Show Me the Fossils!

[Seymour Flops]

So nothing to offer as a refutation for biological evolution? Other than ''nuh uh, it ain't so'' there's nothing you can offer?

Not as long as you are lumping me in with creationists, no.

I'm not yet convinced of the creationer conspiracy that asserts evolution is a fraud so I was hoping you could offer something that refutes biological evolution as a demonstrated theory.

Is the development of antibiotics to treat infection a global conspiracy? Let's start there and we can move on to dinosaurs taking that pleasure cruise on the Ark a bit later.

See what I mean?

 

[Hollie]

Not as long as you are lumping me in with creationists, no.

See what I mean?

I see what you mean. You can't refute the evidence for biological evolution so you enter a thread to announce you have no evidence to refute biological evolution but you're sure it is all a conspiracy.

That's a really compelling argument.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I see what you mean. You can't refute the evidence for biological evolution so you enter a thread to announce you have no evidence to refute biological evolution but you're sure it is all a conspiracy.

That's a really compelling argument.

All of that is exactly correct, except that I did not enter this thread, I started it, I never claimed to refute biological evolution and I have never said that it was "all" a conspiracy.

Ok, none of it correct. Zero for three.

 

[alang1216]

but how much older is the assumption,,

why does that matter?

 

[Hollie]

All of that is exactly correct, except that I did not enter this thread, I started it, I never claimed to refute biological evolution and I have never said that it was "all" a conspiracy.

Ok, none of it correct. Zero for three.

Pretty typical. The term 'Darwinians'' is used at creation ministries as a derogatory slur and threads that demand ''show me... '' are typically met with ''nuh uh,, nope, that's not it'', when evidence is presented.

You're a stealth creationist?

 

[progressive hunter]

why does that matter?

you dont know??

it matters a lot if it was done over a short period of time verses millions of yrs,,

 

[braalian]

I've asked several times in other threads for Darwinians to show me the fossils that prove that Darwin's ideas have been scientifically proven.

So far, what I've been shown are illustrations, i.e. drawings of fossils (often hypothetical), hypothetical "family trees," that have changed decade by decade (through debate, not discovery), and the occasional photograph of bone fragments propped up with frames or filled in with some kind of modelling material (clay, plaster, or epoxy resin, I'd guess).

Here's an example from Scientific American, no less:

View attachment 594783
OK, that is pretty convincing, right? The face is relatively flat, rather than elongated as are the faces of most animals who rely more heavily on sense of smell than do humans. But the brain case is relatively small, a more ape-like trait. Viola! The long sought Missing Link!

But . . . look at the fine print:

View attachment 594786

It's a composite reconstruction. It's a drawing of how the artist imagines a collection of bone fragments might look IF it were one complete skull. Now this seems a pretty skilled drawing. Not a Da Vinci, but the work of a competent commercial artist. But that artist was not given a collection of bones and told, "draw us what these bones would look like." Or if they were, of course they would have asked, "what are you going for here?" The quick answer: "You know, an ape-man. The missing link."

I picture the artist saying, "So, Luca Brasi meets Mighty Joe Young. Gotcha."

Anyway, to repeat the challenge:

Show me a photograph of fossils, with no filler and no frame and explain how they "prove" the Darwinian theory of evolution via natural selection.

Thank you.

Do you really think you know more than the actual anthropologists?

 

[Noel Long]

I know.

Still waiting for your competing model to evolution... something more than ''it aint true because I say so''

Yeh Seymour, if not evolution then what?
If not creation then you need to give us your alternative

 

[alang1216]

you dont know??

it matters a lot if it was done over a short period of time verses millions of yrs,,

Why does it matter? You're just deflecting from an uncomfortable fact, that new species continually appear in the fossil record, me thinks.

 

[Blues Man]

Fossils are less important than DNA.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Do you really think you know more than the actual anthropologists?

So appeal to authority is your only argument?

Yeh Seymour, if not evolution then what?
If not creation then you need to give us your alternative

Not really.

The topic of this thread is that Darwinians constantly claim that the fossils prove Darwin was 100% right. Yet the only fossils they show are drawings or bone fragments with gaps filled in by imagination.

If a DA presented such flimsy evidence at a criminal trial,* the defense need not come up with an alternative theory of the crime. The reason a DA would bring such a weak case would likely be a lack of suspects. So it would be a waste of time for the defendant to look for the real perpetrator, when the police have long since let that person get away by focusing on the wrong person.

If you just want to say that Darwinian evolution is - in your opinion - the most like explanation for the variety of species on Earth, I have no quarrel with that. It is when you or anyone else falsely claims that there is irrefutable evidence that one particularly theory is the only explanation possible that my Spidey sense tells me they are lying, wrong, or both.

*Seriously, imagine final arguments in a case that did not go well for the DA. He suddenly says, “I can show you that the defendant robbed that jewelry store!” Then he pulls a drawing out of his briefcase of the defendant robbing the store. I assume that the judge would declare a mistrial, perhaps prompted by the laughter of the jury.

 

[ding]

Why does it matter? You're just deflecting from an uncomfortable fact, that new species continually appear in the fossil record, me thinks.

Seems to me that the how matters. Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature. So arguing the how doesn't matter is equivalent of saying science doesn't matter.

FWIW.... punctuated equilibrium is the explanation of the how that best fits the observed data.

 

[braalian]

So appeal to authority is your only argument?

I’m not an anthropologist. Therefore I defer to those who are. If they say the fossil record exists and that it supports evolution, the sensible thing to do is assume they’re right.

Only foolish people assume they know better than experts.

 

[Hollie]

So appeal to authority is your only argument?


Not really.

The topic of this thread is that Darwinians constantly claim that the fossils prove Darwin was 100% right. Yet the only fossils they show are drawings or bone fragments with gaps filled in by imagination.

If a DA presented such flimsy evidence at a criminal trial,* the defense need not come up with an alternative theory of the crime. The reason a DA would bring such a weak case would likely be a lack of suspects. So it would be a waste of time for the defendant to look for the real perpetrator, when the police have long since let that person get away by focusing on the wrong person.

If you just want to say that Darwinian evolution is - in your opinion - the most like explanation for the variety of species on Earth, I have no quarrel with that. It is when you or anyone else falsely claims that there is irrefutable evidence that one particularly theory is the only explanation possible that my Spidey sense tells me they are lying, wrong, or both.

*Seriously, imagine final arguments in a case that did not go well for the DA. He suddenly says, “I can show you that the defendant robbed that jewelry store!” Then he pulls a drawing out of his briefcase of the defendant robbing the store. I assume that the judge would declare a mistrial, perhaps prompted by the laughter of the jury.

"Yet the only fossils they show are drawings or bone fragments with gaps filled in by imagination".

I'm not sure how you missed it but museums and this nations teaching and research universities hold vast numbers of fossil artifacts. To suggest "they only show fragments with gaps..." is simply nonsense.

Creationers often make the claim that Darwinians use fossils to prove evolution. That's not accurate as Darwinians and the leading museums and research universities document the fossil record as a history of the diversity of life on the planet and how those populations evolved.

If you have a better explanation of how life evolved, you should present it. To suggest that the gods fiddled with new species and magically compressed billions of years of earth history into 6 000 years has a host of real contradictions.

I'm still waiting for that creationer General Theory of Supernatural Creation.

That wouid go a long way toward, you know, finally crushing that nonsense science stuff.

Can I get a pur-ayze the lord brothas' and sistas'?

BTW, convictions by DA's based on circumstantial evidence are common.

 

[progressive hunter]

Why does it matter? You're just deflecting from an uncomfortable fact, that new species continually appear in the fossil record, me thinks.

thats assuming the fossil record is a record over a long period of time,,

see we are back to assumptions based on opinions with absolutely no facts to back it up,,

 

[Seymour Flops]

BTW, convictions by DA's based on circumstantial evidence are common.

Yes, and so are later overturned convictions based on prosecutorial misconduct. Manufacturing or embellishing evidence would be a perfect example of that.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I’m not an anthropologist. Therefore I defer to those who are. If they say the fossil record exists and that it supports evolution, the sensible thing to do is assume they’re right.

Only foolish people assume they know better than experts.

So you would defer to biochemistry professor Michael Behe of Lehigh University?

 

[Hollie]

Yes, and so are later overturned convictions based on prosecutorial misconduct. Manufacturing or embellishing evidence would be a perfect example of that.

And that applies to the fossil record, how?

 

[Seymour Flops]

And that applies to the fossil record, how?

By your own admission, the fossil record as presented to the public has been embellished and manufactured.

 

[Hollie]

By your own admission, the fossil record as presented to the public has been embellished and manufactured.

That's not my admission. What elements of the fossil record have been manufactured? Be specific and provide the data you have examined.

Take a look at the fossil evidence for T-Rex, as an example. While you want to insist that fossil evidence is fake, the rendering of what the flesh and blood animal looked like is an obvious analog to the bone structure.

I get it, you're frantically trying to make a case that fossil evidence is all a part of some grand conspiracy. Why not email the Museum of Natural History and advise that they are wrong about depictions of ancient dinosaurs... you know... the ones that sailed on the Ark. I'm sure they appreciate the corrections you could offer based on your knowledge and expertise.

Don't forget to cc us on your email.