• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What does the fossil record say?

Krok

Active Member
So naturally I'm going to be excited for anyone who lives in places known for plentiful fossil bearing strata. ;) Thanks for the link. :jiggy:
wa:do
Pleasure Painted Wolf.

I know that creationists painted ;) a picture of the Karoo Sequence bursting at it's seams with fossils, but in reality this is what the area underlain by fossil bearing strata looks like: Yahoo! Image Detail . A huge area the size of Colorado. Semi-desert to desert area. Very shallow soils with what we call Karoo Bushes on it it. Sheep farming is extensively done and the farmers know their land. They've propably found the surface fossils years ago. Also, contrary to creationist web-sites the fossils really are scarce and you are lucky to stumble upon one in your lifetime even if working the land every day.
 
Last edited:

wilsoncole

Active Member
Yes. We sure have....

Hubble observations of supernova reveal composition of 'star guts' pouring out
"The team detected significant brightening of the emissions from Supernova 1987A, which were consistent with some theoretical predictions about how supernovae interact with their immediate galactic environment. Discovered in 1987, Supernova 1987A is the closest exploding star to Earth to be detected since 1604 and resides in the nearby Large Magellanic Cloud, a dwarf galaxy adjacent to our own Milky Way Galaxy."
Before I comment on this, let me get you straight:
In your mind, emissions from an explosion equals chaos? Is that what you're saying?
Only because you perceive it to be.....
Atoms:
Why the names to its parts and functions?
case in point....

Snowflake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We know exactly how they're formed and none of it is designed. There's no designer crafting every single snowflake.
Do you? Really?
Let's see:
By what process was the difference between this one



images



and this one, accomplished?
images


Since you know EXACTLY how they were formed, that should be easy.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<


Wilson
 

camanintx

Well-Known Member
I didn't call it anything. Haven't you noticed?
That's why I submitted his email address. You can question HIM!
You brought up Lönnig and his Law of Recurrent Variation to support your argument that evolution cannot produce new species. I am simply pointing out that his "Law" is no such thing. Unless you can produce evidence that his ideas are accepted by other geneticists, your argument against evolution fails.

In your mind, emissions from an explosion equals chaos? Is that what you're saying?
Rain falling on the plain is also quite chaotic, but gravity has a way of turning it into ponds, lakes streams and other highly organized systems. Nature has a way of doing that which is why they call it "apparent" design.
 

wilsoncole

Active Member
You brought up Lönnig and his Law of Recurrent Variation to support your argument that evolution cannot produce new species. I am simply pointing out that his "Law" is no such thing. Unless you can produce evidence that his ideas are accepted by other geneticists, your argument against evolution fails.
So, according to you, truth must be established only by consensus - right?
And.................
In other words, you chicken out from talking to the one expressing that law.

Rain falling on the plain is also quite chaotic, but gravity has a way of turning it into ponds, lakes streams and other highly organized systems. Nature has a way of doing that which is why they call it "apparent" design.
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.
And............
The question about the difference in snowflakes design was not directed to you, therefore, you will not attempt to answer it - right?


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<


Wilson
 

wilsoncole

Active Member
I did that. God had nothing to do with it. I'm asking you for your position, wilson. It's something only you can tell us. (Why are creationists always so evasive? It's almost as though they know they're wrong.)
Don't you ask me anything, Autodidact!
You tell lies about me and I do not like that.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Before I comment on this, let me get you straight:
In your mind, emissions from an explosion equals chaos? Is that what you're saying?

You asked for an observable chaotic event. An observed supernova qualifies. Other qualifiers are what we already know has happened, example...impact craters. While we didn't technically see the meteor strike we have the evidence left behind which suggest it was quite a chaotic event. Compare nuclear blast craters to meteor craters and you quickly get some what of an understanding. Some what because some nuclear test blast did not yield as much power or damage as some meteors did in our past. Chaotic (what we classify as chaotic) are present throughout our solar system and our galaxy. At any given point "chaotic" events happen throughout our universe.


Atoms:
Why the names to its parts and functions?

I'm not sure what you mean can you clarify? Are you asking for the etymology of the names of the parts?

Do you? Really?
Let's see:
By what process was the difference between this one



images



and this one, accomplished?
images


Since you know EXACTLY how they were formed, that should be easy.

The link was given.

Snowflake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Snowflakes are conglomerations of frozen ice crystals which fall through the Earth's atmosphere. They begin as snow crystals which develop when microscopic supercooled cloud droplets freeze. Snowflakes come in a variety of sizes and shapes. Complex shapes emerge as the flake moves through differing temperature and humidity regimes. Individual snowflakes are nearly unique in structure. Types which fall in the form of a ball due to melting and refreezing, rather than a flake, are known as graupel, with ice pellets and snow grains as examples of graupel.

Snow crystals form when tiny supercooled cloud droplets (about 10 &#956;m in diameter) freeze. These droplets are able to remain liquid at temperatures lower than &#8722;18 °C (0 °F), because to freeze, a few molecules in the droplet need to get together by chance to form an arrangement similar to that in an ice lattice; then the droplet freezes around this "nucleus." Experiments show that this "homogeneous" nucleation of cloud droplets only occurs at temperatures lower than &#8722;35 °C (&#8722;31 °F). In warmer clouds an aerosol particle or "ice nucleus" must be present in (or in contact with) the droplet to act as a nucleus. The particles that make ice nuclei are very rare compared to nuclei upon which liquid cloud droplets form, however it is not understood what makes them efficient. Clays, desert dust and biological particles may be effective, although to what extent is unclear. Artificial nuclei include particles of silver iodide and dry ice, and these are used to stimulate precipitation in cloud seeding.
Once a droplet has frozen, it grows in the supersaturated environment, which is one where air is saturated with respect to ice when the temperature is below the freezing point. The droplet then grows by deposition of water molecules in the air (vapor) onto the ice crystal surface where they are collected. Because water droplets are so much more numerous than the ice crystals due to their sheer abundance, the crystals are able to grow to hundreds of micrometers or millimeters in size at the expense of the water droplets. This process is known as the Wegner-Bergeron-Findeison process. The corresponding depletion of water vapor causes the droplets to evaporate, meaning that the ice crystals grow at the droplets' expense. These large crystals are an efficient source of precipitation, since they fall through the atmosphere due to their mass, and may collide and stick together in clusters, or aggregates. These aggregates are snowflakes, and are usually the type of ice particle that falls to the ground. Guinness World Records list the world&#8217;s largest snowflakes as those of January 1887 at Fort Keogh, Montana; allegedly one measured 38 cm (15 inches) wide. The exact details of the sticking mechanism remain controversial. Possibilities include mechanical interlocking, sintering, electrostatic attraction as well as the existence of a "sticky" liquid-like layer on the crystal surface. The individual ice crystals often have hexagonal symmetry. Although the ice is clear, scattering of light by the crystal facets and hollows/imperfections mean that the crystals often appear white in color due to diffuse reflection of the whole spectrum of light by the small ice particles


A non-aggregated snowflake often exhibits six-fold "radial" symmetry. The initial symmetry occurs because the crystalline structure of ice is six-fold. The six "arms" of the snowflake then grow independently, and each side of each arm grows independently. Most snowflakes are not completely symmetric. The micro-environment in which the snowflake grows changes dynamically as the snowflake falls through the cloud, and tiny changes in temperature and humidity affect the way in which water molecules attach to the snowflake. Since the micro-environment (and its changes) are very nearly identical around the snowflake, each arm grows in nearly the same way. Since the micro-environment of one snowflake is not the same as the micro-environment of a different snowflake, it is very unlikely that two snowflakes will be identical.


So yes, we know the mechanisms and the processes as to how they form and what they look like after formation. Nothing in it denotes design even though we perceive each one as a complex structure. While all of this, again, is high school textbook information....it (the notion of design) has pretty much nothing to do with the fossil record.
 
Last edited:

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
You brought up Lönnig and his Law of Recurrent Variation to support your argument that evolution cannot produce new species. I am simply pointing out that his "Law" is no such thing. Unless you can produce evidence that his ideas are accepted by other geneticists, your argument against evolution fails.
You don't even need that. The evolution of new species is a repeatedly observed fact, as has been substantiated in this forum ad nauseum. That creationists refuse to accept that fact is irrelevant to its validity.

So even if other geneticists accepted this alleged scientific law, it would still be directly contradicted by repeatedly documented reality.
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
You don't even need that. The evolution of new species is a repeatedly observed fact, as has been substantiated in this forum ad nauseum. That creationists refuse to accept that fact is irrelevant to its validity.

So even if other geneticists accepted this alleged scientific law, it would still be directly contradicted by repeatedly documented reality.

facts are facts and it doesn't take anyones feelings into consideration....
just sayin'
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Don't you ask me anything, Autodidact!
You tell lies about me and I do not like that.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

Again, I'll let the evidence in the thread demonstrate who is lying, and who is not.

But I understand why you don't want to answer my questions.

url
 

Kriya Yogi

Dharma and Love for God
Fossils indicate the growth and evolution of consciousness from primal and instinctual animals to more intelligent and civilized beings that live now. It indicates that we are heading towards higher and more spiritual ages.
 

wilsoncole

Active Member
Exactly how old are you?:confused:
I wonder if you know how bad lying is?
I don't think you have any idea!
But then, you are unable to tell right from wrong!

No one is older than God and he feels the same way about people lying about him.
I am happy to emulate him in this regard.

“And it came about after Jehovah had spoken these words to Job, that Jehovah proceeded to say to El&#8242;i·phaz the Te&#8242;man·ite: “My anger has grown hot against you and your two companions, for YOU men have not spoken concerning me what is truthful as has my servant Job. And now take for yourselves seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job, and YOU men must offer up a burnt sacrifice in YOUR own behalf; and Job my servant will himself pray for YOU. His face only I shall accept so as not to commit disgraceful folly with YOU, for YOU have not spoken concerning me what is truthful, as has my servant Job.”” (Job 42:7-8)



(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<


Wilson
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
But then, you are unable to tell right from wrong!

No one is older than God and he feels the same way about people lying about him.
I am happy to emulate him in this regard.


Wilson

the arrogant rants of a self proclaimed morally superior creationist... who actually thinks gawd is in need of his assistance...in particular.
:149:
 

tumbleweed41

Resident Liberal Hippie
Don't you ask me anything, Autodidact!
You tell lies about me and I do not like that.
Exactly how old are you?:confused:
I wonder if you know how bad lying is?
I don't think you have any idea!
But then, you are unable to tell right from wrong!

No one is older than God and he feels the same way about people lying about him.
I am happy to emulate him in this regard.
Nice rant. Now, dismissing the "lying" strawman, how about addressing this...


YOU FAILED TO SHOW ME ANY QUOTE WHERE I CLAIMED THAT EVERYTHING IS DESIGNED!
So God only designed SOME of the universe? Which part? And who or what designed the rest?
 

wilsoncole

Active Member
What makes you think that purpose is a static property? If something is designed, then yes, there is intent and purpose behind the design. But it does not follow that just because something performs a given function that it was intended to perform only that function.
You are injecting your own twist there.
There goes that silly "just because" objection again. That "just because" is actually an acknowledgment of the truth of an argument because no refutation usually follows it.
Nobody's talking about a single function.
If it performs a function, then that function becomes the reason for it being there.
If it performs many functions, then all the more reasons for its existence.
Some cells do performs a single function.
You are contending that it was not INTENDED to perform that function.
Am I right?
The questions then arise:
1. Why else is it there?
2. What else can it do?
3. How can you prove that its function was not intended?
Why cells exist and are structured the way they are can be explained as a simple response to the changing conditions within which they found themselves.
That is nonsense!
The "explanation" is flawed - seriously so!
Cells are alive!
And living things can and do respond to changing conditions.
You cannot claim that they are structured the way they are and respond the way they do because they chose to be that way.
You cannot contend that they are alive for their specialized functions because they, somehow, saw a need and decided to fill it.
There is no need to posit a designer to give them purpose and function.
That is not for YOU to decide.
Well - do cells have purpose and function?
If you can detect that they do have "purpose and function," how do they get to be in the right places, filling those purposes and functioning efficiently?
All by themselves?
You are forgetting that there must be a reason for any response in any situation. Some scientists, especially in the field of biology, specialize in ferreting out reasons for responses. This is how they come up with new medicines and treatments.
I repeat:
If complexity lends itself to purpose, then design becomes obvious.

(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<


Wilson
 

wilsoncole

Active Member
the arrogant rants of a self proclaimed morally superior creationist... who actually thinks gawd is in need of his assistance...in particular.
:149:
Hmmmm!
No dispute.
Are you able to tell right from wrong?
We can find out with a very simple test, you know.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson
 

waitasec

Veteran Member
Hmmmm!
No dispute.
Are you able to tell right from wrong?
We can find out with a very simple test, you know.


(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<

Wilson

why would you question me if i know right from wrong...?
you were the one who claimed to be equal to god remember...
 
Top