The Fossil Record
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
It is pretty obvious (harvey hates it when I use that word) in this thread that harvey and others are continuing their tactic of "shooting the messenger" because the fossil record really doesn't "fit" the evolutionary story very well.
It really is immaterial if "most" of the evidence can be placed into their general framework, because in Science the exceptions are what sinks theories.
Notice that when the going gets tough they try to switch the topic to the Bible, as though if they discredit scripture that this will protect their concept.
Notice also they insist illogically that we must lump microevolution (small change) with macroevolution (major transformation from one type to another). This is done not because it is scientifically justified but only because that is the way they present it to their gullible students, most of whom eventually swallow such a lie and perhaps go on to become the next generation of committed evolutionists. Then they have the gall to demand that skeptics prove that small changes will not add up to macroevolution given sufficient time like millions of years. No matter that the fossil record shows no such thing, in fact it shows the exact opposite, as more and more people are beginning to realize now that we have the internet and no longer have to get all of our information about such things in books written by evolutionists.
It really is immaterial if "most" of the evidence can be placed into their general framework, because in Science the exceptions are what sinks theories.
Notice that when the going gets tough they try to switch the topic to the Bible, as though if they discredit scripture that this will protect their concept.
Notice also they insist illogically that we must lump microevolution (small change) with macroevolution (major transformation from one type to another). This is done not because it is scientifically justified but only because that is the way they present it to their gullible students, most of whom eventually swallow such a lie and perhaps go on to become the next generation of committed evolutionists. Then they have the gall to demand that skeptics prove that small changes will not add up to macroevolution given sufficient time like millions of years. No matter that the fossil record shows no such thing, in fact it shows the exact opposite, as more and more people are beginning to realize now that we have the internet and no longer have to get all of our information about such things in books written by evolutionists.
I believed I used the term, "some" evolutionists. I don't believe I said that all evolutionists think like that because I know they don't. I already knew that some Christians believe God used evolution and I know that some evoltionists are just plain deceived even though they sincerely believe in evolution. And there are those who have stated they don't want their to be a God and yes, SOME (not all) like evolution because it allows them to live any way they want without being answerable to God. I don't have time now (time to work) to check my past posts but see if I said all evolutionists like evolution becaues they don't want there to be a God. I believe I used the word some, not all. Or the word many. I'm pretty sure I didn't use the word all.
Lynn: I think what is really interesting is that you ascribe to "some" evolutionists a belief in a scientific theory because it allows them to live however they want and not be answerable to God. I fail to see the connection. Seems to me that if you want to live a profligate lifestyle you do not need evolution to justify that. There were many people living party lifestyles or lifestyles that put themselves first long before Charles Darwin.
People "believe" in evolution because the evidence is overwhelming. Take some time to investigate, don't take as gospel what you see on the AiG web site, or for that matter, what you see on any pro-evolution web site.
Look for example at the thread dealing with manganese nodules, I think it is on the Bob Enyart Live portion of TOL. Pastor Enyart made some claims based on a video. A number of the young earthers jumped on that band wagon. Investigation showed that the information the Pastor Enyart used to make some specific claims, once clarified, did not support his claims.
Every young earth claim that I have ever bothered to delve into has not held water. Look at the evidence, learn some science.
People "believe" in evolution because the evidence is overwhelming. Take some time to investigate, don't take as gospel what you see on the AiG web site, or for that matter, what you see on any pro-evolution web site.
Look for example at the thread dealing with manganese nodules, I think it is on the Bob Enyart Live portion of TOL. Pastor Enyart made some claims based on a video. A number of the young earthers jumped on that band wagon. Investigation showed that the information the Pastor Enyart used to make some specific claims, once clarified, did not support his claims.
Every young earth claim that I have ever bothered to delve into has not held water. Look at the evidence, learn some science.
aharvey
New member
Not that you have ever felt compelled to back up your ad hominem attacks, but I would appreciate it if you could show me where I have engaged in shooting the messenger here? And where you or anyone else here has done anything but agree that evolutionary theory does in fact explain what we see in the fossil record whereas the Genesis account does not (your excuse, as I recall, was that it was impossible for us to make predictions about what might result from such extreme, unique events).bob b said:
1) That's flat out false, and 2) your alternative "theory" is virtually nothing but exceptions!bob b said:
Hmm, where exactly had the going gotten tough? This is all entry-level stuff here. To me, anyways. Oh, perhaps you mean it's gotten tough for the creationist side... And as I recall, it was Turbo who in the most recent round was the one invoking the Bible in these discussions. How can we switch the topic to the one that you guys brought up? So tell me, bob, what does it mean to you when creationists switch the topic to the Bible when they sense the going getting tough?bob b said:
Bob, I've repeatedly explained evolutionary theory to you, including the logical basis for the argument that "microevolution" and "macroevolution" refer to the same theory on different scales. You have never ever ever even attempted to demonstrate the illogical elements of this explanation, but you quite happily call me a liar for making the case?bob b said:
Once again, please explain when and why this process will stop working! All I've said, over and over and over again, is that there is nothing in the evolutionary model (which you yourself agree is correct and logical) that specifies that the process will stop working after a certain amount of change or time. For crying out loud, bob, you are the person claiming that there is in fact some limit to the process; why on earth do you not feel any responsibility to back up your claim? How on earth can you pretend that it's up to me to rule out a limiting factor when I don't have any idea what that limiting factor might be?bob b said:
Anyone who believes what they read on the internet over what professionals in the field publish... I'll simply note that when bob blathers on in such generalities, "the fossil record shows no support for evolutionary theory," he shows no hesitation in his assertions, but when pressed for details on specific patterns, he either ignores you, changes the subject, claims there isn't enough fossil evidence yet but is sure the supporting data will be found someday, or agrees that the existing data is in fact consistent with evolutionary theory.bob b said:
Mr Jack said:
There are many whose faith is so weak and who are so awed by the accomplishments of science (e.g. going to the Moon) that they feel that they must find a way to reconcile what scientists are currently saying and what the Bible clearly says.
The method that these people have selected for the "reconciliation" is to believe that the Bible does not really mean what it apparently does, but instead must have only been speaking symbolically.
In other words, they have more faith in what scientists say about Origins than what the Bible says about Origins.
About Harvey: he never seems to tire of putting words in my mouth that I never said. (he will now probably attempt to divert attention from the subject of this thread by starting a long and boring tirade which also asks me to "prove" that he puts words in my mouth, just as he wants us creationists to "prove" that small changes will not add up to really big ones (bacteria to humans) given billions of years, because we all know that given enough time anything can happen).
In a way this is humorous, because the ideas in such speculative areas of science as Origins are constantly changing whereas the Bible obviously never changes (except perhaps for a few typos).
To make it even more preposterous, you will hear people on this forum claim that the fact that science ideas continually change is a big plus, whereas an unchanging Bible is a real drawback.
aharvey
New member
bob b said:
I'll save you the trouble of "proving" that I put words in your mouth and simply back each of my most recent statements with your own words. If this is not what you were referring to, then you'll need to be more specific.
My recent post to which I think bob is taking issue:
"Anyone who believes what they read on the internet over what professionals in the field publish... I'll simply note that when bob blathers on in such generalities, "the fossil record shows no support for evolutionary theory," he shows no hesitation in his assertions, but when pressed for details on specific patterns, he either ignores you,..."
One of many, many , many examples:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=998932&postcount=144
"Quote:
Originally Posted by aharvey
Okay, here's a nice example of one of your evolutionary cartoons. "Living fossils" are an extreme minority, as you well know. And the parts they leave behind are not identical to those of modern forms, as you well know. And the parts they leave behind are not exhaustive, meaning that they do not prove that no evolution took place. I notice you studiously avoided answering the question about the skeletons of the two warblers, so I'm guessing this is something you also already know."
As you can tell, not the first time I've reminded bob about the warblers. Still failed to elicit a response from him.
"...changes the subject,..."
Me: the Biblical “description” of a “behemoth” does not sound much at all like a dinosaur, and is far too lyrical and fanciful to hang one’s hat on as a literal description of any particular creature. My specific closing statement: “Look at this passage, people! It is very lyrical, fanciful, poetic; what do you think it is really trying to say? So much of it is clearly metaphorical/alleghorical, why would you think it must nonetheless be referring, and accurately, to an existing creature?”
Bob’s responses:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1001259&postcount=189
"There you go again: nitpicking an English translation in order to continue your practice of degnigrating scripture." [note, this is not followed with something relevant like “the Hebrew translation actually provides a much better description of a dinosaur…”]
And…
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1002050&postcount=208
"Why do you continually use English translations of the Hebrew?" [note, this is not followed with something relevant like “the Hebrew translation actually provides a much better description of a dinosaur…”]
"Do you think that the ancient writers paid any attention to the way we name and classify lifeforms today?" [this has nothing to do with the statements to which he claims to be responding]
"Do you think that the King James translators were familiar with dinosaurs?" [note, this is not followed with something relevant like “the Hebrew translation actually provides a much better description of a dinosaur…”]
"And the modern translators are too intimidated by scientists to ever dare suggest that the most logical animal to fit the description given in Job is a dinosaur, because "everyone knows" they became extinct millions of years ago." [a double whammy: this has nothing to do with the statements to which he claims to be responding, and still is not followed with something relevant like “the Hebrew translation actually provides a much better description of a dinosaur…”]
All I said is that the descriptions don't read like dinosaur descriptions, and while bob obviously is challenging me, he does so by trying everything except show that in fact they do read like dinosaur descriptions.
"...claims there isn't enough fossil evidence yet but is sure the supporting data will be found someday,..."
My favorite example of this, given that elsewhere you scoff when evolutionists invoke an incomplete fossil record:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=887049&postcount=50
Quote [from me]:
"Over the months I've asked for creationist explanations for a few data sets with which I am familiar, and have yet to hear an explanation that is more than a wild guess that is, of course, consistent with Genesis (as opposed to an explanation that is derived directly from the creationist model). For example, Why does the global distribution of marsupial fossils, supposedly deposited during the Flood, match up so well with the global distribution of modern marsupials, which supposedly recolonized a supposedly very different looking planet after the Flood (which, remember, did a lot more than simply cover the existing topography with water!) from a single point of departure? And the pattern is far richer than simply "marsupials present/absent." But so far I've heard nothing resembling a creationist perspective that could explain even the coarsest global presence/absence patterns."
bob's reply: "Global distributions of fossils are not known all that well due to the fact that some areas are more accessible to investigation than others (due to many factors such as topography and political stability, etc). It is surprising for instance how many fossils are found in regions of the globe where their presumed ancestors would not have frequented. Evolutionists typically "force-fit" correlations by assuming different past climates and even different configurations of continents. With no control on such assumptions one can correlate anything with anything given sufficient resources."
"...or agrees that the existing data is in fact consistent with evolutionary theory."
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=998932&postcount=144
Me:"Evolutionary theory suggests that the greater the time since two organisms shared a common ancestor, the greater the potential for change. Therefore, the proportion of fossils that would be considered "extremely similar" to modern forms should decrease in increasingly older geologic strata (it does not say if, or when, this proportion should equal zero!). As much as you might want to harp on "living fossils," even you must agree that this prediction is upheld."
Bob b: "I would agree except to note that this was not a "prediction" but an after the fact conclusion which was arrived at by observing the fossil record. However, the way the evolutionary hypothesis is formulate there should be no valid exceptions, not just that the majority of findings describe a general pattern."
In other words “Yes, but…” (and I did address those flabby “buts,” though that’s besides my point here).Then, when I point blank challenged him to show how Creationism could explain this same pattern, bob replies:
“Defy away, but if you think it is feasible to predict in detail the effects of even a minor "blip" like a hurricane without looking at past evidences of ones that happened, then be my guest. Then try to do a prediction for a one-of-a-kind event of global scale.”
I inadvertently left that one off my list: he rationalizes why creationism can’t explain the pattern.
Frankly, for someone who assigns deeply personal and always unflattering motivations to people on practically a daily basis on this forum to complain that someone puts words in his mouth seems deeply hypocritical, to say the least (can we say "motes and beams"?). But hopefully I've made it clear that I have not charged bob with doing anything that he hasn't actually done.
I'm sorry if bob considers this a "long and boring tirade;" he doesn't seem to understand the value of actually providing evidence for one's claims, and in fact the last time I extensively documented my challenge to the personal feelings/motivations bob ascribed to someone, he simply dismissed it as so much "verbiage." And yes, I can supply a link to that too!
aharvey
New member
See Jukia's post. In addition, you didn't answer this question I'd asked you earlier: What would you think of someone who gets their understanding of the Bible entirely from explicitly atheist, anti-Christian web sites?. Would you, Lynn, expect such a person to be well-informed or ignorant about Christianity?Lynn73 said:
bob b said:
See the last paragraph of bob b's cite. The new evolutionists are doing magic, not science. Interesting concept. But do any of these creationists have the nerve to deal directly with Dr. Schwartz? My guess is not.
Why not track him down and see if he really agrees with the creationsafaris take on his work? Maybe because he will laugh?
Well, I really do not expect them to do that do I. None of the "beer can manganese" people contacted Dr. Hein or Yates did they. Nope. Left it to the evil evolutionist to track down Hein to get his input to the specific claims made by the good Pastor Enyart.