Fossil Called Missing Link

About getting involved. Did you read the PM?

 

Yes Scott, I understand. It was a very good post. It is total insanity to look around at the things around us, stars, trees, animals, etc, and come to any conclusion other than a Divine Creation, even if you are not a Christian. How can anyone conclude such a ridiculous theory as natural evolution? It takes no faith to believe in a Creator, just eyes and common sense.

 

UTEOTW, amazing to me is the person who thinks they have it all figured out how God created the variety of life on this planet and stick their heads in the sand when his creation displays his glory. The fossil records are clear evidence of what type of creative process he used, and yet because it doesn't match a preconceived idea of that process, people cover their eyes and ears and scream "Nah nah nah. Don't upset my applecart".

Folks, God is capable of working in ways incomprehensible to most of us. Don't assume that the Genesis record is all there is. Creation is another record of God's work, and if it violates your understanding of scripture, then that understanding is flawed. Do not put limits on God based upon your interpretation of scripture.

 

Agreed. The answer probably lies in Romans 1:18-23.

 

Absolutely. God is glorified best when His creatures recognize and praise Him for doing what He said He did in the way He said He did it.

No. The fossil records are clear evidence that animals existed in the past that were structured differently from animals alive today. That is all. The "living fossils" that have been discovered bear a strong testimony to this being all that can be said with certainty about the fossil record.

That certainly describes those who have determined to listen to men governed by naturalistic assumptions as well.

At any point that a person accepts supernaturalism, they can no longer assert certainty about naturalistic processes being the only legitimate answer.

In the abstract, you say this. In the concrete, you reject it wholly.

Most creationists don't. They simply assume that God's Word is the standard by which all other evidence must be judged rather than assuming that naturalism is a valid standard by which the Word of God can legitimately be judged... and effectively falsified.

Before you deny this is the case, research Craig's statements regarding Noah's flood.

The scripture is a direct divine revelation and record of God, if it violates the naturalistic interpretations of natural data that you have chosen to place your faith in then that faith is flawed.

Do not place limits on God based upon YOUR philosophically based interpretations of the natural world. (That was way too easy.)

 

Good article that will hopefully answer UTE's concern that creationists aren't taking this serious and considering the implications from a reasonable but critical point of view:

http://creationsafaris.com/crev200604.htm

 

That creationsafaris.com link is that best that you can come up with? That truely is a laughable reading and could be exhibit one of the obfuscation that YEers try and use.

The basic point is this. There are an incredible number of species that have existed at one point or another. Fossilization is a notoriously difficult process. And even if something fossilizes, the rock has to be weathered and exposed at exactly the time someone comes by looking for it. A little too early and it gets weathered away before being found. A little too late and it is covered in other rock and not found.

So the record will not have a fossil of every individual of every species that has ever lived. There is a bushy tree. Most end in tips which go extinct. There are a few limbs that persist and keep giving rise to the branches. When you find a fossil, it is most likely to be one of these side branches.

As Dr. Patterson pointed out in the famously and often quote mined statement, you never can know for sure that a given fossil was directly ancestral or a closely related side branch.

So we have with these tetrapod intermediates. The time for change was very short, 5 - 10 million years. There is only one path the led to amphibains but many side branches. Just by luck, you are most likely to get the side branches.

So creationsafaris.com uses this as an opportunity to obfuscate the issue. Obviously if you have a side branch, you wil preserve both features that continued on to the later animals and features that were unique to that branch.

So these guys try and play up the particular differences of the branches that we have and use this as reason to ignore the rest. They throw in a few fallacies for good measure, just to muddy the waters a bit. Like their statement that all of the changes to get from fish to amphibians must have come together in one animal. THey imply that all of the changes would be required to have happened at once, ignoring completely that it is a transitional SERIES that is being demonstrated. Gradual change to a population, not a hopeful monster.

It seems like this method works well to fool the uninformed but why don't you take this down to your local biology department and show it to them and see what kind of reaction you get. See if such obfuscation can fool those who know enough to see through the deception.

 

So no one can be bothered to read one article. True, you might learn something that would challenge you a bit. Best not do that.

For the lurkers, I hope you notice that we are now on page four and no one can yet raise factual objections.

Oh we get talk of metaphysical this and hamburgers and something about space time. Of course we get the classic "you weren't there," as if forensics was something that television made up for CSI.

Read the links. Broaden your mind. The waters warm and comfy in the land of the truth. You might like it. Unless you like a mouthful of sand, then stay where you are.

 

UTEO,
You just dont get it. The basic point is this. No one has to read your article. It is a man made article based on secular and faulty assumptions. Aside from that, the point makes no difference in anyone's life. Actually, you need to broaden your mind. You cannot imagine the possibility that God created the earth, life, and the universe outside the known laws as we know them now. Of course, to believe what you do, you have to believe we know all of the laws, and they follow an orderly progression directed by who knows what over several eons.

That is not the creation of the Bible. It is supernatural. It is quite clear each different animal was created as a seperate act, not some osmosis or gradual evolution.

I have no idea what education or background you have, or how a researcher makes a living, but there is an element of missing common sense here.

Believing God created everything is one of those subjects that takes the least faith of any subject. Look around. See what has been created. See the order.

Start relying on the Bible, and stop worrying about a bunch of theories made up by flawed assumptions. I will repeat it again, who gave these geniuses their brains or knowledge. The very idea of a created being trying to come up with a better idea on creation than the Creator. How stupid is that???

 

You answer yourself.

Yes... and that neither proves nor disproves that any of them were transitional to any other species.

 

Philosophical naturalism is not "truth".

 

This statement sums up very clearly why Thomas Paine was correct when he said, "To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." While I come to some different conclusions than Paine, he is spot on with this comment. How one can say they won't read an article, yet go on to critique it and draw conclusions about it is the perfect example of one who has renounced the use of reason.

 

That is the whole strength of the anti-knowledge wing, ignore ignore ignore the evidence.

Strangely they present evidence and you do not.

No what we faithful servants of God who accept evolution as His means of creation cannot do is imagine God to plant false evidence in such a wide scope. The evidence is there.

You underestimate what we do know. The science that can create atomic bombs can also date things with radioactive isotopes. The science that can decipher the genome can also detect the evidence of molecular relationship between species. Just because science does not know everything does not mean science knows nothing.

It isn't necessary to interpret the scriptures that way. Your choice - accept an alternate interpretation or go against reality.

Bear in mind that Christians generaly accept an alternat interpretation rather than go against reality when it comes to the rotation of the earth being the cause of day and night.

WE agree with that statement but disgree where the common sense is missing.

God created everything. He did it by means of the laws of science that He continues to enforce to this day, many of which we have been able to discover.

Flawed theological assumptions are the very thing we need to stop relying on. The Bible will survive the truth, it always has.

Discovering the means by which the creator did much of His handiwork is NOT coming up with a better idea than the Creator. It is merely uncovering the clues He has hidden for us to find.

Prov 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.
NASU

 

Same could be said for one who presupposes naturalism and evolution as the "truth" by which all evidence must be interpretted and summararily rejects as "'renouncing' the use of reason" because they reject those ultimately faith based, unreasonable presuppositions.

 

Strangely they present evidence and you do not.</font>[/QUOTE] Odd assertion by one that rejects an eyewitness account of creation... found in Genesis.

 

Same could be said for one who presupposes naturalism and evolution as the "truth" by which all evidence must be interpretted and summararily rejects as "'renouncing' the use of reason" because they reject those ultimately faith based, unreasonable presuppositions. </font>[/QUOTE]DEAD WRONG! I read all sides of the issue, and do not dismiss without consideration, as you propose.

 

You completely misunderstand the nature of our present state of knowledge about evolution and the age of the universe. It is the result of long, patient investigation by thousands and thousands of laborers in the vineyard of Science into what the natural world itself tells us about its origins. This is so for any impartial seeker of evidence, regardless of their thoughts or attitudes about faith and theology and philosophy.

Why do some seek to believe in a God who puts lies into the fabric of the universe? Such an idea makes no sense. How can some keep trying to make it make sense?

 

Strangely they present evidence and you do not.</font>[/QUOTE] Odd assertion by one that rejects an eyewitness account of creation... found in Genesis. </font>[/QUOTE]I do not reject the account in Genesis, I reject the intepretation of it that makes it inconsistent with the evidence.

 

When do we get to start arguing about whether species were predestined to evolve or whether they chose to evolve? I think that would be twice as fruitless.