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

[Shua3000]

Evolution and creationism coexist in my opinion. I don't think human beings are the same from thousands of years ago. I mean we are taller and bigger. I also believe God created us. Anyway fossils could certainly be evidence of evolution.

[Riverwalker]

 

2 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

Ok I’ll agree I cannot know each day was 1,440,000,000 years and you cannot know if it was 24 hour day. even on earth a evening and morning can range from 12 hours to six months.

Putting aside the confuscation, the local of the holy land allowed pretty much a common sunrise and sunset.

The point here is that unless you have some biblical evidence that a day is not a day. And that God did not create the world, as he specifically stated, in 6 days and he rested on the seventh. Then you are coloring outside the lines of that which is given to us from God and is a mistake

As is trying to make God fit within the "wisdom" of men

[Riverwalker]

1 minute ago, Shua3000 said:

Evolution and creationism coexist in my opinion. I don't think human beings are the same from thousands of years ago. I mean we are taller and bigger. I also believe God created us. Anyway fossils could certainly be evidence of evolution.

We are the same species.  A Species that has adapted to new environments and diets

 

Natural selection and adaptation of a species that remains a species is perfectly consistent with Creation.   Eskimos and Africans are very different body styles but both are still the same species.

[BeyondET]

4 minutes ago, Shua3000 said:

Evolution and creationism coexist in my opinion. I don't think human beings are the same from thousands of years ago. I mean we are taller and bigger. I also believe God created us. Anyway fossils could certainly be evidence of evolution.

Good point average human height has increased over the years.

[BeyondET]

34 minutes ago, Riverwalker said:

 

Putting aside the confuscation, the local of the holy land allowed pretty much a common sunrise and sunset.

The point here is that unless you have some biblical evidence that a day is not a day. And that God did not create the world, as he specifically stated, in 6 days and he rested on the seventh. Then you are coloring outside the lines of that which is given to us from God and is a mistake

As is trying to make God fit within the "wisdom" of men

Surely if I am saying a day length was way longer than it is today is no different than you saying it was the same length as today, I’m not getting your point, we both believe a day is a day but we may not agree on it’s length.

How would anyone know creation took place where the holy land is on earth?

He sits above the circle of the earth sounds like a location.

 

Edited April 18, 2021 by BeyondET

[teddyv]

31 minutes ago, Riverwalker said:

We are the same species.  A Species that has adapted to new environments and diets

 

Natural selection and adaptation of a species that remains a species is perfectly consistent with Creation.   Eskimos and Africans are very different body styles but both are still the same species.

The term of 'Eskimo' is considered quite derogatory by most native peoples of Alaska and the Canadian far north.

[BeyondET]

9 minutes ago, teddyv said:

The term of 'Eskimo' is considered quite derogatory by most native peoples of Alaska and the Canadian far north.

Huh didn’t know, seems it was used by the colonizes. from what I’ve read 

the word's exact etymology is unclear, mid-century anthropologists suggested that the word came from the Latin word excommunicati, meaning the excommunicated ones, because the native people of the Canadian Arctic were not Christian.

[Sparks]

8 hours ago, Shua3000 said:

Evolution and creationism coexist in my opinion.

Interesting avatar. 

It depends on how you define evolution.  Some claim it's simply change over time, but that's kind of a lame definition.  A text book definition would be:  

The common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor, via undirected mutation and natural selection.

The text book definition is entirely incompatible with the Creation view.

8 hours ago, Shua3000 said:

I don't think human beings are the same from thousands of years ago. I mean we are taller and bigger.

People really are the same.  There were huge people long ago and its even mentioned in the Bible.  Goliath was estimated to be nine feet, six inches tall (six cubits and one span).  It's not that everyone was tall, but tall certainly existed long ago.

8 hours ago, Shua3000 said:

I also believe God created us.

8 hours ago, Shua3000 said:

Anyway fossils could certainly be evidence of evolution.

Fossils are only evidence that something died, not of evolution.  They aren’t even able to classify the fossils with any degree of certainty.

"In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found --- yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." -- David M. Raup, "Evolution and the fossil record," Science vol 213 (July 17 1981) page 289.

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book.  If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly include them.  I will lay it on the line --- there is not one such fossil."  -  Dr. Colin Paterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History in correspondence with Luther Sunderland, quoted in Darwin's Enigma 1998, p. 89

Why do experts write this when Lucy and Archaeopteryx had already been discovered, among other alleged 'transitional' fossils? 

It's because none exist.  You need more than a fossil to be evidence of evolution.  You need one that has transitioned from say, frog to cat. 

They call them missing links for a reason. 

[The Barbarian]

39 minutes ago, Sparks said:

t depends on how you define evolution.  Some claim it's simply change over time, but that's kind of a lame definition.  A text book definition would be:  

The common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor, via undirected mutation and natural selection.

Nope.   As I said, those who think they hate science, have no idea what it really is.   The textbook definition of biological evolution is "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

It is not about the origin of life, or the Oort cloud or anything other than that.   And of course, Darwin's discovery was that it isn't undirected.

39 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Fossils are only evidence that something died, not of evolution.

Creationists who are familiar with the evidence disagree with you:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory.

YE Creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

YE Creationist Dr. Todd Wood The truth about evolution

Edited April 18, 2021 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

33 minutes ago, Sparks said:

You need more than a fossil to be evidence of evolution.  You need one that has transitioned from say, frog to cat.

If they found something like that, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble.   There should be no transitional forms between amphibians and mammals.   That's the kind of weird misconception that I was telling you about.  

There are, as you fellow creationists admit, transitionals between primitive carnivores and cats, and between fish and amphibians and between amphibians and reptiles, and so on.  Would you like to learn about some of them?

35 minutes ago, Sparks said:

They call them missing links for a reason. 

You got that wrong too.  It's "missing lynx."   And they found it:

The tale of a short-tailed cat: New outstanding Late Pleistocene fossils of Lynx pardinus from southern Italy

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379121000470