Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What would a transitional fossil look like?
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 241 of 403 (850986)
04-18-2019 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by RAZD
04-18-2019 12:27 PM


Re: Transitionals are intermediate in form/features/time/location from before and after
That Pelycodus thing is such a joke, RAZD, it's nothing but where the creature and its various relatives, children and cousins were buried in the Flood.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2019 12:27 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2019 1:34 PM Faith has replied

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


(1)
Message 242 of 403 (850987)
04-18-2019 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by AZPaul3
04-17-2019 7:37 PM


You walk a tight line don't you? You know I'm smart but you have to be careful to be sure all the negatives come through more clearly so your Leftist Atheist comrades won't think you're soft in the head. I notice you rewrite such pieces to bring out those negatives ("wits" gave way to "guile" I see.) Anyway it's nice to have someone here who knows I'm smart even if he has to surround me with barbed wire and bombs at the same time to protect his standing among the real crazy people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by AZPaul3, posted 04-17-2019 7:37 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 1:01 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 285 by AZPaul3, posted 04-19-2019 2:45 PM Faith has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 243 of 403 (850988)
04-18-2019 12:49 PM


PaulK writes:
The question then would be whether the actual fossils were consistent with whatever model you produce. I will also note that sheer numbers are not sufficient - the distribution of anatomical features is also important.
By my estimation there is no chance that you could produce a model that would actually support your case without making ad hoc assumptions to explain why we see the pattern expected by evolution.
The intermediates illustrating the evolution of the mammalian jaw alone would seem highly improbable, even before we take account of the fact that they appear at the expected point in the fossil record.
We don't see the "pattern expected from evolution", you can only argue that with hindsight. We didn't "expect" from evolution a prediction of some 40 odd homoplastic eyes by, "convergence". That is not the expected pattern.
So I think you're wrong because there is no expected pattern from evolution. 99.999% of the transitional of evolution is missing, so any "pattern" you say is evolution, is basically based on trees not based on finding any transitionals. That is to say there are no ancestors at the nodes.
The "tree" of evolution by majority has to be illustrated.
With creation we would expect homoplasies wherever there is a use for them. So we might expect homoplasies in whales, oil birds and bats if there is a use for sonar.
So we would predict as our model, that similarities, similar traits will be found where the particular trait is most useful.
SO Paul you can pretend to yourself if you want to, that finding echolocation in those three is a prediction of evolution's tree, or 40 odd homoplastic convergent eyeballs (wide ones when I read it.
Or you can pretend a platypus is the expected pattern of evolution.
In reality Darwin argued a pattern posteriori. He first saw the general trend in the rock record THEN (after the fact) said that certain things evolved from others according to where generally found.
So we don't have to break the rock record's pattern just because he wrote evolution to match it.
Sorry if I can't address everything there are a lot of posts to my one post which may make my messages more scruffy, tatty, perhaps even a bit less well thought out since I am one against many, whereas each of you only has to pour your concentration into my one post.

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by PaulK, posted 04-18-2019 1:29 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 244 of 403 (850991)
04-18-2019 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Faith
04-18-2019 12:48 PM


You get a lot of "half-smart" evolutionists online. best to ignore them though they can be tedious admittedly. personally I will usually only respond to the civil ones like RAZD, but it can be tempting to respond to the more idiotic posts occasionally.
But if they live from 70% personal attack like my atheist brother agrees with me about, the first person to get the insults out is the first person that has lost the debate.
Basically they appear smarter and more knowledgeable than they are because they basically repeat what the biggest bully says. (mainstream science) That way they can portray the false dichotomy that we are religious, science-denying people of faith with no reason and they are rational, superior beings of evolution, fully versed in science.
In actual fact if there was no science articles into the thousands they could appeal to, they'd be like the emperor with no pants.
Have you noticed so few of them come up with any original thoughts themselves, or anything creative or any clever deduction? That's because most of them are simply loud mouths that only exist to shout at creationists because of their insecurity because our position is so strong when we actually look at all of the evidence of the miraculous all around us. Direct evidence which doesn't require mental contortions and 95% conjecture such as with proto-feathers and magically occurring homoplastic dorsal fins that just happen to be the perfect design and be analogue to other fins which we must believe were exapted rather than de-novo Darwinian magic, ho, ho, don't you know!
You're a tough old bird, Faith. Remember your shield - you do not have to accept any negative words against you. It literally is just air. That we don't respond in the same manner and that you are a class act in keeping your cool and not entering their war of venom, shows you are wise enough to know that their poor display of their sinful nature only confirms what they are - outside of God's will, and just happy to use lies, deception and insults because they have no true sense of morality and only feign it.
NO CLASS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Faith, posted 04-18-2019 12:48 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Theodoric, posted 04-18-2019 1:08 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 256 by edge, posted 04-18-2019 1:52 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 245 of 403 (850993)
04-18-2019 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 1:01 PM


As you do not seem to be able to follow the forum rules here, how about you crawl back under your rock and go to your own forum where you constantly harass and bully. Or do you feel you do not have to follow rules?
Here a couple rules you broke with just this one post.
2. Please stay on topic for a thread
10. The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 1:01 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 1:21 PM Theodoric has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 246 of 403 (850995)
04-18-2019 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 12:39 PM


mike the wiz writes:
...if you trace back on the "phylogenetic tree" both the Ichthyosaur and the whale, they both would have had to had the same ancestor with the pentadactyl pattern.
That doesn't follow. It is possible for the same pattern to evolve from different sources. Note the seal's flipper and the penguin's flipper, very similar in form and function, yet the seal is more closely related to other mammals and the penguin is more closely related to other birds. The evolution does not depend on birds and mammals having a common ancestor.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 12:39 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by caffeine, posted 04-18-2019 2:20 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 247 of 403 (850996)
04-18-2019 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Theodoric
04-18-2019 1:08 PM


Theodoric writes:
As you do not seem to be able to follow the forum rules here, how about you crawl back under your rock and go to your own forum where you constantly harass and bully. O do you feel you do not have to follow rules?
Here a couple rules you broke with just this one post.
2. Please stay on topic for a thread
10. The sincerely held beliefs of other members deserve your respect. Please keep discussion civil. Argue the position, not the person.
These claims against me are false. I don't bully, and in fact you are the one getting personal with "crawl back under your rock". My posts always are focused on being informational, I don't even mention the person. If you had paid closer attention you would see that any personal disrespect of belief has been aimed at me with generalisations such as "creationists wrap their mind around" and other gibberish aimed at creationists this, and creationists that, and creationists the other.
Please quote where I didn't follow the rules, I am responding to posts that are off topic, so naturally I will go off topic.
Talk about a case of the pot calling the kettle black, some of the evolutionists here should have been banned twelve times over because ALL THEY SEEM to do is insult and bully.
Where have I bullied anyone? if the admins read my posts and think there is something breaking the rules I will then stop doing what they say is wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Theodoric, posted 04-18-2019 1:08 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Theodoric, posted 04-18-2019 2:31 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 248 of 403 (850998)
04-18-2019 1:23 PM


Paul K my second post in this thread showed what I meant pertaining to homoplastic features such as echolocation;
https://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/683...

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 249 of 403 (851000)
04-18-2019 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 12:49 PM


quote:
We don't see the "pattern expected from evolution", you can only argue that with hindsight. We didn't "expect" from evolution a prediction of some 40 odd homoplastic eyes by, "convergence". That is not the expected pattern.
We don’t - and can’t - have perfect predictions. But nonetheless the parent of transitionals is what we would expect of evolution and not what we would expect if they were simply random occurrences.
quote:
So I think you're wrong because there is no expected pattern from evolution. 99.999% of the transitional of evolution is missing, so any "pattern" you say is evolution, is basically based on trees not based on finding any transitionals. That is to say there are no ancestors at the node
Of course the pattern is that the transitionals are found where they “ought” to be.
quote:
Or you can pretend a platypus is the expected pattern of evolution
The platypus is consistent with evolution. And a good example of the necessity of studying the anatomy rather than relying on superficial appearances.
quote:
In reality Darwin argued a pattern posteriori. He first saw the general trend in the rock record THEN (after the fact) said that certain things evolved from others according to where generally found.
There are two very significant points here. First, the existence of a general trend - which does point to evolution. Second the fact that our knowledge of the fossil record has greatly expanded since Darwin. Darwin did not know anything like as much about it as we do now. And yet the evidence continues to be consistent with evolution.
quote:
So we don't have to break the rock record's pattern just because he wrote evolution to match it.
The fact of a non-random pattern breaks the idea that transitional fossils are mere coincidences as you argue. The fact that the many discoveries since Darwin have confirmed the pattern only make it more clear that it is real.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 12:49 PM mike the wiz has not replied

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


(1)
Message 250 of 403 (851001)
04-18-2019 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by Faith
04-18-2019 12:41 PM


Re: Transitionals are intermediate in form/features/time/location from before and after
More funny stuff from Faith:
That Pelycodus thing is such a joke, RAZD, it's nothing but where the creature and its various relatives, children and cousins were buried in the Flood.
Curiously there is no evidence of a major mountain topping flood in the Big Horn Basin, Wyoming, just lots of little annual floods limited to the river flood plain. Just like everywhere else in the world, now and in the past. A single flood does not explain the changes between layers. The Theory of Evolution does explain their location and timing and the gradual transition in form over time ... ALL the evidence.
As noted in The Right Side of the News, Message 1295 you have a cognitive bias problem:
quote:
It's called Cognitive bias:
quote:
Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, and are often studied in psychology and behavioral economics.[1]
Although the reality of these biases is confirmed by replicable research,[2][3] there are often controversies about how to classify these biases or how to explain them.[4] Some are effects of information-processing rules (i.e., mental shortcuts), called heuristics, that the brain uses to produce decisions or judgments. Biases have a variety of forms and appear as cognitive ("cold") bias, such as mental noise,[5] or motivational ("hot") bias, such as when beliefs are distorted by wishful thinking. Both effects can be present at the same time.[6][7]
There are also controversies over some of these biases as to whether they count as useless or irrational, or whether they result in useful attitudes or behavior. For example, when getting to know others, people tend to ask leading questions which seem biased towards confirming their assumptions about the person. However, this kind of confirmation bias has also been argued to be an example of social skill: a way to establish a connection with the other person.[8]
Although this research overwhelmingly involves human subjects, some findings that demonstrate bias have been found in non-human animals as well. For example, hyperbolic discounting has been observed in rats, pigeons, and monkeys.[9]
Particularly:
quote:
Bias blind spot The tendency to see oneself as less biased than other people, or to be able to identify more cognitive biases in others than in oneself.[25]
Confirmation bias The tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.[27]
Dunning-Kruger effect The tendency for unskilled individuals to overestimate their own ability and the tendency for experts to underestimate their own ability.[41]
Focusing effect The tendency to place too much importance on one aspect of an event.[46]

More at (wiki) Cognitive bias.
Thank you for your detailed response.
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 241 by Faith, posted 04-18-2019 12:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 04-18-2019 1:41 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 255 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 1:49 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 251 of 403 (851005)
04-18-2019 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by RAZD
04-18-2019 1:34 PM


Re: Transitionals are intermediate in form/features/time/location from before and after
Anyone with eyes open should be able to see the evidence for the Flood everywhere on this earth. Everywhere, and not least in the strata found all over the planet that oddly enough are stacked in the same order everwhere they are found.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2019 1:34 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by PaulK, posted 04-18-2019 1:46 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 254 by edge, posted 04-18-2019 1:48 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 257 by ringo, posted 04-18-2019 1:56 PM Faith has replied

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


(1)
Message 252 of 403 (851007)
04-18-2019 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 12:18 PM


This is an argumentum ad hominem, it doesn't address the reason but the reasoner. There was no, "continual denial" which is an ad hominem.
Have you not repeatedly denied the presence of transitional fossils?
Okay, I will amend my statement to reflect that YECs, in general, have continually denied transitional fossils. Your erroneous complaint of the logical fallacy of ad hominem argument is moot.
I do not deny that logically it is possible to qualify something as a transitional, I am merely saying that this isn't leading to any conclusion that it actually was one in actual history.
I get the feeling that you confuse philosophy with science.
You state that while it is logically possible to classify something as transitional, it is not logical to project from the specific to the general. The problem you have is that this is philosophy, not science. Inductive science is still science and a logical fallacy is not necessarily fallacious.
It is you that does not understand affirmation of the consequent. If expected evidence P for evolution may exist, in a small number, something which we may expect, if it can be shown we would also expect the same evidence without evolution then it is inconsequential that it qualifies as consistent with evolution. Evidence does not work/operate as proof, with a theory, confirmation evidence only allows you to continue with the hypothesis, so to speak until there is found falsification evidence via the modus tollens.
But we wouldn't expect the same evidence 'without evolution'.
And no, evidence does not 'work as proof'. Proof is a judgement (IMO) and evidence either supports a premise (proof), or not (refutation), or it is equivocal. You seem to suggest that the evidence is equivocal and therefore does not support the presence of transitional fossils. I contend that the mass of evidence (much of which you ignore) is 'proven' to the reasonable person. If only from the standpoint that you have no complete alternative to the evolutionary explanation, my opinion is that your argument is invalid.
You seem to think that if I admit that things exist that qualify as "transitionals" that this means they really were transitionals of evolution.
It appears that you did not read my previous post. Please do so.
That would be like saying if we find finger prints as we might expect at a crime scene, that this means I am guilty, ...
I'm not sure how one would draw that conclusion from what you present. How would 'finger prints at a crime' scene implicate you?
... but if there are other reasons for why those finger prints are there, such as that I live or work at that location, then even if it is evidence that may be consistent with a crime, that doesn't mean it actually is from that crime.
Well, I would have to ignore certain sets of data, wouldn't I? Sound familiar? I have been saying all along that YEC ignores certain data that is inconvenient.
With transitionals of evolution, most have not been found, only a handful of candidates exist in comparison to how many species exist.
How many should there be? We have hundreds ... at least. "A handful" is misleading.
If you need showing the maths you also need showing why two add two is four. Even evolutionist scientists would admit that the true and actual portion of transitionals that would have had to exist in the past, would be a vast figure compared to what they find.
That vast figure would also agree that "discovered fossils" is not the same as "numbers of organisms that ever existed". But please, you said something about calculations. Can you provide them or just make vague denials?
Now if I am wrong I would be quite happy to see a direct transition of a jellyfish, or an octopus or a platypus or a winged insect or a bat/pterosaur/pterodactyl. You see just randomly naming a few if most transitionals exist, should mean you should be able to provide examples for that portion I request. Let's try it again; Ichthyosaurs, dragon flies, snails, pine trees.
That's silly. Any time we provide a transitional species, you would find just another two gaps. The problem is one of connecting dots through long periods of time, not a set number of frames per second. As such, you are once again, confusing evidence with proof. We cannot provide you with absolute proof, only myriad evidence. A reasonable person would attempt to explain that data and all of it.
Got any? Of course you haven't, because no matter how far back they are in the fossil record they always appear identical with no evolution.
(oh and I don't want things you call transitionals, I want you to actually show me how arms became wings, legs became arms, arms became fins, but also I want examples of sophisticated changes such as the useful stages between a pterosaur's elongated finger and it's ancestors.
THERE ARE NONE.
Considering that you cannot provide some kind of definition of 'transitional fossil', you pronouncement falls hollow. You ignore the data that exists while searching for absolute proof.
Begging-the-question fallacy. We have not accepted terms of debate. I don't accept the terms of debate that things preserved in rock represent time. I am not going to assume eons for your sake.
In this case, you admit to ignoring certain data, including actual numbers and patterns. You conveniently dismiss entire fields of science.
That doesn't refute my reasoning. I spoke of slothful induction.
Yes, you presented a philosophical dismissal of scientific facts.
If I show you 400 successful things the eye does, I don't have to refute you if by small percentage you complain about the blind spot, if 99.999% of the eye is well designed. Similarly, generally speaking 99.999% of the evidence of cambrian phyla evolving is missing, ...
Please document this number.
... to satisfy the claim they evolved you have to show the expected evidence for all of them since what I said pertains to a quantity (percentage). So your claim has to show that all of the cambrian phyla's ancestors are by majority present. Seems you ah, "can't wrap your mind" around that.
I have no problem 'wrapping my mind around that'. While almost all major Phyla are present the succeeding Orders and Classes are not so represented. I mean, we are talking about pretty basic body plans here.
By providing an evolutionary link saying there is evidence of angiosperm evolution. LOL. Then can you show me all of the intermediates please.
I'm sorry but asking for complete and accurate detail by someone who can dismiss the entire field of geochronology is kind of hypocritical, don't you think? No one is saying that the known record is complete. All we are saying is that the theory of evolution explains the data. And frankly there is no viable alternative explanation unless one wishes to ignore huge tracts of data as you appear to be doing.
Red-herring fallacy. I only have to show the earliest ones we find remain unchanged. Or are you saying if creation is true and evolution is false that I would expect to find an evolving ancestor in an earlier layer rather than say a funnel-nose ray?
The "show me a bunny in the cambrian" nonsense isn't worth my time.
Of course it wastes your time because you cannot face the consequences of your scenario. It's a waste of time for all of us because we know that you have no answer and no intent to attempt an answer. And yet, the point is made.
I am afraid that doesn't rescue you from deductive reason. You see your problem is even if the fossil record is very incomplete we have stages of history allegedly, from each era, and in each era there is generally a lack of evolution even though there isn't a lack of life. So even if you desperately plead the old canard of "the record is a tiny fraction" by analogy if I throw sweets ubiquitously in all layers of sand in a tank, as long as the sweets must be in all deposits, no matter how small the portion, we should find them. (this is a true analogy of evolution because evolution claims to have been happening in all eons)
Which 'stages of history' are you talking about? Do you really think that we do not see evolution of trilobites within the Cambrian Period? We do not see this homogenization of species that you appear(?) to espouse.
Evolution has no place to hide, yet it simply doesn't exist.
Well, it certainly seems to be hiding from you. And your assertion carry no weight in science or philosophy.
All you can do is pleads a handful of candidates like with your dino and angiosperm examples, but you can't ignore all of the forms have no intermediates whatsoever, meaning the transitionals are 99.9999% absent.
Please document this percentage. Nevertheless, we have data. Explain it.
If I am wrong it is easy to disprove me, simply show me intermediates for something pre-bat, pre-pterosaur, pre-pterodactyl. Show me the intermediate for the insect wing, as it evolved. Got any intermediates for how Ichthyosaurs evolved? Oh I forget, a homplastic dorsal fin by Darwin magic dust, from nothing.
We have already shown that you were wrong on a number of these transitions. How many times do we have to do that? Seriously, you are not going to accept any explanation anyway.
Sorry you can quote all the evolutionary gibberish you want, that won't change that if life evolved 99.999% of the transitionals are simply not there. Appealing to a few that are there, won't impress me.
The ability to deny data is an impenetrable defense. I repeat, there is a difference between the known record and the actual history of life.
We have actual data. What is your interpretation?
As to the 'gibberish', it makes a lot more sense if you studied the actual science rather than simply complain about it.
In this post you have basically asserted everything without providing any reasoning.
That is because I am attacking your reasoning. I have found that providing evidence and reason has no effect on YECists.
Perhaps message one will inform you of where and when we should find transitionals, since you don't seem to know when they would UNAVOIDABLY be expected to be found, but never are;
"Unavoidably"? Sounds like someone who has never actually tried to do the proper scientific study of the data.
So I guess I am not uninformed about transitionals and when and where to expect them.
If you get your information from Fred Williams, you are likely to be misinformed. Fred once told me that the fossils in his backyard are the some ones found on top of Mount Evans. Considering that he lives on Denver Basin formations, and Mount Evans is >1ga metamorphic rock, that's a pretty bizarre statement.
The logic is clear, you can nail them down to segments in "pre-history" as they call it, and look for where and when they MUST have evolved, according to the evolution fairytale.
And it has actually been done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 12:18 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 2:12 PM edge has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 253 of 403 (851009)
04-18-2019 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Faith
04-18-2019 1:41 PM


Re: Transitionals are intermediate in form/features/time/location from before and after
quote:
Anyone with eyes open should be able to see the evidence for the Flood everywhere on this earth. Everywhere, and not least in the strata found all over the planet that oddly enough are stacked in the same order everwhere they are found.
Please explain what makes it the “same order” and how that supports the Flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 04-18-2019 1:41 PM Faith has not replied

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


(2)
Message 254 of 403 (851010)
04-18-2019 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Faith
04-18-2019 1:41 PM


Re: Transitionals are intermediate in form/features/time/location from before and after
Anyone with eyes open should be able to see the evidence for the Flood everywhere on this earth.
Weren't you the one with vision problems?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 04-18-2019 1:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 255 of 403 (851012)
04-18-2019 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by RAZD
04-18-2019 1:34 PM


Re: Transitionals are intermediate in form/features/time/location from before and after
Not sure if I'm allowed to respond to this post of yours RAZD. It would seem I am not allowed to talk about things off topic but others can. Lol
RAZD writes:
Curiously there is no evidence of a major mountain topping flood in the Big Horn Basin, Wyoming, just lots of little annual floods limited to the river flood plain. Just like everywhere else in the world, now and in the past. A single flood does not explain the changes between layers
No offence meant to you Sir, as I wouldn't mean this in a negative way RAZD but this does seem to be a little bit ignorant of creation geology explanations. There really is in modern times a growing list of evidence which is better explained as coming from a mage catastrophe.
In fact the record itself is expected from a flood, especially with 100 million years worth of flat gaps in place in many locations, where there is no erosion at the contact points. In other words there are many areas where there is no Cambrian, or no pre-cambrian. With a flood if the rock was laid down by depositions, a series of them, we would expect this because the rock would not be an "era" but a deposit.
I don't want to get into this too much but there is the B.E.D.S model which a flood explains better, as well as paraconformities. Also recent experiments on bloat-and-float fossils indicate that local floods wouldn't be sufficient to counter the buoyancy from depositional gases in large critters.
It would seem absurd to say that such a huge hydraulic force would not leave giant sediment hauls. It also explains many strange geomorphological features such as water-gaps and planation. Erosional remnants are also well explained given a famous one we know happened because of an ice-age flood. (steamboat inselberg)
Huge remnants such as devil's tower tend to change in their explanations and timing.
We also have the rates of erosion which just don't match millions of years.
I am not intending to elephant-hurl this all at you, I just think that if you are going to give a fairly quick argument/summary, for "not a flood" it's also fair for me to summarise.
RAZD writes:
The Theory of Evolution does explain their location and timing and the gradual transition in form over time ... ALL the evidence.
I really don't see how at all to be honest. "All" the evidence? Lol. Even if evolution was true I think that's wishful thinking for true theories. Life will never be as binary as evolutionists make out when they utter their P.R.A.T.T. of "all the evidence is for evolution and NONE for creation."
If that were the case what do you expect that a funnel nose ray fossilised, should look like if creation was true? Are you saying if it is identical to it's living counterpart that what I should have expected as evidence of creation and unchanging living things without evolution, would be to expect ancestors of that ray?
Think about it.
RAZD writes:
Thank you for your detailed response.
I agree Faith's response seemed flippant considering the work you put in. However things like the Dunnig-Kruger RAZD, to be honest I am not sure how you can mention that with a straight face after reading some of the low-value responses I get to my posts with evolutionists, that seem to be founded on extraordinary over-confidence despite no evidence to suggest they are beyond average IQ level.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2019 1:34 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2019 4:33 PM mike the wiz 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