The fossil record shows there never was evolution.

[6days]

As you've seen, even though they like to spout off about "no transitional fossils", none of them can even tell you what they think a "transitional fossil" is, and when they're provided examples of what most normal people would think of as a transitional, they just mindlessly wave them away without much more than "No it isn't"

Before you "spout off" about transitional fossils, you should have at least one that is clearly transitional and that all scientists agree on. Someone here provided a list of transitional fossils with archaeopteryx at the top of the list. I doubt if even all evolutionists agree on that one. Or how about the 'transitional /missing link', Darwinius masillae?

 

[6days]

Bs"d
The fossil record shows STASIS, non-change, non-evolution, for the species for their whole stay in the fossil record. New species pop up suddenly, without any connection to supposed predecessors.

I'm enjoying and agreeing with many of your comments.
Here is something I posted previously on the topic...
The fossil record is often baffling to evolutionists. One such example is that sophisticated eye designs are found out of sequence according to standard evolutionary thinking and dating. (Although ToE is flexible and accommodates improbable, unlikely / counter intuitive evidence).

We have long known that trilobites had one of the most sophisticated and complex eye designs of any creature; but now we see something even more amazing. Giant shrimp about 3' long (1 meter) are dated at 515 myo by evolutionists. (Anomalocarus). These shrimp like creatures dated at more than a half billion years have eyes that contain about 16,000 hexagonal 'lenses'. This is somewhat similar to house flies which have 3,000 and dragonflies with 28,000.

Dr John Patterson wrote:
"The latest find shows sophisticated vision had evolved very rapidly. It came with a bang, in a geological blink of an eye" Nature#480 p237-240 Also; Canberra Times Dec7/11
Notice what he is really saying..... THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THE EYE EVOLVED.

Evolutionists often refuse the explanation that best fits the evidence... intelligent design indicates an Intelligent Designer. As an example of this blind faith......
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences#90 wrote:
"...arthropod eye evolution has remained controversial, because one of two seemingly unlikely evolutionary histories must be true. Either compound eyes with detailed similarities evolved multiple times in different arthropod groups....or, compound eyes have been been lost in a Seemingly inordinate number of arthropod lineages " (T.Oakley &C.Cunningham)

Perhaps they should consider more than just the 2 "seeming unlikely " choices. The evidence (sudden appearance and intelligently designed) fits what Gods Word tells us...

God's Word tells us "The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both"

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Another precambrian 'rabbit'. Unfossilized exquisitely preserved wood has been found in a diamond quarry dated at 53 million years old. Interesting is that this is a warm climate wood, found in a cold climate with limited tree growth.Don't expect anyone to carbon date this ... It would pose too many questions with contradictory dates. Finding unfossilized wood in coal veins and diamond quarries poses no problems for the creation / flood model.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0045537

 

[Jose Fly]

Before you "spout off" about transitional fossils, you should have at least one that is clearly transitional

And what would a "clearly transitional" fossil look like?

and that all scientists agree on.

Why does every scientist have to agree? As we've been over before, not all scientists agree on whether the earth moves or is stationary. Does that mean the question is still unresolved?

Someone here provided a list of transitional fossils with archaeopteryx at the top of the list. I doubt if even all evolutionists agree on that one. Or how about the 'transitional /missing link', Darwinius masillae?

I think before we get into specific specimens, it would be prudent to clearly state what a "transitional fossil" is.

 

[genuineoriginal]

And what would a "clearly transitional" fossil look like?

If you and your fellow evolutionists can't specify it, then you can ensure that nobody can falsify it.
:chuckle:

 

[Sonnet]

Before you "spout off" about transitional fossils, you should have at least one that is clearly transitional and that all scientists agree on. Someone here provided a list of transitional fossils with archaeopteryx at the top of the list. I doubt if even all evolutionists agree on that one. Or how about the 'transitional /missing link', Darwinius masillae?

Jose Fly provided this definition:
A transitional fossil would be a specimen that exhibits a mixture of characteristics from different closely-related taxa.

Is this acceptable?

 

[Stripe]

Jose Fly provided this definition:
A transitional fossil would be a specimen that exhibits a mixture of characteristics from different closely-related taxa.

Is this acceptable?

No.

It assumes the truth of Darwinist dogma.

When facing disagreement, it is important to use terminology that both sides agree on.

 

[Sonnet]

No.

It assumes the truth of Darwinist dogma.

When facing disagreement, it is important to use terminology that both sides agree on.

The term (transitional fossil) only has existence if Darwinian evolution is truth.

 

[Stripe]

The term (transitional fossil) only has existence if Darwinian evolution is truth.

You need a way to talk about them without assuming the truth of Darwinism. Just eschew the term "transitional" and talk about fossils.

 

[Sonnet]

You need a way to talk about them without assuming the truth of Darwinism. Just eschew the term "transitional" and talk about fossils.

That's fine with me.

 

[Jonahdog]

6days: Was Anomalocaris preFlood or post Flood? Or both?

 

[Jose Fly]

If creationists don't like this definition...

A transitional fossil would be a specimen that exhibits a mixture of characteristics from different closely-related taxa.

...then what definition do they have in their heads when they say "there are no transitional fossils"?

 

[Stripe]

If creationists don't like this definition...A transitional fossil would be a specimen that exhibits a mixture of characteristics from different closely-related taxa....then what definition do they have in their heads when they say "there are no transitional fossils"?

:chuckle:

You want us to define something that does not exist?

We have fossils. Those are defined. Darwinists want to say they show evolution. Let them. No need to classify them as "transitional" or otherwise.

 

[Jose Fly]

You want us to define something that does not exist?

How would you know if something exists or not if you can't say what it is?

We have fossils. Those are defined. Darwinists want to say they show evolution. Let them. No need to classify them as "transitional" or otherwise.

I doubt any paleontologists value your advice.

 

[Stripe]

How would you know if something exists or not if you can't say what it is?

You have an idea, you define it.

No begging the question now.

I doubt any paleontologists value your advice.

I know a few who would. :idunno:

 

[Jose Fly]

You have an idea, you define it.

I already did...pay attention.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Jose Fly provided this definition:
A transitional fossil would be a specimen that exhibits a mixture of characteristics from different closely-related taxa.

Is this acceptable?

No, since the criteria assumes the conclusion.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, since the criteria assumes the conclusion.

Then what is your definition of a "transitional fossil"?

 

[genuineoriginal]

Then what is your definition of a "transitional fossil"?

It should be obvious to everyone with any knowledge of science that a transitional fossil is an impossibility.
The changes in DNA needed for one kind of animal to evolve into another kind of animal will result in non-fertile animals that are incapable of propagating those changes to any new generations.

 

[Jose Fly]

It should be obvious to everyone with any knowledge of science that a transitional fossil is an impossibility.

How can you say that unless you know what a "transitional fossil" is?

 

[CabinetMaker]

It seems to me that the fossil record does not show evolution in exactly the same way that a photo album does not show a child growing up. There are just snap shots, moments in time. How do you tie one moment to another?