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.

 

Creationists - Explain this please

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
I'm going to make this short as it's already very late, so here it goes :

Assuming that Creationism is right and evolution is wrong, how do you (creationists) explain that we have found fossils of animals that have been living only in a certain time period and not before that time. What I'm trying to say is, where did that animal come from if it hadn't always existed?

Clearly it didn't pop up out of thin air, so my guess is it must have evolved from another animal.

Any thoughts on this?




posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by redshirt0202
Clearly it didn't pop up out of thin air


Duh! Easy-peasie.

God made it from dirt using think n' poofs! Says so in the bible. And da flud placed them all in an order that fits evolutionary theory so well. So it could have been god. But it might have been the devil!

See, this creationism stuff is easy - as long as you have no need for rational evidence-based arguments.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by redshirt0202
 


If you ask a religious person a question that is designed to highlight a highly illogical situation, the answer is always some version of "God did it". When asked why, they will reply "God works in mysterious ways; it's not possible for us to understand".

That's why you can't have a decent conversation with a creationist about science, because they can point at the most rational, supported evidence, and say "That's God testing you, that is". It's no wonder the ignorance is so deeply ingrained - their only route out of ignorance is blocked by a massive bible. It must be so easy living in a world where if you don't understand something, just say "God did it", and then you don't have to bother learning anything.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by redshirt0202

I'm going to make this short as it's already very late, so here it goes :

Assuming that Creationism is right and evolution is wrong, how do you (creationists) explain that we have found fossils of animals that have been living only in a certain time period and not before that time. What I'm trying to say is, where did that animal come from if it hadn't always existed?

Clearly it didn't pop up out of thin air, so my guess is it must have evolved from another animal.

Any thoughts on this?


Here ya go.

When you ask a geologist to date a certain strata of rock, he will invariably date it based on the the age of the fossils in it.

When you ask an archeologist to date a fossil found in the same strata of rock, he will invariably date it based on the age of the rocks.

Do you see the problem in this?



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by redshirt0202

I'm going to make this short as it's already very late, so here it goes :

Assuming that Creationism is right and evolution is wrong, how do you (creationists) explain that we have found fossils of animals that have been living only in a certain time period and not before that time. What I'm trying to say is, where did that animal come from if it hadn't always existed?

Clearly it didn't pop up out of thin air, so my guess is it must have evolved from another animal.

Any thoughts on this?


A couple of other things I should have put in my other post.

Where was "evolution" before the :cambrian explosion?" Scientists readily admit life seems to have just come out of nowhere.

Why aren't there literally MILLIONS of transitional forms? Sure you can name a handful of "transitional forms" (if they are, indeed, that), but why aren't the majority of fossils transitional forms? If platypi were unknown, and someone found a fossil of one, where would they be recorded? After all, WE know where it belongs. What if you found a platypus fossil with the bill intact, but not the fur. And you found another one with the fur intact, but no bill. Would one of these be considered the "transitional species" of the other?

Take the Chihuahua and the Great Dane. If you had found these two as fossils, would they even be considered the same species? If one was found in a lower strata of rock, would one or the other be considered a "transitional species" of the other one?



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


Oh dear oh dear. Geologists don't use fossils to date rocks. They use a series of techniques, all of which are employed to calculate the most accurate date possible for the formation of said rocks. The fact you think they use fossils, and only fossils, to date rocks is, well, ridiculous. Clearly you know nothing about geology, but that doesn't stop you from trying to use it to discredit science. You failed.

Why aren't there many more transitional forms in the fossil record, and why is the fossil record as incomplete as it is? Simple - it's very difficult to make a fossil. An animal has to die in exactly the right place, not be eaten or otherwise abused, until natural processes around it can envelop it in some sort of sediment, when it eventually fossilises.

So, if instead of assuming you are right and geology wrong, if you'd actually researched it for a minute or two, you'd see just how wrong you are, and how accurate modern geology can be.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Do you see the problem in this?


Aye, you mistakenly think it is a case of circular reasoning. But it isn't.

www.talkorigins.org...


Where was "evolution" before the :cambrian explosion?"


In the same place it was after the cambrian explosion? An explosion that took tens of millions of years. Before that we appear to have an Avalon explosion' -kaboom!.

All you are doing is pushing the creationist whines about evolution. I think the OP says:


Assuming that Creationism is right and evolution is wrong, how do you (creationists) explain that we have found fossils of animals that have been living only in a certain time period and not before that time. What I'm trying to say is, where did that animal come from if it hadn't always existed?


So, you need to think about what he is asking. Why are species laid out in the particular stratiographic order that fits evolutionary theory so well? Did they poof into existence in the order we see them? Or was it just chance that we see this clear evolutionary progression that fits the nested heirarchy predicted by evolutionary theory? Indeed, we even see molecular evidence fitting the paleontological very well...


Vol. 95, Issue 2, 606-611, January 20, 1998


Evolution
Origin of the metazoan phyla: Molecular clocks confirm paleontological estimates
Francisco José Ayala*, Andrey Rzhetsky, and Francisco J. Ayala
* Institute of Molecular Evolutionary Genetics, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802; Columbia Genome Center, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032; and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697

Contributed by Francisco J. Ayala, November 19, 1997

The time of origin of the animal phyla is controversial. Abundant fossils from the major animal phyla are found in the Cambrian, starting 544 million years ago. Many paleontologists hold that these phyla originated in the late Neoproterozoic, during the 160 million years preceding the Cambrian fossil explosion. We have analyzed 18 protein-coding gene loci and estimated that protostomes (arthropods, annelids, and mollusks) diverged from deuterostomes (echinoderms and chordates) about 670 million years ago, and chordates from echinoderms about 600 million years ago. Both estimates are consistent with paleontological estimates. A published analysis of seven gene loci that concludes that the corresponding divergence times are 1,200 and 1,000 million years ago is shown to be flawed because it extrapolates from slow-evolving vertebrate rates to faster-evolving invertebrate rates, as well as in other ways.

linky


Perhaps the flud laid them down in such a way...and humans could run up mountains which is why their fossils only show in the very recent past. Indeed, they might have even removed all evidence of civilisations from lower strata by dismantling their homes, taking them and every other human artifact up the mountain as well.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
Simple - it's very difficult to make a fossil. An animal has to die in exactly the right place, not be eaten or otherwise abused, until natural processes around it can envelop it in some sort of sediment, when it eventually fossilises.


So couldn’t this also be an answer to the OPs question?



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   
How can you say that animals hadn't been living before a certain time? They must have come from something.. Like their mum and dad.. And evolution also supports this fact.

God only created the beginning for us all, like all plant species, animal species and humans, and from there we varied.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ferdane
How can you say that animals hadn't been living before a certain time? They must have come from something.. Like their mum and dad.. And evolution also supports this fact.

God only created the beginning for us all, like all plant species, animal species and humans, and from there we varied.


That is more acceptable* if we allow the think n' poofter to only create the first organism, then let evolution take over. Once you have multiple creation episodes over geological time, gets a bit, errrm, 'messy', no? Unless you prefer to invoke lots of magic, rather than a little bit. Well, once you allow magic - in for a penny, in for a pound, I suppose.

*when I say 'more acceptable', I really mean not as ridiculous.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Well, no matter how much you like this what I say.. Nothing is impossible for God.. It might be magic to us, but not for Him.


But.. If so called 'millions of years old fossils' of animals that can be found living these days are found, why couldn't they have been living earlier.. Erm.. Even though I don't believe in so many years.. Just that I don't trust any dating systems.. There can be no proof that they actually work with so long timescale because we weren't here so long ago.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ferdane
Well, no matter how much you like this what I say.. Nothing is impossible for God.. It might be magic to us, but not for Him.


I believe dave420 predicted this statement...which doesnt really help with your case.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ferdane
Well, no matter how much you like this what I say.. Nothing is impossible for God.. It might be magic to us, but not for Him.


But, of course, it is only possible because your vision of god is that of some supernatural magic-man. Once you allow such processes, anything is possible. Such a concept can explain everything, and therefore nothing.

It's essentially a non-answer. No better than me saying invisible fairies push the earth around the sun.


But.. If so called 'millions of years old fossils' of animals that can be found living these days are found, why couldn't they have been living earlier.. Erm.. Even though I don't believe in so many years.. Just that I don't trust any dating systems.. There can be no proof that they actually work with so long timescale because we weren't here so long ago.


I'm not sure some of that is very clear, we do have evidence of such long-time scales, and progressively have done for a few hundred years. The idea of a few thousand years went out with the aether, but anyway...

Yet you're are willing to trust in some old book which (assuming you are Xian) writes of talking snakes, people being turned to salt, and water magically turning into wine, amongst other magical things. You would have to depend in changing the laws of nature to ignore the evidence we do have. And that's the problem, when you aren't constrained by reality and allow the presence of magic, you can buy into anything.

So you place yourself in a position where you must deny large elements of biology, chemistry, geology, physics, probably even psychology, to buttress a belief based on the writings of some ancient middle-eastern culture-bound misogynists. Even though the last few hundred years has shown the unquestionable success of the scientific method.

However, if it floats ya boat and makes the days bearable for you, fine by me - as long as you don't feel the need to assimilate me.

Anyway, I guess I'm pushing off-topic. So, in sum, you go for multiple creation events and some form of young earth? Indeed, it looks like you prefer a genesis-style event. And you justify this by saying all the contradictory evidence has to be wrong because god can do anything.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


Oh dear oh dear. Geologists don't use fossils to date rocks. They use a series of techniques, all of which are employed to calculate the most accurate date possible for the formation of said rocks. The fact you think they use fossils, and only fossils, to date rocks is, well, ridiculous. Clearly you know nothing about geology, but that doesn't stop you from trying to use it to discredit science. You failed.

Why aren't there many more transitional forms in the fossil record, and why is the fossil record as incomplete as it is? Simple - it's very difficult to make a fossil. An animal has to die in exactly the right place, not be eaten or otherwise abused, until natural processes around it can envelop it in some sort of sediment, when it eventually fossilises.

So, if instead of assuming you are right and geology wrong, if you'd actually researched it for a minute or two, you'd see just how wrong you are, and how accurate modern geology can be.


Oh dear, oh dear. Here is a short snip from nature.ca... which is the Canadian Museum of Nature. The part in bold and italics is my own emphasis.

Relative dating can be carried out by identifying fossils of creatures that lived only at certain times, and by looking at the physical relationships of rocks to other rocks of a known age. This earliest form of dating was used prior to the discovery of radioactivity and absolute dating, and is still in use today.


Nice try there bud. You have been refuted, and that was only 30 seconds work to find that.

Here's another one from www.scienceclarified.com...


The principal use of fossils by geologists has been to date rock layers (called strata) that have been deposited on the surface of Earth over millions of years.


From www.hsc.csu.edu.au...

The Law of Superposition states that, in a stratigraphic sequence that has not been overturned, the oldest layer is at the bottom and the youngest is at the top. Because the organisms that become the fossils are trapped in strata as they form, the age of the fossil matches the age of the strata. Therefore, fossils higher in the sequence are younger than those in lower strata.


And my person favorite from Berkeley: seismo.berkeley.edu...

Students learn how paleontologists use fossils to give relative dates to rock strata by sequencing letters written on cards then sequencing fossil pictures printed on "rock layer" cards. They are asked to determine the presence of index fossils and explain the law of superposition.


You want to tell me again how they don't date rocks from the fossils in them?

What's that you say? They don't JUST use fossils to date rocks? You have a point there. But guess what they do when one of the "absolute" dating methods puts out a date that isn't consistent with the age of the fossils? Care to guess? If you said "They throw it out and say the sample was 'contaminated' "you get the gold star! The most famous example of which was when volcanic ash from Mount Saint Helens was sent in for one of these "absolute" dating methods, without the lab knowing where it came from, and the date came out as several million years old.

Now, as to your second claim. According to evolutionary theory, every living thing should be in CONTINUOUS EVOLUTION. Therefore, the fossil record should be almost nothing BUT transitional species. But what does the record indicate? Fully formed species just appear out of nowhere. We don't find insects with 4 or 8 legs, then 5 and 7, then finally just 6. No, we see fully formed insects springing up with 6 legs already in place. (Just as an example). Or, do you want to argue for Punctuated Equilibrium, which is an argument for evolution through NO EVIDENCE? Or, put another way, why would Punctuated Equilibrium even be put forth as a theory for HOW evolution occured, if there was this massive evidence of evolution?



[edit on 11-6-2008 by sir_chancealot]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
... Why are species laid out in the particular stratiographic order that fits evolutionary theory so well? Did they poof into existence in the order we see them? Or was it just chance that we see this clear evolutionary progression that fits the nested heirarchy predicted by evolutionary theory? Indeed, we even see molecular evidence fitting the paleontological very well...

I think you might find it very interesting to compare the specific gravities of said fossils in layers and consider if it would have been possible for them to have been laid down in a world-wide flood. There have been several papers written about this if you care to look them up.

Mount Saint Helens formation of the "mini Grand Canyon" should have laid to rest what we THOUGHT we knew about sedimentary layer formation.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 11:55 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
... Yet you're are willing to trust in some old book which (assuming you are Xian) writes of talking snakes, people being turned to salt, and water magically turning into wine, amongst other magical things. You would have to depend in changing the laws of nature to ignore the evidence we do have. And that's the problem, when you aren't constrained by reality and allow the presence of magic, you can buy into anything. ...

So, no one has communicated with Alex the Parrot, and that Ape that was taught sign language? Nope, no scientific evidence of creatures that can communicate. Granted, you did say "talk", but then again, the bible doesn't say "snake", it says "serpent". While in general language, those are synonymous, in the bible they aren't quite synonymous, as "serpent" is often used specifically of the being known as Satan.

Go into any hospital in America and ask how many "magical things" happen every day. i.e., people living when there was absolutely no medical reason they should, or even people coming back from the dead (and I'm not talking about resuscitation here). I think you'd be surprised at the number of "magical things" that any nurse or doctor could tell you about.

Here's a challenge for you. Find me any book that displays more collected wisdom than the Book of Proverbs.

Another thing: The bible talks about the earth being round about 2,000 years before anyone else.

Oh, and guess what? In the Book of Job (considered the oldest book in the bible), God talks about laying the "foundation stone" of the earth. For 6,000 years, everyone assumed this was just allegorical. Guess what? The Center of the earth may be an actual CUBE! www.sciencedaily.com...

Now come on, who in their right mind would have thought that the very core of the earth would be a cube? Well, apparently God did (or at the very least, whoever wrote the Book of Job, if you don't believe in God).



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by sir_chancealot
 


"You want to tell me again how they don't date rocks from the fossils in them?"

If you would actually read into the articles you're posting, rather than just quotemining, you'd learn that using fossils to date strata (or vice versaa) is only a primary method of dating. It's a "rough estimate" date, and only used if the geological structure of the area hasn't undergone significant change. This is accepted because we know enough about strata layers and the fossils in them to make that assertion. However, that is NOT the only dating method used - especially if something out of place turns up. If they found a poodle in a cambrian strata layer, you'd be damned sure they will be employing other dating methods.

The very article you mentioned as your favorite, if you had cared to read it, is not actually even a scientific guideline. It's a guideline for teachers. And not collage teachers either, but teachers of grades 7 - 10. It then suggests that one students have a grasp of "relative dating", that the teacher move on to explain other methods such as radiometric dating.

Maybe you might want to think about putting a bit more than "30 seconds" worth of effort into your search and look up the difference between "Relative dating" and "Absolute dating" (which employs methods such as potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium dating) and the difference between how and in what context they are used.

"But guess what they do when one of the "absolute" dating methods puts out a date that isn't consistent with the age of the fossils? Care to guess? If you said "They throw it out and say the sample was 'contaminated' "you get the gold star!"

I recall no such event occuring, so please, since you've provided so many other links. Provide one for that story. Science doesn't work by only picking out the facts it wants to accept. It CANNOT work that way because reality wouldn't permit it. It only works through falsification, and if error in the actual dating process used was discovered, then it would not be used anymore. This same principle is why Asprin is now used to cure headaches rather than cranial drills.

Further, scientists know about contamination and ways to deal with it or minimize it's impact on the dating method by calibration. They don't simply "throw them away". Contamination is part of the reason why you often get dates for a fossil that may have 10s of thousands or even millions of years of leeway depending on the circumstance and the dating method used. They do not give a precise to the year date. However, the consensus of the data provided by analyzing several fossil specimens from several different organisms of the same species and from several different locations minimizes the possibility of a single localized contamination being a major factor. This is especially true of fossils of animals which had territories across two or more continents which then split or re-arranged through continental drift.

"According to evolutionary theory, every living thing should be in CONTINUOUS EVOLUTION. Therefore, the fossil record should be almost nothing BUT transitional species. But what does the record indicate? Fully formed species just appear out of nowhere."

You have no idea of both how rich the fossil record is, nor of how evolution works. For example, you ARE a transitional species. YOU are the link between our primate common ancestor and the species which will evolve from us. So any "transitional fossils" that archeology does find will never meet your requirements because they ALL are fully functional and complete creatures.

I think it would also benefit you to learn a little bit about Taxonomy and how it applies to evolution. To which, I present this video which I strongly urge you to watch.


In case the embed doesn't work.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Ferdane
Well, no matter how much you like this what I say.. Nothing is impossible for God.. It might be magic to us, but not for Him.


But, of course, it is only possible because your vision of god is that of some supernatural magic-man. Once you allow such processes, anything is possible. Such a concept can explain everything, and therefore nothing.

It's essentially a non-answer. No better than me saying invisible fairies push the earth around the sun.


so essentially you ask what a creationist believes, then reject his answer because its too simple?

if god creates a life, lets call this life "bob", what is the physical process this god would us to create bob?

first, what is the ability of god? is he omnipotent? if he is, how is saying "god thought up bob and *pop* there was bob" a non-answer. because its unlikely to you? would it be better if god took clay and breathed life into it? would the presence of a process make it more acceptable to you?

an omnipotent god is omnipotent, he/she/it can do anything. so your reply to ferdane isnt appropriate because he DID answer the question.

------------------------

my personal view

------------------------

god is omnipotent. but he set laws that govern the universe. no, faeries dont push the earth around, the movement of earth is determined by physics that god created.

the bible states that god created each animal according to its kind. keyword kind.

whatever the physical process was for that, it doesnt say. the bible does not say how long this period of time was, it simple says a "day" which denotes a period of time.

it is apparent that life was given the ability to adapt. without looking at the fossil record, all one has to do is look at man today. there are many different varieties, but they are all still man, one "kind"

dogs. many varieties, still one kind. etc etc etc.

when you do look at the fossil record, that is what you see (of course im assuming evolution is wrong as per rules of the debate). you see species spring up out of nowhere "according to their kind"

the horse is an example. the fossil record traces a horse back to a smaller version that ran on toes. but then it stops.

so god creates a species or "kind" and then that species will do what it must do to survive (micro evolution)

thats why god wasnt too worried in the time of noah. he told him to take a number of each "kind". god understood that the genetic system he set up would reestablish variety in a short time.

my 2 cents anyway



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


great video btw.




top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join