The fossil record shows there never was evolution.

[alwight]

A new transitional fossil creates the need to find two more. lain:

 

[chair]

Bs"d

That's probably because they are not palaeontologists.

But here is what a biologist says about "evolutionary biology":...

Whatever. You're just another fundamentalist who can't deal with science when it interferes with your notions of what the Bible is and what it says.

As they say in Hebrew- I'm not playing.

Have a nice day.

 

[6days]

Perhaps every Christian geologist had compromised at that time not realizing the effect their compromise had on the gospel..... and not realizing how this compromise lead future generations to believe the Bible was inaccurate, and not very relevant.

You can actually read the writings of many of them. Some of them describe how painful it was to have to ditch their previous beliefs about the flood and such, and they knew full well what that meant for their theology. But being good scientists, they also knew they had to follow the data wherever it led.

Thats essentially what I said....they compromised on scripture. Too bad they didn't trust scripture and notice how it is supported by geological evidence , as some modern geologists note.


Re. .your comment about ' painful to ditch beliefs'...Dr Emil Silvestru, PhD geology with 48 peer reviewed articles and former head scientist of the worlds first Speleological Institute. He speaks of how painful it was for him to realize the evidence did not fit with his belief in millions of years that he had always taught and believed in

 

[Jose Fly]

Thats essentially what I said....they compromised on scripture. Too bad they didn't trust scripture and notice how it is supported by geological evidence , as some modern geologists note.

So they should have violated the principle that you agreed constituted good science, i.e., following the evidence wherever it leads. IOW, they should have confined their range of potential conclusions to "only those things that conform to the Bible".

Re. .your comment about ' painful to ditch beliefs'...Dr Emil Silvestru, PhD geology with 48 peer reviewed articles and former head scientist of the worlds first Speleological Institute. He speaks of how painful it was for him to realize the evidence did not fit with his belief in millions of years that he had always taught and believed in

So? What's your point?

 

[6days]

Thats essentially what I said....they compromised on scripture. Too bad they didn't trust scripture and notice how it is supported by geological evidence , as some modern geologists note.

So they should have violated the principle that you agreed constituted good science, i.e., following the evidence wherever it leads. IOW, they should have confined their range of potential conclusions to "only those things that conform to the Bible".

They should have started with the absolute truth of God's Word rather than falling prey to the religion of naturalism. Fortunately today, there are scientists who are willing to follow the evidence wherever even when it leads to the Creator God of the Bible.

Re. .your comment about ' painful to ditch beliefs'...Dr Emil Silvestru, PhD geology with 48 peer reviewed articles and former head scientist of the worlds first Speleological Institute. He speaks of how painful it was for him to realize the evidence did not fit with his belief in millions of years that he had always taught and believed in

So? What's your point?

uh..... it was YOU who made the point about it being painful to ditch your beliefs. I provided an example.

If interested there are other examples of scientists who were atheists, admitting how painful it was realizing the evidence did not support their belief system.

 

[6days]

A new transitional fossil creates the need to find two more.

You first need to find one.

 

[Elia]

A new transitional fossil creates the need to find two more. lain:

Bs"d

If evolution was a fact, than the fossil record should show a myriad of species slowly changing into another.

And the fact of the matter is that there is not even one of those:

"The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change."
Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163


"Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ...it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to more evolved. ...Instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational evolutionary intermediates between documented fossil species."
Schwartz, Jeffrey H., Sudden Origins, 1999, p. 89.
Schwartz, Jeffrey H is professor anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh and also evolutionist, writer of boek about evolution: “Sudden Origins”, a provocative new theory on how evolution works by sudden leaps and bounds:
http://www.post-gazette.com/books/reviews/19991212review395.asp


"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."
Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95, speaking about the Bighorn basin in Wyoming USA.
S.M. Stanley is an evolutionist and professor at the John Hopkins university in Baltimore.
He wrote many articles, also together with Niles Eldredge, de co-inventor of the punctuated equilibrium theory.
One of his articles is “Paleontology and earth system history in the new millennium” which has been published in “Geological Society of America”

For more info about prof Stanley look here: http://www.jhu.edu/~eps/faculty/stanley/index.html#research


"The fossil record itself provided no documentation of continuity - of gradual transition from one animal or plant to another of quite different form."
Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 40


"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."
Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360


"A major problem in proving the theory (of evolution) has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth's geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin's hypothetical intermediate variants instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God."
Czarnecki, Mark, "The Revival of the Creationist Crusade", MacLean's, January 19, 1981, p. 56
Czarnecki Mark is an evolutionist and a paleontologist.



"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

 

[Elia]

Whatever. You're just another fundamentalist who can't deal with science when it interferes with your notions of what the Bible is and what it says.

As they say in Hebrew- I'm not playing.

Have a nice day.

Bs"d

There is science, and pseudo-science. Science is empirically testable. Everything that is not empirically testable, like evolution, is pseudo-science.

Just like the man said.

You have a nice day too.

 

[Sonnet]

The creation days were 24 hour periods of time. Although the word 'yom' / day can mean shorter or longer periods of time, the meaning is always understood by the context. There are several markers / indicators that do not allow for anything other than 24 hour creation days.

Perhaps every Christian geologist had compromised at that time not realizing the effect their compromise had on the gospel..... and not realizing how this compromise lead future generations to believe the Bible was inaccurate, and not very relevant.

Okay, but what is your response to the claim that the rock layers do not evidence a single catastrophic flood.

I'm not averring the flood did not happen - I'm just enquiring.

 

[Lon]

Okay, but what is your response to the claim that the rock layers do not evidence a single catastrophic flood.

I'm not averring the flood did not happen - I'm just enquiring.

Imho, plate tectonics ensure all bets are off. Pangea, no matter when it happened, ensures a global flood is likely. I was talking to an astronomer several days ago and he said the earth has been through several ice ages and concurrent global warmings that fairly necessitate a global impact by floods. Another TOLer speculated that 'whole world' meant 'whole known world' by Moses. Because we are dealing with speculation, both scientific and theological upon our understandings of given data, I try to read my Bible more and I hope science, as well, is not stagnant, but looking over its data. I do think as humans, we often follow crowds. I don't know what it is in us, but we certainly are a social people. -Lon

 

[Sonnet]

That depends on how you expect the landscape to change during the catastrophic deluge and whether you expect any additional changes to happen throughout the millennium following the deluge.

A single catastrophic world wide flood would leave a single layer of graded material, not layers.

Well, that is the argument anyway.

 

[Sonnet]

Thats essentially what I said....they compromised on scripture. Too bad they didn't trust scripture and notice how it is supported by geological evidence , as some modern geologists note.


Re. .your comment about ' painful to ditch beliefs'...Dr Emil Silvestru, PhD geology with 48 peer reviewed articles and former head scientist of the worlds first Speleological Institute. He speaks of how painful it was for him to realize the evidence did not fit with his belief in millions of years that he had always taught and believed in

Interesting.

 

[Sonnet]

If interested there are other examples of scientists who were atheists, admitting how painful it was realizing the evidence did not support their belief system.

Yes please.

 

[Lon]

And as we've seen, the one you like to quote the most (Gould) says transitional fossils are abundant and anyone who tries to quote him as saying otherwise is either stupid or a liar.

:think: Really? I thought he died in 2002 :think:

Nice quote mine. It's fascinating how some folks claiming to be on the side of God are so consistently dishonest.

Er, reading some of his critique, I think a bit of it 'stretching.' I suppose you want to believe just as badly as some of the 'dishonest folks on God's side.'

 

[Sonnet]

Imho, plate tectonics ensure all bets are off. Pangea, no matter when it happened, ensures a global flood is likely.

?

I was talking to an astronomer several days ago and he said the earth has been through several ice ages and concurrent global warmings that fairly necessitate a global impact by floods. Another TOLer speculated that 'whole world' meant 'whole known world' by Moses. Because we are dealing with speculation, both scientific and theological upon our understandings of given data, I try to read my Bible more and I hope science, as well, is not stagnant, but looking over its data. I do think as humans, we often follow crowds. I don't know what it is in us, but we certainly are a social people. -Lon

The Noachian flood would only make sense if it was world-wide. The boat was huge - about 1 1/2 times the length of a football pitch...sorry, soccer pitch

 

[Sonnet]

So how about we approach this issue of the existence vs. non-existence of transitional fossils this way....

Can any creationist here define the term "transitional fossil"?

If A evolved into Z, then B-Y might represent examples of the stages in between, I guess.

Would you present to this thread what you consider to be a transitional fossil, please?

 

[Lon]

?

Plate tectonics generally disrupt all layers, with even shells on top of mountain peaks. Most place the break up of Pangea outside of the existence of man, I'm not sure we have it all right simply because 'man' is also one of the animals found on all continents, with diversity among us. I 'think' a global grasp of science sometimes is better when asking larger questions, than a single path of science study (myopic). I am not a science major, however. I just listen when others are discussing and arguing these matters and as it pertains to my faith. I know a good many scientist majors who are also Christians and believe, in this instance and case, that there was a Noahic flood.

The Noachian flood would only make sense if it was world-wide. The boat was huge - about 1 1/2 times the length of a football pitch...sorry, soccer pitch

There are a lot of good points regarding such. I tend to simply believe what I read in the Bible but try to approach another's concern with possibility. Either I or he(she) has to deal with deductions from our collective data in such a discussion. I don't think we question what God says, we question our assumption based on what He says, rather. In science too, we don't question data persay, but what we extrapolate from that data. -Lon

 

[Sonnet]

Plate tectonics generally disrupt all layers, with even shells on top of mountain peaks. Most place the break up of Pangea outside of the existence of man, I'm not sure we have it all right simply because 'man' is also one of the animals found on all continents, with diversity among us. I 'think' a global grasp of science sometimes is better when asking larger questions, than a single path of science study (myopic). I am not a science major, however. I just listen when others are discussing and arguing these matters and as it pertains to my faith. I know a good many scientist majors who are also Christians and believe, in this instance and case, that there was a Noahic flood.


There are a lot of good points regarding such. I tend to simply believe what I read in the Bible but try to approach another's concern with possibility. Either I or he(she) has to deal with deductions from our collective data in such a discussion. I don't think we question what God says, we question our assumption based on what He says, rather. In science too, we don't question data persay, but what we extrapolate from that data. -Lon

What about the Siccar Point formation? - horizontal layers upon vertical layers. Hutton used it to prove the immensity of time.

The Noachian flood would be one layer of graded material - and not millions of years ago.

 

[alwight]

Bs"d

If evolution was a fact, than the fossil record should show a myriad of species slowly changing into another.

And the fact of the matter is that there is not even one of those:

The fact is that evolution is not driven by a need to evolve or adapt, it is driven to evolve and adapt by the environment and by natural selection. If the environment remains unchanged then life soon settles down into a kind of balance where further adaption presents no advantage. Life can adapt quickly initially but also remain static while the environment does not change. Regular fossils are typically rare snapshots but fossils of life from when the environment was under change would be even rarer.

 

[Sonnet]

The fact is that evolution is not driven by a need to evolve or adapt, it is driven to evolve and adapt by the environment and by natural selection. If the environment remains unchanged then life soon settles down into a kind of balance where further adaption presents no advantage. Life can adapt quickly initially but also remain static while the environment does not change. Regular fossils are typically rare snapshots but fossils of life from when the environment was under change would be even rarer.

That sounds like faith.

There is currently no understanding of abiogenesis, so, de facto, Darwinism is faith based.