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
“Um, I've never made anyone lose their faith.” [excerpt]You've never had a YECer leave the faith instead of believe what you were saying about OEC?
“To the contrary, I have helped people keep their faith when they discovered that YEC and God's general revelation in his creation were incompatible.” [excerpt]Does that not require the placing of ones faith in the fallible human interpretation of evidence rather than the inspired inerrant Word of God?
Science is a dull tool that men try to employ for useful purposes, often with mediocre results.If you knew that trying to convince a YECer of your position would cause them to loose their faith, would you still try to convince them?“No, but if they told me that they had a hard time reconciling the Bible with science, I would show them that there are no conflicts.” [excerpt]
“God's word cannot conflict with what God has shown us through his general revelation.” [excerpt]What God has shown you?
“Now, tell me: If you knew a Christian teenager studying geology or astronomy in college who discovered that God's revelation in his creation is incompatible with the YEC position they were taught from childhood, how would you help them?” [excerpt]Very simple.
“Would you tell them not to believe their lying eyes and the evidence that God has given us in his creation?” [excerpt]The evidence according to any atheist is, that there is no God.
God can save, the evidence cannot.
Who/what will you place 100% of your faith in?
I have 100% faith in God. I have 100% faith that science is method that reveals the laws and methods by which God created the universe, such methods including the universe. That the description of creation He wrote was geared to the understanding of people 3,500 years ago does not invalidate the findings of science.
We have evolved to the point, where we can begin to understand how God works -- use the intellect and spirit that we were given, as being in God's image. If you want to throw that gift back in God's face, that's your business and maybe God will forgive you.
However, to believe in God and accept science is not to serve two masters, but to carry out the self-evident intent of God. The irony being that the atheist scientist furthers God's plan, while you just obstruct God's plan.
I am not placing my faith in anything other than God. Remember that God speaks to us through his creation as well and it is no less true than the Bible.
The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Science is a dull tool that men try to employ for useful purposes, often with mediocre results.
I could say the same thing about theology. You know what the liberals teach in their churches, as do I. So why do you not allow for good science practiced by good scientists? Look all around you -- the drugs doctors use to cure you, the car you drive, the TV you watch -- do you think that all of these things were discovered or invented by clumsy clowns using a "dull tool?"
Sorry, science is a tool used by flawed men and the results are flawed.
Yes, you will find flawed results. They are the exception rather than the rule though. You cannot throw all science out the door just because some believe in global warming. I don't know what your profession is, but let's say it is accounting. Some accountants make errors. But, based on that, would you say that all accountants are shoddy and that we should toss out the science of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division?
Or what your atheist professor has shown you...
What if the professor is a Christian? My first degree was from Baylor. Almost all of my professors were devout, bible-believing Christians. None of them believed in YEC.
Who/what will you place 100% of your faith in?
In God, of course. But that has nothing to do with the fact that we live in a universe that is around 14.5 billion years old. that's not a new fad fed by politics or government grants. It's a fact that has been proved many, many, many times by people in multiple branches over more than a hundred years. The measurement have become more precise over time, but that's how science works.
Myself, I always thought Darwin’s writings were a rather crude allegory.
“I am not placing my faith in anything other than God. Remember that God speaks to us through his creation as well and it is no less true than the Bible.” [excerpt]So when you go out and dig up rock, what does it tell you?
“The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” [excerpt]Indeed they do.
“You know what the liberals teach in their churches, as do I.” [excerpt]Its not something I've studied.
“So why do you not allow for good science practiced by good scientists?” [excerpt]There is no such thing as a good scientist.
“Look all around you -- the drugs doctors use to cure you, the car you drive, the TV you watch -- do you think that all of these things were discovered or invented by clumsy clowns using a "dull tool?"” [excerpt]I never said 'clumsy clowns'
“Yes, you will find flawed results. They are the exception rather than the rule though.” [excerpt]Wrong, ALL men are flawed.
“You cannot throw all science out the door just because some believe in global warming.” [excerpt]Neither should you accept all the claims to be science just because sometimes they get it right.
“Some accountants make errors.” [excerpt]This is not about people making honest mistakes.
“But, based on that, would you say that all accountants are shoddy and that we should toss out the science of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division?” [excerpt]I say, throw out the shoddy accountants and keep the useful mathematics.
“What if the professor is a Christian? My first degree was from Baylor. Almost all of my professors were devout, bible-believing Christians. None of them believed in YEC.” [excerpt]
Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.
Matthew 16:22,23
So, was Peter a Christian? (Remember, he denied Christ, three times)
You are aware, arn't you, that there is an organized effort by the atheists to create and promote science curriculum for use in Christian schools and colleges with the express purpose to undermining the Christian faith?
Sounds like they have been rather successful.
Five words to describe your faith in God, sixty eight to describe your faith in science.Who/what will you place 100% of your faith in?“In God, of course. But that has nothing to do with the fact that we live in a universe that is around 14.5 billion years old. that's not a new fad fed by politics or government grants. It's a fact that has been proved many, many, many times by people in multiple branches over more than a hundred years. The measurement have become more precise over time, but that's how science works.” [excerpt]
Sorry, I’m not going to play your little insult game any longer.
Truly, I'd be "happy as a tick" if people would finish their sentences and be careful not to overstate things.
>>So when you go out and dig up rock, what does it tell you?
It tells you that the earth is millions of years old.
How does it tell you that?
Simple.
Someone told you thats what rocks tell you and you had faith in their word.<<
Actually nuclear decay and radio dating are fascinating labs that can be taught to fairly junior science students.
Dating through other means such as geologic formations probably take a bit more background but still is something high school students can understand and college students can actually do the work for.
BTW, I appreciated your thread to fellow protestants on addressing other Christians respectfully - it seemed really well intentioned. It probably would have gone better if this account had not been so new to Freep.
“Actually nuclear decay and radio dating are fascinating labs that can be taught to fairly junior science students.There are unverifiable, untestable philosophical assumptions that must be taken on faith for even those to work.
Dating through other means such as geologic formations probably take a bit more background but still is something high school students can understand and college students can actually do the work for.”
“BTW, I appreciated your thread to fellow protestants on addressing other Christians respectfully - it seemed really well intentioned. It probably would have gone better if this account had not been so new to Freep.”The debates in the RF Open threads can get very heated.
>>There are unverifiable, untestable philosophical assumptions that must be taken on faith for even those to work.<<
A Geiger counter is a pretty simple instrument so students can understand how it works and not just take it on faith.
They can then measure as the decay rate of a radio active source slows down and calculate the half life.
From a table of half lives they can then date samples themselves. It can really make for a intriguing lab.
>>
I don’t think it could have gone any better if I had been here 10 years.<<
I certainly would never deny that there is often heat and tension in religion discussions. But... its human nature for a group to be resistant when a newcomer begins quickly to criticize. Even valid criticism can get a different response. That’s not specifically a Freep thing but just human group dynamics things.
>>In God, of course. But that has nothing to do with the fact that we live in a universe that is around 14.5 billion years old. that’s not a new fad fed by politics or government grants. It’s a fact that has been proved many, many, many times by people in multiple branches over more than a hundred years. The measurement have become more precise over time, but that’s how science works.<<
Well its certainly is billions of years of old but there is a range of calculations 13-16 billion.
But the larger point about faith is that it should be like a house that a wise man would build on rock.
If faith is limited so that it collapses if it turns out the earth is older than shepherds 4000 years ago could understand - then that is the equivalent of a house built on sand.
“A Geiger counter is a pretty simple instrument so students can understand how it works and not just take it on faith.” [excerpt]I know someone with a Geiger counter.
“They can then measure as the decay rate of a radio active source slows down and calculate the half life.And to get your date, you must depend on assumptions about things that cannot be tested.
From a table of half lives they can then date samples themselves. It can really make for a intriguing lab.” [excerpt]
“I certainly would never deny that there is often heat and tension in religion discussions. But... its human nature for a group to be resistant when a newcomer begins quickly to criticize.” [excerpt]At the time of posting that thread, I had already spent quite a bit of time in the RF debates.
“Even valid criticism can get a different response. That’s not specifically a Freep thing but just human group dynamics things.” [excerpt]LOL!
I’m missing your point. My cursory review of the thread to which you referred turned up no human-arm-as-a-micrometer reference.
You the Bible establishes the value of pi as 3, but you refer to a verse that describes a structure measured in cubits.
As another Freeper pointed out to you in said thread, one would not arrive at a proper value of pi if one used traditional carpentry rulers, much less a human forearm.
Ergo, you either believe the human forearm counts as a reasonably precise measuring tool, or you are willlfully counting out valid evidence when making this judgment. Neither one is remotely reasonable.
Ah, so you’re interpreting the bible, and not reading it literally.
I've given reasons why I think the question is a "trick question." But perhaps you don't agree with me on that.
I wonder if you can help me with a question of my own. I came across something in my reading today that actually shocked me. Here's the excerpt that I find particularly troubling:
Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?This is a quote from a document published by the National Academy of Sciences, entitled Science, Evolution, and Creationism. It appears to be a highly orthodox piece, to say the least. The motive in publishing it seems to be the justification of why Judge Jones was so right in the way he ruled in the Dover case.
It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words “theory” and “fact.”In everyday usage, “theory” often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, “I have a theory about why that happened,” they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.
Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.
One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the Moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik (see page 2) predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.
In science, a “fact” typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term “fact” to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
Yet notwithstanding this is an "authoritative" piece — given its NAS credentials — I find statements in this excerpt that I really find beyond the pale on epistemological and philosophy of science grounds. Can you spot them?
Just wondering....
If you would still like me to reply to your question at post 315, just let me know. I'll take a stab at it — thought perhaps in ways you will not like.
I sent you the full text of Post 70, and chose to lie about it. Now that’s 3 times you lied about me.
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.