Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 91 of 2887 (768620)
09-12-2015 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by edge
09-12-2015 12:21 PM


Hi edge,
edge writes:
The fossil record is not just a collection of fossils.
If the fossil record is not just a collection of fossils, what is it?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by edge, posted 09-12-2015 12:21 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-12-2015 1:14 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 96 by edge, posted 09-12-2015 7:46 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2015 11:50 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 92 of 2887 (768621)
09-12-2015 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by ICANT
09-12-2015 1:08 PM


We have to have a universe because No universe, no fossils.
Well, you could say that of anything. Chocolate pudding, for example. But I wouldn't gratuitously drag the origin of the universe into a discussion of chocolate pudding.
All kinds of creatures beginning to exist gives you all the fossils you have existing in the museum's today.
But why did it give us those fossils, the ones that look exactly like evidence for evolution? I have an explanation: they were actually caused by evolution, which is why they appear to have been caused by evolution. What's your explanation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ICANT, posted 09-12-2015 1:08 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 93 of 2887 (768622)
09-12-2015 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ICANT
09-12-2015 1:11 PM


If the fossil record is not just a collection of fossils, what is it?
Their stratigraphic relationships, too. In the same way, your body is not just a collection of bones, organs, soft tissue, etc, it's an arrangement of them.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 09-12-2015 1:11 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 94 of 2887 (768623)
09-12-2015 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by ICANT
09-12-2015 11:37 AM


Moderator Request
Hi ICANT,
I've read through your messages from so far today, and I have these two requests:
  • Please don't play semantic games with words or terms that already have clear definitions, like creationist.
  • Please stay on topic. For example, the origin of the universe has no place in a discussion about the fossil record.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by ICANT, posted 09-12-2015 11:37 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 95 of 2887 (768633)
09-12-2015 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Tanypteryx
09-12-2015 12:54 PM


Hi Tanypteryx,
Tanypteryx writes:
This is a science thread. What you think Genesis says is not relevant to this discussion.
Do you believe or think the universe began to exist in an absence of light?
Tanyperyx writes:
None of this has anything to do with science or what we have learned from studying the fossils.
Are you telling me that the fossils could exist without the universe and the earth?
Without mankind existing you would have no fossils to put up to look at. If fact you would not exist.
OK lets say the universe exist.
That means we can have fossils.
Because mankind began to exist we can have human fossils.
Because all kinds of creature's began to exist we can have all kinds of fossils in our museum's.
Because the trees and vegetation began to exist we can have the oil, natural gas, and coal we have today, in which fossils are found, which is one reason it is called fossil fuels.
Tanypteryx writes:
Where and when did Stephen Hawking say that? And, so what?
In his Lecture 'The Beginning of Time'.
" All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning"
Tanypteryx writes:
How is what Hawking said evidence that refutes, the scientific discoveries of millions of scientists over the last 2oo years?
He is one of the top of scientists of that 200 years.
Tanypteryx writes:
No, they don't. We know that fossils of marine organisms that are found in mountains were deposited in oceans as sedimentary layers and millions of years later those layers were thrust up by plate tectonics to become mountains.
Lets see: the fossils of water creatures were buried under layers of sediment. Did they not have to be in water and covered up?
That means those mountains were covered with water at one time.
You are not talking to a YEC creationist. I am super old creationist, older than you believe in.
Tanypteryx writes:
In what way do you think this refutes the conclusions of science that the earth is very old, that the diversity of life is the product of evolution, and that the fossils support these conclusions?
They don't have to prove the earth is young as you assume I believe. I believe the universe is very old more than 15 billion years. In fact I believe in an older universe.
Tanypteryx writes:
In what way do you think this refutes the conclusions of science that the earth is very old, that the diversity of life is the product of evolution, and that the fossils support these conclusions?
It doesn't refute that the earth is very old.
It does refute evolution, as the fossils do not support evolution. There is no gradual change shown in the fossil record. There is the fact that the record shows that at many times there appeared completely new creatures on the earth.
Tanypteryx writes:
What specific fossils are you talking about?
Completely new creatures who had not existed before.
Tanypteryx writes:
The bible and religion are not contributing much, if anything, to that understanding and those conclusions
I think you need to go back in history and do some studying about who contributed what to the present understanding of the universe.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-12-2015 12:54 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by edge, posted 09-12-2015 7:53 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 98 by Faith, posted 09-12-2015 8:51 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 99 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-12-2015 10:01 PM ICANT has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 96 of 2887 (768659)
09-12-2015 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ICANT
09-12-2015 1:11 PM


If the fossil record is not just a collection of fossils, what is it?
The fact that you ask this question confirms my suspicions about many YECs' knowledge base in this discussion.
Anyway, there are all kinds of patterns in time and space such as stratigraphy that Dr. A has suggested, but there are also geographic patterns, extinctions, chemistry, etc. that only make sense in light of evolution.
In fact, it was those 'collections of bones' that eventually led to the recognition of patterns in rock that were the beginnings of the modern science of geology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 09-12-2015 1:11 PM ICANT has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 97 of 2887 (768660)
09-12-2015 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by ICANT
09-12-2015 2:21 PM


It doesn't refute that the earth is very old.
It does refute evolution, as the fossils do not support evolution.
There is no gradual change shown in the fossil record.
There is the fact that the record shows that at many times there appeared completely new creatures on the earth.
(bold added)
Does this mean you are finally going to get to your point?
Are you going to do more than make assertions now?
Considering that an overwhelming majority of scientists, including Hawking would disagree with the bolded statements above, perhaps you should explain?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 09-12-2015 2:21 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 98 of 2887 (768663)
09-12-2015 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by ICANT
09-12-2015 2:21 PM


Yes, there is no clear gradation between creatures in the fossil record, I agree, but I disagree that "...the record shows that at many times there appeared completely new creatures on the earth."
You are misreading the fossil record the same way the evolutionists are. ALL the fossils are of creatures that lived at the same time before the Flood, and all together died at the same time IN the Flood. That is why there seem to be "jumps" from one level to another in the fossil record, which is what Gould got all exercised about.
But the fossil record does not represent genetic descent from one level to another at all, that's THE delusion, or spell, that all evolutionist science labors under.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 09-12-2015 2:21 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Coragyps, posted 09-13-2015 1:46 PM Faith has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 99 of 2887 (768675)
09-12-2015 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by ICANT
09-12-2015 2:21 PM


ICANT writes:
Tanypteryx writes:
This is a science thread. What you think Genesis says is not relevant to this discussion.
Do you believe or think the universe began to exist in an absence of light?
For the life of me I do not understand why you asked these questions. I agree with Admin., questions about what I believe or think about the universe have nothing to do with the fossil record.
ICANT writes:
OK lets say the universe exist.
That means we can have fossils.
Because mankind began to exist we can have human fossils.
Because all kinds of creature's began to exist we can have all kinds of fossils in our museum's.
Because the trees and vegetation began to exist we can have the oil, natural gas, and coal we have today, in which fossils are found, which is one reason it is called fossil fuels.
So?
ICANT writes:
Tanypteryx writes:
Where and when did Stephen Hawking say that? And, so what?
In his Lecture 'The Beginning of Time'.
" All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning"
Thanks for being so specific.
ICANT writes:
Tanypteryx writes:
How is what Hawking said evidence that refutes, the scientific discoveries of millions of scientists over the last 2oo years?
He is one of the top of scientists of that 200 years.
Yes, he is. In fact one of the greatest minds of our time.
That does not answer my question. What does your Hawking quote have to do with the scientific discoveries of millions of scientists over the last 2oo years?
ICANT writes:
Tanypteryx writes:
No, they don't. We know that fossils of marine organisms that are found in mountains were deposited in oceans as sedimentary layers and millions of years later those layers were thrust up by plate tectonics to become mountains.
Lets see: the fossils of water creatures were buried under layers of sediment. Did they not have to be in water and covered up?
That means those mountains were covered with water at one time.
I already said that, but when the layers that make up the mountains were underwater was millions of years before they became mountains.
ICANT writes:
Tanypteryx writes:
In what way do you think this refutes the conclusions of science that the earth is very old, that the diversity of life is the product of evolution, and that the fossils support these conclusions?
It doesn't refute that the earth is very old.
It does refute evolution, as the fossils do not support evolution. There is no gradual change shown in the fossil record. There is the fact that the record shows that at many times there appeared completely new creatures on the earth.
I had to go back and read my question in Message 88.
ICANT in message 88 writes:
ICANT writes:
The fossils that has been presented in this and many other threads on this site. Prove that there has been many creatures who have began to exist and then ceased to exist.
Yes, we know that sometimes when organisms die, sometimes they become fossils. We also know that many of the fossils that have been discovered are from species that are now extinct.
You say there is no gradual change recorded in the fossil record, but that is incorrect. If you search EvC for Foraminifera, you will see discussion of well-documented fossil sequences that show continuous gradual change.
The fossil record is not complete and some fossils show up or disappear in various layers. Other fossils show sequences with ancestors and descendants.
The theory of evolution does not state that evolution is or must always be slow and gradual. There are many cases where evolution is rapid.
Scientists spend their lives trying to understand the Universe or the earth or life in the context of their specialty. They also test their knowledge and specialty for consilience with other branches of science. Our goal is to refute any parts of our knowledge that we discover is incorrect.
ICANT writes:
The sudden appearances of specific fossils in the fossil record.
ICANT writes:
Tanypteryx writes:
What specific fossils are you talking about?
Completely new creatures who had not existed before.
That is not specific. Scientific names are specific.
Look, the gaps in the fossil record are not evidence that evolution does not happen. Sudden appearance or disappearance in the fossil record are not evidence that evolution does not happen.
They are also not evidence for a creator either.
The fossil record is evidence that life has changed dramatically over the course of the history of life and as a whole it is great evidence for evolution.
Specific parts of the fossil record give us exquisitely precise, high-resolution details of the evolution of organisms, that only someone with their eyes shut tight and their ears plugged can ignore.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 09-12-2015 2:21 PM ICANT has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 100 of 2887 (768703)
09-13-2015 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by ICANT
09-12-2015 12:46 PM


If you got another explanation I would like to hear it.
Simple.
We don't know everything. Neither do you.
We have several tentative scientific possibilities.
And this has nothing to do with fossils.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by ICANT, posted 09-12-2015 12:46 PM ICANT has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 101 of 2887 (768704)
09-13-2015 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by ICANT
09-12-2015 1:08 PM


We have to have a universe because No universe, no fossils.
The universe exists. Earth exists. Animals, including man, exist.
This is the obvious starting point for discussing fossils.
How those things came to exist is another topic.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by ICANT, posted 09-12-2015 1:08 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by edge, posted 09-13-2015 10:55 AM JonF has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 102 of 2887 (768710)
09-13-2015 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by JonF
09-13-2015 9:17 AM


The universe exists. Earth exists. Animals, including man, exist.
This is the obvious starting point for discussing fossils.
How those things came to exist is another topic.
I think the ploy here is to broaden the topic so that distinctions become meaningless. I don't know what that accomplishes, or that we've ever seen the end game here since it usually falls apart before then. YECs just can't seem to finish the argument.
In other words, we understand that the topic here is young-earth-creationism, but ICANT has substituted 'creationism' for YEC and then introduced confusion by conflating 'creationism' with 'creation'. It's all very convoluted reasoning.
So, we also understand that everything was 'created' by various processes, so we must all believe in creationism, right?
Now, take into account the FACT that complex things must be created by intelligent processes and voila', we are all creationists!
At least that's my breakdown of the strategy here.
It's sort of like the smug "We-all-believe-in-God-we-just-don't-know-it" canard, or the "We-all-believe-in-evolution-since-evolution-is-change-and-my-car-is-evolving-into-a-pile-of-rust" argument.
I'm just not sure what their conclusion is.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.
Edited by edge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by JonF, posted 09-13-2015 9:17 AM JonF has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 103 of 2887 (768714)
09-13-2015 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by ICANT
09-12-2015 1:11 PM


the temporal spacial matrix & biogeography
edge writes:
The fossil record is not just a collection of fossils.
If the fossil record is not just a collection of fossils, what is it?
A database of fossils arranged in time and space. The temporal\geographical relationship between fossils is probably more important than the individual bones, as that is what shows the trends in both time and location that would pertain if evolution were true and which would not pertain if evolution were false -- that is why every single fossil is a test of evolutionary theory.
This is why archaeologists and paleontologists and geologists take such pains to document location, date, and the relationship of fossils to one another.
Look up Alfred Russel Wallace and Biogeography and see why this is critical to understanding what the fossils mean within the matrix of time and space rather than just a collection of bones.
Read The Song of the Dodo
Both Wallace and Darwin noticed that whenever a new species was found, there was *always* a nearby (time or space) population of similar species, species with shared traits and different traits.
This is why they both came to the same conclusion: that new species evolved from existing species.
See Message 90
Message 71: The sudden appearances of specific fossils in the fossil record.
All fossils are "specific fossils" and all fossils are "sudden appearances" of individual organisms within the matrix. It seems you think you mean something here, but in fact it is rather incoherent to understand.
Message 95: Completely new creatures who had not existed before.
You will have to define what you mean by "completely new" -- before you were born you had not existed before and then you were a completely new - unique - creature upon birth. However we see inherited traits and we see derived traits in you compared to your parents. We also see a close relationship to the time and location of your parents existing and your birth.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ICANT, posted 09-12-2015 1:11 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Tanypteryx, posted 09-13-2015 1:09 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 104 of 2887 (768718)
09-13-2015 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by RAZD
09-13-2015 11:50 AM


Re: the temporal spacial matrix & biogeography
A database of fossils arranged in time and space. The temporal\geographical relationship between fossils is probably more important than the individual bones, as that is what shows the trends in both time and location that would pertain if evolution were true and which would not pertain if evolution were false -- that is why every single fossil is a test of evolutionary theory.
This is why archaeologists and paleontologists and geologists take such pains to document location, date, and the relationship of fossils to one another.
When you couple all this data with all the specific details about each individual fossil that are compiled from careful examination, often by multiple experts and students you have a database that is dynamic. It changes and grows with each new find.
The internet and rapid communication along with digital photos and video are transforming what used to be field and lab into an instant, always on, network of knowledge, sharing, and scrutiny. At the same time, a huge network dealing with living organisms has also emerged and is interacting with the fossil database. This would include genetics, taxonomy/cladistics, biogeography.
What Faith and ICANT totally fail to appreciate is the amount of scrutiny that all these fossils, and indeed, all the data and observations of science receive. They complain that the scientists never share their photos or that they never get to see the fossils and on and on, but that is just laziness on their part. They will not bother to read and learn to understand the actual papers. We have heard Faith whine numerous times that she does not understand what is in the papers and then go right ahead and pontificate as though knows what she is talking about. She rarely fails to note that all the scientists are part of a conspiracy and mind set that is blinding them to the truth that she sees, yet she has never held a fossil in her hand, and looked at it from every angle under a microscope, and compared it to other fossils, and compared it to the morphology of living organisms, and looked at the coordinates where it was found, and the relationship to other related finds.
Another thing that creationists completely fail to be aware of is that students are continuously entering the field and they don't take an oath of fealty to prior knowledge. They might pursue research of a subject where they do not know the all the scientists who have worked in the field. If they can refute someone else's work, they can make a name for themselves. Making your own or new discoveries is what every student and scientist strives toward.
If evolution was not the correct conclusion from all this study it would have been overthrown long before now, by scientists. If creationism was the correct conclusion every scientist would know it and their data from every study would demonstrate it.
Edited by Tanypteryx, : spelling

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 09-13-2015 11:50 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 105 of 2887 (768721)
09-13-2015 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Faith
09-12-2015 8:51 PM


Trilobites and crabs, Faith. Conodonts and seabass. Eurypterids and seahorses.
Why are those pairs NEVER found together?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Faith, posted 09-12-2015 8:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Faith, posted 09-13-2015 1:47 PM Coragyps has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024