What does the fossil record say?

[wilsoncole]

Does the fossil record provide empirical evidence of Creationism?

Do you think I am under obligation to answer your questions?
I try to accomodate you by answering - but I don't have to.
Can you understand that?

Why don't you try responding to Reply # 2235?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Dirty Penguin]

As you say: "This is a public forum...."
since you often respond to posts directed to others, I can't why this one is exempt.

Yes - I am directing this one to you.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Yes, there's nothing wrong with responding in an open debate but you say you were "waiting for me to respond to post 2235" and I didn't know you were waiting for me considering your post was not directed at me. I had no idea you were waiting for me......but if you're talking about the question you asked in 2235..I think I answered that one already.

 

[Amill]

Do you think I am under obligation to answer your questions?

This topic is about the fossil record and what it's evidence suggests. You've done a lot of digging at other people's responses, why not take a shot at answering the topic question? With support though.

 

[camanintx]

So, according to you, truth must be established only by consensus - right?

Truth, no. Scientific theory and law, yes. Please try to keep up with the discussion.

Rain accomplishes a purpose that is vital to life on earth, therefore, it is never chaotic. Nature is not a personality, therefore, can have no purposes.

Me thinks your irony meter is broken.

The question about the difference in snowflakes design was not directed to you, therefore, you will not attempt to answer it - right?

Not when someone else has already answered it.

Cells are alive!

The millions of skin cells which I have lost in the last hour would disagree with you, if they were still alive.

Do you think I am under obligation to answer your questions?

And yet you keep posting here.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Do you think I am under obligation to answer your questions?
I try to accomodate you by answering - but I don't have to.
Can you understand that?

I understand you.
Now...
Does the fossil record provide empirical evidence of Creationism?

 

[wilsoncole]

I understand you.
Now...
Does the fossil record provide empirical evidence of Creationism?

You are asking me about something that does not exist.
I'll say it again:
There is no such thing as creationism! OK?

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1971) defines “creation” as “the act of creating,” and “creationism” as “a doctrine or theory of creation.” The same dictionary defines “ism” as “a distinctive doctrine, cause, system, or theory—often used disparagingly.”
So, any "ism" is a human philosophy. Creation is not a doctrine, nor is it an "ism." It is a fact! As such, it does not need scientific or any other form of investigation for authentication.
Evolution does!
Careful investigation reveals that the fossil record does not support evolution.
"If evolution proceeded over aeons of time, we should expect to find a host of intermediate organisms, or links, between the major types of living things. However, the countless fossils unearthed since Darwin's time have proved disappointing in that respect. The missing links are just that—missing!"

This means that the record lacks the hundreds of billions of fossils that should have littered earth's layers during the billions of years it took for transitions to take place.
Now you can manufacture excuses as to why they are not found.
Therefore the evidence is not strong enough and it does not support evolution.



"A number of scientists have therefore concluded that the evidence for evolution is too weak and contradictory to prove that life evolved. Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin's Enigma:

"The scientific evidence shows that, whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional.

The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth." {emphasis mine}

( Why Some Scientists Believe in God - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site )

Think of the words, not the man.
Biologist or not, is Mr. Sutherland saying something wrong?
The Cambrian Explosion shows the first appearance of many animals. Can you show me evidence from the fossil record that any animals were incomplete at their first appearance on earth?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

This topic is about the fossil record and what it's evidence suggests. You've done a lot of digging at other people's responses, why not take a shot at answering the topic question? With support though.

But you will not answer mine.
Do you think I am under obligation to answer your questions?

Yes or no!

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Careful investigation reveals that the fossil record does not support evolution.
"If evolution proceeded over aeons of time, we should expect to find a host of intermediate organisms, or links, between the major types of living things. However, the countless fossils unearthed since Darwin's time have proved disappointing in that respect. The missing links are just that&#8212;missing!"

Which species did you have in mind that you believe we should have intermediate fossils but don't....certainly humans....?

 

[wilsoncole]

Does the fossil record provide empirical evidence of Creationism?

How come you did not know that emulating God, Jesus or any worthy person does not mean claiming equality with them?



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[wilsoncole]

Which species did you have in mind that you believe we should have intermediate fossils but don't....certainly humans....?

Quite selective, aren't you? Try the rest of it:
"A number of scientists have therefore concluded that the evidence for evolution is too weak and contradictory to prove that life evolved. Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin's Enigma:

"The scientific evidence shows that, whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional.

The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth." {emphasis mine}

( Why Some Scientists Believe in God - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site )

Think of the words, not the man.
Biologist or not, is Mr. Sutherland saying something wrong?
The Cambrian Explosion shows the first appearance of many animals. Can you show me evidence from the fossil record that any animals were incomplete at their first appearance on earth?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

 

[darkendless]

Quite selective, aren't you? Try the rest of it:
"A number of scientists have therefore concluded that the evidence for evolution is too weak and contradictory to prove that life evolved. Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin's Enigma:

"The scientific evidence shows that, whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional.

The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth." {emphasis mine}

( Why Some Scientists Believe in God - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site )

Think of the words, not the man.
Biologist or not, is Mr. Sutherland saying something wrong?
The Cambrian Explosion shows the first appearance of many animals. Can you show me evidence from the fossil record that any animals were incomplete at their first appearance on earth?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Aerospace engineers do not work with evolution. I'm a geotechnical engineer which deals with soil mineralogy and i'm not even qualified to make any accusations about the validity of evolution.

Mr Sutherland is not qualified to make any such assertations.

 

[Krok]

"A number of scientists have therefore concluded that the evidence for evolution is too weak and contradictory to prove that life evolved.

Less than 0.01% of scientists reject the ToE. What's more, these "scientists" rejected evolution for of religious reasons, not scientific ones. They know they have such a weak position that they refuse to try and publish their "research" in scientific papers. They only publish in religious pamphlets. Like your sources. They know they write there for people uneducated in science. They know they can write lies in these pamphlets because their readers are uneducated in science and wouldn't know when they lie.

Against this more than 99.9% have accepted the ToE and publish in scientific papers.

Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin's Enigma:

The creationist quote-mine again. Wilson, how many times do you have to be told that science doesn't work with quotes from "authorities"; it doesn't work like your religion works with "verses" from the "ultimate authority". Science works with convincing your peers about the validity of your conclusions. Quotes are not considered as science or in science.
While you're at it, i'll have a go at quote-mining to. My Garden Engineer said the following:

Boss, I think that creationists do nothing but lie and don't have a clue what science is.

Source: personal communication on 22/03/2011. Can you find anything wrong with what he said?

"The scientific evidence shows that, whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional.

That's precisely what the ToE predicts. Every organism has to be complete and its organs and structures have to be complete for it to live to pass on it's genes by procreation. That's how evolution works. How can you attempt to use what evolution predicts against evolution?

The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth." {emphasis mine}

No, it does not follow at all. The only inescapable deduction you can draw from this is that you need organisms to live to be able to pass on their genes. Any other deduction is just an appeal to consequences. That's wishful thinking in normal terms. That's it.

Think of the words, not the man.
Biologist or not, is Mr. Sutherland saying something wrong?

Yes, he did. Evolution predicts that all organisms have to be fully functional to survive and pass on their genes. He can't even see that. He should stick to Engineering. Biologists and the scientific community in general would consider him a clown if he keeps on making such idiotic statemments about biology.

The Cambrian Explosion shows the first appearance of many animals. Can you show me evidence from the fossil record that any animals were incomplete at their first appearance on earth?

An "incomplete" animal won't survive and won't pass on their genes. All living animals have to be complete at their first appearance. Just like evolution predicts. Look at all those instances of speciation in the other thread. All those new species were complete at their first appearance.

Oh, and Wilson, do you even know what the Cambrian Explosion is? I hope you realise that the Cambrian Explosion disproves creation?

 

[Krok]

Yet.........
You keep right on asking other questions. Over and over and over again.
Why do that if you don't want discussion of your questions?
Do you think I am under obligation to answer your questions?

No, but do us all a favour and stop posting your sermons here.

I try to accomodate you by answering - but I don't have to. Can you understand that?

Yes, wilson, I understand that you refuse to answer questions when they are a bit difficult. I've put your reluctance to answer questions down to the fact that you are incapable of recognising anything that contadicts your religion and the fact that you struggle to give any kind of answers if you are can't twist the truth.

You should also know that making up false charges is lying.But that seems to come very easy to you.

I've got a few threads on this forum with the evidence. We've all seen it on this thread. You pretending that it didn't happen won't them disappear. We all can read, Wilson.

 

[waitasec]

:troll:

 

[Autodidact]

Yet.........
You keep right on asking other questions. Over and over and over again.
Why do that if you don't want discussion of your questions?
Do you think I am under obligation to answer your questions?
I try to accomodate you by answering - but I don't have to.
Can you understand that?

You should also know that making up false charges is lying.
But that seems to come very easy to you.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

You don't have to answer anything. Of course, when you refuse, we will all draw the most reasonable conclusion from your failure to do so, as is our right as well.

 

[Autodidact]

"A number of scientists have therefore concluded that the evidence for evolution is too weak and contradictory to prove that life evolved. Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin's Enigma:

"The scientific evidence shows that, whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional.

The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth." {emphasis mine}

( Why Some Scientists Believe in God - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site )

Think of the words, not the man.
Biologist or not, is Mr. Sutherland saying something wrong?
The Cambrian Explosion shows the first appearance of many animals. Can you show me evidence from the fossil record that any animals were incomplete at their first appearance on earth?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Yes, apparently the man is an utter idiot. I find it hard to believe he achieved a degree in electrical engineering. It is difficult to express what a stupid quote this is. He obviously has no idea what the Theory of Evolution is, not unlike yourself in that respect.

 

[Autodidact]

Quite selective, aren't you? Try the rest of it:
"A number of scientists have therefore concluded that the evidence for evolution is too weak and contradictory to prove that life evolved. Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin's Enigma:

"The scientific evidence shows that, whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional.

The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth." {emphasis mine}

( Why Some Scientists Believe in God - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site )

Think of the words, not the man.
Biologist or not, is Mr. Sutherland saying something wrong?
The Cambrian Explosion shows the first appearance of many animals. Can you show me evidence from the fossil record that any animals were incomplete at their first appearance on earth?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Of course not, how could such a thing be possible? Of course, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Theory of Evolution, which has nothing to do with "incomplete animals," whatever they may be. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding (which you share with Mr. Sutherland) as to what the Theory of Evolutlon is. Would you like to learn?

 

[David M]

The Cambrian Explosion shows the first appearance of many animals. Can you show me evidence from the fossil record that any animals were incomplete at their first appearance on earth?

Incomplete animals? What on earth does that mean.

Yes, lots of wormy critters are found in the cambrian and also before the cambrian. The characterisation of "many animals" is quite misleading as there was noting even remotely resembling a mammal, a bird, a reptile or an amphibian in the cambrian. All we have is the remote ancestor of these which is a eel-like creature with a notochord.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Quite selective, aren't you? Try the rest of it:
"A number of scientists have therefore concluded that the evidence for evolution is too weak and contradictory to prove that life evolved. Aerospace engineer Luther D. Sutherland wrote in his book Darwin's Enigma:

"The scientific evidence shows that, whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on Earth, all the way from single-celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were complete and fully functional.

The inescapable deduction to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on Earth." {emphasis mine}

( Why Some Scientists Believe in God - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site )

Think of the words, not the man.
Biologist or not, is Mr. Sutherland saying something wrong?
The Cambrian Explosion shows the first appearance of many animals.

Yes. He was wrong. It first needs to be pointed out that his book was written back in the 80's. I'm sure you'll agree we've come a long way since then. We've have a better understanding of life genomically. Science and technology has far surpassed that of the 80's

Darwin's Enigma: The Fossil Record.
I also want to point out he has no training in the field of biology. He interviewed a few paleontologist and one geologist and none of them agreed with creationism but contend that (All of these scientists believe that all living and fossil organisms were derived from a common ancestor in an unbroken evolutionary lineage). He did not seek interviews with biologist who would tell him out right that on a molecular level he is flat out wrong.

The subject of transitional fossils is very large. How about you start here;
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

Transitional Fossils.

Not only is this fossil evidence of transition but there is coo-berating genomic evidence to substantiate this.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You are asking me about something that does not exist.
I'll say it again:
There is no such thing as creationism! OK?

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (1971) defines “creation” as “the act of creating,” and “creationism” as “a doctrine or theory of creation.” The same dictionary defines “ism” as “a distinctive doctrine, cause, system, or theory—often used disparagingly.”

Does the fossil record provide empirical evidence that humanity, life and the Earth are the creation of a supernatural being?