Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ishalon · 06-11-2002, 12:10 PM

<a href="http://www.anointed-one.net/begin.html" target="_blank">Anointed-One.Net</a>

Skip the watchmaker bit, laugh and shake your head at the "If God created the universe, then who created God?" and stop at the Paleontology...

Before you answer, please note that I am aware of the misquotations of scientists there and the nonsensical conclusions of christianity, but I would like to know the answers to these questions:
[unedited, due to the fact that 1) i am supposed to be studying (biology, strangely enough) and 2) Lazy.

Quote:

Paleontology is the study of prehistoric life through fossils. This is the branch of science that should offer impressive and convincing evidence for evolution. The only source of unbiased, tangible and documented evidence to determine whether evolution actually occurred in the past is the fossil record. Does the fossil record really support evolution or does it advance biblical creationism?

There are several questions that evolutionists have a difficult time answering:

Why is it that the oldest fossils in the world are already very advanced and well developed creatures?

The fossil record reveals a total absence of life forms in the lower two thirds of the earth's crust. This is referred to as the Precambrian period. Then, all of the sudden, life appears in abundant numbers. The oldest rocks in which fossils are found are those of the Cambrian period. The Cambrian sedimentary rock fossils contain many millions of highly advanced and well developed life forms. This is referred to as the Cambrian Explosion.

There is no gradual evolution of the fossil record. If everything developed from the same primordial soup, certainly there would be some very basic creatures that would have existed between the soup and the creatures we are familiar with. Why aren't there any?

The fossil record indicates that life appeared suddenly in tremendous complexity, great diversity and unbelievable abundance without evolving from any ancestors. Does this fact point more towards evolution or creation?

Why are there not many thousands of transitional fossils?

One of the biggest obstacles for evolutionists to overcome is the total lack of substantial transitional fossils. If we have been evolving for millions of years, there should be a tremendous amount of intermediate fossils. There are no concrete links of plants to animals, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles or reptiles to birds and mammals. The fossil record is composed mostly of large gaps.

Charles Darwin said, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" Darwin also admitted, "By this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth." The reality that there are none prompted him to conclude that this fact is, "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." There should literally be a minimum of hundreds of thousands of transitional fossils.

Darwin was at least honest enough to acknowledge the unavoidable problem of all the missing links. He felt this dilemma could be explained by an incomplete fossil record. He said that the missing links and the critical gaps would eventually be filled. After more than 100 years, the fossil record has grown by a staggering amount. However, there has been no real discovery of any credible transitional fossils. To this day, the fossil record continues to be composed mainly of gaps. There are enough fossils today to convince us that the gaps are real and they will never be filled.

Because there is no credible evidence for transitional fossils and they refuse to believe in God, scientists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould claimed that evolution really does not work in a gradual process. They stated that evolution occurs by quick, large leaps. This concept is known as punctuated equilibrium. It is interesting how these scientists, after realizing the fossil record fails to lend any credibility to the theory of evolution, have changed the entire philosophy of how evolution happened in order to fit the facts of the fossil record. Even so, punctuated equilibrium lacks any scientific evidence to support it.

Why do animals that exist today look exactly like their fossilized ancestors?

If evolution has been occurring throughout all of history, shouldn't there be at least one documented case of kind of creature turning into another? Is it not mildly perplexing that there is no evidence that any animal, reptile, fish, bird or plant has evolved into another one? How is it possible and acceptable that there is not one change of any phylum into another on record? Why has there been no new phyla in the last 500 million years? There is no proof that any species has ever changed. The fossil record strongly supports Scripture which states that each species reproduces after its own kind. This is an unfortunate fact for evolution which requires life to be in a continual state of disarray and change. The Bible is not only verified by the fossil record but it is also confirmed by modern scientific observation and experimentation.

Evolutionists will point to a handful of questionable fossils and declare them to be solid evidence for evolution. Creationists point to the millions of fossils that compose the entire fossil record to validate divine creation. To the unbiased observer, the preponderance of the evidence points to divine creation and away from evolution. The only problem is that the majority of people are biased. People believe what they want to believe. Many are not even interested in what the facts are because they could be contrary to what they already think.

Writer@Large · 06-11-2002, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ishalon:
Why is it that the oldest fossils in the world are already very advanced and well developed creatures?

Wow. This one's so easy to field, even I can answer it (I don't get to contribute to E/C often ... ). The answer is two-fold.

1) There *are* fossils from the Precambrian era. See <a href="http://geol.queensu.ca/museum/exhibits/dawnex.html" target="_blank">here</a> and<a href="http://members.aol.com/drjohnsea/Vendianfossils.html" target="_blank">here</a> for just two samplings. So, surprise surprise, the cretinists get it wrong. More importantly ...

2) Early life was cellular, invertibrete, and *fleshy* life. Even a junior geologist can tell you that these kinds of structures don't fossilize all that well, if at all. It wasn't until shells, bony plates, and skeletons evolved that fossilization really had something to work with, and those forms of life didn't really evolve until, you guessed it, the Cambrian Explosion. But the cretinists won't tell you that, either.

Quote:

Why are there not many thousands of transitional fossils?

A total strawman--the "no transitionals" argument has been beaten like a dead horse. If I have specimin A and specimin B, the cretinist asks, "Where's the transitional?" If I then provide specimin C, an intermediary form of A & B, the cretinist looks at the gap bettween B and C and asks "Where's the transitional? See, you don't have any transitional!" <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html" target="_blank">See the TalkOrigins Transitionals FAQ.</a>

--W@L

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: Writer@Large ]

ishalon · 06-11-2002, 01:00 PM

thanks, but even if early life was fleshy, where are all the fossils of bones, shells developing?

*pretends to be a creationist for this thread*

watch out, im going to get my bible next time

theyeti · 06-11-2002, 01:01 PM

This is really stupid. I will just briefly go over a few points, and hopefully you'll get the main idea.

Quote:

Why is it that the oldest fossils in the world are already very advanced and well developed creatures?

They're not. The oldest fossils are of primitive bacteria that go back 3.5 billion years.

Quote:

The fossil record reveals a total absence of life forms in the lower two thirds of the earth's crust.

Totally false. Aside from the bacteria that go back 3.5 billion years, eukaryotes appear 1-2 billion years ago. Complex mutlicellular forms become abundant about 600 million years ago. Which is the order that you would expect if evolution is true.

Quote:

This is referred to as the Precambrian period. Then, all of the sudden, life appears in abundant numbers. The oldest rocks in which fossils are found are those of the Cambrian period. The Cambrian sedimentary rock fossils contain many millions of highly advanced and well developed life forms. This is referred to as the Cambrian Explosion.

This is not true either. The "Cambrian Explosion" lasted for around 30 million years. It was not "sudden". And it was preceeded by a period of simple animal life known as the Ediacran (sp?). And there is also evidence of worm-like animal life preceeding that. Furthermore, what is "highly advanced" supposed to mean? Does it mean modern? In that case, it's false -- the animal life of the Cambrian was nothing like today's life.

Quote:

There is no gradual evolution of the fossil record. If everything developed from the same primordial soup, certainly there would be some very basic creatures that would have existed between the soup and the creatures we are familiar with. Why aren't there any?

Just WTF are bacteria and unicellular eukaryotes?

Quote:

Why are there not many thousands of transitional fossils?

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html" target="_blank">There are</a>.

Quote:

One of the biggest obstacles for evolutionists to overcome is the total lack of substantial transitional fossils. If we have been evolving for millions of years, there should be a tremendous amount of intermediate fossils. There are no concrete links of plants to animals...

There shouldn't be any links between plants and animals! Animals did not evolve from plants!

Quote:

fish to amphibians...

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1" target="_blank">Here</a>.

Quote:

amphibians to reptiles...

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#rept1" target="_blank">Here</a>.

Quote:

or reptiles to birds and mammals.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#bird" target="_blank">Here</a> and <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm" target="_blank">here</a> respectively. Do note that these articles are somewhat dated; there have been some spectactular dino-bird transitions found recently.

Quote:

Why do animals that exist today look exactly like their fossilized ancestors?

Totally false. Even in the few cases where you can find a relatively unchanged body plan going back for a few hundred million years (e.g. crocodiles and sharks), they are never exactly like they are today. However, over time they do become more and more like those living today.

I'm just going to leave it at that. The person who wrote this is entirely ignorant, and is recycling old canards that even YEC organizations have disavowed. You can find all of these false asserions rebutted on the talkorigins archive. Don't be lazy!

theyeti

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: theyeti ]

ishalon · 06-11-2002, 01:04 PM

(for the edit)
there are still many millions of transitional fossils missing. Church starts in one hour.

tgamble · 06-11-2002, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ishalon:
[QB]
Paleontology is the study of prehistoric life through fossils. This is the branch of science that should offer impressive and convincing evidence for evolution. The only source of unbiased, tangible and documented evidence to determine whether evolution actually occurred in the past is the fossil record.

Of of these days, molecular biologists are just gonna snap at this kind of bullshit.
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/</a>
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc</a>

Quote:

Does the fossil record really support evolution or does it advance biblical creationism?

It supports evolution and refutes the creation myth.

Quote:

There are several questions that evolutionists have a difficult time answering:

Hardly. It's quite easy. They've been answered hundreds of times.

Quote:

Why is it that the oldest fossils in the world are already very advanced and well developed creatures?

Are single celled organisms and bacteria really advanced?

Quote:

The fossil record reveals a total absence of life forms in the lower two thirds of the earth's crust. This is referred to as the Precambrian period.

That's a lie actually. Precambrain fossils do exist. Even the ICR admit that through it didn't stop them selling a book claiming otherwise for years after they admitted it.

Quote:

Then, all of the sudden, life appears in abundant numbers. The oldest rocks in which fossils are found are those of the Cambrian period.

Who wrote this shit?
<a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/timeform.html" target="_blank">http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/help/timeform.html</a>
<a href="http://www.weber.edu/bdattilo/fossils/notes/precamb.html" target="_blank">http://www.weber.edu/bdattilo/fossils/notes/precamb.html</a>
<a href="http://www.nearctica.com/paleo/periods/precamb.htm" target="_blank">http://www.nearctica.com/paleo/periods/precamb.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html" target="_blank">http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html</a>

Quote:

Why are there not many thousands of transitional fossils?

there are. The claim that there aren't any is yet another lie of creationists.
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html</a>
<a href="http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_00.htm" target="_blank">http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_00.htm</a>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/tran.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/tran.htm</a>

Quote:

If we have been evolving for millions of years, there should be a tremendous amount of intermediate fossils. There are no concrete links of plants to animals,

Animals evolved from plants! Jesus christ! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Quote:

[fish to amphibians,

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/tran.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/tran.htm</a>

Quote:

amphibians to reptiles

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#rept1" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#rept1</a>

Quote:

or reptiles to birds and mammals.

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm</a>

Quote:

Charles Darwin said, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" Darwin also admitted, "By this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth."

Did you know that this quote is totally out of context? Read the whole thing for yourself.
<a href="http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html" target="_blank">http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html</a>

Quote:

Because there is no credible evidence for transitional fossils and they refuse to believe in God, scientists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould claimed that evolution really does not work in a gradual process.

The typical and predictable slander continues.

<a href="http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/PE.html" target="_blank">http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/PE.html</a>
<a href="http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/gould_fact-and-theory.html" target="_blank">http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/gould_fact-and-theory.html</a>
<a href="http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/gould_leviathan.html" target="_blank">http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/gould_leviathan.html</a>

Quote:

Why do animals that exist today look exactly like their fossilized ancestors?

They don't.

Quote:

If evolution has been occurring throughout all of history, shouldn't there be at least one documented case of kind of creature turning into another?

Whatever "kind" is supposed to mean. Of course, transitional fossils have been found. All the lying and slander in the world won't change that.

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]

ishalon · 06-11-2002, 01:08 PM

Quote:

The "Cambrian Explosion" lasted for around 30 million years.

lol

Quote:

You can find all of these false asserions rebutted on the talkorigins archive. Don't be lazy!

sorry im supposed to be studying for exams right now anyway

tgamble · 06-11-2002, 01:20 PM

check out the "evidence" for a young earth. Same old crap that's been refuted dozens of times. <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />
To support the lie of creationism, creationists must lie. How pathetic.

Valentine Pontifex · 06-11-2002, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theyeti:
The "Cambrian Explosion" lasted for around 30 million years. It was not "sudden".

It was not sudden, but it did not last 30 million years. It lasted only a few million years.
The "Cambrian explosion" did not last the entire Cambrian, or even the majority of it, but rather a small part of its start.

ishalon · 06-11-2002, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Before you answer, please note that I am aware of the misquotations of scientists there and the nonsensical conclusions of christianity

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-11-2002, 01:00 PM	#3
ishalon Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: From: Posts: 203	thanks, but even if early life was fleshy, where are all the fossils of bones, shells developing? pretends to be a creationist for this thread watch out, im going to get my bible next time

06-11-2002, 01:04 PM	#5
ishalon Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: From: Posts: 203	(for the edit) there are still many millions of transitional fossils missing. Church starts in one hour.

06-11-2002, 01:20 PM	#8
tgamble Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada Posts: 1,652	check out the "evidence" for a young earth. Same old crap that's been refuted dozens of times. <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> To support the lie of creationism, creationists must lie. How pathetic.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.