What does the fossil record say?

[Primordial Annihilator]

The sad fact remains that creationists have the evidence. Evolutionists only have theories to back up Toe. Todays evidence is tomorrows folly for evoutionists. I understand why they get so frustrated.

Well sadly for creationists no one really cares what they think

No one who matters anyway.

I imagine that is considerably frustrating...

When a creationist can explain DNA to me from a creationist perspective that makes any sense at all then you might get some serious consideration for your beliefs...until then...no dice.

Peace!

 

[wilsoncole]

Quit as a Nuclear Physics at NASA, and yes, he now has a teaching position at Alabama A&M where his research focus is on Lens Design, Fiber Optics, X-Ray Optics.

Don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. The man is a PhD PHYSICS professor.
How did you manage to miss that?

Also allowing him to continue as a full time minister.

All the more to his credit. His selflessness is manifest.

However, that is completely irrelevant to what the fossil record says.

I have to do this again:
This man was mentioned to show that accepting the Bible's POV does not amount to a rejection of science as Autodidact alleges.

You may feel it is derogatory, it is, however, an accurate description of a religious metaphysical belief that claims that a supernatural being created the universe and/or designed and created man in its own image.

You may feel that the word "stupid" is derogatory. It is, however, a very accurate description of a person who closes his eyes to the obvious axiom "NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING" and insists that life on earth started on its own. A person who accepts abiogenesis without a shred of evidence to support it. A person who makes life-altering decisions based the physical comparison of fosslized bones. A person who ignores important facts like:
"We possess sensory perception, self-awareness, intelligent thought, communication abilities, and feelings. In particular, we can experience, appreciate and express love. Evolution cannot explain how these wonderful human qualities came to be." (Kenneth Lloyd Tanaka)
It is also a very accurate description of someone who consistently works against his own interests.

Is God Something? Or Nothing?

An unintelligent question! God is someONE! Are you someTHING or nothing?

A literalistic interpretation of the Bible is in direct conflict with known biology, geology, hydrology, physics, genetics, etc, etc, etc,

Maybe - but I have not yet seen any believer take that position on this thread. Have you?

I believe you are unqualified to make your own interpretations of the fossil record. Perhaps you should leave it to the experts.

That remark amounts to an accusation - the most frequently used tool of unbelievers. Show me where I have even attempted that. Please.

And humans are prone to mistakes, aren't they?

Sure! But I have seen no mistakes in any Biblical principle. Have you?

Smarter? Who knows?

Evidently you do! Jesus accepted and taught the Flood account. You MUST think he is not as smart as you.

But I am certainly better informed on natural history than the writer of Mathew.

Are you? Let’s see you demonstrate that ability!

2000 years of human research and technology does that.

It has also resulted in mankind’s inability to deal with its own waste material including technological debris.
This is a present and pressing dilemma. Why the serious deficiency there?

Yes, famous examples of hoaxes perpetrated upon science.

And BY scientists - proving their untrustworthiness.

Later to be exposed as frauds by those in the scientific community through the extensive use of the scientific method.

That is a presumption on your part. Still - the untrustworthiness has already been firmly established. You cannot erase it by omitting it.

I would say congratulations for leaving this quote out of the current edition of Integrated Principles of Zoology.
You should keep up on modern research on scutes and feathers.

I have been keeping up and I discovered that there is absolutely no evidence that one emerged from the other.
Prove me wrong!

YAY!!! A specialist in Mars topography and geology, (check out his published papers), believes the bible conforms to science.

This man obviously meets the scientific expectations of his employer. He doesn’t measure up to yours because he is also a believer - right?

Now what, should we clog up the forum with the thousands who find the Bible scientifically inept?

You are free to write whatever you like.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
Wilson

 

[outhouse]

thast allot of writing wilson

to bad not one wrod pertains to fossils

and not one word discredits the facts behind evolution

the sooner you accept the facts, the sooner you will step into the light of reality

 

[tumbleweed41]

Don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. The man is a PhD PHYSICS professor.
How did you manage to miss that?

Oh, I don't know...
Maybe from his faculty web page at Alabama A & M.

You may feel that the word "stupid" is derogatory. It is, however, a very accurate description of a person who closes his eyes to the obvious axiom "NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING" and insists that life on earth started on its own. A person who accepts abiogenesis without a shred of evidence to support it. A person who makes life-altering decisions based the physical comparison of fosslized bones. A person who ignores important facts like:
"We possess sensory perception, self-awareness, intelligent thought, communication abilities, and feelings. In particular, we can experience, appreciate and express love. Evolution cannot explain how these wonderful human qualities came to be." (Kenneth Lloyd Tanaka)

First of all, are you saying that calling someone a Creationist is as insulting as calling someone stupid?
OK, if that's the path you want to go down, go ahead.

Secondly, biological evolution does no maintain that something came from nothing. Nor does the fossil record, (remember the OP), indicate that something comes from nothing.
Get on track.

And third, Dr Tanaka , a Geologist, is attempting to explain away biological traits with "goddidit".
Very poor scholarship on his part.

An unintelligent question! God is someONE! Are you someTHING or nothing?

Lets see, you said "SOMETHING CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING!
If God didn't do it, it couldn't do itself and science can't do it, then who did?"

My question to you was "Is God Something? Or Nothing?"

Don't avoid the question. Answer it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Sure! But I have seen no mistakes in any Biblical principle. Have you?

Yes, this, however, is not the thread for that.

Evidently you do! Jesus accepted and taught the Flood account. You MUST think he is not as smart as you.

There are many smart people who are ignorant of science. The writer of Mathew was one of them.

Are you? Let’s see you demonstrate that ability!

There was no world wide flood.
There, that was easy.

It has also resulted in mankind’s inability to deal with its own waste material including technological debris.

This is a present and pressing dilemma. Why the serious deficiency there?

A pressing problem indeed. But unrelated to what the fossil record says.

And BY scientists - proving their untrustworthiness.

The untrustworthiness of the individuals who perpetrated the hoaxes? Yes indeed.
Shall I lump all Creationists, including those who despise the word, together as lairs when we discover intentional deception in their literature and websites?

That is a presumption on your part. Still - the untrustworthiness has already been firmly established. You cannot erase it by omitting it.

First, not a presumption. Learn the facts.
Second, the instances serve as an example to all scientists to be on the watch-out for overzealous glory-hounds who falsify findings.

I have been keeping up and I discovered that there is absolutely no evidence that one emerged from the other.
Prove me wrong!

DNA and Genome analysis of scutes and bird feathers.

This man obviously meets the scientific expectations of his employer. He doesn’t measure up to yours because he is also a believer - right?

I am sure he is fully qualified for his job. Weather he is a "believer" or not makes no difference. Nor does his job title put any credence to his belief.

 

[tumbleweed41]

So, to get back on track with the OP.
What does the fossil record say?
Lets look at hominids.

Sahelanthropus tchadensis

This is the earliest known example of hominid or near-hominid species. Estimated age is between 6 and 7 million years. Placing it around the time hominids diverged from from the common chimp and bonobo ancestors. This may make it the ancestor of both humans and chimpanzees.

Ardipithecus ramidus

Dating from about 4.4 million years ago, Ardi is distinct from chimp ancestors, but not yet bipedal. Studies suggest Ardi was still a bit mor comfortable in a tree than on the ground.

Australopithecus afarensis

The most famous example of this species is Lucy. Lucy, although still displaying many of the skull and upper body variations of her ancestors, was clearly bipedal.

 

[David M]

I am responding to post a while ago from Atodidact that posted her Tiktaalik evidence.
Here it is again in Wiki Auto. The research used is cited in Wiki. Go learn something..... You have obviously heard nothing of this recent finding or you would not have needed to post your outdated evidence.

Wiki Tiktaalik
Tetrapod footprints found in Poland and reported in Nature in January 2010 were "securely dated" at 10 million years older than the oldest known elpistostegids[8] (of which Tiktaalik is an example) implying that animals like Tiktaalik were "late-surviving relics" possessing features that actually evolved around 400 million years ago.[9]



So yet again another example of evidence that was contradicted by newer evidence and another convoluted theory is invented for the cover story.The sad fact remains that creationists have the evidence. Evolutionists only have theories to back up Toe. Todays evidence is tomorrows folly for evoutionists. I understand why they get so frustrated.

Exactly what evidence has been contradicted?

The evidence of Tiktalik has not been contradicted in any way, you just lack an undertsanding of ToE and science whcih is why you misrepresent the facts.

 

[wilsoncole]

Oh, I don't know...
Maybe from his faculty web page at Alabama A & M.

You made a mistake. That is only referring to his research interests.
To be a PhD physics professor you have to study and teach courses in such things as:
basic principles of measurements, kinematics & dynamics of motion, fluids, heat & thermodynamics, electricity and magnetism, optics and matter, chemistry, geology, meteorology and astronomy, the periodic law, crystals, ions, solutions, chemical reactions, the atmosphere and hydrosphere, earth materials, the changing crust, earth and the sky, the solar system, the stars, and the structure … of the universe. basic principles of Chemistry, Geology, Astronomy, and Weather, family and consumer sciences, food science, and environmental science, particle motion with uniform acceleration, Newtons's Laws of motion, force, work, power and energy, mechanical energy, collision, laws of conservation of energy, circular motion, angular velocity, angular momentum, centripetal force, Hook's law, simple harmonic motion, fluid statics, pressure, law of flotation, heat, concept of temperature and heat transfer, specific heat and gas laws, static electricity, Coulomb's law, potential electrical field, Gauss's law, current electricity, Ohm's law, simple circuits, Kirchoff's law, heating effect, Joule's law, magnetic effect, Ampere's law, induction, magnetic properties of materials, electrolysis, geometrical optics, reflection at plane and spherical boundaries, thin lenses, lens maker's equation, optical instruments, speed of light, and light as a wave, mechanics, space and time; conservation laws; classical relativity; Galilean and Lorentz Transformation; Michelson-Morley Experiment; relativistic mechanics; black-body radiation; photoelectric effect; x-rays; Bragg's Law and Compton effect ; atomic structure; atomic spectra; Bohr model; hydrogen atom and singly ionized helium atom; Stark effect; and Zeeman effect, Vector Analysis, Infinite Series, Fourier Series and Integrals, Matrices and Vector Spaces, Functions of a Complex Variable, and Calculus of residues, Galilean invariance, absolute and relative velocity, simple problems in non-realistic dynamics, energy conservation, momentum conservation, rigid body dynamics, rotational and transitional motion, Coriolis force, harmonic oscillator, force oscillaitons, combinations of harmonic oscillators, central force problems, and gravitation, matrices for solving rigid body dynamics, inertia tensor, theory of vibrations, generalized co-ordinates an dignorable co-ordinates, applications of Lagrange's equations to simple systems, Hamilton's functions, Hamilton's variational principle, Hamiltonian and Hamilton's equations, Special Theory of relativity, Einstein's postulates, Lorentz transformation, length contraction and time dilation, and elementary relativistic kinematics, calorimetry, thermometry, heat transfer and expansion, specific heat, kinetic theory, geometrical optics; physical optics; and spectroscopy, Thomson's electron diffraction experiment; postulates of quantum mechanics; operator concepts; expectation values; particles in a box; uncertainty principle; Schrodinger equation and eigenvalue problems: harmonic oscillator; square well potential; and elements of matrix mechanics, among many others.
http://www.phy.uab.edu/downloads/courses.pdf
I believe this man know more about the earth than you do.
After studying all these marvellous laws and forces that could not have made themselves, and the way they complement each other, the wise person is compelled to believe that they could not possibly jump-start themselves.

First of all, are you saying that calling someone a Creationist is as insulting as calling someone stupid?

YES! When have you ever observed or called anyone a creationist without implying that they are stupid? Have you ever used it in a complimentary way? It is an insulting and derogatory slang aimed at believers in creation.

OK, if that's the path you want to go down, go ahead.

You're the trailblazer, Buddy.

Secondly, biological evolution does no maintain that something came from nothing.

It has to! How can one living thing evolve into another without a beginning?

Nor does the fossil record, (remember the OP), indicate that something comes from nothing.

Same question - since you believe the fossil record supports a process of magical origins.

Get on track.

Been there.

And third, Dr Tanaka , a Geologist, is attempting to explain away biological traits with "goddidit".

Those are not "biological traits." No biologist has ever found these qualities to be inheritable. They are spiritual qualities posessed only by intelligent beings. I have not yet seen any attempt to explain these qualities by the proponents of evolution.
So -WHO did it?

Very poor scholarship on his part.

As compared to no scholarship at all?

Lets see, you said "SOMETHING CANNOT COME FROM NOTHING!
If God didn't do it, it couldn't do itself and science can't do it, then who did?"
My question to you was "Is God Something? Or Nothing?"
Don't avoid the question. Answer it.

I don't believe you are blind. You have my answer.
Things are usually inanimate and created.
God is not a thing of any kind.
God is a WHO!
The question remains an unintelligent one.

 

[Alceste]

Oh, I don't know...
Maybe from his faculty web page at Alabama A & M.

And nothing published in SEVENTEEN YEARS. Oy vey. Such a highly credentialed expert scientist supporting evolution I fear I shall never find.

 

[fantome profane]

Wiki Tiktaalik
Tetrapod footprints found in Poland and reported in Nature in January 2010 were "securely dated" at 10 million years older than the oldest known elpistostegids[8] (of which Tiktaalik is an example) implying that animals like Tiktaalik were "late-surviving relics" possessing features that actually evolved around 400 million years ago.[9]

Wiki Tiktaalik
...possessing features that actually evolved ...

Wiki Tiktaalik

possessing features that actually evolved

Need I say more?

 

[Amill]

Misreading the fossil record will also give you that impression.

Then tell us how one is supposed to read it. I'd like to hear you go over the details and explain the characteristics of the fossil record. You know, why there are different species of humans, fossils that fit the predictions made by evolution, why we only find fossils of aquatic animals at a certain depth, why I can find coral fossils out here in Indiana, ect, ect, ect.

 

[tumbleweed41]

We will now take a brief intermission while Newhope attempts to find another box of straws to clutch at....

 

[Autodidact]

The Bible and science does not disagree.

That's odd, because previously you have said:

Please show me where I, even once, claimed to base my beliefs on science. It is much too fallible and prone to error.

Yet, I detect that you keep trying to use science to prove your conclusions.

You really do not have the right to strut your stuff in the name of science when the conclusions arrived at in some processes are seemingly based on nothing but conjecture.

Which is it? Does science work, or doesn't it?

"Up to that point, I thought that faith in God was based more on emotion than on reason. How wrong I was! I thanked the Witnesses for the informative discussion and said that I would like to continue participating in the weekly study. So from then on, I continued my studies at the university and, together with my wife, my Bible studies with the Witnesses. Also, my wife and I began to attend the meetings of the Witnesses held at the Kingdom Hall.​

Within a few months, I learned many new Bible truths and soon qualified to join the Witnesses in the door-to-door ministry. This I did even though I was in the final stages of earning my doctorate at the university, which absorbed a great deal of my time. I finished my dissertation in the summer of 1978 and moved to the state of Alabama, where I began teaching physics at the Alabama A. & M. University in Huntsville. We quickly contacted the Witnesses in our new locality, and an elder and his wife continued to study the Bible with us. A few months later, my wife and I were baptized, both on the same day.​

Active as a Scientist and a Minister

For me, being a scientist has proved to be compatible with being a Witness of Jehovah. In 1983, I began working as an astrophysicist at the George C. Marshall Space Flight Center of NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), also in Huntsville. ​

I worked in both the experimental and the theoretical fields associated with an X-ray telescope. (In 1999 that telescope—the Chandra X-ray Observatory—was successfully launched into orbit by the space shuttle Columbia.) I enjoyed working on that project, which involved the analyzing of X-rays emitted from various stars and galaxies in an attempt to understand the physical universe better.
My work was doubly enjoyable to me because not only was I working on a scientifically challenging problem but I was also coming to a deeper appreciation of the power and wisdom of the Creator. In fact, Jehovah’s words through the ancient prophet Isaiah took on special meaning for me. The Creator says: "Raise your eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing." (Isaiah 40:26) The more I ‘raised my eyes high up’ to peer at the vastness, the complexity, and the beauty of the universe, the more I appreciated the work of the intelligent Designer who brought all of it about and established the laws that keep it all together.​

During that time, I kept busy publishing new material in scientific journals based on my research in X-ray astrophysics. However, I was also active in the Christian congregation. I served as an elder and spent some 20 hours each month in the public preaching work. Meanwhile, my wife engaged in the Bible education work on a full-time basis.​

After working some four years at NASA, I felt a growing need to volunteer more of my time to help others learn the wonderful truths found in the Bible. But how could I do so? After discussing my desire with my wife and taking the matter to Jehovah in prayer, I realized that I had to make some important decisions."

(AWAKE! 04 1/22 p. 20 Published by Jehovah’s Witnesses)
​

​

Is this man a paleontologist? Does he have something to say about the subject of this thread, fossils and evolution? If not, why are you quoting him?

 

[Autodidact]

So you think that this PhD nuclear scientist you just read about made all of his decisions based on fantasy? That he ignored geology, biology, hydrology, physics, anthropology, natural history?

The Bible says something about nuclear physics? That's interesting. What?
Are you a PhD nuclear physicist?

You won't sidestep the issue so easily. When you raise challenges to the Bible IN THIS THREAD, I will respond to them.

Then why on earth do you raise challenges to the Bible using this medium?

Indirectly, on fossils, we get this:

"Other possible evidence of a drastic change: Remains of mammoths and rhinoceroses have been found in different parts of the earth. Some of these were found in Siberian cliffs; others were preserved in Siberian and Alaskan ice.

In fact, some were found with food undigested in their stomachs or still unchewed in their teeth, indicating that they died suddenly. It is estimated, from the trade in ivory tusks, that bones of tens of thousands of such mammoths have been found. The fossil remains of many other animals, such as lions, tigers, bears, and elk, have been found in common strata, which may indicate that all of these were destroyed simultaneously.

Wait, this is from the Bible? Or from a scientific treatise? Which?

If it's just Jehovah's Witness propaganda, save your keystrokes; we don't believe a word of it.

Some have pointed to such finds as definite physical proof of a rapid change in climate and sudden destruction caused by a universal flood. Others, however, favor explanations for the death of these animals that do not involve an earth-wide catastrophe. Proof that the Flood occurred is not dependent on such fossils and frozen animal remains."

Which is a good thing, since neither they nor anything else supports that hypothesis.

"Geological research provides clear evidence that the fossils held to be among the earliest specimens of a certain creature are very similar to their descendants alive today.[/quote] In some cases. In others, they are dramatically different.

Cockroaches found among the supposed earliest fossil insects are virtually identical to modern ones. Fossil "bridges" between "kinds" are totally lacking.

This is simply false.

Horses, oak trees, eagles, elephants, walnuts, ferns, and so forth, all continue within the same "kinds" without evolving into other "kinds."

what is a "kind?"

The testimony of the fossils is in full accord with the Bible’s history of creation, which shows that Jehovah created the living things of the earth in great numbers and "according to their kinds" during the final creative days.—Ge 1:20-25.

This is simply false.

 

[Autodidact]

The Bible and science does not disagree.

That's interesting. So you agree that the world is about 4.56 billion years old, that the universe consists mostly of empty space, that the earth revolves around the sun, that the Theory of Evolution tells us how we get the variety of species on earth, and that the Jews were never slaves in Egypt?Science does not care what the Bible says. It only makes an independent attempt to learn the truth.

Is your position that science and the Bible agree? Then why do you reject science?

A Scientist Examines The Bible

The Bible contains various statements for which independent physical evidence is lacking. For example, what it says about an invisible realm inhabited by spirit creatures cannot be proved&#8212;or disproved&#8212;scientifically. Do such unprovable references necessarily put the Bible at odds with science?​

I have not the slightest interest in your JW propaganda. They are notorious liars. If you have a point to make, make it. Or if you have a credible source, which is to say, a scientific source, to cite, use it.

 

[Autodidact]

Quit what?
The man is now in a teaching position, transferring his research information to many others.

No need! There is no such thing as creationism. That's a derogatory slang attached to believers in creation by secularists. Creation is not an "ism," which converts it into a human philosophy. Glossary of philosophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's interesting. What do you call someone who accepts the Genesis account as literal, who believes in a 6000 year old earth, global flood, Adam and Eve, etc.?

It is a fact that needs no proof nor theories because it is so obvious.

What is?

Much like existence, which needs no proof nor theories. These are things that cannot be undone. Therefore, arguments against existence and creation amount to nothing but a collossal waste of time.

We're not arguing against "creationism" in the sense of "God created all things." That's for a different thread. We're arguing against "creationism" in the sense of "God created all living things by magically poofing two of each sort into existence around 6000 years ago in Iraq, then later having one family load them all onto a boat that floated around while the entire world was under water for a year." That kind of "creationism." What do you call that position?

Accepting the Bible's point of view does not amount to a rejection of science, as she claims.

I didn't claim it, wilson, you did. My point is merely that the Theory of Evolution is correct, and the fossil evidence, among others, supports that. If you think the Bible agrees, then it's correct. If not, then it's wrong.

That is why there are many scientists, employed and active in their fields, who are practicing Jehovah's Witnesses.

There are many practicing scientists who are Mormon. Does that make the Book of Mormon correct?

Misreading the fossil record will also give you that impression.

You mean that all the paleontologists in the world are misreading the fossil record, while your ignorant Jehovah's Witness preachers are reading it right?

Which ones use the scientific method?

Does the scientific method work, or doesn't it?

The writers? How would they know? They were humans, just as we are.

Where the information originates is not nearly as important as whether or not it is the truth.

n Exactly. Also, how do you tell what is the truth? I use the scientific method. What method do you use?

Could the hundreds of efficient "zippers" that make up a single feather have arisen by chance?

OH, I see the problem, you don't understand ToE. Would you like to learn what it actually says, or do you prefer to be able to describe it wrong?

Do scientists have any evidence that a scale actually developed into a feather?

Yes.

"Strangely enough, although modern birds possess both scales (especially on their feet) and feathers, no intermediate stage between the two has been discovered on either fossil or living forms." (Integrated Principles of Zoology)
Would you say that to the authors of this book?

I would say, "I'm so sorry plagiarizing, dishonest creationists who don't understand the first thing about Zoology quote mine your work to make it seem to say the opposite of what you were actually saying."
Unless you want to provide the full quote, in context?
btw, who are you plagiarizing? Or do you own a copy of Integrated Principles of Zoology?

Furthermore:

​

"A thoughtful study of birds gives convincing proof of the Biblical teaching that they are of divine creation. While birds and reptiles are both oviparous, reptiles are cold-blooded, often sluggish, whereas birds are warm-blooded and among the most active of all earth’s creatures; they also have an unusually rapid heartbeat. The evolutionary view that reptilian scales and fins eventually developed into feathered wings is both fanciful and baseless. The fossils of birds called by scientists Archaeopteryx (or, ancient wing) and Archaeornis (or, ancient bird), though showing teeth and a long vertebrated tail, also show that they were completely feathered, had feet equipped for perching, and had fully developed wings. No intermediate specimens, exhibiting scales developing into feathers or front legs into wings, exist to give any semblance of support to the evolution theory." (Insight vol. 1 p. 316)

Is the author a paleontologist? If not, why are you quoting him or her? Do they have some special knowledge or credibility? Or are they just another lying Jehovah's Witness propagandist?

OK - how about hearing from someone who does understand? Accepting the Bible's point of view does not amount to a rejection of science.

KENNETH LLOYD TANAKA

PROFILE: I am a geologist presently employed by the U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona. For almost three decades, I have participated in scientific research in various fields of geology, including planetary geology. Dozens of my research articles and geologic maps of Mars have been published in accredited scientific journals. ​

"I was taught to believe in evolution, but I could not accept that the immense energy required to form the universe could have originated without a powerful Creator. Something cannot come from nothing. I also find a strong argument in favor of a Creator in the Bible itself. This book gives numerous examples of scientific facts in my field of expertise, such as that the earth is spherical in shape and hangs “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7; Isaiah 40:22) These realities were written in the Bible long before they were proved by human investigation.​

Think of the way we are made. We possess sensory perception, self-awareness, intelligent thought, communication abilities, and feelings. In particular, we can experience, appreciate, and express love. Evolution cannot explain how these wonderful human qualities came to be."​

Ask yourself, ‘How reliable and credible are the sources of information used to support evolution?’ The geologic record is incomplete, complex, and confusing. Evolutionists have failed to demonstrate proposed evolutionary processes in the laboratory with the use of scientific methodologies. And while scientists generally employ good research techniques to acquire data, they are often influenced by selfish motives when interpreting their findings. ​

Why are you quoting a geologists about evolution? You do understand the difference between Biology and Geology, right? [qutoe]

Scientists have been known to promote their own thinking when the data are inconclusive or contradictory. Their careers and their own feelings of self-worth play important roles.​

Both as a scientist and as a Bible student, I search for the whole truth, which reconciles all known facts and observations to reach the most accurate understanding. To me, belief in the Creator makes the most sense."​

(AWAKE! 9/06 p. 22) [/quote]

 

[Autodidact]

The earth - Yes!

Yes!

Yes!
,
NO!

NO!

Science does not say that - YOU do. Since you are a lawyer and not a scientist, can you really speak for all of science?

Yes. Biology is founded on ToE. >99% of Biologists accept it. It is the mainstream, consensus, foundational theory of all of modern Biology. That's the fact.

And since you accept science and the scientific method, you accept it, right?

False! In the words of one scientist with 30 years of experience:
"...while scientists generally employ good research techniques to acquire data, they are often influenced by selfish motives when interpreting their findings. Scientists have been known to promote their own thinking when the data are inconclusive or contradictory. Their careers and their own feelings of self-worth play important roles." (Does the existence of physical laws that govern the world prove the existence of a creator? - Yahoo! Answers)

I"m still confused. Do you:
(1) accept science or
(2) reject science?

When things are provable - YES!

Here we go again:
I reject what the ToE teaches about the living things on earth.

The only way to do that is to reject the scientific method. When you apply the scientific method, you get ToE. That's how we got it.

Or are you asserting that all the Biologists in the world are NOT doing science?

I have not found them to be liars and will not be influenced by you into thinking so.
You will read what I write - or not - and there is nothing you can do about that.
Besides, I thought I would never hear from you again. Can't keep your word, eh?

Did I say that?

 

[Autodidact]

I am responding to post a while ago from Atodidact that posted her Tiktaalik evidence.
Here it is again in Wiki Auto. The research used is cited in Wiki. Go learn something..... You have obviously heard nothing of this recent finding or you would not have needed to post your outdated evidence.

Wiki Tiktaalik
Tetrapod footprints found in Poland and reported in Nature in January 2010 were "securely dated" at 10 million years older than the oldest known elpistostegids[8] (of which Tiktaalik is an example) implying that animals like Tiktaalik were "late-surviving relics" possessing features that actually evolved around 400 million years ago.[9]

Cool,.eh?

So yet again another example of evidence that was contradicted by newer evidence and another convoluted theory is invented for the cover story.The sad fact remains that creationists have the evidence. Evolutionists only have theories to back up Toe. Todays evidence is tomorrows folly for evoutionists. I understand why they get so frustrated.

You seem unable or unwilling to grasp the simple concept that that is how science works. Each new discovery adds to and refines the one before. This is how you know you're doing science.

Do you reject science? Or what is your point?

 

[newhope101]

Cool,.eh?





You seem unable or unwilling to grasp the simple concept that that is how science works. Each new discovery adds to and refines the one before. This is how you know you're doing science.

Do you reject science? Or what is your point?

What science do you think he is rejecting. Wilconsole would certainly not have been erranous in accepting you avion SCIENCE. Why? Because evolutionists deal in assumptions. Therefore any new evidence will over turn your current assuptions over and over and over again. But hey you guys, you reckon all this mess is support for toe.

Your parents may have left presents for you (fossils) at Christmas. Your parents that you trust (researchers) told you Santa was true. All your friends(communtiy) get presents and believe that Santa is true. As a child you have evidence for Santa. Then you mature and learn there really is no Santa.

Your research is in a fledgling state and in its' infancy. It will need much more maturity to undertand what has gone on and are not seeing anything with the eye of understanding yet. Too many questions and too few answers.



Biologists redraw entire bird evolutionary tree

Friday, 27 June 2008
This new tree contains several notable surprises.
For example, falcons are more closely related to songbirds than to other hawks and eagles. The closest kin of the diving birds called grebes turn out to be flamingos. And tiny, flashy hummingbirds, according to the new tree, are just a specialised form of nighthawks, whose squat, bulky bodies make them an unlikely cousin.
In fact, the new tree ended up regrouping about a third of all the orders in earlier phylogenies of birds.
According to Reddy, that shows you how inconsistent it has been.
The new tree may have profound implications for our understanding of the major innovations in the evolutionary history of birds, said Joel Cracraft, curator of ornithology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, US.
For example, the new tree puts an order of flying birds, the tinamous, squarely in the midst of the flightless ostriches, emus and kiwis.
If true, this implies either that flightlessness evolved at least twice in this lineage, or else that the tinamous re-evolved flight from a flightless ancestor.

 

[newhope101]

Cool,.eh?





You seem unable or unwilling to grasp the simple concept that that is how science works. Each new discovery adds to and refines the one before. This is how you know you're doing science.

Do you reject science? Or what is your point?

What science..you are the one that is unfamiliar with your own work,,I knew Tiktaalik was disputed..you didn't. I know more about your science than you apparently.