the web?

Amaranth

Amaranth, answer is on G&S thread. Thanks ~S

Trilobyte (sorry DA):

"The only thing fossils in the geological colum present to us is that a creature that produced those fossils once lived."

Quite. The geological column also gives us some idea of when those creatures lived relative to other fossils in the geological column. This would hold true even if the earth were only 200 years old. So what happened to all those creatures that are no longer with us? Wasn't Noah supposed to take all animals onto the ark or did he miss a few? Is God not as clever as she thinks she is? Did she stuff up a bit with the creation and make creatures that couldn't survive?

TTNZ- Yes! You get it (if i may be so bold). Your theory is not refutable and is internally consistent too. Ahh, but alas, not too good in the prediction department. Still

~~samwik

Ah! but many many fossils in the column are a fair bit like those just above or just below them. Perhaps God exterminated all life and then created another lot, some of which were only slightly different to the ones she'd just exterminated.

As for predictions. I predict that in the future the upper layer of the column will contain fossils of species very similar to those that now exist on earth. How's that?

Noah was NOT suppose to take all of the animal species onto the ark.

I noticed you used the word MANY. If that is so, then the next question should be pretty easy for you.

Name one.
Please give location of where each fossil was found....or retract your statement.

YOU demand actual data from other people?

YOU - who hasn't done an honest day's research on the subject DEMAND to know something! Further, you pick something that is irrelevant and that is not easily available without some searching. If Terry responds, you will just ignore the contents of his message or assert that the peer reviewed literature is not acceptable to you.

Nevertheless I offer the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx#Fossils

Trilobyte. You wrote:

"I noticed you used the word MANY." The other fossils are exactly the same as those above or below them. Not everything needs to change at the same rate.

You carried on:

"If that is so, then the next question should be pretty easy for you." My first try using "foraminifera in geological strata" produced this:

http://www.gns.cri.nz/what/earthhist/fossils/forams.html

I'm sure that if you are really interested you can find many more examples. Foraminifera are actually used to date stages in geological strata. They change periodically through the geological column and are used to correlate the age of strata in different regions.

Of course once you have correlated the age of a particular sediment the fossils don't have to literally appear one on top of the other. This is countering in advance any criticism you might level against TFF's link.

I have always understood that Noah was supposed to take at least two of every kind but perhaps you can give us the biblical quote that shows otherwise.

terrytnewzealand, are you going to tell me a Foraminifera found on one side of the world is evolving exactly like a Foraminifera on the other side of the world?

Unless you are...your usage of the Foraminifera is a bit out to lunch.

I have always understood that Noah was supposed to take at least two of every kind but perhaps you can give us the biblical quote that shows otherwise.

You are way off topic here..but it iis you who claims that KINDS equals specie. Not me.

terrytnewzealand said:Of course once you have correlated the age of a particular sediment the fossils don't have to literally appear one on top of the other.

They should at least be pretty close.

Below are 5 so-called transitionals as presented by the evolutionist.

1. Ophiacodon, Early Permian, Texas: "skull had changed from the small low shape...this allowed for longer jaw muscles to develop."

2. Phthinosuchus (: Base of Late Permian, USSR: " strikingly similar...but with larger synapsid opneings behind the eyes.. paelontologists believe this to be intermediate in structure between pelycosaurs and Therapsids.

3. Thrinaxodon, Early Triassic, South Africa, Antartica: "Another mammalian trend seen in the lower jaw... teeth were set into a signle bone,, the dentary, which had become larger at the expense of the smaller bones at back of jaw."

4. Cynogathus: Early Triassic, South Africa, Argentina: practically the whole lower jaw on each side was made up of a single bone, the dentary...coronoid process at back of dentary articluiated with the skull and meant the jaws could open wide.

5. Morganucodon: Late Triassic to Early Jurassic, Africa, Europe, Eastern Asia: see pictures presented.

Lets trace out their travel plans....

In the first Picture, Ophiacodon packs his bags and heads north from Texas to the USSR and then becomes Phthinosuchus. I wonder how much trouble this guy had crossing the Appalachian mountains on his journey to evolve?



Then a few yers later Phthinosuchus decides to head south, passing through Pennsylvania and New Jersey...and ends up in South Africa and Antartica where it becomes Thrinaxodon.




Thrinaxodon then hangs out there for a while, evolves into Cynogathus then decides to head north again and takes a trip to East Asia.


I suppose some where on this journey Cynogathus decided to evolve into Morganucodon during the early Jurassic.

WOW....What a trip

All that time, all that distance, all that evolution....and the transitionals are spread out all over the globe... with no evolving fossils found on the way? why?
Could it be the scientist that have a faith in evolutionism...collected these fossil fragments from all over the world...picked out the ones that made sense to their theory...and lined them up?

Hiya trilobyte:
Re: the deleted thread about the human-chimp split. I don't know if you ever got to see my answer about your confusion between base pairs and genes. I think that is why the math didn't work out. There are thousands (even up to hundreds of thousands) of base pairs for a particular gene. So I think the math does about add up. Although it should, since it was through the math that they extrapolated back to determine the ~6Mya dates for the split.

I'm not a geneticist but this report details some of the methods and addresses chimps, humans and even differential rates of mutation for human liver and brain. Actually I think you would find several examples of how "off" the science is at the discussion section at the end.
http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/hartl/lab/publications/pdfs/Lemos-05-Evolution.pdf
I enjoyed it; I love anthropology.

However I'm no expert in dinosaurs either. My first guess would be to ask, are the "species" you've mentioned supposed to be related?
I'll look it over; it's a very good looking presentation.

I hope you get a chance to comment on my G&s, "facts" thread. Some of the comments have come in on other threads, but most all seem supporting. I've quoted ~5-6 people in a response to come soon (hopefully by tomorrow).
Please, I know it's not a technical matter like these threads of yours; but if you're up for a bit of philosophy and epistemology, I'd sure appreciate your take on the discussion.

Thanks, & still hopeful,
~samwik

TB wrote:
"WOW....What a trip"

I'd like to see him do it with one, just one Alaskan Brown Bear.

ROFLOL!

Let's note what happened here.

Trilobyte asks for an example of something. He gets two different responses. His response is to ignore those responses and then to stick a canned, grossly inaccurate picture of a completely different thing.

"All that time, all that distance, all that evolution....and the transitionals are spread out all over the globe... with no evolving fossils found on the way? why? "

Evolutionists don't expect to find representations of fossils everywhere. Fossilization is a rare thing. The time scales involved are in the millions of years. There's nothing to explain here. You don't understand how evolution is supposed to work and you don't care. You don't know what the evidence is and you don't want to know. You're interested in the Bible. You don't have any background in science. You don't have any interest in science. Suggest you find a new home.

That silliness you posted made no more sense the first time it was posted over on:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1406&start=30