Are Fossils evidence of evolution ....or are the evidence of fossils

[Guest kingdombrat]

18 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Even most YE creationists now admit the evolution of new species...

From Answers in Genesis:

To his credit, Darwin corrected a popular misunderstanding. Species do change. Since Darwin’s day, many observations have confirmed this. In fact, new species have even been shown to arise within a single hu-man lifetime.

https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/species-change.pdf

That's because most Believers are not foundational Believers.   But clearly we understand many things today by way of Research and Discovery.   In my opinion, it truly clarifies God's Process.   But [Evolution] itself is not one of them.   And to fit "Evolution" into God's Plan/Design goes directly in opposition to His examples and spoken words.   I definitely agree the similarities are there.   I agree many definitions from Science are no doubt absolutes.   But I disagree and can see the same outcome/results are clearer about a Creation one on one Process vs. allowing a diversity of natural survival laws to become random/accidental/not even algorithmic to decide the ultimate outcome.   

Edited April 5, 2021 by kingdombrat

[Guest kingdombrat]

18 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Conclusions/Significance

This study finds that the rearfoot arch was present in the genus Australopithecus. However, the female Australopithecus afarensis “Lucy” has an ankle morphology consistent with non-pathological flat-footedness. This study suggests that, as in humans today, there was variation in arch development in Plio-Pleistocene hominins.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3010983/

And now you know why researchers knew.

Belief doesn't matter.   Physicians who are familiar with this pathology have found the same morphology in Lucy's ankle.    And no, "they're just lying" is not an adequate response.

 

Lucy was discovered by 2 men in the Research Fields.   They were on site to dig and excavate finds before locating Lucy.   They had access to cameras.  Why no picture on site of the placement of this bone?   If it's between their word and this is the missing link to many problematic issues.   Why would any [sane] human [Believer or Not] find the words of these men Credible, knowing the weight of the claim they're making here?   

[Guest kingdombrat]

17 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

No, that's wrong.   First, no bones from Lucy's feet were found.  

I am stunned here.   I understand no feet bones, no real ankle bones, just something not even remotely nearby was discovered.   And yet, with no real evidence, the conclusion to Lucy being [flat-footed] like human was made.   It's seems to me like a pot of gold was discovered, but in reality the pot was empty, but the [Legend of the Pot of Gold] still carries on to this very day!

[The Barbarian]

14 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

I am stunned here.   

Lots of creationists are, when they first realize the truth.

14 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

 I understand no feet bones, no real ankle bones, just something not even remotely nearby was discovered. 

Well, the ankle joint was there on the proximal side.   That's how they knew Lucy was somewhat flat-footed; she had the same morphology as modern humans who have flat feet.    But as you learned, we have many fossils of A. afarensis, and some of them include bones from their feet.    the interesting thing is they are curved as human foot bones are, to provide a rigid arch that allows easy bipedal movement.    The big toe turns out to be non-opposable, and in later species of Australopithecus, it is adducted just as ours are.

18 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

And yet, with no real evidence, the conclusion to Lucy being [flat-footed] like human was made. 

Well, that was an understandable error for you to make.   Podiatrists are quite able to examine the distal end of the tibia to detect that condition.

21 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

It's seems to me like a pot of gold was discovered, but in reality the pot was empty, but the [Legend of the Pot of Gold] still carries on to this very day!

And now, you know the rest of the story.   

 

[The Barbarian]

The notion that we can't know anything we weren't there to personally observe, is so logically absurd, I'm surprised anyone still tries using it.

Forensics, Fire investigation, and geology, among many, many others, debunks that idea.

47 minutes ago, Sparks said:

No one has ever witnessed evolution, except in the case of microevolution. 

No, that's wrong.   Even creationist organizations like AIG and ICR admit the fact of new species evolving.

48 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Darwinian Evolution, therefore, is not even a science. 

See above.  Forensics is a science.  So is fire investigation.   So is geology.  All depend on using evidence to discover what went on long before.     I don't think you've given this adequate thought.

49 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Let's stop calling evolution science.  It's just one more faith based belief since no one has even seen it.

I realize you want to believe this.   But as you see, it's a logical error to reject sciences like evolutionary theory, forensics, geology, and such.   Scientists have repeatedly made predictions in these sciences, which have later been verified by evidence.

Really no point in denial.

 

[The Barbarian]

36 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

Lucy was discovered by 2 men in the Research Fields.   They were on site to dig and excavate finds before locating Lucy.   They had access to cameras.  Why no picture on site of the placement of this bone?   If it's between their word and this is the missing link to many problematic issues.   Why would any [sane] human [Believer or Not] find the words of these men Credible, knowing the weight of the claim they're making here?   

In these excavations, they actually map out precisely the location of each bit of bone, both vertically and horizontally.    And photos are taken of bones in situ  No one would take such a find seriously if they didn't.   And no, "they are all just lying" is not going to be a very good argument.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antonio-Valera/publication/331480632/figure/fig4/AS:732392163659776@1551627307052/In-situ-bones-from-the-skeleton-exhumed-from-pit-1-of-Bela-Vista.png

 

[The Barbarian]

Even most YE creationists now admit the evolution of new species...

From Answers in Genesis:

To his credit, Darwin corrected a popular misunderstanding. Species do change. Since Darwin’s day, many observations have confirmed this. In fact, new species have even been shown to arise within a single hu-man lifetime.

https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/species-change.pdf

 

52 minutes ago, kingdombrat said:

That's because most Believers are not foundational Believers. 

They are YE creationists.   They're just honest enough to admit this fact; new species do evolve.   No point in denying the fact.

 

 

.

[JohnR7]

On 2/3/2021 at 12:41 AM, Riverwalker said:

Fossils prove there are fossils, but that is all they do.

Fossils prove that the Bible is accurate and true. God wants us to know what He has done. 

[Riverwalker]

8 hours ago, JohnR7 said:

Fossils prove that the Bible is accurate and true. God wants us to know what He has done. 

Proof...not a difficult word at all. The ONLY thing fossils prove is that fossils exist. Everything else in again, mere conjecture

[Guest kingdombrat]

On 4/5/2021 at 10:08 AM, The Barbarian said:

Lots of creationists are, when they first realize the truth.

The tears are truthfully real here that are being flushed from my eyes as I laugh uncontrollably here.

 

I did set you up for that one and you smacked it like the broadside of a barn 

On 4/5/2021 at 10:08 AM, The Barbarian said:

Well, the ankle joint was there on the proximal side.   That's how they knew Lucy was somewhat flat-footed; she had the same morphology as modern humans who have flat feet.    But as you learned, we have many fossils of A. afarensis, and some of them include bones from their feet.    the interesting thing is they are curved as human foot bones are, to provide a rigid arch that allows easy bipedal movement.    The big toe turns out to be non-opposable, and in later species of Australopithecus, it is adducted just as ours are.

They know by the Discover's opinion, or did they take pictures of it like real researchers do?  I am not taking the word of one man when every example of the same Species the ankle joint is located on the other side.

On 4/5/2021 at 10:08 AM, The Barbarian said:

Well, that was an understandable error for you to make.   Podiatrists are quite able to examine the distal end of the tibia to detect that condition.

What if at Lucy's death, a passing by carnivore decided to rip the feet off Lucy [which is why there is no feet located with the rest of Lucy's remains].   And during the damage from having your feet chewed and tugged off, this caused the unnatural location of the ankle joint.   

 

It really seems there was no logic and what if questions asked here.   Just took a man's word for it with no concrete evidence.   How is that even logical?