VERY Nice Formal Proof of Evolution

Paleontologists estimate that fewer than 4% of all <b>species</b> which have ever lived are preserved as fossils. In other words, there is no record of the vast majority of life forms which have existed on Earth.

The number of fossils that do exist is testament to the large time span since the origin of life.
 
"Paleontologists estimate that fewer than 4% of all species which have ever lived are preserved as fossils. In other words, there is no record of the vast majority of life forms which have existed on Earth."


hmmm...

species found fossilized / all species that have ever existed = 4%

I suppose the obvious question would be

"How do they know how many species have ever existed?"

Does that number include the "missing links"?

e.g. how can you include a species in that number if you have no proof it actually existed?

Ben
 
Just for a minute, think about it, Ben. If it was up to you to try to work out the average rate of fossilisation (how many fossils per year, say), how would you go about it?

Next, ask what proportion of currently existing species you would expect to be fossilised per year, on average. Then, look at the fossil record to determine the median lifespan of species.

Now, work out how to combine this information to get an estimate of the proportion of all species which are fossilised.

The method you arrive at will probably be very similar to how the paleontologists did it.

Just think about it.
 
The next obvious question is

"how many years of fossilization?"

and let's not pretend we actually have an accurate dating system for fossils in the first place.

It's all speculative.

Ben
 
Problems...

To begin, the article in question has a rather dubious assumption early on. To quote: "...teaches that all human beings are descended from one pair of white people." Nowhere in any of my bibles are Adam and Eve referred to as white people. If the authors of the article are unwilling or unable to check facts as simple as these, I do not find it reasonable to believe anything else they have written (without careful examination that is).

Other issues that should be noted:
From the section on "The Logic of Evolution, Observation 2":
The fossil record only shows that at one point creatures existed which do not exist now. It is a completely different issue to assume that modern creatures did not exist at the same time. The fossil records appear to be a large ink blot test. They tell everyone that what they want to believe is true.

From the section "The Logic of Natural Selection":
The authors appear to ignore predator/prey relationships. The reason that we are not overrun with rabbits is not that the rabbits are competing for finite resources as the rabbits are being killed by predators. Only humans (with few predators, other than themselves) are overrunning the earth. Furthermore, in making their assumption, they ignore the potential for one-time catastrophic occurences that result in large reductions in the population of a species. Therefore, it appears that there entire argument based on "observations" 1 and 2 is as much an ipso facto argument as 'the roosters crow in the morning before the sun rises, and the sun rose this morning, therefore the crowing of the roosters caused the sun to rise'.

For these reasons, and others, I find it very hard to take this article seriously. The only point that I am willing to concede is that majority of "Creation Science" has been based on the disproving of evolution (that's why I put 'science' in quotes). Other than that, it appears that the article contains large amounts of weak reasoning.
 
The fossil record only shows that at one point creatures existed which do not exist now. It is a completely different issue to assume that modern creatures did not exist at the same time.
So you don't find it strange that we find absolutly no fossile record of, say, a Zebra at the same level we find dinosaur fossiles in? The reason we know "modern" animals did not exist at the time of the dinosaurs is that we have found many fossiles of all kinds of life, but not a single fossile of any "modern" animals. The only animals that existed at that time in addition to the dinosaurs are some kinds of fish, aligators and other reptiles. But no mammals.
 
Sure....

I suppose that next you're going to tell me that every place that different levels of different types of fossils were found, the different types of levels all occured in the same order. I admit that my case would be stronger if I could cite a specific instance of a fossil of a "modern" animal at the same time as a "prehistoric" animal. Let me do some research.
 
The earth changes...we all KNOW that and due to changes in climate, temperature and resources, life forms change to adapt...that also is a given. I do not give in to the theory that we evolved from a fish or other animal...but if we did come from a mutation of a smaller organism like an ameoba...whats the big hoorah about it. The Bible clearly states we were made from the DIRT. Weather God did that thru an amazing mutation of a single cell or like a potter with clay we still come from the DIRT. I do not know why Christians argue evolution, no where in the Bible does it say life is stagnate. As for the fossil layers...yes of course there were animals and plants here LONG before men existed. The Bible states that too...unless you refuse to believe that the original text did NOT say all life was created in 6 24 hour incriments. Just search and study it a minute, it really DID NOT say that. The point is we ARE here, the question then becomes...what are we going to do with it?
 
Okay

I find it interesting that you admit the presence of "modern" animals such as birds, fish, and reptiles, but claim that since mammals haven't been found, therefore the whole premise is false. I spent about half an hour (shows how serious I am) but was unable to find any specific instances of mammalian fossils embedded with other types in the manner that you want. However, this doesn't mean I've given up, just that I'm tired. Tired of reading the arrogant ramblings of anti-creationists who begin by summarily dismissing the creationist point as rubbish, and then proceeding to argue obscure points. Do people really expect others to believe their positions just because they're extermely arrogant? This is no criticism of anyone is particular, just an side note.

I did bump into a series of interesting links that should be read be all (note: these links support both positions).

Becoming more Random

Quotes on Creation and Evolution

Large Gaps in the Fossil Record

Common Creationist Arguments

Problems with Evolutionary Explanations of the Fossil Record

It's interesting to note how most of these pages quickly assume a 'preaching to the choir' attitude. Is it possible to carry on a reasonable discussion about this topic?

--------------------
Your ego should never be so close to your position that when your position is destroyed, so is your ego.
 
*Originally posted by KalvinB
species found fossilized / all species that have ever existed = 4%
I suppose the obvious question would be
"How do they know how many species have ever existed?"
*

Are you starting to get an idea why God will be laughing?

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
(Psalms 2:4, KJV).

*Originally posted by James R
The method you arrive at will probably be very similar to how the paleontologists did it.

Just think about it.
*

Oh no.
Aren't you the guy who conclusively proved that he doesn't think?
I stand in awe of your debating prowess, but here you are trying to get someone to "think" like you do, which as you so eloquently proved, was NOT.

Reminder.
-----------
James R
*"Perhaps you are one of those people who actually thinks.... "[snip]

... or perhaps I'm not one of those people.
*
01-06-02 09:16 AM
-----------

I repeat, I stand in awe.

*ask what proportion of currently existing species you would expect to be fossilised per year, on average. Then, look at the fossil record to determine the median lifespan of species.*

Naturally, the lifespans, and other temporal estimates, will be based on the assumption that the entire fossil record is 4.6 billion years.

Of course, how many creatures fossilized last year?
That's fairly recent information, so it should be easy to verify.

*Originally posted by makaera
The only point that I am willing to concede is that majority of "Creation Science" has been based on the disproving of evolution
*

The reason it is "science" in quotes is that comedy is all that is really required to disprove evolution.
No science is actually needed, since the opposition isn't science either.
 
Ok ok, sheesh. Instead of fossiles in the same layers lets say fossiles from the same time period, as measured with modern carbon dating techniques.

All organisms that have ever existed on Earth have been precursurs to modern animals. But you couldn't go back 65 million years and expect to see horses and eagles. They simply did not exist at that time, and so far fossile evidence backs this up.

No science is actually needed, since the opposition isn't science either.
So you're saying evolution isn't science? I'm sure I could find many people that would disagree with you on that, including fellow theists.
Do people really expect others to believe their positions just because they're extermely arrogant? This is no criticism of anyone is particular, just an side note.
Ah, did you see that tony? Better think about it for a while, it applies to you quite well.
Is it possible to carry on a reasonable discussion about this topic?
Ohhh believe me, there have been attempts at it on this board. But it is a very touchy subject, one wrong sentance and suddenly everyone is throwing around insults and posting nonsense arguements in an attempt to backup their side. Just the way it goes I guess. :cool:
whats the big hoorah about it.
I'm guessing one of the factors for the big hoorah of it is that God created all living things in one day. This day would had to have been a couple billion years long to account for the evolution of life from a single celled organism to what we see today. Unless the lengths of God's days can be changed to whatever we want them to be, this is in conflict with the other 5 days of His creation.
 
EXACTLY...it isnt 6 DAYS as we know them. That is only the translated version...the ACTUALL BIBLE did NOT say 6 days but 6 general periods of time given no specific length. But you can't seem to get most Christians to see that. Im not makeing it up...it is a FACT! With modern technology and computers it wouldn't take long for anyone to research it. But I will post it:

The word "day" sometimes signifies an indefinite time (Genesis 2:4This is the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth. When the LORD God made the heavens and the earth)


The word translated in to DAY in Gen1 was:
~wy from an unused root meaning to be hot
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Yowm TWOT - 852
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
yome Noun Masculine

Definition
day, time, year
day (as opposed to night)
as a division of time 1b
a working day, a day's journey
days, lifetime
time, period (general)
year
temporal references
today
yesterday
tomorrow


The term may refer to an era (Matt 24:37) or to the span of human history (Gen 8:22), or specify a memorable event (Isa 9:4) or a significant time (Zep 1:14-16). The term often has a metaphorical meaning. A "day" is important largely for what fills it rather than for its chronological dimension.The "Day" and Cosmic Order. The "days of creation" in Genesis 1, given the semipoetic nature of the composition, are quite possibly intended as literary devices, division markers as in a mosaic.


First mention of what is correctly translated to a DAY as we know it: The division of the day by hours is first mentioned in Daniel 3:6,15; 4:19; 5:5.


Ok there are 3 different sources...how many does anyone need? Better yet check it out for yourself. If God did not SAY He created the earth in 6 /24 hour days then why argue it? I'm certainly not gonna go to bat for KJV when it is obviously not accurate.
 
*Originally posted by Xelios
Instead of fossiles in the same layers lets say fossiles from the same time period, as measured with modern carbon dating techniques.
*

Let's not.
Let's say same layers when they are same layers.
Nobody has dated every single instance of every single layer anyway.
Of course, the assumption of the ToE is that it is as good as done.
In reality, it hasn't been done.

*All organisms that have ever existed on Earth have been precursurs to modern animals.*

Well, duhhhhhhhhh!
Just learn about the birds and the bees for the first time?

*But you couldn't go back 65 million years and expect to see horses and eagles. They simply did not exist at that time, and so far fossile evidence backs this up.*

No it doesn't.
The fossil evidence only proves that you haven't found any.
There is no way that absence of evidence of an animal is proof of absence of the animal.
If it is in your world, you may as well trade your brain in for some used bubble gum.

*So you're saying evolution isn't science? I'm sure I could find many people that would disagree with you on that, including fellow theists.*

I admit that it is easy to find confused theists.
Look at Taken, she'd be one of the ones you'd want to have on your side.
And I am saying that evolution isn't science.
What science is, is collecting the rocks, and fossils and counting layers, and what not.
What science is not, is jumping to some insane conclusion of fallacious logic.

Evolution, after all, is based on two assumptions...
1. Absence of a fossil proves absence of the animal
2. Absence of fossils proves the presence of undiscovered fossils.

*Ah, did you see that tony? Better think about it for a while, it applies to you quite well.*

Only if I'm wrong.

*nonsense arguements in an attempt to backup their side.*

For proof, merely view the pro-evolution arguments.

*This day would had to have been a couple billion years long to account for the evolution of life from a single celled organism to what we see today.*

Whew!
Luckily, it doesn't have to account for evolution, so it is one day long.

*Originally posted by Taken
Im not makeing it up
*

Yeah, you are.

---01242 boqer {bo'-ker}
from 01239; TWOT - 274c; n m
AV - morning 191, morrow 7, day 3, days + 06153 1, early 3; 205
1) morning, break of day
1a) morning
1a1) of end of night
1a2) of coming of daylight
1a3) of coming of sunrise
1a4) of beginning of day
1a5) of bright joy after night of distress (fig.)
1b) morrow, next day, next morning---

---06153 `ereb {eh'-reb}
from 06150; TWOT - 1689a; n m
AV - even 72, evening 47, night 4, mingled 2, people 2, eventide 2,
eveningtide + 06256 2, Arabia 1, days 1, even + 0996 1,
evening + 03117 1, evening + 06256 1, eventide + 06256 1; 137

1) evening, night, sunset
1a) evening, sunset
1b) night---

And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
(Genesis 1:23, KJV).

*The division of the day by hours is first mentioned in *

The division of time by days is first mentioned in Ge. 1:5, and the day was defined by EVENING and MORNING.

*If God did not SAY He created the earth in 6 /24 hour days then why argue it?*

OTOH, since he did say that, why are you arguing against God, as usual, I might add.
So far, there has not been one single verse quoted on this forum that you have agreed with, Taken.
What is your problem, aside from the demonic, of course?

And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
(Genesis 1:23, ASV).

And there was evening, and there was morning--a fifth day.
(Genesis 1:23, DBY).

And the evening and morning were the fifth day.
(Genesis 1:23, DOUAY).

And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
(Genesis 1:23, JPS).

Fu sera, poi fu mattina: quinto giorno.
(Genesi 1:23, Nuova Riveduta).

Ja tuli ehtoo, ja tuli aamu, viides päivä.
(1 Mooses 1:23, Pyhä Raamattu).

Y fué la tarde y la mañana el día quinto.
(Génesis 1:23, Reina Valera).

So it was evening--and it was morning, a fifth day.
(Genesis 1:23, Rotherham).

Y fue la tarde y la mañana el día quinto.
(Génesis 1:23, Sagrada Escritura).

and there is an evening, and there is a morning--day fifth.
(Genesis 1:23, YLT).

Taken, I realize that for you the English is as incomprehensible as the other languages, but everyone seems to agree on "DAY."
What is your problem?
 
Gee it is mighty funny I found all sources saying that ~wy was the noun originally translated in those verses. I didn't write the sources. It is very simple for anyone else here to research it and see the same results. The noun you pulled up was not used in those verses.

As for your evening and dusk...was not the light created before the sun existed?
 
Well, duhhhhhhhhh!
Just learn about the birds and the bees for the first time?
No, I was simply clarifying a point.
No it doesn't.
The fossil evidence only proves that you haven't found any.
I did not say the fossile evidence proves this, I simply pointed out it concurres with this conclusion so far.
What science is, is collecting the rocks, and fossils and counting layers, and what not.
What science is not, is jumping to some insane conclusion of fallacious logic.
Evolution is not "jumping to a some insane conclusion of fallacious logic". There is much evidence supporting evolution, as many on this board have pointed out so far. So far everything we have discovered about life and the origins of life agrees with evolution, and until we find evidence that does not agree with evolution it will continue to remain the best description of the origin of life, in science anyway.
Only if I'm wrong.
You would think so wouldn't you? Unfortunatly, no.
For proof, merely view the pro-evolution arguments.
Pro-evolution arguments may be nonense to you, but then again you seem to be a special case. The majority of scientists support evolution. It has so far passed every test it has been put through, although it is far from a proven fact at the moment. If it was made of nonense points it would never have made it this far in the scientific community.
Whew!
Luckily, it doesn't have to account for evolution, so it is one day long.
It seems it does, as fossile evidence shows otherwise.
 
While on the topic of the creation of the universe, it may be interesting to point out that all evidence at the moment points toward the fact that heavier elements such as carbon and iron were not created "in the beginning". In essense, in the first few billion years of the universe's life stars formed and crushed light elements such as hydrogen and helium into heavier elements, such as iron and carbon.

Eventually these stars exhausted their nuclear fuel and exploded, thereby releasing all the heavier elements they had fused together into huge clouds of atoms. These clouds picked up yet more hydrogen and formed into a new star, which started the process over. Eventually enough heavy elements were created to pull together and form other bodies such as planets. So again, the creation of the universe was not done in set time frames such as days, unless God's days were very long and could change lengths to fit the timeframe required.
 
Any time you wish to post only to point out you can't see what Tony posts, I'll repost his post for you.

tisk tisk... Ill have to ignore you too.

Also, I believe that attempting to circumvent the website's ignore system may also have some serious implications with violation of Sciforum's User Agreement.

I would like to point out, that the only thing that is able to be proven is math. Everything else that we know to be true is a theory. Religion is not a theory because it cannot be tested.

By the way, KalvinB, I cannot read tony1's posts.
 
Last edited:
Not everything is a theory tetra. For example, the fact that light can move through a vacuum is proven. The fact that a hydrocarbon such as butane burns in the presence of oxygen when heat is applied is proven. I could go on, but I think you get the point. :)
 
*Originally posted by Taken
Gee it is mighty funny I found all sources saying that ~wy was the noun originally translated in those verses.
*

So, you're saying that all the manuscripts that have "yowm" in them are actually incorrect, because there exists an older manuscript which has "~wy" in it?

What does "~wy" mean?

*The noun you pulled up was not used in those verses.*

Apparently, you cannot tell the difference between "day," "evening" and "morning."

*As for your evening and dusk...was not the light created before the sun existed? *

That is correct, except for the "dusk" thing.
The Bible uses "morning."

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(Genesis 1:5, KJV).

*Originally posted by Xelios
No, I was simply clarifying a point.
*

You were clarifying that all animals are descended from their parents?
Was that in doubt at any time?

*I did not say the fossile evidence proves this, I simply pointed out it concurres with this conclusion so far.*

It does prove that you haven't found any evidence.
Since the conclusion is that you haven't found any, the absence of fossils proves that you haven't found those fossils.

Thus, any conclusion other than "I don't know" is not borne out by the evidence, which doesn't exist.

*There is much evidence supporting evolution*

Actually, there isn't.
What there is, is evidence of something else which has been construed as evidence for evolution.
For example, the famous "Lucy" which consists of a vaguely humanoid skull and a knee joint found two or three miles away.

It is actually evidence of something fishy going on, but it is still presented as evidence of evolution.

*So far everything we have discovered about life and the origins of life agrees with evolution*

That is just recycled science teacher spit spray.
You've been sitting too close to the teacher.

Since evolution is imaginary, nothing can agree with it, and nothing actually does.
All of the fossils prove that evolution did not occur, because in the ordinary course of events, all dead bodies are consumed by scavengers.
The absence of huge mountains of fecal matter and the absence of huge 2 million year old garbage dumps prove that evolution did not take place.

For example, look at the excavations of the garbage piles in front of the caves in France.
Some of them are 50 ft. thick with garbage after a claimed 12000 years or so.
If man had been around for 2 millions years as per the ToE, there should be piles of garbage 75,000 ft thick in places.
Since no one is going to climb that high, the garbage should be spread pretty evenly all over the planet.
It isn't there, and neither are the huge mountains of crap from 4.6 billion years of animal life.

Claiming that "disappearing" crap proves that evolution is true is exactly the same as claiming that no evidence of any kind proves your side of the issue.

*It has so far passed every test it has been put through, although it is far from a proven fact at the moment. If it was made of nonense points it would never have made it this far in the scientific community.*

It hasn't been put thru any tests, and the scientific community thrives on garbage.
Because you're still in school, you think that "scientists" are very rigorous and always right.
In reality, they are wrong more often than right, although they are persistent.

*It seems it does, as fossile evidence shows otherwise.*

Just repeating "fossil evidence" mindlessly doesn't make it evidence of the ToE.
You don't even know what the fossil evidence IS, let alone what it might mean.

*it may be interesting to point out that all evidence at the moment points toward the fact that heavier elements such as carbon and iron were not created "in the beginning". In essense, in the first few billion years of the universe's life stars formed and crushed light elements such as hydrogen and helium into heavier elements, such as iron and carbon.*

Naturally, you have other universes to compare with, to establish that this is indeed so?

*Eventually enough heavy elements were created to pull together and form other bodies such as planets.*

I thought you said that science was based on observation.
Who observed any of that?

*Originally posted by tetra
Everything else that we know to be true is a theory.
*

Thus, you simply prove that you know nothing and you speculate about everything.

*Originally posted by Xelios
...is proven. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
*

We get the point.
Do you?
Everything that is true can be proven in one way or another.
Evolution can't be proven at all, which means that it is not true.

Evolution is merely the desperate wish that God isn't there.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God....
(Psalms 14:1, KJV).
 
Back
Top