Posted on 03/04/2009 7:16:11 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
“Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false,” according to a recent LiveScience article that then describes what it claims are 12 specific transitional form fossils.1 But do these examples really confirm Darwinism?
Charles Darwin raised a lack of transitional fossils as a possible objection to his own theory: “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”2 Later in this chapter of his landmark book, he expressed hope that future discoveries would be made of transitional forms, or of creatures that showed some transitional structure—perhaps a half-scale/half-feather.
Although some creationists do say that “there are no transitional fossils,” it would be more accurate to state that there are no undisputed transitional forms. Although the article asserts that the fossil record “is full of them,” the reality is that it does not contain a single universally accepted transitional form. Every transitional fossil candidate has both proponents and doubters even among evolutionary “biologists and paleontologists.”
The first supposed transitional form offered in the report is Sahelanthropus. This 2001 discovery was first hailed as a transitional form in the ape-to-human line, but controversy over its transitional status immediately ensued. Brigitte Senut of the Natural History Museum in Paris was skeptical, saying that its skull features, “especially the [canine teeth],”3 were characteristic of female gorillas, not human-like gorillas. Senut and her colleagues also disputed that Sahelanthropus was even in the ancestry of humans at all: “To represent a valid clade, hominids must share unique defining features, and Sahelanthropus does not appear to have been an obligate biped [creature that walked on two feet].”4 In other words, Sahelanthropus is at best a highly disputed fossil of an extinct ape, having no clear transitional features.
LiveScience also listed a medium-neck-length fossil giraffe named Bohlinia and the “walking manatee” as transitional forms. However, Bohlinia is just variation within what is still clearly the giraffe kind and doesn’t answer the question, “Where did the giraffe kind come from?” Such variations within kinds do not refute the creation concept, but rather are predicted by it.5 And the “walking manatee” walked because it had fully formed, ready-to-walk legs, hips, nerves, and musculature. The article does not mention that this particular fossil is shown elsewhere to be a dead-end species, “transitioning” to nothing, according to evolutionists.6
The LiveScience article, borrowing from geologist Donald Prothero, also claimed that Moeritherium is “the ultimate transitional fossil,” the ancestor of elephants. This was an amphibious mammal, shaped like a hippo, with a mobile, muscular lip fused with its nostril. But it had none of the real characteristics of an elephant—not the trunk, size, tusks, nor the specialized weight-bearing knee joint structure.7
The “classic fossil of Archaeopteryx” is not a transitional form either, but was fully bird. Its “reptile-like” teeth and wing claws are found in some birds today.8 Many reptiles have no teeth, but nobody claims that they evolved from birds. And the discovery of a “frog-amander” has yet to be agreed upon as transitional by evolutionists. John Bolt, a curator at the Field Museum in Chicago, told National Geographic that “it is difficult to say for sure whether this creature was itself a common ancestor of the two modern groups, given that there is only one known specimen of Gerobatrachus, and an incomplete one at that.”9
Other extinct creatures had “shared features,” physical structures that are found in different kinds of living organisms. However, “shared features” are not transitional features, which is what Darwin needed. There is no scientific evidence to refute the idea that shared features were designed into creatures by a Creator who wisely formed them with the equipment to live in various shared habitats.
Fossils do reveal some truth about Darwin’s theory—they reveal that the same inconsistencies he noted between his theory and the fossil data persist, even after 150 years of frantic searches for elusive transitions.10 Not only is there no single, undisputed transition, but real fossils reveal that animals were fully formed from the beginning.
References
Not quite. I've been told a number of times that I can't be a real Christian if I don't believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. I don't care about me -- I have a thick skin -- but the same accusation is made against others who dare present facts that show otherwise. I just consider the source -- sometimes one's character is defined as much by their enemies as their friends. Take Obama for example -- he considers Rush (and people like you and me) as his enemies. It's a category that I'm proud to be a part of.
Well, there is no edge to the universe, just as there is no edge to the earth. I see that as another example of God's glory in the splendor of his creation.
"See above" where?
What is it with you guys? You never say anything, just point us to other people who also have not said anything. Are you proposing a circumstance of "infinite regression" here obtains in human reality, and it turns out to be an infiinite regression unto meaninglessness???
Well, it's pretty plain to me that the serpent, under the given conditions, is a liar. What a surprise! Yet it was he who, from the very beginning, made bitter war against humankind. That is his very raison d'être, his place in the biblical story of beginnings and ends.
I do not believe that any human being can "control the past." The past is what it is, the "moving finger that writes on," as Omar Khayyam put it, not one "jot or tittle" of which can ever be erased or expunged by the will of any man or all men taken together as a collective.
For human beings live, not only on the linear "arrow" of time past–present–future, but also in the dimension of timelessness. And that is God's "territory."
May our Holy God ever bless thee and me and all our loved ones.
Seems to me it "stops" — at direct observation.
For folks who purport to live in the "direct observation" business, who nonetheless are enchanted by macroevolutionary doctrine, this must come as a hard saying....
Thank you whattajoke for your astute observation.
Anyway, getting back to why all theories get a free pass when it comes to measurable, testable...blah blah blah except of course ID theory...
Well, there's nothing biblical about believing earth age as a requirement in order to be considered "Christian".
There's no telling how many examples are out there by people that have concocted these wild and transparent misrepresentations...Christians committing genocide during the crudsades, the inquistion, slaughtering native Americans...all not exactly to be found in the bible either.
My experience has been this is nothing more than liberals masquerading as Christians to undermine conservatives and Christianity, because they obviously know next to nothing about Christianity (and not surprisingly just about every other subject from science to politics to history, etc.).
I would say “see above,” but I don’t want you to spend the weekend contemplating the infinite regression of human reality unto meaninglessness. So I’ll just say see post 361.
I try to be charitable and won't go that far. I have no doubt about the eternal salvation and genuine Christian life of young-earth creationists.
My first degree was a B.S. in chemistry from Baylor University, a Christian school. I remember kids coming in who had been taught all their lives that the Bible absolutely, 100%, positively teaches that the earth is about 6,000 years old. Even if they took Rocks for Jocks, they were confronted with the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that the world was billions of years old. They saw that young-earth creationism was wrong, so they made the sad and illogical mistake that Christianity must be untrue. See this article from a geologist who almost lost his faith over young-earth creationism.
That's because other people are thinking about it so you don't have to. I drive a car every day, but the last thing on my mind is how they refine gasoline from crude oil. Doesn't mean somebody's not worrying about it somewhere along the line.
My answer:“The question was if there was something God cannot do, and I answered.”
Now you accuse me of using the word "lie". I didn't. Based on your own statement, now you just lied about me.
“so what did these superbacteria evolve into?No.
mammals?
birds?
a sarcastic FReeper?”
“Thanks. You just gave me the opportunity to hit “Report Abuse.””Real Christlike of you, out just looking for an opportunity to bash and harass anyone that doesn't agree with you.
Genesis 3:2-3 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’ ”
3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate.
I will grant that for the tree of life the fruit is not explicitly mentioned, only very strongly implied:
Genesis 3:22 ...lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”
“I apologize for those Christians who believe that insulting non-believers is a good way to bring them to know Christ.” [excerpt]Ah yes.
“You are a funny guy!” [excerpt]He is also a DCer.
You didn't.
I'll go look and get back to you.
Thank you so very much!
Oh my. You said all this without even letting me know....
No problem, friend. I'll just go look at your link and get back to you. Okay?
What is it about you "Darwinists?" You cannot articulate a single thought about what you actually "believe": but instead present us with an astronomical list of pings, unsorted according to any useful or meaningful criterion.
At the end of the day, I have absolutely no idea what YOU think or believe. I just have your "approved list." Plus the understanding that it's up to me to figure out what your point is. You don't have to do anything but put up a ping list.
Thanks a lot. Please, if you want to have an actual rational conversation with another intelligent human being, I really do think you need to "clean up your act" first.
Yes you did—post 70. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.
Except for the pesky detail that evolution is tested for in schools, so if the kids want a good grade on that test, they have to take that section.
It'd be better if the whole evo thing would be left out of high school Biology. It's not worth the controversy. Considering the reports of the error filled textbooks and the reputation of the quality of most public school teachers, it sure seems that it is not being taught as well as it should be.
The vast majority of kids will never use it, even among those who go into some branch of science, which is why so much of the debate is over ideology and is considered by so many to be more about indoctrination than teaching of science.
The only science that needs to understand the hows and whys of evolution are some branches of Biology. Those that need it can be taught it at the college level.
If only I could have opted out of stinkin' calculus because I didn't like it.
No kidding......
Excellent...thanks for the jot and tittle explanation. It’s what I believed in essence but I really enjoyed reading the original context.
Your explanation of the allegory used in Genesis was also very enlightening. When you explain it that way I have to agree. I appreciate the fact you are open with your faith. There is zero chance of winning anyone if we hide it under a bushel or proclaim our Christianity is too much a private matter. We’re told in Romans 10:9 “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;”
Of course I can’t wait til they start ripping that one apart.
God Bless you, my friend.
“He is also a DCer.”
“What’s that?” I said, showing my ignorance.
It’s not my goal in life or my calling to doubt others Christianity based on small disagreements. With all my heart I believe that the Earth is literally as old as the Bible states. Too much of the rest of the Word of God relies on the Genealogy and pattern laid down there.
From what I’ve studied I also believe it takes more faith to believe in evolution (as theorized by Darwin) than in a single Creator with a literal Creation.
But from what you’ve said you believe strongly in Christ and his sacrifice literally and believe wholeheartedly in the salvation that comes through His name, so the rest is just a matter of both of us working through Romans 14.
Again, I do pray God blesses you and very much thank you for the encouragement.
I guess the reply was meant for Bucky, maybe???
Either way, I’m happy to see someone else on here passionate about their faith. I was beginning to think us literal Bible believers were completely surrounded.
God bless...
“Say goodnight, Gordon. The thread remains for research purposes.”
‘Sup, Buck?
I had already gone to bed when you posted this one.
Sorry I didn’t say goodnight. Hope you didn’t miss me too much!
You pick up where you left off tonight? Come on. You can tell me...
“What’s that?” [excerpt]
Well, let's see....God Himself says He cannot lie. Paul wrote that He can't be tempted by sin. Take it up with God...oh, I forgot. You have all the answers.
That is two straight posts you have lied about me. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.
Good job sniffing out this demon, Fichori. He claimed I used the word “lie” in Post 70 in reference to him, when the word, or any derivative of it, doesn’t appear in my post. That is twice he lied about me on this thread now. Thanks for the heads-up!
Thanks. I noticed an uptick yesterday and one dude who apparently signed on just yesterday for the express purpose of slamming Creationists.
None of them answer direct questions. They only attack then try to play the wounded pup when we defend. They should not be allowed on the site if that’s how they act when they’re on. The other thing that sticks out is they all sound exactly alike.
I appreciate you’re taking the time to explain.
GG
Bucky’s busted again... DC - thanks for the heads up there too, Fichori.
“Why can’t everybody jus’ get along?”
Because Bucky and his ilk don’t play by the rules (they have none for themselves, just others)
Duly noted. I'll know, in the future, not to take you seriously.
“I would say the difference between an embryo (irrespective of whether there has been brain development or not), and a sperm or egg is that, absent interference, the embryo will become a human being. A sperm or an egg will not.
I know misscarriages happen. So do heart attacks. That doesn't justify murder. My $.02.” --Gumlegs
The bottom line is that nothing discovered in the laboratory can falsify either special creation or panspermia.
Looked... Liked.
Your page answered quite a few questions I’ve had. One of the most informational pages I’ve seen on the topic of freepers.
Thanks for the link.
You need to update your list on your homepage. Two evos need to be reclassified as banned.
Which two?
Sorry I missed this reply - I got sidetracked by a few others.
My “shocking, jaw-dropping conclusion” was based on the Bible (what do you base your conclusions on?), and it was the whole point of the Reformation. It wasn’t about corrupt priests or sale of indulgences; it was about sola fide and sola scriptura.
Martin Luther said “The pope boasts that he’s the head of the church,” Luther said. “I would gladly have conceded this to the pope if he had only taught the gospel.” Most of the other reformers would not have conceded that, nor would I. There is one head of the church and one intermediary between God and man, and that’s Jesus Christ.
I don’t provide a “ faith-evaluation scorecard” for anyone, but I do compare what Bible teachers say to the scripture to see if what they say is so. I’m sure there are true Christians within the Catholic church, but it is despite, not because of, the teachings of the Catholic church.
There are also many wonderful people in the world who are not saved, because being good or even great isn’t good enough when God’s standard is perfection. The only way to heaven is to trust Christ and have his righteousness accounted to us.
If you’d like to discuss the merits of my conclusions, I’d be glad to hear. If you’d prefer to contine your “sadly obtuse” ad hominem attacks, I’ll pass.
“There is one head of the church and one intermediary between God and man, and that’s Jesus Christ.” [excerpt]Exactly!
Sorry—in 61 I referred to “allegory”. Following the exchange to post 70, you referred to it as “lie”. It is inescapable—I said allegory, you substituted lie.
The bible is allegorical. It is not science. It should never be taught as science. Fortunately, as evidenced by this exchange, creationists can’t make it to first base in the defense of their own position.
Not mean, just hypocritical. Expecting another free pass no doubt.
I like the "mythology" jab too...are you going to say something about my being rude and saracstic again next?
You're a little more self-absorbed than the average lib huh?
It must be nice to be a nurse in a town where the flu strain is identical year in and year out and you can just give the same vaccination every year. Dude, you kill me.
My all time very favorite movie 'Animal House' comes to mind: Confusing adapatation with whatever it is that passes for darwinism these days is just no way to go through life son.
What's that -joke, that you're more self-absorbed than the average lib?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.