The Missing Links in the Fossil Record
- Thread starter Sonnet
- Start date
iouae
Well-known member
For most of my life hominid palaeontology resided in the "dunno - for later" part of my brain.
iouae
Well-known member
If the earth is covered with water, God creates creatures suited to an aquatic biome.
If the atmosphere is oxygen poor, God may create producers to generate oxygen.
If the temperature is super warm or cold, God creates organisms suited to those conditions.
Conditions on earth have varied over time, and God has created condition-suitable organisms to fill all available niches at that time.
You may call that "stirring the pot".
Lobopods are transitional between worms and arthropods.
Of 32 mesozoan (multicellular) phyla, one is Precambrian, eleven appear during the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record.
The major groups of animals that exist today have evolved long after the Cambrian, and while there is a rapid diversification of species during the Cambrian there is not much diversification or increase of complexity in cells: that remains a pretty gradual development throughout.
Stuart
Genesis 2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
Stuart
iouae
Well-known member
I am sure that after each explosion, and each creation event in the past, the same sentiment could have been expressed. With the exception that God did not rest after each past explosion. Resting was to set an example to mankind to rest every Sabbath.
Sonnet
New member
Isn't this problematic?
Exodus 20:11
For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Why is there no mention of the gap you claim to be vast eras of earth history?
So pretty much supernatural. at least you propose no specific natural means.
And why bother with all that messing around before man? Why man at all?
iouae
Well-known member
Jonahdog When one has a lot of time on one's hands, as God has, and when one has a creative streak, as God has, then one fills the millennia with creating new species, as one does.
oatmeal
Well-known member
There is limited evolution that is, there are a wide variation in the canine population, but dogs only reproduce dogs.
No one is going to breed dogs long enough to produce another species.
As close as donkeys and horses are, when bred they produce mules which cannot reproduce.
That in itself is a great reason to reject evolution from one species to another.
As soon as you have one "outsider" there will be no offspring!
No one is going to breed dogs long enough to produce another species.
As close as donkeys and horses are, when bred they produce mules which cannot reproduce.
That in itself is a great reason to reject evolution from one species to another.
As soon as you have one "outsider" there will be no offspring!
Still did not answer the "Why man" question
But what if you did have a lot of time. A reallly reallly looong time---millions of years?
iouae
Well-known member
God is (re)producing beings like Himself (in His image, after His likeness).
A student sitting near the front of the class might ask "But doesn't God already have angels, who are like Him?".
To which I would tentatively reply, that God treats angels as a Boss might treat an employee (with cordiality), whereas God plans to treat us humans as a Father might treat a child (with unconditional love). Apologies to Michael and Gabriel if I am wrong.
iouae
Well-known member
Oatmeal - Cichlids are fresh water fish found in the great lakes of Africa and South America. They are the poster organisms for fast variations. There are more than 3000 species of them occupying all niches, who probably all arose from a fairly recent common ancestor, and they can mostly all breed with one another, even between species.
The word "species" encompasses a circular argument. One can argue that if they CAN breed together and produce viable offspring, then they are the same species, even if they are called different species because they look different or have quite different DNA.
Barbarian asks:
What do you think is the best argument against evolution in his video?
Well, that's worth talking about. First, lets see what a YE creationist with a degree in paleontology has to say about that:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
But let's test that belief for ourselves. Tell me of any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if there's a transitional form either in fossils or still living.
If you would like to do more than one pair, feel free. You're on.
What do you think is the best argument against evolution in his video?
Well, that's worth talking about. First, lets see what a YE creationist with a degree in paleontology has to say about that:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf
But let's test that belief for ourselves. Tell me of any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if there's a transitional form either in fossils or still living.
If you would like to do more than one pair, feel free. You're on.
Why bother with man? God is complete in himself, no?
iouae
Well-known member
Your house is complete with your wife and yourself no doubt. But why not complicate it and make it more complete with a few children?
BTW I don't know where you get that God is complete. My view is that God is ever learning, always creating. If God is a Creator (not a has been Creator) this means He is ever coming up with new creations, and no doubt these give Him joy (and complete Him still further).
Genesis 1:31
And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
When God exclaims that something new He has made is "very good", this indicates that there are things which add to God's enjoyment, and hence "complete" Him.
If your God is not complete within himself then his authority is diminished. If your god is ever learning, then he is not all-knowing.