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
“...I don’t mind telling you exactly what I believe and wearing my faith as a badge of honor...”
That’s great—I’m more private.
But you’re still attempting to divide and elevate; that was the crux of my post.
Thank you oh so very much for your beautiful testimony, dear brother in Christ!
“That’s great—I’m more private.
But you’re still attempting to divide and elevate; that was the crux of my post.”
No elevation here, my friend. The crux of your post is that you’re afraid to answer a straight question but don’t mind ridiculing the beliefs of others.
You are at least trustworthy. I trusted I would not get a straight answer and you did not dissapoint.
“I’m not convinced of which is true with you. I just know it’s one or the other.”
You make it easy. Apparently, based on my posts here, you can conclude definitively that I’m either ashamed of my faith or a David Koresh clone. Sigmund, you still got it!
If someone disagrees with you, you “demonize by definition”. Some Christians are just more equal than others, I guess.
Anything to avoid answering... always pouncing then playing like you’re the one abused.
Tut-tut...
You missed the answer—I’m a Christian. Just not the loud, chest-beating, waitress-stiffing variety. A devout believer. And a believer in the fact that the bible contains beautiful allegory, including Genesis.
Not specific. I can live any old way I want and say the Bible is a beautiful book all day long, but unless I believe it and live it I’m just a fool that’s full of hot air... and no I’m not saying bad stuff about you.
The only thing you will answer clearly is that you believe most of the Bible to be allegory. That means absolutely nothing concrete so therefore you judge what others believe without ever revealing what it is that you believe.
The only thing you accomplish is circular reasoning.
“The only thing you will answer clearly is that you believe most of the Bible to be allegory. “
You continue to make my point. I have said repeatedly that I am a Christian. Where does that appear in your post, excerpted above? You will not accept that until I lay out my faith for your point-by-point inspection. Only then might you consider accepting my answer.
Sorry, but I remain correct. You want to ensure that you belong to a band of “more equal” Christians. You have a faith-evaluation scorecard, and only those who achieve a passing grade are Christians in your eyes. Sorry, I’m a Christian, and you, sir, belong to a small minority within the faith.
Here’s a start:
If anyone says that by faith alone the sinner is justified, so as to mean that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification … let him be anathema (Trent, sess. 6, canon 9).
If anyone says that the righteousness received is not preserved and also not increased before God by good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not a cause of its increase, let him be anathema (Trent, sess. 6, canon 24).
Don’t forget the Mary idolotry:
From Pope John Paul II’s will:
“Watch, therefore, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming” (Mt 24: 42) - these words remind me of the last call that will come at whatever time the Lord desires. I want to follow Him and I want all that is part of my earthly life to prepare me for this moment. I do not know when it will come but I place this moment, like all other things, in the hands of the Mother of my Master: Totus Tuus. In these same motherly hands I leave everything and Everyone with whom my life and my vocation have brought me into contact. In these Hands I above all leave the Church, and also my Nation and all humankind.
He places his moment of death, the church, his nation, ans all mankind into the hands of Mary?!
The whole Catholic system is “another gospel, which is not another.” (Galatians 1:6-7)
Keep on telling yourself that Buck. Honestly I could care less if I were the only one as long as I followed Christ.
A Christian is not one who simply takes the name otherwise Christian Dior and Christian Slater would not need salvation. I can call myself a racecar all I want, but I still have trouble jogging over 6 mph. If I really were one there would be certain criteria I would have to meet. You seem to be saying the only criteria for salvation is that you say that it is so. Kind of like your decision of what is or is not allegory in the Bible. See a pattern emerging here?
What an astounding, shocking, jaw-dropping conclusion: your faith-evaluation scorecard provides a failing grade for Catholics. Fortunately, your sadly obtuse position is a minority within the Christian faith.
“See a pattern emerging here?”
Yes—you want the equivalent of an Obama “card check” for Christians.
Circles... I’m surrounded by circles.
“Mommy! Bucky won’t answer a direct question!!!”
Say goodnight, Gordon. The thread remains for research purposes.
I’m Brian..... and so is my wife!
Just not the Bible-twisting, creation-denying, sin-mocking, Big Government Public School worshipping variety.
Certainly not the kind who carries water for the left while attacking the conservative Bible faith which shaped this country and has underpinned it for almost four centuries. (the kind all liberals attack because it takes away their cloak for sin)
What are the trees of life and the knowledge of good and evil for 500, Alex.
Ya think?
But there is an undeniable connection. You see when godless NEA liberals demanded God be removed from public screwels, that wasn't enough, it was also necessary to hide from them anything and everything that threatens their ideology, thus the need on at least one occasion to obfuscate even the knowledge of dissent being available in the library.
Think also of the stickers on textbooks explaining evolution is theory and not fact.
What place does God have in Science class?
Are you proposing an experiment that purports to measure him or detect HIS inestimable hand? Is faith not enough that you need a scientific determination on if God is?
You don't think God is greater than science? If a child begins to question his teacher about God's creation in science class, you find the need to shut him down and explain to him there's no place for God in science class? Will you demand the scientific study of prayer be squashed because of your sensitivities and insecurities also?
Just because you can't bottle him up in a jar as proof or evidence one way or the other?
And btw, faith is more than enough for me, but try to focus here, we're talking about children here, and my earlier point still stands, imagine a child early on in their development and all they hear is how at odds science is with their faith in God.
Is that your ultimate goal for students to choose between science OR faith in God/ Christianity?
Acknowledging Him isn't the same as testing him allmendream.
So that is how “God included” Science class would sound to you?
“OK, all non Christians leave the room, because we are about to discuss “Science”. Now “In the Beginning God created the heavens and the Earth”, now isn't that ‘scientific’ class?”
The place to assuage a child's faith in God is at home and at Church, not in public school science class.
And one of the reasons real science is accepted worldwide, and your “God included” science would be relegated to the benighted backwaters is that not all people in the world who wish to learn and do science share our belief in Jesus the Christ.
Science is open to all religious beliefs because religious beliefs are completely tangential to scientific evidence and experimentation.
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.