Subject:
|
Re: A whole new debate.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:16:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
120 times
|
| |
|
|
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
>
> Oops. :-)
>
> >
> > Assume that this message is the first ever posted in this newsgroup.
> > -----BEGIN NEW MESSAGE BELOW THIS LINE-----
> >
> > If you do not believe in Creationism (http://www.m-w.com lookup
> > "creationism"), please anser the following question.
> >
> > Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if
> > your theory is right?
>
> All over the place. *Everything* is a transitional fossil (well, sharks are
> pretty darn stable, but even they change).
Although indirectly it seems that you are agin debating terminology and
avoiding the real question (unless you misunderstood what I (they) meant
by "transitional".
Why are there no fossils that demonstrate transitions between any modern
life-forms. Let's use an actual example. What animal does evolution
say comes before a parrot (I don't know right off hand, so pick another
animal if you like - a dog and whatever comes before it say), and then
show me an example of any credible fossil record that shows a cross
between the two animals.
> > Billions! Not a handful of questionable
> > transitions.
>
> Tell us how fossilization takes place and thus how likely that everything is
> fossilized. Then you still have to deal with the ones that exist.
"Fossilization requires very special conditions. Dinosaur and other
fossils could not have formed in the way suggested by most Evolutionary
books. Animals almost never fossilize unless they are buried quickly and
deeply - before scavengers, bacteria and erosion reduce them to dust.
Such conditions are highly unusual. In almost all cases, the very
existence of the fossils, in the types and numbers discovered, strongly
indicates catastrophic conditions were involved in their burial and
preservation. Without such conditions, there seems to be no plausible
way to explain their existence. Huge dinosaurs, huge schools of fish,
and many diverse animals are found entombed by massive muddy sediments
which hardened into rock. Almost all fossils are found in water-laid
sediments."
(from http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html)
> Why don't we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all
> > living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?
> > (from http://www.creationscience.com/quest.shtml)
>
> We are getting a pretty good one for man, but there are others, just not as
> widely publicized. Further, the road isn't always smooth (just ask
> Neanderthals). :-)
"Contrary to common belief, most fossils are not of extinct types of
animals. Most fossils are very similar (and often totally identical) to
creatures living today. It is said there are many more living species of
animals than there are types known only as fossils. If Evolution is
true, one may wonder why the case is not just the reverse! Evolutionary
history is supposed to be filled with temporary, intermediate stages of
Evolution, from amoeba to man.
...There is a continuing lack of evidence for Evolution despite an
enormous number of fossils. Although scientists will continue to
discover new varieties of fossil animals and plants, it is generally
agreed that the millions of fossils already discovered (and the
sediments already explored) provide a reliable indication of which way
the evidence is going. That is, there will continue to be little or no
fossil evidence found to support Evolutionism."
(from http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html)
> And you are going to explain the fossilization process, correct? And the
> unlimited power to sift through all the strata to find these? All fossils
> at once? On demand?
"Sufficient fossils. There is a continuing lack of evidence for
Evolution despite an enormous number of fossils. Although scientists
will continue to discover new varieties of fossil animals and plants, it
is generally agreed that the millions of fossils already discovered (and
the sediments already explored) provide a reliable indication of which
way the evidence is going. That is, there will continue to be little or
no fossil evidence found to support Evolutionism."
(from http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html)
> I can refer you to evolution websites - it's hard to debate a static site
> either way.
I probably shouldn't have included that in this message - I meant it as
an aside.
finally (for the "credablilty" issue):
"Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer
strong support for the concept of Creation." (Dr. Gary Parker, Ph.D.,
Biologist/paleontologist and former Evolutionist)"
--
-TiM
NB, CA
http://echofx.itgo.com
t_c_c@yahoo.com
3ch0fx
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: A whole new debate.
|
| (...) What sort of "cross" are you looking for? Do you require a fish with legs or an ape with gills? As Bruce points out correctly, *everything* is a transitional stage. I myself am a transitional point between my father and my son. The fact that (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: A whole new debate.
|
| (...) Since you conveniently cut the first half, let me point that you are clearly not disputing that you are in fact ignorant of what constitutes science, and what constitutes a scientist (there's nothing wrong with being ignorant, but I have a (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A whole new debate.
|
| (...) We pointed out that you don't seem to understand that theories are part of science. Your response is to change the subject. How can you tell us that evolution isn't science if you don't understand what science involves? How's this for another (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
