It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creation, where is the evidence? I see none.

page: 11
0
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
How is it arrogance to say the fossil record shows fully formed animals? If you don't agree you are obviously uneducated in paneotology and therefore ignorant.


heh, yeah.

Do you think we would find sort of half-formed animals or something, like a bat with half a head and one leg? All species are fully formed. The populations just change over time. Thus, we can show a transition from a land mammal to a whale, but each species was fully formed. Indeed, every species alive today is a potential transitional.


They both agree that animals were designed by a God at some point. ID was originally based upon creationsim and is actually a form of creationism.


They do no such thing, but if it gives you a giddy feeling to think so, cool.

The fossil record shows massive changes in species over time, with species becoming radically more diverse. Starting from basic bacteria billions of years ago, to simple inverts a few hundred million, to vertebrates etc etc.

There was no start point where all species were poofed into existence.

And I know what ID is, it is creationism in a cheap tuxedo. But don't tell everyone, people aren't meant to think that.

Shhhh! I be hunting wabbits!!



All the animals we see today are in the fossil record. This shows they were always the same animals. Emphasis on always. This is compelling evidence for creation because this is what would happen if there was a creator.
Since you brought up evolution, there would be thousands upon thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils with slight changes but the fossil record does not bare that out. Where did they all go?
You said populations just change over time. Then would we not see this in the fossil record?
You said there was no start point where all species poofed into existance. The fossil record overwhelmingly shows that they did.

ABE: I'm not ignorant to the fossil record.






[edit on 16-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]




posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
All the animals we see today are in the fossil record. This shows they were always the same animals. Emphasis on always. This is compelling evidence for creation because this is what would happen if there was a creator.


Of course they are. That's exactly what evolution would predict. They don't just poof into existence


Your 'theory' involves a poofter.

Evolution would also predict diversification over time. There was a point were only bacteria appear in the fossil record. Then there is a later period were they are joined by invertebrates. Then later by vertebrates. Which then further diversify. And so on. Indeed, it would predict a nested hierarchy. And that's also what we clearly see.

Thus, they were not all 'created at once fully formed'. Life has evolved.


Since you brought up evolution, there would be thousands upon thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils with slight changes but the fossil record does not bare that out. Where did they all go?


Decomposed? Eaten?

Fossilisation is actually a fairly rare process requiring pretty specific conditions. I don't even know how many transitionals there are, I'm sure it's more than what you suggested earlier (what was it? 10? lol).

[edit on 16-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
All the animals we see today are in the fossil record. This shows they were always the same animals. Emphasis on always. This is compelling evidence for creation because this is what would happen if there was a creator.


Of course they are. That's exactly what evolution would predict. They don't just poof into existence


Your theory is involves a poofter.

Evolution would also predict diversification over time. There was a point were only bacteria appear in the fossil record. Then there is a later period were they are joined by invertebrates. Then later by vertebrates. Which then further diversify. And so on. Indeed, it would predict a nested hierarchy. And that's also what we clearly see.

Thus, they were not all 'created at once fully formed'. Life has evolved.


Since you brought up evolution, there would be thousands upon thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils with slight changes but the fossil record does not bare that out. Where did they all go?


Decomposed? Eaten?

Fossilisation is actually a fairly rare process requiring pretty specific conditions. I don't even know how many transitionals there are, I'm sure it's more than what you suggested earlier (what was it? 10? lol).


I'm not sure how fossils get eaten.
The fossil record clearly indicates that animals appeared all at once fully formed. Again there are thousands, actually millions of fossils, to prove it. Maybe you are not understanding the difference between even 50 controversal transitionals (huge exaggeration) and the number of all at once fully formed fossils. In fact, there is so little transitional fossils that evolutionists were desperate enough to create fraud/fake fossils. Now if fossils were so unimportant and the fossil record today is completely compatible with evolution why were these fake fossils put on the cover of massive scientific journals and magazines only to be declared frauds. Obviously because fossils are important proof, and evolutionists are aware of the lack of transitional fossils and you should be too. Rather than deny the lack of transitional fossils, why not admit to it.




[edit on 16-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
I'm not sure how fossils get eaten.


Of course they don't. But most dead organisms do get eaten/decompose.

A fraction of organisms will die in appropriate environments to fossilise.


The fossil record clearly indicates that animals appeared all at once fully formed.


No. It doesn't. You are just so off target here I'm starting to think you could be trolling.

I thought you said you knew something about the fossil record?


Again there are thousands, actually millions of fossils, to prove it. Maybe you are not understanding the difference between even 50 controversal transitionals (huge exaggeration) and the number of fully formed fossils.


I'll just repeat this once more. All organisms are fully formed. Even transitionals.

For instance, just assume that evolution is true to amuse me, if in 50 million years humans evolved to become gray-like (the funny looking alien things, not gray colour), we would still be fully formed. Even the populations of evolving humans at 25 million years would be fully formed. But if we took snap-shots are 5 million year intervals, we would see a gradual change over time. But each would still be fully formed. The 25 million year humanoids just wouldn't be the same as the original and end population.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
I'm not sure how fossils get eaten.


Of course they don't. But most dead organisms do get eaten/decompose.

A fraction of organisms will die in appropriate environments to fossilise.


The fossil record clearly indicates that animals appeared all at once fully formed.


No. It doesn't. You are just so off target here I'm starting to think you could be trolling.

I thought you said you knew something about the fossil record?


Again there are thousands, actually millions of fossils, to prove it. Maybe you are not understanding the difference between even 50 controversal transitionals (huge exaggeration) and the number of fully formed fossils.


I'll just repeat this once more. All organisms are fully formed. Even transitionals.

For instance, just assume that evolution is true to amuse me, if in 50 million years humans evolved to become gray-like (the funny looking alien things, not gray colour), we would still be fully formed. Even the populations of evolving humans at 25 million years would be fully formed. But if we took snap-shots are 5 million year intervals, we would see a gradual change over time. But each would still be fully formed. The 25 million year humanoids just wouldn't be the same as the original and end population.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by melatonin]


I'm not talking about evolution and animals being fully formed at certain stages. I'm talking about hundreds of thousands of fossils that are the exact same as animals of today that seem to have appeared all at once, which supports creation. Because if they didn't appear all at once then there would be millions of transitional fossils.

To be consistent with evolution, the fossil record should show how organisms slowly transformed one into another through countless intermediate or transitional stages. Evolutionists, for example, claim that over one hundred million years were required for the gradual transformation of invertebrates into vertebrates; thus we would expect that the fossil record should show at least some of the progressive stages of this large-scale transformation. To be consistent with creation, on the other hand, the fossil record should show no obvious transitional stages between distinctly different kinds of organisms, but rather each kind of organism should appear all at once and fully formed as they are today.


Even Darwin knew this. And so does mostly every evolutionist. But you can't admit it.



[edit on 16-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   
There is no such thing as kinds, the bible is totally inconsistent on such a definition.

Please put a link for the quote, helps a bit.

So, the quote suggests we should have transitionals, and we do. What's the problem?

Put the linky and I'll finish my response manana.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
There is no such thing as kinds, the bible is totally inconsistent on such a definition.

Please put a link for the quote, helps a bit.

So, the quote suggests we should have transitionals, and we do. What's the problem?

Put the linky and I'll finish my response manana.



What are you talking about kinds for? All it means is that you have dogs, cats, birds, fish..etc
We barely have any transitionals. And they are all controversal, many of them could be frauds as well. Again compare even 50 transitionals to hundreds of thousands.
What does the link have to do with anything, it's what I've been saying except in different words to help you understand that there should be thousands of transitionals and yet they are gone.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
What are you talking about kinds for? All it means is that you have dogs, cats, birds, fish..etc


Just making sure you're not taking 'kinds' in that quote to mean anything biologically useful. Because it isn't.


What does the link have to do with anything, it's what I've been saying except in different words to help you understand that there should be thousands of transitionals and yet they are gone.


The link enables me to read the original source of information and to get the context of the quote you used. Please. I would appreciate it. Indeed, good scholarship asks for it. Thank You.

When I see words like 'fully formed' used, I want to see the context.

The thing here is that you keep ignoring what I'm saying. Fossilisation isn't going to happen to every individual organism. It is no great surprise that we can easily find billions of fossils of brachiopods, but it's not so easy to find terrestrial species. Moreover, we can only see the tip of the iceberg with areas for exposed strata we can dig at that include fossils. This is comparable to saying that I need to see the grave of every single one of you relatives for 1,000 years, otherwise I think your relatives poofed into existence less than 1000 years ago.

We can't even find that many fossils of recently extinct species. How do you expect us to have billions of transitionals including every species in history for a rare process after millions of years affected by destructive geological processes in a few areas which are exposed and have been examined in the last hundred years or so?

If you are expecting something you can't even provide for yourself, then I think you might be expecting just a little too much. The fact we have the transtionals we do is evidence enough


[edit on 16-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
What are you talking about kinds for? All it means is that you have dogs, cats, birds, fish..etc


Just making sure you're not taking 'kinds' in that quote to mean anything biologically useful. Because it isn't.


What does the link have to do with anything, it's what I've been saying except in different words to help you understand that there should be thousands of transitionals and yet they are gone.


The link enables me to read the original source of information and to get the context of the quote you used. Please. I would appreciate it. Indeed, good scholarship asks for it. Thank You.

When I see words like 'fully formed' used, I want to see the context.

The thing here is that you keep ignoring what I'm saying. Fossilisation isn't going to happen to every individual organism. It is no great surprise that we can easily find billions of fossils of brachiopods, but it's not so easy to find terrestrial species. Moreover, we can only see the tip of the iceberg with areas for exposed strata we can dig at that include fossils. This is comparable to saying that I need to see the grave of every single one of you relatives for 1,000 years, otherwise I think your relatives poofed into existence less than 1000 years ago.

We can't even find that many fossils of recently extinct species. How do you expect us to have billions of transitionals including every species in history for a rare process after millions of years affected by destructive geological processes in a few areas which are exposed and have been examined in the last hundred years or so?

If you are expecting something you can't even provide for yourself, then I think you might be expecting just a little too much. The fact we have the transtionals we do is evidence enough


[edit on 16-1-2008 by melatonin]


From your post above, you seem to agree that there is a lack of transitional fossils because you say there shouldn't be any for various reasons you listed above.
It is common knowledge that evolution requires millions of transitionals. This is a known fact. There are so many gaps in the fossils record.
On the other hand creation doesn't requre any transitionals and this is shown in the fossil record overwhelmingly. There is an abrupt appearance of animals and plants in the fossil record. As well almost all fossils are very similar, if not identical to creatures of today.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
From your post above, you seem to agree that there is a lack of transitional fossils because you say there shouldn't be any for various reasons you listed above.


I don't think there is a 'lack' of transitionals. That would depend on how many you expect to see under real-world conditions. In theory, we could have the fossil of every single organism from me to an early ape-like ancestor millions of years ago. However, I live in the real-world


As time passes, we are finding more and more.


It is common knowledge that evolution requires millions of transitionals. This is a known fact. There are so many gaps in the fossils record.


And as soon as we fill a gap, two more open up. One either side of the new find.

Evolution would have produced millions of transtionals. Then they would be required to have been laid down under the right conditions, preserved for millions of years, exposed by erosion, found by a human. We don't require millions. We require their evidence.

Which is what we have.


On the other hand creation doesn't requre any transitionals and this is shown in the fossil record overwhelmingly. There is an abrupt appearance of animals and plants in the fossil record. As well almost all fossils are very similar, if not identical to creatures of today.


If you say so.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:07 AM
link   
It is interesting for me as Orthodox that majority of our theologians reject Creationism. I read only few who support(ed) it.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by Vojvoda]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
From your post above, you seem to agree that there is a lack of transitional fossils because you say there shouldn't be any for various reasons you listed above.


I don't think there is a 'lack' of transitionals. That would depend on how many you expect to see under real-world conditions. In theory, we could have the fossil of every single organism from me to an early ape-like ancestor millions of years ago. However, I live in the real-world


As time passes, we are finding more and more.


It is common knowledge that evolution requires millions of transitionals. This is a known fact. There are so many gaps in the fossils record.


And as soon as we fill a gap, two more open up. One either side of the new find.

Evolution would have produced millions of transtionals. Then they would be required to have been laid down under the right conditions, preserved for millions of years, exposed by erosion, found by a human. We don't require millions. We require their evidence.

Which is what we have.


On the other hand creation doesn't requre any transitionals and this is shown in the fossil record overwhelmingly. There is an abrupt appearance of animals and plants in the fossil record. As well almost all fossils are very similar, if not identical to creatures of today.


If you say so.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by melatonin]


It's funny how you keep changing the subject to evolution everytime I provide compelling evidence for creation. This thread has nothing to do with evolution but you keep referring to it. Instead of discussing the evident relationship between the fossil record and creation you talk about why there are no transitional fossils in the 'real world.' You live in the 'real world' and I don't? Keep evolution out of it and at least try and disprove my evidence.
Your response to my last paragraph was 'if you say so'. It's not my opinion, it's a fact. 'There is an abrupt appearance of animals and plants in the fossil record. As well almost all fossils are very similar, if not identical to creatures of today.' Prove this wrong. Tell me how this is not proof even though the fossil record shows it. you still haven't discredited the proof after many posts.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

[edit on 16-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
It's funny how you keep changing the subject to evolution everytime I provide compelling evidence for creation. This thread has nothing to do with evolution but you keep referring to it.


Heh, nice try. Compelling my ass.

ABE:


rather each kind of organism should appear all at once and fully formed as they are today.

clclutheran.org...

Is clearly wrong. The 'kinds' don't appear 'all ot once', and 'fully formed' (in the sense they use it).

Also, I found the source of the quote myself. Thanks for showing your poor scholarship. I can see why you wanted to hide it, it's a screed full of dishonest quotemines. False. Shalt. Witness. Bear. Not.

More Menton dishonesty.

.....


'There is an abrupt appearance of animals and plants in the fossil record. As well almost all fossils are very similar, if not identical to creatures of today.' Prove this wrong. Tell me how this is not proof even though the fossil record shows it.


Jeez, we would expect fossils to be similar to species that come before and after. Again, that is not what creationism would predict. But species in the fossil record are not 'almost all very similar'. Some are, some aren't. Unless you can point out a species alive today that is very similar to, for example, tiktaalik, pterodactyl, triceratops, archaeocyatha etc etc. About 99% of the species that been on the earth are now extinct.

So, far the only creationism-related evidence you have raised is that there are either no transitionals or not enough - which is incorrect. There is more than enough to show evidence of major diversification over hundreds of millions of years.

That species appear 'abruptly', depends on timescale, if you think periods of millions of years are abrupt, then cool. It's not a surprise, I've already pointed out that we will only have snapshots of a process that has been ongoing for billions of years. However, again, there are species leading to and from other fossils. Indeed, we have transitionals right down to the cambrian (e.g., lobopods).

The fact that you think the fossil record is some sort of proof of creationism is actually quite amusing.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
It's funny how you keep changing the subject to evolution everytime I provide compelling evidence for creation. This thread has nothing to do with evolution but you keep referring to it.


Heh, nice try. Compelling my ass.

ABE:


rather each kind of organism should appear all at once and fully formed as they are today.

clclutheran.org...

Is clearly wrong. The 'kinds' don't appear 'all ot once', and 'fully formed' (in the sense they use it).

Also, I found the source of the quote myself. Thanks for showing your poor scholarship. I can see why you wanted to hide it, it's a screed full of dishonest quotemines. False. Shalt. Witness. Bear. Not.

More Menton dishonesty.

.....


'There is an abrupt appearance of animals and plants in the fossil record. As well almost all fossils are very similar, if not identical to creatures of today.' Prove this wrong. Tell me how this is not proof even though the fossil record shows it.


Jeez, we would expect fossils to be similar to species that come before and after. Again, that is not what creationism would predict. But species in the fossil record are not 'almost all very similar'. Some are, some aren't. Unless you can point out a species alive today that is very similar to, for example, tiktaalik, pterodactyl, triceratops, archaeocyatha etc etc. About 99% of the species that been on the earth are now extinct.

So, far the only creationism-related evidence you have raised is that there are either no transitionals or not enough - which is incorrect. There is more than enough to show evidence of major diversification over hundreds of millions of years.

That species appear 'abruptly', depends on timescale, if you think periods of millions of years are abrupt, then cool. It's not a surprise, I've already pointed out that we will only have snapshots of a process that has been ongoing for billions of years. However, again, there are species leading to and from other fossils. Indeed, we have transitionals right down to the cambrian (e.g., lobopods).

The fact that you think the fossil record is some sort of proof of creationism is actually quite amusing.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by melatonin]


Ya it's not that hard to find the link from people's quotes. All you have to do is copy a line from the quote and search it in google.
Poor scholorship? haha we are on an internet forum. Neither of us have degrees, PhD's to back up 'good' scholorship.

99% of fossils are extinct? First time I heard that. No paleontologist will tell you this.

"Living fossils" are plants or animals that closely resemble species known from fossils... and yet many fossils are alive today having changed very little from their relatives that reportedly lived millions of years ago. In fact, most living fossils are almost identical to their fossilized ancestors.



[edit on 16-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Ya it's not that hard to find the link from people's quotes. All you have to do is copy a line from the quote and search it in google.


I shouldn't have to bother though.


Poor scholorship? haha we are on an internet forum. Neither of us have degrees, PhD's to back up 'good' scholorship.


If you say so, heh. But it's true that such things don't matter, just our arguments.


99% of fossils are extinct? First time I heard that. No paleontologist will tell you this.


It is estimated that 99% of species that have lived in the history of the earth are now extinct.

You just did it again. Obviously you're culling these externals from somewhere, just paste the link below it. It does help.

Doesn't it bother you that a christian brother has clearly broken one of your 'really shouldn't do that's' to mislead about evolution and scientists claims? Or is that just fine and dandy in the name of jesus?



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
IF... we were created. What is the point to putting all of the fossils of dinosaurs around? Why create them, then destroy them? Or why have the evidence of evolution, and the variety of species, on the planet? Or why make the universe so vast? How does this benefit mankind, or "Gods" children? What possible good does any of it provide us?



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Ya it's not that hard to find the link from people's quotes. All you have to do is copy a line from the quote and search it in google.


I shouldn't have to bother though.


Poor scholorship? haha we are on an internet forum. Neither of us have degrees, PhD's to back up 'good' scholorship.


If you say so, heh. But it's true that such things don't matter, just our arguments.


99% of fossils are extinct? First time I heard that. No paleontologist will tell you this.


It is estimated that 99% of species that have lived in the history of the earth are now extinct.

You just did it again. Obviously you're culling these externals from somewhere, just paste the link below it. It does help.

Doesn't it bother you that a christian brother has clearly broken one of your 'really shouldn't do that's' to mislead about evolution and scientists claims? Or is that just fine and dandy in the name of jesus?


Still insisting 99%, I see. You should go visit a museum sometime.
What are you talking about in the last paragraph?



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Still insisting 99%, I see.


Why shouldn't I? That's the current estimate.


You should go visit a museum sometime.


And?


What are you talking about in the last paragraph?


That quotemines are dishonest. It is a form of lying. He is just another liar for jebus. But that's cool, yeah?



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
Still insisting 99%, I see.


Why shouldn't I? That's the current estimate.


You should go visit a museum sometime.


And?


What are you talking about in the last paragraph?


That quotemines are dishonest. It is a form of lying. He is just another liar for jebus. But that's cool, yeah?


The point was you should go to a museum and see that 99% of the fossils are not extinct. Go talk to paleontologist. Do something besides researching this on the computer because the computer could be all lies on both sides. I'm stating these things based on what I've seen.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
The point was you should go to a museum and see that 99% of the fossils are not extinct. Go talk to paleontologist. Do something besides researching this on the computer because the computer could be all lies on both sides. I'm stating these things based on what I've seen.


Where? The creation museum?

Here, I quickly went to the american museum of natural history...


Species go extinct all the time. Scientists estimate that at least 99.9 percent of all species of plants and animals that ever lived are now extinct. So the demise of dinosaurs like T. rex and Triceratops some 65 million years ago wouldn't be especially noteworthy—except for the fact that around 50 percent of all plants and animals alive at the same time also died out in what scientists call a mass extinction.

www.amnh.org...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join