Fossil Called Missing Link

Isaiah 45:18 says specifically, “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD ; and there is none else.” He specifically says that He did not create it in such a state.

The expression .הֹבָו .הֹת is translated here as “without form and void”, but elsewhere is used to describe a state as being the result of catastrophe. .הֹ., by itself (translated “without form”) means “in vain”.

How do you correct this contradiction?

 

(I hope the Hebrew shows up OK. I probably should have posted from the LXX, but I have a problem getting the Greek to show up properly as well.)

 

Both, actually, if you think the Bible rules out evolution. </font>[/QUOTE]#1. Evolutionists on this board are constantly telling us about parts of the Bible "they don't believe" - nothing new there.

#2. Atheist Darwinist evolutionism has no place at all for the origins of all LIFE that God describes in Genesis 1-2:3. ATheist evolutoinists like Richard Dawkins is adamant about that fact.

#3. Dawkins point on this is portrayed in "living color" as we watch our own supposedly "Christian" Evoilutionists bashing "intelligent Design". The reason this is so "telling" is that IT is the most watered down version of "Creation" one could ever hope to imagine. They deny ANYTHING that does not fit the atheist's dogma when it comes to origins.

These so called Christian evolutionists have thoroughly exposed their true motives and values in going to the extreme of denying ID. I have no idea how they ever expect to recover from such a blunder.

AS for "Stories easy enough to tell but they are not science" Colin Patterson had it right!

Imagine the Duck Billed Platypus extinct 1000's of years ago - and suddenly one fossil found today -- OOHHHH the stories to tell!!

Imagine that all Alligators and Croc's had been extinct 1000's of years ago but then one fossil found today -- OHH the "stories easy enough to tell!!" -- but as Patterson said - "They are not science".

How often have we seen these "Wild-eyed claims" of atheist evolutionist collapse into a "living fossil"? Do you remember the classics??

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/livingfossils.html

Coelacanth? Okapi?

It is one thing to watch athteist darwinists latch on to one bogus "story" after another - claiming each one as "science" no matter what Patterson said about such "stories". But when we see Christians tie evolution to the Bible like a huge ball and chain - "reinventing scripture" with each new "Story" from an atheist evolutionist - you gotta be amazed! Richard Dawkins certainly is amazed by that practice!

In Christ,

Bob

 

I realize the evolutionists on this board have embraced such a self-conflicted position as they cling to atheist evolutionism AND some part of the Bible "at once" so this question is going to be like "asking for a miracle" from that group... but here goes.

When you talk to evolutionists that are "eating their own dog food" they usually claim that Archaeopteryx is a "done deal" as far as a "true birtd" that can be twisted enough to think of as a "transitional form" goes. In fact many that eat "only the dog food" will claim that they have a huge back log of these transitional form examples.

(As it turns out - several of those those radical evolutionist extremists post on the BB science forum)

So IF you are really into all that koolaid already and "Believing your own stories" etc - WHY wouldn't the Tiktaalik find be touted as "yet another example" in the model of "just more of the same"???

Why present it as "NOW Finally we have a true intermediate that we can use to beat up on Bible Believing Christians"??? I don't they think "They already have a bunch" and this is "just another one"????

Why trumpet this as "such a great find" for that debate??

 

Bob

You used to be good for a laugh in these discussions. But your quote mining has become just sad now. This dishonest approach is all you ever have to offer when this subject comes up. In this case, the Patterson quote. (Which I have already discussed earlier in this thread on my own.)

Patterson was telling us that you can never say whether a given fossil is directly ancestral or on a closely related side branch. Patterson is a staunch acceptor of evolution and has roundly criticized those such as yourself who misquote him him. We can all see that it does not stop you to have the very person you are quoting say that you are lying with your presentation.

Nothing in your words even tries to address the subject of this thread. You apparently have nothing at all to say concerning Tiktaalik in particular or tetrapod evolution in general so instead you obfuscate using the old distraction method. Since you have nothing at all to say about the subject, you instead say [false] things unrelated to the topic at hand.

Let's take an example. You said "How often have we seen these "Wild-eyed claims" of atheist evolutionist collapse into a "living fossil"? Do you remember the classics??" and then put up some distortion of a quote.

Now the truth is that the Coelacanths found today are in a different FAMILY than the fossil Coelacanths. THAT is a HUGE change. It is the same taxonomic difference as what is between a cat and a dog!

But those kinds of distinctions must be ignored if you wish to advocate for a YE position.

And I would stil like for someone to tell me just why it is that we only find fossils intermediate between two kinds in a manner that fits evolution. I mean, why not a mammal/bird hybrid somewhere?

 

Well! I needed a good laugh tonight and this thread certainly provided it!!



Evolution my Aunt Tilly! I have to laugh when I see "40 million years ago" on PBS and this is just the same.

Carbon dating my foot! It's just a lot of "Hocus Pocus" by people that don't want to believe the bible.

But it is a diversion from the mundane nevertheless.

Nite Nite,

Tam

 

I maintain that those who are refusing to even look at the article are sneering at God's creation. One would think an extinct fishy whatsit would cause great interest on the part of believers as it is another piece of God's creation made to glorify him. But, no, all we get is, "Yawn--just another fossil!"

In case by some wild chance someone has decided to deign to bestow some attention upon God's creation, here are some details about the unusual structure of the skeleton and how it functioned.

"A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan." Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin, and Farish A. Jenkins, Jr. Nature, 2005, 440, 757-763.

(Endnote numbering removed for clarity.)

 

The second article talks about the fin bony structure and supporting structures.

"The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb." Neil H. Shubin, Edward B. Daeschler, and Farish A. Jenkins, Jr. Nature, 2006, 440, 764-771.

(Endnote numbering removed for clarity.)

 

Typo--that's 2006, of course.

 

Thanks UT - the good news is that I still find you to be good for a laugh now and then.

Maybe you have found some other Bible believing Christian to laugh at for a while. It is sad to think that I time in that role for you has ended.

But I want you to know - that you continue to amuse me.

Particularly your dodge of "inconvenient facts" by the mind numbing argument "HEY you are quoting somebody again!!" - when I quote YOUR OWN sources in an objective model that far exceeds anything you have yet posted in all these years of your blind devotion to your atheist evolutionist doctrines.

Ahhhh yes "I DID quote YOUR own atheist source"!!

How devastating for you.

In the meant time you have not quoted one of my bible believing sources.

How sad that you can not rise to the level of objectivity I have set in this discussion.

How tragic that you can not even understand this concept of "objective".

In the mean time the question in my post "REMAINS" unanswered as your recent post is devoid of any substance pertaining to the question.

Again - "how sad"

in Christ,

BobAnd

 

Since the extremist devotees to atheist evolutionism have fled in dispair after reading this question -- I will ask it again - hoping that at least one objective person remains someplace in their ranks.

[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]

 

I see we managed to coax you out of hibernation.

I guess you haven't really read any coverage of the fossil find. The reason this find is so interesting is not because we haven't got any other transitional species, it is because this transitional species fills in a particular piece of the puzzle that was missing before. It's a fish with jointed forelimbish fins. Before we've had only fish fossils with fins and tetrapod fossils with jointed forelimbs. This fossil bridges the gap. It was predicted to exist and now it's been found.

 

You ignored the "Detail" in the post (predictably).

Here it is "again".


Why trumpet this as "such a great find" for that debate??


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Other scientists said that in addition to confirming elements of a major transition in evolution, the fossils were a powerful rebuttal to religious creationists, who have long argued that the absence of such transitional creatures are a serious weakness in Darwin's theory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06fossil.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice what the statement does NOT say. It does not say "Bible believing Creationists already accept evolution for all other transition based on the massive evidence already found for transitional forms. But finally we have covered this one last transition between fish and tetrapods and so the last remaining space to believe in the Bible account is finally eliminated".

INSTEAD of arguing that this is ONE in a long list of equally compelling examples - it touts THIS ONE as if FINALLY they have a truly compelling - truly bullet proof example!

Those are two ENTIRELY different arguments - you obfuscate the details to gloss over the fact that they are presenting the second argument not the first.

I am ASKING why they are doing that. You are simply dawning your blinders and saying "elephant what elephant in what living room"?

Why do you guys need to do that "every time"??

In Christ,

Bob

[ April 14, 2006, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

 

How true!!

 

What a great article!!

 

Fun with obfuscation Bob?

You may not have realized this, but there is a difference between scientists and their scholarly work and the writings of reporters.

This job of quote mining is just as bad as the others that you do. In this case the statement of a journalist is being twisted tp imply something that is not actually stated AND then you try and apply your reinterpretation of the journalist's statement as having a bearing on the thoughts of actual scientists.

If you were to seek out the opinions of actual scientists in relevant fields, you would find that this is just the latest in a very long string of known transitionals. The difference, perhaps, is that this one has the possibility of being something special. This could be the Archaeopteryx of tetrapod evolution. SOme of this has to do with th amazing story of how the creature was found. But part of this also has to do with the unique mixture of fish and tetrapod traits. That the arms were emerging in a genuine fish shines a powerful light on the reasons behind the evolution of tetrapods. In addition, many features are found in an intermediate state. Many things were found in the process of changing.

So, as usual, your salient point depends on creatively reinterpreting and misapplying a quote while ignoring all of those details you find inconvenient.

 

"What a great article!!"

Really great article if you like to keep your head buried in the sand to prevent any chance of learning. Learning can be dangerous to opinions that are not rooted in fact.

Let's examine your quote.

"There is the coelacanth fish, found in the same geological system (Devonian it is called) as this Tiktaalik discovery, that also has lobe fins."

Let's put out a news flash. You may not have gotten the word.

For several decades, it has been accepted that tetrapods evolved from one branch of the lobe finned fish. You might have missed that.

As it turns out, the coelacanths are another branch of the lode finned fish. (You should not refer to the coelacanth as a single fish either. The coelacanths encompass several FAMILIES of fish.)

Now since the coelacanths and the lineage that led to tetrapods are both different branches from a lobe finned fish ancestor, it is a necessary condition that they must have existed at the same time.

There is no surprise that you find them in the same layers. If you did not, then you would not be looking hard enough.

This is a great example of AIG deliberately misrepresenting the situation to cast doubt in a way that only those who do not have enough outside knowledge to judge the claim could fall for.

Let's give an analogy. Felines and canines are both branches from a common carnivore ancestor, It would not cast the least bit of doubt upon feline evolution to find a fossil feline with a fossil canine or in the same age of rocks. You would actually expect there to be examples of such out there waiting to be found.

"These lobe fins were once thought to enable the coelacanth to walk on the ocean floor (in fact it was, like “Tiklaalik,” once considered by evolutionists to be a type of transitional form)."

Such obfuscation.

First off, J.L.B. Smith who was an ichthyologist and not a palaeontologist or evolutionary biologist was the one who proposed that coelacanths used their fins to walk on the floor. He was shown to be wrong. Get over it. Don't paint with such a wide brush regarding the opinion of one guy.

Second, let's continue with our answer from above. Go back a few pages, first, to your Patterson quote mining. He was making the point that you can never know whether a givn fossil is directly ancestral to another species or if it was a side branch that was closely related to the actual ancestor. And mainly you get the side branches.

In our tetrapod transitional series, most if not all of the fossils we have are believed to be side branches from the actual path for a variety of morphological reasons.

Now connect in the the lineage that led to tetrapods is one branch of the lobe finned fish. Coelacanths are another branch.

This means that it is proper to view coelacanths as a transitional on the way to tetrapods even if it really represents a side branch. It still preserves many of the key features of the path.

Even better, there is a large amount of molecular and morphological data that convincingly demonstrate the close relationship between coelacanths and tetrapods. So it is wrong for AIG to suggest that coelacanths are no longer considered transitionals on the path to tetrpods.

"Also, there are other creatures (e.g., the Panderichthys) that are thought to be fish and yet appear to be similar in lobe and fin structure to Tiktaalik."

Well, let's see here. Panderichthys is only one node below Tiktaalik on the path leading to tetrapods and these guys find it surprising that there should be similarities between them. Do they understand the concept of a transitional? This is what one would expect. If they really are different points along the same path then they should shre such features.

"In addition, the bones for Panderichthys, Tiktaalik and the coelacanth are imbedded in the muscle, and are not attached to the axial skeleton, which you would find in a reptile or amphibian (and which would be necessary for weight-bearing appendages)."

Do these guys know any anatomy?

It is the normal condition for tetrapods to have the shoulder attached to the muscles of the body. Tetrapods with a direct bony connection to the spine and/or ribs is the exception. Just how is this supposed to be a problem?

Furthermore, the other tetrapod transitionals, both those more amphibian like and those more fish like, share this anatomy.

Finally, the question must be asked if AIG has even read both papers that were published in Nature? They seem to miss most of the ponts of the papers. Whether this is through ignorance or deliberate deception cannot be known for sure.

Worse, they only cite one of the two papers. They do not even cite the paper that deals specifically with the limbs.

It is bad enough that we cannot get you guys around here to read anything that might challenge your view. But it is much worse for AIG to try and refute something that it appears that they have not even read themselves.

[ April 15, 2006, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]

 

There is still an unaswered question from above that I would like to see someone attempt.

One poster said that this was just a fossil, big "whoop de doo." Another (ScottJ) claimed that there was no reason to consider this a transitional.

The question is, why is it that when we find creatures that have a mix of features from two different groups, it is always in a way that make sense in the light of evolution.

In this case we have creatures intermediate between lobe finned fish and tetrapods. There are ,any other examples. e have fossils with a mix of reptile and amphibian features. Between reptiles and mammals. Between reptiles and birds. We have transitonal fossils between lower groups. We have have walking whales and we have fossils intermediate between horses, rhinos and their common ancestor.

I could continue.

My question is why do we only find such exmples. If YE were true, then there is no reason to restrict such chimeras to those that fit evolution. Where are the, for example, blends of creatures with bird and mammal traits? (Please, please, please someone try and use the platypus.) Where are these blends that don't make sense?

They are not there.

 

Coling Patterson charged that blind belief in atheist darwinist evolutionism conveys "anti-knowledge" and UTEOTW is ever willing to demonstrate that fact in living color for all to see.

In this brief example UTEOTW takes a glaring example of his own failure and tries to "pretend" that his failings are really "a good thing".

The failing in this case is to do ANYTHING but slavishly quote from HIS OWN CAMP and blindly ignore all other sources but true blievers in atheist-darwinism, the "yes men" of evolutionism.

I on the other hand will not only quote from MY OWN pro-creationist sources BUT ALSO from UTEOTW's OWN atheist-darwinist camp as THEY THEMSELVES show the glaring gaps, gaffs and blunders of that religion we know today as atheist-darwinist evolutionism!!

As anyone can clearly see - this puts blind devotees to atheist-darwinism at a distinct dissadvantage to have THEIR OWN sources admitting to blunders in Darwinims that they themselves must slavishly deny no matter how apparent TO THEIR OWN camp!!

As anyone with half-a-thought in information science knows "data mining" is the advanced process of doing objective analysis to evaluate data trends and discover links between various real life events.

UTEOTW unwittingly latches on to this and invents the idea of "quote mining" AS IF "objective analysis" of Atheist quotes "Would be a BAD THING"!!

As Patterson said "Evolution conveys antiknowledge"!!

I can't believe that UTEOTW is so willing to serve as the poster child for that "time after time"!! In the Bible we find that people who leave the Bible as their standard for truth will simply drift about - tossed about by ever wind and whim of the theories of man.

How sad for UTEOTW!

In Christ,

Bob